Some animals have different words for the animal and for the meat – cow/beef, pig/pork. Some animals just use the same word without any compound – fish, quail.
But some animals use compounds of the form [animal] meat, while others use [animal] flesh. I looked at the Wiktionary entry on flesh, and it didn't really explain when to use flesh rather than meat, and why it is the case.
We talk about "human flesh" not "human meat", and can use either "horse flesh" or "horse meat", and we use meat not flesh for kangaroos, dogs, whales or dolphins, all of whom tend to be "friends not food" to most English-speakers.
Is the difference that flesh used to be more common than it is nowadays, and human flesh and horse flesh entered English earlier than the other phrases? Wiktionary mentioned some uses of flesh as archaic.
(I'm aware that meat used to be used for all food, and that flesh can be used for the body of living animals, but I assume neither fact is relevant here.)
(A similar question was asked at What is the difference between "meat" and "flesh"? , but it was closed as general reference)
Best Answer
"Meat" is "flesh" that one would consider eating.
because we don't eat humans.
I'm not sure who "we" is but as a native English speaker, I would only use "meat" if the conversation included the concept of somebody eating it. If a fellow native speaker used the word, I would interpret that to mean s/he is invoking the concept that it could be eaten.
I would also use "flesh" for the relevant parts of a creature that is still alive, unless the intended meaning to be conveyed includes the concept of killing and eating it (e.g. a discussion about hunting).
Paired with "dish," the result in Google Ngram viewer is striking (pairing with "flesh" isn't even found).