Talk:Taboo food and drink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cats Portal

This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Wrong interwiki

I wonder why the page links to the Finnish Wikipedia "Hevosen liha" (Horse meat)?

--Ferhengvan 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other animals

Cow -- commonly eaten, uncommonly kept as a pet, religious and cultural taboos (work animal where it is a religious taboo, worshipped in distant past).
Iguana -- commonly eaten, commonly kept as pet, unknown if there is any taboo
Ferret -- eaten, commonly kept as pet, unknown if there is any taboo
Parrot -- uncommonly eaten, commonly kept as pet, there is a pet taboo
Donkey -- same arguement as horse, but less common, less cute
Eel, Lobster, Shrimp -- commonly eaten, not kept as pet, religious taboo
Pig -- commonly eaten, kept as pet, religious & religious and pet taboos
Koala -- commonly protected by animal groups, unsure if eaten anywhere
Badger
Snails

[edit] Cats

Surely the consumption of cats in China is much more than just rumour? I have friends who have seen slaughtered cats for sale in butchers' windows and a cursory google search confirms the practice. -- Oarih 18:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A cursory look is not sufficient. A skinned cat looks like skinned rabbit, which we know is used in cooking all over the world. There is also the problem of the Civet Cat. I think we are all aware of the urban legends surrounding the eating of cat, heck I've even read that Dickens writes of cat meat pies being sold on the streets of London in the "The Pickwick Papers". Are these based in some reality? If your friend ate some cat when in China with a Chinese friend have them visit us here on the talk page. --Zenyu 15:26, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Take your pick: [1]. How about, from [china.org.cn]:

The Chinese eat everything, some foreigners may say. But the Chinese say that the Cantonese eat everything on land except cars, everything in the river except boats and everything in the sky except planes. There is some truth in this, for in Chinese cuisine, there are some things westerners baulk at eating, for instance, dog meat, snake, rat, cat, scorpion, sea cucumbers, turtle, etc.

You must be a little cautious about the food if you eat in a Cantonese restaurant. Some dishes sound very nice, but in fact they are not quite what you imagine. For instance, there is a dish called "Dragon and Tiger Fighting Each Other", which are actually snake and cat meat. (The Snake symbolises the dragon and the cat symbolises the tiger.)

Or how about this site -- it has a comprehensive essay on the subject. I'm not trying to slander the Chinese - they can eat all the cats they want so long as I keep eating pig - but listing cat consumption as "rumour" is ridiculous given the evidence. -- Oarih 19:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you read it properly, you'll see the messybeast site doesn't say that cat eating in China is rumor, it says there are rumors of pet cats being stolen in Beijing because cat as a delicacy is back in fashion.

Ok, the google search pulls up a bunch of hysterical animal rights activists, the china.org.cn site you cite is very light and does not specify that these are not Civet "cats" (nor would it because it is talking about "exotic" chinese food), messybeast has a lot of "one source says" without actually citing any sources. The messybeast is also a website for cat owners, not exactly an unbiased source. Look at this page, obviously Civet 'cats' are hunted and eaten, how do we know that Westerners aren't just confused? Find a cookbook that sepecifies "house cat" as an ingredient -- it doesn't have to be in English, I'll find a translator. I would be glad for an unambiguous resolution of this question, if we put this in with flimsy sources it will get reverted away by someone. --Zenyu 20:58, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

The messybest site looks pretty unbiased to me. It doesn't say cat eating is wrong, only that cats for human consumption should be raised and dispatched humanely. It compares western taboos against pet-eating to Hindu taboos against eating cattle.

