In response to your webpage on meat and violence may I suggest that:

-correlation is never causation. Meat consumption can be highly correlated to higher incomes (because meat is more expensive than vegetables), that does not mean meat makes you rich.
-There are no scientific studies that establish a causal link between meat and violence. How would you measure violence in any case?
-you mention that "violence is related to vitamin and mineral deficiencies." That is interesting because many vegetarian diets actually lead to vitamin definciencies. If not properly planned, a vegetarian diet can lead to vitamin B12 and Vitamin D deficiencies.

-to nuance your evidence of meat eaters being violent and problematic, I'd suggest that you have a look at the state of Gujarat in India where most people are vegetarian:http://www.newstatesman.com/200203110009

While I agree that avoiding toxic, allergenic and acid-producing food is generally better for your health, as well as for the environment (meat consumption depletes our water resources for example) the jump to say that meat causes violence is a leap of faith that is dangerous. In many cases, this mythology has been used to dominate meat-eating groups. In a place like America, this is the argument of the minority (most people eat meat)so it is not a dangerous argument. But in a place like India, the mythology of meat consumption being associated with violence, encourages Hindus and Jains to dominate and discriminate against Muslims (who are portrayed as the meat eaters).

Julien Cayla
juliencayla@gmail.com