Talk:Taboo food and drink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Cats
Cats Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Cats.

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.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Taboo food and drink as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Monkey consumption in Indonesia

I have pointed out the comment about monkey consumption is not referenced and lacks substantiation. This point requires further research as only specific non-Muslim ethnic groups- including Chinese consume monkey- as it is considered Haram (taboo) in Islam.

Starstylers (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)User:Starstylers 17:32 WIB, Mar 14, 2008

[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)
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)
Intensional typo "Filly" == Philadelphia, this describes thin beef patties ("steak") with Kraft Velveeta ("cheese") on a long bun, often with onions and other condiments. Some places in NYC replace Velveeta with an actual cheese, but then it is not really a Philadelphia Cheese Steak. Zenyu 13:23, 13 July 2007 (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)
To add to the list, there are cultures in the world who consider cheese disgusting, too. Put all the meat references (dog, cat, reindeer, and so on) into a section called Meat, then make a section for other types of foods (cheese, onions, etc.), with each food being a sub-section, and then leave the Drinks section as-is. Could that work? --Safe-Keeper 19:13, 10 June 2007 (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)

I will have to do some research and get back to this, but I just ate at a seafood place that had such a warning on the menu. Eating shellfish can be toxic to some people.

[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)
I'm a Norseman, and we certainly all know of Santa and his reindeer (often from our parents), although we never really make the connection between Rudolph and the reindeer meat we consume. I guess, personally, it's more of a culture thing - there are lots of cute movies and shows about deer (Bambi comes to mind), pigs, and cows, too, yet Americans and European both are happy to eat them. My two cents. (PS: Reindeer tastes great:)) --Safe-Keeper 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
In Alaska it seems we refer to Reindeer more often as Caribou. While reindeer and caribou are considered the same species, both of the genus Rangifer, the term reindeer is often used here to distinguish the semi-domesticated Eurasian varieties from the North American animals which were hunted in the wild and only begun herding in the past hundred years Reindeer/Caribou This meat is still quite common in native subsistence diets and also seen in tourist/novelty shops. The Village Inn Restaurants, a national franchise, in Anchorage offer "Reindeer Sausage Omlettes" on their regular menu. Azimuthrising 10:24, 13 July 2007 (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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

[edit] Snails

Where I live (Catalonia) snails are a typical food[10]. I know in other places it is the same (Snail#Snails_as_food), but I've heard many foreigners say it is nasty. Is snails eating a taboo somewhere? --81.39.161.157 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with Dietary laws

These two articles, Taboo food and drink and Dietary laws, appear to cover exactly the same territory and should be merged. If there is any distinction at all, I suppose that the word "law" implies a higher degree of codification than "taboo". I would actually think a better title for the merged article would be "Dietary taboos". --Macrakis 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Having seen no objection in the month or more which has passed, I went with WP:BB and did the merger. I have converted Dietary laws into a redirect to this page. I have not created a redirect from Dietary taboos. -- Boracay Bill 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section

What the hell happened to the references section? Komet 10:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood and Christianity

I have removed the implication from the "Blood" section that consuming blood is taboo for Christians. I have never heard of such a taboo--or indeed any dietary taboo--for Christians, and the fact that the very same section lists several traditionally Christian-dominant countries where blood is eaten (Britain, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Spain, Slovenia, France, Portugal, the Philippines, Sweden, Colombia) makes it highly unlikely that such a taboo exists, regardless of what Acts says. —Angr 14:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taboo vs. not eaten vs. disliked

This article has badly lost its way. In addition to talking about food taboos, it has a grabbag of information about where cat or camel are eaten, which is hardly relevant except as an aside. It contains a variety of information about foods that some editor considers strange or disgusting, even if they are standard foods in North America and Europe (pigeon/squab, rabbit), or even if they simply aren't available in many parts of the world (elephant and kangaroo). What is veal doing here? Yes, there are people who won't eat veal or foie gras because of what they consider inhumane practices, don't see how it's useful to call this a taboo. Hunting whales is banned in most of the world, but not because there is a taboo on whale meat; eating brains in the EU is banned for health reasons, not because of a taboo -- indeed, they have long been a specialty.

I plan to remove all this irrelevant and incorrect material, but will wait a few days to see what others think. --Macrakis 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many of the sections in the article are totally arbitrary in their inclusion. But so we're clear about which ones, and the reasons justifying the removal of each, let's make a list. for example, I object to a removal of whale meat from the article. Eating Whale meat is certainly a cultural taboo in most of the Americas and much of Europe. The same goes for elephant and kangaroo. These meats can have cultural taboos because of their unavailable-ness/exoticness, or they may not be eaten/imported because of their taboo status. An ethical objection to the eating of meats that are foreign is not just dietary xenophobia. As to the idea that there isn't a taboo simply because the meat is not imported to that nation is logically ridiculous. If members of those cultures that the meat isn't imported to their nation travels to a nation where it is eaten, that taboo will become evident. You transport 99.9% of Americans to Africa and try and feed them bushmeat of primates or elephant, and they are going to display that taboo. A more obvious example is tourists/expats in Korea and China. They certainly display their cultural taboos towards dog meat, even if dog is not served or imported to their countries. Animals like guinea pig and kangaroo are even more solidly a taboo, as their have been (or still are) major efforts to import that meat for North American and European consumption. VanTucky 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Offhand, it sounds like a good idea. Considering WP:SS, both articles might benifit by referrint to one ANOTHER. -- Boracay Bill 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The sections that may be inappropriate (bc of not technically having an established cultural taboo) include:

  • Whale
  • Kangaroo
  • Veal
  • Squab
  • Rabbit

VanTucky 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While this article seems to have continual problems with people tacking on trivia about various foods mentioned in it, and requires regular cleanup to keep it on track, I object to wholesale removal of entire sections of the article without a clear consensus that they are inappropriate. It seems to me that Macrakis is taking an overly-literal interpretation of "taboo" in this context as being related to superstition or religious belief, whereas the article in its current form also considers foods that are not eaten in some cultures due to biases against eating pets, working animals, vermin, endangered species, animals raised in inhumane conditions, and so on. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the article taking a broader scope and worldwide view of what is and isn't considered suitable for food in various cultures. And that includes discussion of whale, kangaroo, veal, squab, rabbit, etc. Similarly, isn't a legal ban on certain foods just a formalized taboo? It seems inappropriate to delete sections for that reason. Dr.frog 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to VanTucky: Thanks for your comments. I mostly agree. On the other hand, I'm not sure it makes sense to list individual species. The typical American, as far as I can tell, will eat ruminant meat and pig meat, but nothing else. Some rural people eat squirrel, raccoon, etc., but this is not mainstream. Everything else is considered inedible or disgusting, so I don't think it makes sense to say that elephant or whale is specifically taboo. On the other hand, some things seem to be taboo beyond not belonging to the "good to eat" category: cats and dogs seem to represent a specific taboo related to the idea of killing them as much as to the idea of eating them; on the other hand, rodents seem to be taboo because they are considered "dirty" animals. Horse has become taboo for many people, apparently, though it was on the menu at the Harvard Faculty Club until twenty years ago or so; someone must have analyzed this phenomenon. There seem to be a bunch of other things going on. For example, it is not considered sporting (or ecologically sound) any more to catch birds with nets or birdlime, as was formerly very common in France (ortolans etc.) and Italy (beccafico) -- is the taboo on eating the songbirds, or on killing them? Other somewhat larger wild birds -- as long as they're taken by hunting, not trapping -- seem to be OK: grouse, quail, woodcock, rail, etc. In fact, in 1902, in Maryland, even ortolans were on the list.

So, in summary, I think it would make a lot more sense -- for the American case at least -- to discuss the different categories of taboo. But we should not be making this stuff up. There is surely a literature on the subject. In fact, a quick Google Scholar search found:

  • Frederick J. Simoons, "Traditional Use and Avoidance of Foods of Animal Origin: A Culture Historical View" BioScience 28:3:178-184, Cultural Food Patterns and Nutrition (March 1978) doi:10.2307/1307346
  • Andrew P. Vayda, "Explaining what people eat: A review article", Human Ecology 15:4:493-510 (December 1987) doi:10.1007/BF00888001
  • Nick Fiddes, "Social aspects of meat eating", Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 53:271-280 (1994) [11] -- reminds nutritionists that food preferences aren't rational, but cultural

Maybe some of us could read them someday... they we would actually have verifiable sources for the article instead of just our intuitions.... --Macrakis 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Dr.frog:

...Macrakis is taking an overly-literal interpretation of "taboo" in this context as being related to superstition or religious belief

No, as a matter of fact I agree with you that any strong cultural restriction on food can count as a taboo. But the article currently has lots of material about what animals are eaten in certain parts of the world. I also agree with you that there are many categories of taboo food in US culture (pets, vermin, etc.), though I don't think I'd include endangered species and animals raised under conditions considered inhumane to be taboos.

that includes discussion of whale, kangaroo, veal, squab, rabbit, etc.

Leaving whale and kangaroo aside for a moment, what is the evidence for a taboo on veal, squab, and rabbit? All of them are found in high-end butcher shops and many supermarket in the US. If there is a "taboo", it is an individual matter, not a general cultural matter.

Similarly, isn't a legal ban on certain foods just a formalized taboo?