I'm not sure that I'd call the animal rights activits hysterical,and in any case groups like the humane society are generally considered to be somewhat reliable. I'm pretty sure my friends know the difference between cats and civet cats - so although I would like to find more demonstratable evidence, I already know that cats are eaten in China. Here's another article which seems to have been widely used throughout the western press as well. It specifies that the "dragon and tiger" dish in that china.org.cn site does use a house cat. Sorry, no cookbook. -- Oarih 04:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That link is better. Try to find a better ones, but I think this with the other source on the dish would support a sentence about the "dragon and tiger" dish. Researching this is difficult because the urban legend so overpowers the real story. --Zenyu 16:18, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The urban legends (and their refutations) about Chinese restaurants outside of China killing local cats certainly do overwhelm any stories about Chinese eating cats in China. Still, I think that even the china.org.cn, taken on its own, is pretty conclusive (if trustworthy). It's obvious that it is talking about house cats, given that they are listed along with dog meat and rats (and are listed as something that westerners would balk at eating -- we wouldn't exactly balk at eating civet cats because we don't even know what they are!) moreover I don't think that anyone would say that civet cats would really symbolize a tiger very well. Certainly not as well as a house cat. Given absolutely no evidence to the contrary, well, I'm happy to go with the dragon and tiger dish... -- Oarih 04:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, hardcore predators aren't normally eaten, because they're typically pretty rank. Meat tends to smell like the live animal. Smell a live cat and it's effluvia versus even a dog or pig, on the carnivore end of the omnivore scale. So we don't eat eagles either. Gzuckier 15:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prarie Dog

This At the turn of the century rich Northeasters were scandalized when they realized the great meal they had just eaten "Out West" was Prairie Dog.

needs to be reworked. Substantiate. Where was it served and what did they think they were eating? Quill 21:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was on "Modern Marvels: The Railroads that Tamed the West" on the History channel. They gave an example of some man and said what he thought he was eating. This was while traveling through the midwest before there were any towns as such and before luxury cars like the Pullman car. With the advent of the Pullman car food was transported on the train and not eaten in little train station towns along the way. 207.237.82.43 16:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

I've greatly condensed the renaming debate, since the renaming has taken place now --Zenyu 15:03, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Article needs renaming IMO so that a) people can find it and b) someone can write a good introductory sentence as per Wikipedia style. Quill 20:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it does need a good introductory sentence, but I think the name is on topic and should be easy enough to find.--AirIntake 20:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree that the title is entirely wrong. Dogs and guinea pigs when used for food are not pets. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree title is wrong. Animals being raised as food aren't called pets. The information is very interesting and I think this article should include any animal that is an uncommon food source in any culture. --jag123 03:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's just remove the word "pet" and keep the list as interesting animals people eat, without placing any kind of special status to any animal. I know several Chinese people who've eaten cat, in a restaurant, so it can't be that rare. They've also eaten dog, so that kinda blows a hole in the "man-dog relationship transcends everything" theory because neither of them thought it was weird, or ashamed, fazed or embarased to admit it. They couldn't even name one person they knew that thought it was weird, including pet owners. --jag123 02:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not against eating one of those plump Peru guinea pigs, a 2kg fat juicy rabbit/mouse creature wouldn't be that bad at all barbequed or rotisseried. But a guinea pig in most areas of the world, including mine is still a common animal used as a pet, therefore 'a pet'. It doesn't mean I have to feel bad about it or anything, but that's what it is. --AirIntake 04:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about re-titling it Taboo meat? Then you can work in the pet or work animal justifications for the taboo, as well as the religious, racist, and cultural reasons? --Zenyu 23:57, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, anyway, pigs need mention as foodpets too. Kwantus 21:54, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

[Renaming] sounds good to me if everyone else agrees. --AirIntake 06:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kangaroo & National symbols

I disagree with the "disdain" for Kangaroo meat by the "typical non-Aboriginal Australian". Kangaroo has appeared on the menus of upscale restaurants in Australia for quite some time now. Its price certainly keeps it from being a common consumer meat, but I don't believe the national symbol aspect is the leading factor -- they're also simply more expensive to farm. mordemur 14:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The national symbol thing is still an issue, eg [2]. Of course it's not an issue for all. perhaps "many" Australians would be better wording. It certainly has not gained general acceptance. It would be interesting to get statistics on the issue. --Pengo 22:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a good link -- sometimes the national symbol taboo is not from the citizens themselves, but foreigners. I do agree that it is certainly still an issue, just disproportionate to the bald eagle example in the same sentence. --mordemur 11:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the national symbol section is conjecture at best and erroneous at worst. Americans may not eat bald eagle, but who does? What Western nation eats Lion? For that matter, the beaver may be one of Canada's national symbols, but that's because they trapped it for its fur in the 18th and 19th centuries (dunno if they ate it). If there is anything to the argument that people don't eat their national symbols, how about some better examples? -- Oarih 16:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the Scots never eat unicorns, nor the Welsh dragons; on the other hand, the Irish have been known to tuck in to the occasional salmon. It seems to me, though, that this section was at best personal research, and at worst simply false or irrelevant to the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Kangaroo meat has had a varied history as meat in Australia due to the emotive association, predominantly by foreigners, of kangaroos as pets and a national symbol." - Why would/does the perception of kangaroos by foreigners affect it's consumption by Australians? --70.142.40.34 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pigs are not a martian species

