Some vegans claim that humans are herbivores, not omnivores, and that we are not physiologically designed to eat meat (see here: http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/).

"According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history, humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Although many humans choose to eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the dubious title of “omnivore,” we’re anatomically herbivorous."

They go onto claim that we don't have tiger claws and teeth for catching and eating meat, that our jaws and teeth are designed for grinding plants not meat, that our stomach acid is too week to break down meat, that our intestinal tract is long like a herbivore for digesting plants and that it takes so long for meat to pass through that it rots and poisons us causing cancer, that we lack a hunting drive, that meat with it's cholesterol and protein is the cause of all disease so obviously its poison that we are not supposed to eat, that we get food poisoning from meat (like that never happens with vegetables...) and that the only reason humans started eating meat was to survive in times when there was a lack of plant foods available but according to our anatomy it's clear we're actually herbivores not designed for eating meat.

Can anyone debunk this nonsense ?

The simple answer is humans are omnivores - physiologically - as we have the capability to digest both plant and animal matter. Many humans are behavioural omnivores as well, consuming both as part of their diet, although many people can and do live while consuming only plant products.

Most if not all humans can or could digest animal products in some form - a brief search doesn't bring up any counterexamples of people who cannot physiologically do this (in the same way that many people cannot digest milk well in adulthood as they are lactose intolerant). Even if some people do not have this capability, they would be exceptional and broadly speaking you could describe humans as omnivorous, at least physiologically.

The Wikipedia page for omnivore is a good starting point if you want to know more about consumption classifications.

  • 1
    What about B12 deficiency and anemia risk in vegans, isn't that a clear indication humans are not designed as herbivores? Vegans have to take supplements, which is a modern invention, without supplements and fortified foods vegans risk serious deficiencies which can prove fatal if untreated from a lack of animal products in their diet. We can't get sufficient b12 from plants but herbivores can because their digestive system works differently, right? Can you explain about that please if you can? – Big Skeptic Sep 19 '16 at 6:50
  • Furthermore, fossil record shows humans have been eating meat in the last milions of years. – Pere Sep 19 '16 at 10:12
  • @BigSkeptic Vegetarians also drink more milk and lots of milk-products (curdled milk, sweets, butters, curd, etc) (and also used in many worships, sometimes in wasting amount). But milk is actually source of animal-proteins. – Always Confused Sep 19 '16 at 12:47

As the answers given already point out, humans are generally considered omnivores that are able to use food sources available to them opportunistically. Apart from that, there actually is not much to debunk in the PETA statement - it is just a slightly one sided view on the history of human diet. Just as one sided as the claims that humans would not have evolved a really big brain without consuming animal products. Especially the canine teeth cannot be seen as evidence for prehistoric hunting, as in great apes the size of canine teeth is ridiculously well explained not only by defensive but mostly by mating behaviour; apart from that, humans do not even have those, and that most likely is caused by the trend towards monogamy which reduces inter-male aggression.

However, coming back to the actual question, in the relative short history (approx. 200-300ky) of our species there is evidence for 'several transitions towards or away from a vegetarian diet in humans' (Nielsen et al., 2017).

And in fact, there even is a human-specific evolutionary derived haplotype (younger than the Human-Neandertal split) that shows signatures of positive selection and is associated with increased efficiency in the synthesis of long chain fatty acid from plant precursor molecules - which would not really be necessary, as these fatty acids are readily available in animal products (Ameur et al., 2012). More specifically, the genes lying on that haplotype belong to the FADS cluster that seemed to have had adaptive value - also for synthesising long chain fatty acids from medium chain plant precursor fatty acids - in African populations even more recently (approx. 85 kya, Mathias et al. 2012).

This finding has been supported by a more recent study by Kothapalli et al. (2016). They investigated a 22bp-indel allele in the FADS2 gene that is associated with both higher blood levels of long chain fatty acids and exhibits high frequency (signature of positive selection) especially in South Asia and Africa where there is long tradition for plant-based diet.


Conclusion:

Modern humans (and this is relevant, as diet varies strongly between species and therefore the species comparison does not need to be very informative) appear to have changed diet frequently but there is evidence for human-specific molecular adaptations towards plant-based diets.

