That article is truly appalling. I don't even eat much meat (though having struggled with anaemia in my teens I would never omit it entirely - a few times a week keeps the iron levels up) and I tend to agree plenty of people in the West eat more than they need, which is not healthy. But seriously: "There have always been juicy steaks, BBQ ribs, greasy roasts and loins of lamb to keep our bellies full and our waistlines bulging" - what planet is this person on? The usual British diet for generations was: Sunday roast, Monday cold meat leftovers, Tuesday remaining leftovers with bubble and squeak, Wednesday stew up the bones etc with dumplings, Thursday bread and dripping, Friday fish, and Saturday perhaps a meat pudding (largely suet). Basic vegetables and fruit/pickle filled the gaps. Note that a single joint serves the whole family for a week. I appreciate times have now changed (apparently the writer doesn't) and they can change again - humans are very flexible. But no, this writer thinks there are meat-eaters that "can?t get by without devouring a whole corpse at every meal" Apart from the highly prejudicial tone ('corpse' should at the very least be 'carcass' but even so, this is disparaging), does anyone know a single person like that? I once heard of a friend of a friend's father who liked to have meat three times a day - but this was touted as unusual and extraordinary behaviour - and there was no suggestion he actually ate a whole animal each time. So vegans need hyperbole, historical ignorance and rudeness to win their argument? No thanks. I fear I am ranting. So will just add: Everything in moderation; much better than extremism that simply ignores the facts.