[Pigs] are forbidden among Muslims because they are unclean and are believed to feed on their own feces.

Pigs either eat their own feces or they don't, there's just no way that "are believed to" is the best we can do. -- Oarih 05:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, that misses the point; the claim is that they're held to be unclean because they're held to eat their own faeces. Even though they don't actually do so, the explanation stands. You could add that in fact the belief is false.
On the other hand, it's not at all clear, and certainly not universally accepted, that this is the reason for pigs being taboo in Islam. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The point I wanted to make was that the language was ambiguous and weak, so I guess I agree that we should add that it is a misconception that pigs eat their own feces (if it is, indeed, a misconception -- they are certainly known to eat the feces of other animals). IMO, the whole section should be expanded, though; I can see plenty of reasons why people might think that pigs are unclean and certainly there are good historical reasons for avoiding pig meat. Hmm. Will edit slightly for now. -- Oarih 12:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Horses

"In Europe horses are specially raised for their meat. These horses run wild and are not trained as carriage animals."? Source? // Liftarn

I spent a summer at a horse farm. Not really a controversial or hard to confirm fact. Horse meat is not taboo in most of Europe. Zenyu 16:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of horses raised for their meat in France. My impression is that the rare places that sell horse meat sell the meat of horses slaughtered after they became too old to work efficiently. However, I may be mistaken. David.Monniaux 10:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Horses *are* raised for meat in France. For this reason, the species used are different from the ones used for sports or touring. Historically, legend (this has to be checked) has it that this came to be during Napoleons Russia campaign, where exhausted soldiers on their way back had to eat their dead horses, after which licenses for horse butchery were granted only to former soldiers. Restrictions on the sale of horse food to specific horse butchers remained in force until quite recently (mid-80s, I think). These days, the monopoly is gone, and one can find horse meat in most marketplaces, large supermarkets, some generalist butchers, along with the remaining dedicated horse butchers. Horse meat is a delicacy here: being sweet (sugary) to the taste, tender, and rather expensive, it is not an everyday product. (FGM 01 Jul 2006)

That corresponds with an article about a horse butcher I read, but much of the horse meat here in Sweden seems to be imported. Btw, I'm considering moving out the content about horse meat into an article of it's own and just keep the taboo stuff here. What do you think? // Liftarn

The horse content is a fair proportion of the overall article considering it is mostly a social taboo but I don't see a lot of point in spliting it out any more than other meats. The overall article is becoming somewhat diluted in the distinction between a religious, cultural or social taboo but I don't see any valid basis for a split given some meats overlap these categories. Garglebutt 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Other meats already are split out (beef, veal, pork et.c.). I was think on keeping the stuff about the taboo here and just split out the sections about the meat itself. // Liftarn

I have now split out the horse meat content per comments below. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Japan and horse meat Eating horse in Japan is not unusual, but those serving guests must be cautious, since it is considered a faux pas to serve horse meat to a horse lover. Is this a 'taboo' worth mentioning?

There's a food cart in NYC that has a sign advertising, "Filly Cheese Steak". Typo, or ....? Gzuckier 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What makes meat so special?