Humans benefit from a plant based diet. The B12 argument is only valid at face value as domesticated animals that are raised to be slaughtered are given B12 supplements as they would to obtain enough of it through a "natural" diet. B12 is found in bacteria in the soil so washing vegetables and removing the dirt is also removing the B12. Animal products are high in saturated fats which is the main contributor to atherosclerosis and therefore heart disease which kills millions of people around the world each year. True ominovores do not have the ability to develop atherosclerosis. The argument that humans had always eaten animal products renders us complete omnivores is downright wrong as eating something for survival is completely different than eating for optimal health. Our ancestors had no concept of biochemistry or the effects food has on the cellular level of our body. Our ancestors also usually died at rather young ages of nutritional deficiencies.

It is not difficult to obtain protein, fatty acids, or calories for that matter as many nuts, beans, seeds, and legumes are high in unsaturated fats and flax seeds them selves are a better source of Omega 3s than fish. Lentils, dark beans especially are high in iron and, and virtually every food has some sort of minor iron content and vegans have an infinitesimal chance of becoming anemic compared to an omnivorous diet or a vegetarian who consumes dairy. Dairy products are known to hinder iron absorption.

Animal products also raise levels of a hormone called Insulin like Growth Factor 1 or IGF1. IGF1 is known to cause insulin resistance, promote cancer cell growth and release free radicals throughout the body.

The argument of what we are is really a nonsensical argument as it does not matter what the label is as opposed to what kind of diet we can optimally benefit from in the long term.

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

  • Welcome to Biology.SE. Please take a look at what is considered a good answer on this site. Some of your statements might be challenged, so please provide reference to any claims you make. Thanks! – AlexDeLarge May 11 '17 at 14:59
  • This posting contains lots of wild claims - please add serious references for them. – Chris May 11 '17 at 16:54

We are not herbivorous because our digestive system us too short. Human have not evolved any of the feature required to digest plant matter efficiently. We do not have a multi chamber stomach like ruminates have. We do not have an enlarged cecum like rabbits

In fact, the human guts as a percentage of body mass half that of a chimpanzee, (10% vs 20%). Also the composition of that gut is different, 50-60% are small intestine in human vs 20% in chimp. Human colon is reduced. 17-23% in human, vs 52-54% in chimp.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6c.shtml

Also Gorilla's which are more herbivorous than human do have cecum (7% of the Gut volume compared 0% in humans.) http://huntgatherlove.com/content/human-colon-evolution-part-1-comparative-anatomy

if anything the argument that human gastrointestinal system is long like a herbivorous is false. It is short and reduced... and does not have the right component to ferment plant matter. However it is longer than an obligate carnivore.

AS a species, human are an ape (a fruit eating animal)... that has started to evolve to eat meat... an intermediate species so to speak, still doesn't do it well. And has many features of its fruit eating ancestor, but has already taken step to eating meet... having lost features (like large gut size and big colon) that digest plant matter more efficiently.

Put a child on a vegan diet and the kid will die from B12 deficiency, insufficient calories, and lack of fatty acids.

  • Some apes eat meat as well, chimps f.e. – RHA Dec 26 '16 at 10:41
  • That is true. Estimated that Chimps obtain 6% of its calories from meat. Gorilla are more herbivorous and have larger percentage of their gut devoted to a cecum (7% in Gorilla, 5% in Chimp and N/A in humans). <huntgatherlove.com/content/…> – JayCkat Dec 26 '16 at 16:53
  • I think when you say humans "digest plant matter efficiently", you are perhaps over-simplifying. Humans seem to digest many fruits, seeds, and vegetables quite well. We just don't have the extra machinery to digest things high in cellulose, as grazers do. So like many other species, including some (like wolves/dogs) that are popularly supposed to be carnivores, we eat both. Though some human groups, e.g. the Inuit, have traditionally lived on an almost exclusively animal diet. – jamesqf Dec 26 '16 at 20:50
  • I don't think you realize that those added machinery is required. The vegetable and fruits that we eat today are no way similar to the non domesticated versions of the same plants. It is like saying bananas are very easy to eat... only problem being the wild version of bananas are small, gummy sappy, full of large hard seeds.. and really only edible by straining out the seed and cooking the resulting pulp. The plants we are familiar today are the product of thousands of years of domestication. wheat is the product of nearly 12000 yrs of selective breeding. – JayCkat Dec 26 '16 at 22:03
  • @JayCkat: But there are many fruits, nuts, and vegetables that have not been subjected to that 12K years of selective breeding (and which aren't sold commercially in any large quantity), yet which sustained native populations. Hereabouts there are pine nuts, cattail roots & pollen, camassia bulbs, elderberries, wild blackberries, and much more, all of which I eat on occasion. – jamesqf Feb 6 '17 at 20:05

protected by AliceD Jul 13 '17 at 9:35

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.