Yes yes, and if you don't mind let me expand this a little...

>1. Eating Meat is not necessary
>for optimal health therefore any
>"benefits" of it are SECONDARY.

A common objection to vegetarian diets is that it is impossible to maintain a nutritionally adequate diet based on plants. This is to be considered a myth. Regarding proteins, it has been established for all ages that plant proteins can completely provide for human amino acid needs. With a properly planned diet, maintaining a sufficient iron intake should not be a problem even for vegans. Calcium is a little more difficult, but it's not impossible and you certainly don't need meat to obtain enough of it. The only micronutrient not provided in a strict vegan diet appears to be vitamin B12, and therefore vegans must often obtain it from fortified foods or supplements. But again, you don't need meat to get enough vit B12 as long as you drink milk for example. (Or don't bother about washing your hands after going to the bathroom, for that matter... Many people probably obtain enough B12 from fecal contamination of their foods.) On the contrary to common beliefs, it appears to be harder to maintain a nutrionally adequate diet based on meats and animal foods than on plants. Vegetarians often consume a greater variety of foods than meat-eaters, and consequently, the intakes of several nutrients, e.g. thiamin, folate, vit C, vit E, and carotene, are higher among vegetarians than in the general poulation.

>2. Eating Meat has many disadvantages
>and harmful effects on the
>mind, body and spirit.

There are clear medical evidence linking meat consumption to several forms of cancer, notably colon, breast and prostate cancer but also uterus cancer, kidney cancer and possibly lung and pancreas cancer. Particularly red and processed meats seem to increase cancer risk, whereas there's no such association for poultry and fish. (Actually, there are many health benefits associated with a high intake of fish and shellfish, and there appears to be no medical reason to exclude fish from the diet.) There's really nothing controversial about this, since almost all medical papers show the same results. The association between meat consumption and cancer is usually attributed to the formation of certain chemical substances, heterocyclic amines, in meat when it is cooked. Heterocyclic amines are carcinogenic in many organs. Meat is also known to alter nitrogen metabolism and enhance the production of possible carcinogens within the colon, such as NOS and ammonia. A high-meat diet is also associated with a lower intake of fermentable carbohydrates, which leads to a decreased fecal bulk and an increased transit time resulting in more opportunity for these carcinogenic compounds to interact with the intestinal mucosa.

That's my two cents... Or actually their not entirely mine since these are all well-established medical facts... Well, you know what I mean... Bye. :-)