This should be a broader article on Taboo foods or perhaps more precisely Food taboos, taboos are not peculiar to meat. For example, Pythagoras and his followers are said to have abstained from beans, though some now think this was metaphorical. Incidentally, I am surprised this article does not mention probably by far the most common food taboo, Cannibalism.--Pharos 09:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, there are for instance some Buddhists (I think) that don't eat onions. // Liftarn

It has to do with the history of this article. It originated with a Wikipedia reader who was highly offended by the concept of eating some particual animal, so s/he moved all references to eating animals from various articles to this article. It was originally called something like 'Evil Cuddly Pet Eaters!!!' or something close to it :). But then it evolved into a fairly decent article on taboo's concerning meat. Nothing wrong with an article of eating cuddly vegetables, but it should probably be a separate article. Linked to this one, of course. Zenyu 16:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anybody wondered, I originally didn't think that information about eating cats should take up 10%+ of the entire article about cats. I moved the information to here, originally named 'Pets as a Food Source' (because the section in Cat was entitled 'Cats as a Food Source'). I then checked some other pet pages to see if any other information could be moved. I never thought anyone/anything was 'evil', the information was just misplaced.--AirIntake 19:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigs in Japan

pork is rarely being eaten in Japan, though I don't know how 'taboo' this is (clem 20:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC))

Mmmh.. Actually, I found it quite often in cheap dishes like tonkatsu. Of course, this is not "traditional" food (which eschews meat). David.Monniaux 10:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Japan likes pork - I work in a processing plant and we export tons of pig jowls to Japan. It's a cheaper alternative to bacon for them. - tencentmagician

[edit] Pigs in Ancient China, North American Indians, and Atlantians?

I once heard a story that eating pork in ancient China was taboo. The story told of a chinese general who accidentally burned down his house twice because he kept trying to covertly cook a pig to eat in his fireplace. I also heard that pre-Columbus north American Indians did not eat pork. Finally, I heard that Atlantians did not eat pork. I do not know if any of these items are true, but if anyone knows for sure, please jump in.

[edit] English word?

and for their fur which is used to make fur coats and other fur clothing.

English teacher here told us once that the fur of an animal is called 'coat'? So should the text be changed to:

and for their coat which is used to make fur coats and other fur clothing.

(clem 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC))

Usualy, "coat" refers to an animals fur while the animal is still alive, while "fur" can mean either the animals hair while it is alive, or the skin which has been removed and tanned with hair in place, ready for use. I think "fur" sounds better than "coat" in the sentence above. -- Puppygrinder 08:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whales???

Why aren't Whales mentioned? Especially with what's going on with Korea/Japan at the moment.

The objection to eating whale meat has only developed in the last decade or so. It is not a taboo yet, the objection is based on reason not an unreasoned cultural norm like a taboo. Think about Swordfish, many people find it objectionable that people eat such a threatened species. But this is based on something you can explain to your host. It is not like your grandmother told you as a young child that people who eat swordfish are the spawn of the devil and eating one has been unthinkable since you were in diapers. -- Zenyu 01:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Attitudes towards whale hunting run deeeper in some countries than it being a conservation issue. If the taboo had to have lasted several generations, then kangaroo meat wouldn't be in this article, as the controversy about it has only arisen recently. Andjam 04:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You missed the biggest taboo of all

You missed the biggest taboo of all.

I am flesh, and you are flesh.

Yes, however I think a reference to Cannibalism would be enough for that. The topic is a bit special, because slaughtering a human is considered a different crime (manslaughter or murder) and breeding humans for meat would violate a shitload of laws by itself. Eating your dead OTOH is a cultural practice common to some cultures (usually restricted to certain types of death, though, and prone to infections), a taboo (and crime) in others, but different from the way animals are bred for meat.

On a related note we might need to consider situations in which consumption may not break an existing taboo: in some cases a taboo animal that has died a natural death may be eaten without breaking the taboo. -- Ashmodai 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is blood a meat?

Unless there are strong objections I'd like to delete the blood section, it doesn't really belong here. It might make sense in a general food taboo article, but not in the taboo meat article. If we allow blood then we'll have to allow organs such as brain, heart, liver, etc. -- Zenyu 01:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should remain as it is often combined with animal products to make a food stuff and is considered abhorrent by most societies, which fits the taboo description. Offal is also already in the article as are insects, neither of which are typically thought of as meat. Per the main meat article, offal, fish and crustaceans are also not considered meat by some societies.

