Not so surprisingly, the same is true for modern animals including farmed cows and pigs. I can't find a the source now (and apparently neither can wikipedia editors, cause they deleted it), but a very significant percentage of B12 production today (some say upwards of 80%) goes to animals. Some of it for their well-being, but most of it for the people eating them. A contender for the "least-efficient-way-to-supplement-vitamins", I think.

Also, many non-vegans and non-vegetarians suffer from B12 deficiency these days.

As a meat eater with B12 deficiency I agree with this statement.

It seems easy to tell the negative effects of eating meat (might cause cancer, etc). But are all the effects of not eating animal products at all in the long-term well known? And I don't mean not eating animal products for 1 year or 10 years but for multiple generations.

Will people who have not eaten animal products for 1000 years still have a life expectancy similiar to the general population (I guess animal product-eaters)? Will they have more/less diseases, higher/lower IQ, etc.

It's absolutely not easy. For example, there is still no conclusive evidence on meat causing cancer. There is no mechanism - there are no carcinogens in meat. What was actually found was that processed meats, and also meat cooked on open fire or otherwise charred may contain carcinogens. Still nothing on meat prepared in other ways, i.e. boiled.

To provide at least somewhat credible proof, it would be required to find groups of people, who do not eat read meat at all ever, then other group - who eat read meat but not processed or cooked on open fire, and finally a group that only eats processed or cooked on open fire meat. And even if you could identify such groups of people, how could you possibly eliminate all other potential confounders?

Same with vegetarians vs meat eaters. Vegetarians on average are more health conscious: more exercise, less smoking and alcohol, more healthy habits in general. It is completely wrong and dishonest to just compare them to meat eaters and say "see, how many benefits you get from not eating meat".

But are all the effects of not eating animal products at all in the long-term well known?

Again, it is not very easy. Groups of people who avoid animal products on the grounds of i.e. religion (Buddhism) do not stand out as remarcably healthy. And groups of people who are vegetarians for health reasons have many healthy habits that confound meat avoidance as the reason for their better health. So no, it's not quite conclusive as well.

I've recently read "The Blue Zones" book[1]. The authors identified areas where the unexpectedly high percentage of centenarians live, and did some research to try and find out the possible reasons behind their longevity. The interesting thing is that people consume at least some meat in all of these zones, except for about 30% of Loma Linda's Seven Day Adventists, who are vegetarians.

So there you go: even if meat is not a hard and fast requirement for health and longevity, it certainly is not a source of sickness and shortened lifespan.

[1]http://www.amazon.com/The-Blue-Zones-Lessons-Longest/dp/1426...

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-China-Study-Comprehensive-Implicat...

Did you read any of the critisism though? Here are some

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/...

http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

We've all seen the UN report on red meat but I haven't seen anything negative about poultry or fish.

Franken-chickens take around 30 days, but those grow faster than their organs, bones, and muscles can support the speed of the weight gained.