Martin, I think you're conflating evidence with proof. We know that plants contain nutrition. We know that these Inuit ate plants. This constitutes evidence that these Inuit may have eaten plants for their nutritional properties. No question of that. This is evidence that plants might have something to offer nutritionally, even on a very high-meat diet. Not proof, but evidence. Whether the plants that the Inuit in question ate were a necessary addition to their diet, whether there was any room for improvement over the all-meat diet, this is what's under debate.

For me, I haven't seen any proof that a little bit of tomato, onion and spinach added to an otherwise all-meat diet will be worse or better than just the meat. It seems just as plausible that these will help me as hurt me-- so I eat them mostly because I like them. (But my suspicion is that these do me more good than harm.) It's possible that this is the main reason that the Inuit ate plants; food is food, but it's also art. And it can also be an expression of love. (Maybe our corrupted food supply makes this look like an unhealthy way to express love? Comfort food shouldn't be a bad thing?)



We're talking about a successful culture here. In a sometimes brutal environment, but a successful culture nonetheless. They had time for art, they had time for things that weren't, strictly speaking, necessary to physical survival.