The scope of the article has changed a bit since the original intent which focussed primarily on religious and pet taboos, however I like the way the article is evolving to include other social taboos. I made a point of reworking the introduction to expand the scope to include more general social taboos. I'm waiting for eyeball dishes to be added! Garglebutt 02:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since no taboo food article exists the easiest would be to rename the article. // Liftarn

I do see a need for a split sooner or later (see my comments under Horses) but this needs a bit of discussion before any changes as we need to ensure any split is sufficiently encompassing since blood may be considered a drink rather than food for instance but I'm not proposing a taboo drink article at this stage. Garglebutt 14:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Shawnc commented out the following paragraph in Blood:

The Maasai and Batemi people of Tanzania drink cow's blood mixed with milk as a major part of their diet. In Kenya, camel blood is drunk. A special dish called Dinuguan (literally meaning "of blood") is eaten in the Philippines. It consists of pig or cow intestines, liver, and other organs stewed in pig or cow blood.

Although I agree it doesn't quite fit the context of taboos, it does hilight the need to rework this article a bit as the information is relevant. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split Taboo Meat

There an increasing number of comments that suggest this article has grown beyond its original intent and needs to be reworked, probably into a number of articles.

Content is currently a mix of religious, cultural/social and health taboos and includes things not generally considered meat by many cultures such as insects, seafood, offal and blood.

I suggest a bit of discussion before any changes are made. Garglebutt 15:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this. Rename it Taboo Foods with a meat and other sections. Then if over time it expands to be too large for one article we can split off sections such as Taboo Meat... -- Zenyu 16:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

After a good nights sleep I was thinking that the split could be along the lines of:

Taboo food and drink

Which would be a disambiguation page pointing to:

Religious taboo food and drink
Cultural taboo food and drink
Health taboo food and drink

Religious could be sorted by, well, religion. Cultural sorted by country or region. Health sorted by... Depending on the search term there would be a redirect to the disambiguation page or directly to one of the subpages.

I like this approach because it allows the addition of a large range on new taboos that don't really suit the article as it currently stands. Garglebutt 22:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me. 24.115.180.184 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to me. Religious, cultural and health taboos are all mixed. For example, there have been people trying to explain the pork taboo on health issues, and as Marvin Harris said, a ecological-economical taboo often ends as a religious taboo. --Error 19:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirect to Nutrition Taboos. Please don't make changes without discussion, particularly since you left a large number of redirects that someone would have had to clean up. Also you marked your change as minor, which it certainly wasn't! The current discussion is about splitting this article as it has grown beyond its original intent - not making it even larger by merging it with another article. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't doubt that there will be crossover between the suggested splits but I believe each can stand as an article in its own right and a split allows them to grow, whereas the current article limits the scope somewhat. Re pork, a health taboo on undercooked pork has a health basis in parasitic infections, even though this is no longer an issue in many countries. This may have been a common root with a religious taboo but they are quite different taboos now. Blowfish sushi is an example of a health taboo that is neither cultural or religious. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made the first steps towards a restructure by moving this article to taboo food and drink so we don't end up with inconsistencies about the consumption of blood and other bodily fluids. I am still working through the remaining double redirects. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now split horse meat into a separate article as previously suggested as a lot of the content was more about the various ways of consuming the meat as much as the taboos around its consumption. After having an initial stab at splitting this article based on religion, cultural and health reasons I am now backing away from this idea as it is too interrelated to avoid massive duplication. One thing I have learned however is that there is significant duplication of content already in the many pages that link here. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knights

I don't have Harris around but I remember that the papal interdiction was related to keeping the social structure with mounted knights. --Error 19:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland Norse

I have reverted the following recent addition due to lack of supporting evidence:

Unlike their forefathers in Iceland and Norway, the Greenland Norse had a taboo against eating fish. This is believed to have been a contributing factor to their extinction. In the later stages of the Western colony they ate everything down to their hunting dogs, but never touched the plentiful fish teaming in their fjord.

