Okay. I take a different stance, though it takes me to much the same place, as far as what I personally eat.

My big problem with phytonutrients is that plants like any living organism contain a massive number of metabolites that might have some effect when consumed by humans or other animals. Example--resveratrol. For a while, lots of people were blaming the French Paradox on resveratrol. Based on mouse studies, where the mice were given amounts of resveratrol so high that dosing with wine was implausible, mice or humans trying to repeat the experimental doses of resveratrol with red wine would die of alcohol poisoning before getting anywhere close.

There's so much stuff in plants, you're going to find something with a therapeutic effect, or at least with an effect people imagine to be therapeutic, just because there's so much stuff in there. Conversely, there's so much stuff in meat, you're going to find something that's apparently damaging, again in higher levels of intake than you'd ever get from the diet, in some mouse model. They find what they look for, and mostly they look for potential damage from red meat, and potentially beneficial substances in plants, and that's what they come back with.