Is eating "meat" unhealthy or dangerous?

This is a good question because the apparent answer must include the problems with "nutritional science" (and science in general) that are misleading many people today. Below is a post of mine from another site which address this question:

The "meat" issue is very interesting, because it demonstrates a huge problem with "nutritional science" today. Even if we use the phrase "red meat," as many "experts" now do, that is still very misleading, because the question everyone wants answered is, "is this food item healthy or is it not?" Abstract categories which have no scientific integrity (such as "meat" or "red meat") dominate a great deal of "expert advice," yet there is more than enough evidence now to avoid such language, and instead connect diet with biochemical evidence in a direct way.

I'll provide an example. I eat small amounts of gelatin each day, but I never eat "meat," or do I? Who is to say, and if they do say, what does it mean, scientifically? Instead, the biochemical evidence is clear and the semantics can be avoided; HCAs are generated in dangerous amounts when "meat" is cooked with the usual oils (rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids). Mary Enig has suggested freezing "meat" for two weeks or more, then eating it raw. The question I have is, why do I need "meat?" I know I need a certain amount of high-quality protein, but do I need meat? I consume small amounts of nutritional yeast and gelatin each day, along with a lot of cheese, and that seems to replace anything that "meat" supplies.

If this combination was not a sufficient replacement, I surely would not have recovered from my wasting disorder (from less than 100 pounds to the mid 130s now), as well as the severe osteoporosis and other problems I had several years ago. Thus, I avoid HCAs, lipid peroxidation, oxidized cholesterol, and excess iron, among other potentially unhealthy things, without "giving anything up." I have to admit that my thinking is largely "risk reward ratio," which isn't that far from the "first do no harm" part of the Hippocratic Oath (as far as I can tell). Now I'll be the first to admit that small amounts of high-quality raw "red meat" (frozen 2 weeks or more) now and is not likely to cause problems, but it's expensive, I don't know if it's really high-quality (I have to take the word of the "health food store" people), and I don't know how to prepare it. Moreover, I don't want to develop a taste for something I don't like now and isn't doing anything to maintain my health.

Here's a study that few Americans hear about, even with all the time devoted to "health and science" issues in the news these days:

Mutat Res. 2002 Sep 30;506-507:9-20. "Comments on the history and importance of aromatic and heterocyclic amines in public health." Weisburger JH.

"The carcinogenic risk of aromatic amines in humans was first discovered when a physician related the occurrence of urinary bladder cancer to the occupation of his patients. They were employed in the dyestuff industry, chronically exposed to large amounts of intermediate arylamines… Epidemiological data suggest that meat eaters may have a higher risk of breast and colon cancer. HCAs induced cancer in rats in these organs and also in the prostate and the pancreas. In addition, there is some evidence that they affect the vascular system... The amounts of HCAs in cooked foods are small, but other components in diet such as omega-6-polyunsaturated oils have powerful promoting effects in target organs of HCAs..."