This is a hypothesis posed by Jared Diamond[3] and others based on the lack of fish skeletal remains in Norse garbage and is disputed by many as an invalid conclusion. There is more evidence that the Norse used inappropriate farming techniques that rendered their land unviable for agriculture and livestock during a period of harsh environmental changes. I think the conjecture is interesting but not sufficiently supported to portray as a popular theory at this point. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This theory is openly challenged based on carbon dating. [4] Garglebutt / (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This theory is certainly in dispute but I think it is interesting enough to be included if clearly marked as a disputed theory.

If we included every discredited theory in articles we would carry a lot of baggage. In this case it distorted reality so I don't believe it adds anything to the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw a program on ancient olympics that said scientists could tell the ancient athletes ate a large fish diet because certain trace elements could be found in their 2000+/- year old bones.

[edit] Crustaceans

"This is the reasoning behind warning signs in restaurants detailing the risk of eating such meat."

I have myself never seen such a sign. Seafood collected in non-polluted water and properly cooked is perfectly safe. Is there a country where such signs are common? UnHoly 19:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. UnHoly 13:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove 'split' header?

I found this a useful page from halal and kosher and just stumbled upon it, would recommend the notice is removed --PopUpPirate 00:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article has settled pretty well for a while now so I've removed the split notice. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cats II

I just made a small change in the "Cats" section, explaining the "rumored" incident of cat-eating in Argentina. Sources: [5], [6], [7] (the last two in Spanish, and you need to register for free for the last one). In short: a town council member of the Radical Civic Union (an opposition party) said that people were eating cats, snakes and other thingies in a villa miseria; sensationalist media from Buenos Aires arrived in packs, and a guy killed, cooked and ate (I think) a cat in front of the cameras. After that, the episode was revealed to have been a setup: a TV channel (Crónica TV - I think, but couldn't find that out) paid this guy 100 pesos (not much really) to do the deed while they were filming. Later, then-Mayor Hermes Binner denounced it as a conspiracy to mount a show and (implicitly) to harm the image of his administration, while admitting that poverty was extremely high, and commenting that he himself had eaten cat once. He also mentioned that people in the shantytowns sometimes come from rural areas of other provinces where it's not unusual to have other dietary customs (todo bicho que camina va a parar al asador - "any thing that walks ends up in the grill"); and remarked that on the same grill where the cat was cooked, there were also pieces of sábalo fish. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reindeer

I have put the information about reindeer, because while I would be happy to eat it, I feel many Brits wouldn't even touch it because of the Father Christmas and Rudolph connection. The “cows of the north” point was that in northern climates, reindeer are prized because its meat, fur and milk.159753 14:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, partially due to wide-spread Americanization of the European culture, reindeer meat can also make some continental Europeans look at you funny if you suggest eating it. I don't think this can be compared to the possible repulsiveness of the idea of eating reindeers by British or American meat eaters (who have been exposed to the whole Father Christmas / Santa Claus stories on a more direct basis -- whereas other Europeans usually only pick it up from the media, not their parents, grandparents, etc, during childhood).

By the way: reindeer isn't too fancy taste-wise. -- Ashmodai 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism

"Latin rite Catholics (or "Roman Catholics") are prohibited from eating any meat except fish on Fridays as an act of abstinence and penance pursuant to Canon 1251."

I'm not sure how true this is any more. I don't think it is strictly prohibited any more, except on Good Friday. As far as I've seen (maybe I should research this further), it is now recommended that a penance be performed on Fridays which may include abstaining from meat, but may be abstaining from cigarettes, alcohol, or doing many other things.15:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

It hasn't been true since Vatican II (I believe), now fridays during lent and Good Friday are the only days in which eating meat is prohibited. Suppafly 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

From [8] (and similarly from other sources found by googling for "canon 1251"):

Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

While this is obviously not observed by the majority of the nearly 1 billion roman catholics, the rule seems to exist.--Niels Ø 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you are purposely ignoring the "prescriptions of the conference of bishops" part or not, but it is an important part of the canon you are quoting above. See [9](your own source) for an example of why. Besides, religious penitential practices are different from taboos. Suppafly 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I am disputing the factual accuracy and the NPOV of these statements:

In mediaeval times, meat was more expensive than fish; making meat taboo forced austerity on the believers. Professional fisherman were granted favor and economic advantage for various Papal 'gifts', and hence, fish became the 'meat' officially santioned by Rome. There was no Papal condemnation for fish consumption on other days, but penant souls were required to eat fish on Fridays.

