Spangler wrote:You say "contaminated" like horse meat is automatically poisonous or something. Meat contamination could easily happen with a pig as it would a horse. That fact that it's a horse should be irrelevant.
Not what is meant by 'contaminate' in this context.
Simply having two meats from different species of animal ending up in the same batch means that batch has been contaminated. It doesn't meant that it's riddled with pathogens, just that something labeled 'beef' is not supposed to have any meat from a pig.
Wait, I'm confused.... you are citing us to a condition that exists when you eat basically only lean meat and no other sources of nutrition, a condition which is highly dependent upon environmental factors to manifest. And....... that means.............. we....... should.......... eat.......... dogs?
All I was pointing out was that your assertion that dog meat is nutritious is not something that can be taken at face value. In addition to the vitamin poisoning and rabies concerns I Wiki'd, there are actually studies that show linkages to dog meat consumption to things as varied as heart disease and infertility. A lot of that has to do with the manner in which dogs raised for consumption are penned during their lives (terribly), and the increased hormone levels of 'emotional' animals like dogs translating to the butchered meat. Even if the animals was once a pet, it is very difficult to slaughter a dog in a way that does not result in a massive release of fear pheromones that end up in the muscle proteins.
So, in addition to me not wanting to eat dogs because I see a substantial moral difference between my beagles and the cow that went into my hamburger at lunch, there are also sound nutritional reasons to not eat the things.