French Canadian fisheries were suffering economically until it was learned a penitant offering could be made to their local diocese, thus assuring their financial future in much the way their Roman brethren benefitted. Fish, hence, became favored by the Catholic institution rather than taboo. As a side note, in the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church classified the tail of beavers (which is covered by a scalloped skin) as "fish" because it was a delicacy favored by the clergy. Thus, beaver tail was for some time the only non-proscribed meat allowed during Lent.

Eating fish during fasts is mentioned as a common practice in some places in the 5th century by Socrates Scholasticus. The idea that permitting fish during fasts was permitted for the economic advantage of fisherman in exchange for gifts appears to be anti-Catholic propoganda -- it is not required to eat fish, just to abstain from meat from warm-blooded land animals (see Eating meat on Fridays for mention of excepted animals).

The usage of "Catholic institution" rather than "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church" is most common in works critical of the Roman Catholic Church.

The claim that "French Canadian fisheries were suffering economically until it was learned a penitant offering could be made to their local diocese" doesn't make sense. The fish-on-Fridays tradition was well established by the time the Europeans learned of America.

It wasn't just beavers -- the whole beaver, not just the tail -- that were permitted, but also otters, sea birds, and other non-land dwelling animals plus non-warm blooded land animals like snails and frogs (see also Summa Theologica II:II:147:8). The primary source for the beaver tail being fish appears to be Giraldus Cambrensis, who writes in Itineray of Baldwin in Wales "great and religious persons, in times of fasting, eat the tails of this fish-like animal, as having both the taste and colour of fish". The mention of a part of a single excepted animal (even if it is via a strange exception) is a non-NPOV. It is a technique to ridicule something -- for instance, to say that it is illegal for a monkey to smoke in some place when that law actually bans smoking in general. 71.130.219.128 07:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree and disagree. You're correct on the point about fish on Fridays. You're not required to eat fish, merely allowed to. The ban is on meat, and fish is not considered meat. There may be something to the idea that fishermen were given favored status within Catholicism, "fishers of men", etc., but that statement does need some verification. As for the economic concern, meat was generally more expensive than fish, thus only rich people ate it regularly. The ban on meat would affect primarily the upper class, and be of little concern to most people.

The bit about the beavers is notable, but probably ought to be over in the Lent article, since it really has nothing to do with fish and their tabooness. Apart from that, anything that can be reputably sourced should stay. --Kerowyn 01:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that "fish is not considered meat," but rather that consciously abstaining from something is required. Vegetarians don't get an easy ride ;) Fish became tradition (see the Socrates reference from the original NPOV post), but not an exception to avoid sacrifice.

Calling beaver a "delicacy" completely undermines the notion of sacrifice. Though snails and fish eggs might fall in to the acceptable category, a modern, practicing Catholic would not wine and dine on escargot and caviar on any Friday since it would defeat the purpose.

Wether or not "making meat taboo forced austerity on the believers" is aside from the point. The "food taboo" in this case is actually a fast and the fast is the reason for ocassionally not eating meat.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.97.77.132 (Talk) (talk • contribs).

Beaver=Fish. see Beaver for citations. I don't believe this was a disengenuous way of getting around being allowed to eat it, I think the church plain came down on the side of believing it was fish because it lived in the water; you'd have to read the cites but I've never read anything to suggest there was an ulterior motive. The bit about fishermen being somehow economically priviliged - sounds fishy to me. Occam's razor and all that. As a very, very lapsed catholic I'm quite surprised I've never heard that little tidbit. Sounds a bit like Attributional bias and all that.Bridesmill 00:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taboo drinks

I added a section on taboo drinks, but it was deleted. If the article isn't going to include information on taboo drinks, shouldn't it be renamed? Pterodactyler 07:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I missed the additional content you added and the blood section hadn't been moved so I thought it was an incomplete edit. I have restored the content and moved blood. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-meat food

The issue addressed above under #What makes meat so special? still hasn't been addressed. The title of the article is now Taboo food and drink and yet the only foods mentioned are meat (or food derived from animals if fish and insects aren't your idea of "meat"). Off the top of my head, I can think of fruitarianism which avoids certain vegetables, and the avoidance of grains and legumes during Passover. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have information on these then add them to the article. I don't know much about either so I can't contribute directly. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much more information than what I said above, otherwise I would have added it to the article! ;-) I was hoping someone else would... Angr (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laos

well, i'm not planning a big change... barely a change at all. I'm just adding Laos to some of the categories that they eat... no big deal, not really worth discussion, but w/e... -- LaotianBoy1991

Ok Ok, make that Laos and SEAsia... btw, should we have a raw meat section?

Not just raw meat. I've thought that something should be added to the article to address taboos against eating animals that are still alive -- e.g., see ikizukuri. Plus kosher and halal laws have taboos relating to animal slaughter. Not sure how to best roll this all together. Dr.frog 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up: Organize the article by scientific classification class IE mammals, insects, reptiles.

the article doesn't look organized. I recomend that every animal should have its own page and simplify this article. Please Add this information into each animal page respectively.

Something that amazes me is that there isn't a page of a general HUMAN DIET, only Paleolithic diet, and in nutrition, which is a list of food and food combinations that would be ideal for the human body!!?? recomended by the USDA in the United States. However this page of taboo food exemplifies that the human diet is very diverse and that we eat a bunch of everything in reality. I dont think the USDA regulates in other countries!!?

taboo food would eventually become a part of not taboo but an actual section of the human diet article.--Don Quijote's Sancho 07:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to split this article into each food/drink as there is a lot of cross context between sections, and consumption is not in context for many of the existing articles and in some cases would make them overly long. Some of the content could do with a grammar groom but it is pretty good otherwise IMO. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Butcher

[edit] Beaver & Fish

Somneone removed the bit on Beaver; which was erroneous in detail but conceptually true - beaver were classed as Fish due to their living in water; see refs at the Beaver article. The whole fish thing sounds a bit POV as well, & badly needs cites.Bridesmill 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pig taboo "rational"?

I think the pork taboo explaination is a bit overwhelming in its attemp to convince you that refraining from eating pork is indeed advised and rational. That lack of sweat glands leads to accumulation of "waste" is a disputeable statement and, anyway, I doubt that the writers of the Koran and Tora had such zoological insight. It would be more NPOV to emphazise that pork taboo is mainly cultural and religious. As an example, i refuse to eat worms and rats, but I don't come up with a scientific lecture on why my choice is right... Medico80 11:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though materialists like Harris have tried to make that point, it is not widely accepted. On the other hand, there is no hard proof that all taboos are purely cultural, it's very much an ongoing discussion. Pax:Vobiscum 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chow chow

What is up with this random paragraph?

In China the 'Chow Chow' has been specifically bred to produce a high yield of meat for its comparative size to other dog breeds. In fact literally translated 'Chow Chow' means 'Food Food'.

'Chow' is not Mandarin for 'food'. The actual chinese name name for the Chow Chow breed is 鬆獅犬, which means "puffy lion dog" (refer Chow Chow). Furthermore, the high majority of dog meat consumed in China is obtained from a St. Bernard crossbreed. Refer to Dog meat main article.

[edit] Hindus and Beef

The article: Taboo food and drink states that "Most Hindus other than semi-tribals and Dalits in some pockets" do not eat beef in India. On the contrary, beef is quite commonly eaten in the Indian state of Kerala, by those Hindus who would eat other kinds of meat. I think this needs to be pointed out in the article.

[edit] Classification of animals

We need a new way to classify the animals. The current system with Pet/Working/Other is clearly not working since most animals can belong to at least 2 of them. How about just listing all animals alphabetically? Pax:Vobiscum 17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably true. The article has grown quite a bit since it started. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetables

Can we have a suitable reference for the taboo surrounding lettuce for the Yadizism portion because it almost sounds as though it is a joke

Stui 22:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] elephants

forbids and prohibits mean the same thing. 69.218.230.103 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/b/Talk%7ETaboo_food_and_drink_c1ee.html"

Categories: Unassessed Cats articles | Unknown-importance Cats articles