I would distinguish the case of dogs, say, which it may be prohibited to eat in some states as a consequence of a cultural taboo, and animal brains, which are prohibited by health authorities in Europe despite being a traditional delicacy. I don't think it makes sense to call that a taboo. --Macrakis 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about veal, squab and rabbit not having legitimate taboos. The recent historical shift away from the consumption of these meats is not a taboo. I live in Portland, Oregon (not exactly the most international of metropolitan areas, at least when compared to say, LA, Vancouver and NY). In PDX, not only do many restaurants serve veal and rabbit without a single protest or word of disgust (this in a city known for it's fervent animal rights/environmentalist bent, and in which protest just closed the oldest furrier in the state), but there is an entire restaurant themed around a squab dish. VanTucky 03:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, a book I have used as a reference for this article is Calvin W. Schwabe's book Unmentionable Cuisine, which focuses on American food prejudices and includes many recipes for foods of animal origin that are eaten in other countries. Schwabe cites another book by F. J. Simoons called Eat Not This Flesh which appears to be a similar study of food avoidances in Europe.
Schwabe's book includes chapters on Rabbit and Hare, and Pigeons. There are sections on brains in the Beef and Pork chapters, at least, along with discussion like: "In a list of 143 foods presented to one sample of Americans, brains, together with tripe and kidneys, were overwhelmingly rejected. In another survey, brains headed the list of 'disliked foods'. Twenty-eight percent of university students surveyed had never tried them; an additional 40 percent had, but refused to try them again." In the introduction, Schwabe says he intentionally omitted whales and other threatened species from consideration. Dr.frog 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And what year/s did Schwbe publish his books? just out of curiosity. If we include cited published sources to the notion that rabbit (hare is a different species, and has often had a taboo in some countries) and pigeons are taboo in the U.S., I'd like to include some counter-point sources to the fact that they are also still consumed all over the country. VanTucky 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have skimmed Schwabe's book, but not read it. From what I've seen, it is not a serious study of food taboos -- it is a fun book encouraging people to try different things. It's clear that there are a lot of people in the US who won't eat brains or even liver, and that there are a lot of people who don't eat any meats other than beef, pork, and chicken (not even lamb or veal, let alone rabbit or squab). All this makes an interesting cultural study, no doubt. But I think there's a difference between being conservative in one's food habits -- eating only familiar foods -- and considering something taboo, which implies a more categorical classification. Some of these same people would not eat Greek or Indian food, simply because it is unfamiliar or spicy. Can we say then that there's a taboo against Greek or Indian food? --Macrakis 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Schwabe's book was printed in 1979. My copy is a reprinting from 1988 with a new introduction.
Regarding rabbit, he says: "American prejudices against eating domestic rabbit fall into two main categories. The first is [...] the emotional feeling that 'bunnies' are pets given at Easter and therefore, are not food animals. The second basis for our prejudice is the problem of unfamiliarity [...] and our growing belief that unfamiliar foods are probably not good." He makes similar points about pigeons/squab, plus there's also the "vermin" factor there that makes some people avoid them.
Again, I think perhaps the problem here is that the term "taboo" is again being taken too narrowly. My view is that it is reasonable for the article to consider all forms of food prejudices and "not food" biases that are based on cultural factors rather than the edibility or nutritional value of the food. Dr.frog 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm American and grew up in the U.S. I remember shopping with my mother as a child, and her buying frozen rabbit in the local supermarket (this would have been in the 1950s). As I recall, she prepared it similarly to the way she made fried chicken. It's a cliche, but I have to report: "it tastes like chicken." Also, see http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Rabbit_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp
I've probably eaten squab at some time or other, though it's not a dish which I would normally order because with all those tiny bones to deal with I see it as more trouble than it's worth to eat. I have certainly seen squab served in restaurants and I'm pretty sure that I've seen frozen squab in U.S. supermarkets. see http://www.squab.com/
I've made a right mess out of the reverences built into that part of the article. Sorry. I hope you can put them back. I just wanted to clarify the point, Urban grown pigeon in Middle East = tasty, hunted pigeon in US = squab = tasty, pigeons in major US cities = vermin = yuck.64.252.5.148 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Taboo? What taboo?? I think that what we have here is various people presuming that foods with which they are personally unfamiliar are taboo in the wider society. -- Boracay Bill 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, is it the specific word "taboo" that is hanging people up? If the article were called "Food prejudice" instead of "Taboo food and drink", would you still deny that some people do have prejudices against eating animals they perceive as pets or vermin? Dr.frog 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I just went through the article section by section, and was surprised to find that most sections do specifically speak of taboos related to their subject food/drink. Still, I think that some people are not being as "hung up" by the specific word Taboo as they should be. The article intro says "Taboo food and drinks are food and drink which people abstain from consuming for religious or cultural reasons." I think that, contrary to the intro, some people are putting in sections about foods which are not considered taboo but which don't fall within their own personal culinary preferences. The section on Elephants, for example, contains nothing suggesting that elephant meat is considered taboo anywhere (though it does imply that it might be considered taboo in western societies if the question were ever raised). Ditto the sections on Kangaroo, Offal, Opossum and Raccoon, Primates, Rats and mice. The section on Whales says that the eating of whale meat has become increasingly tabooed, but my sense is that though the hunting of whales has become stigmatized, the eating of whale meat has not. -- Boracay Bill 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, suppose I went off and created a new article called "Food prejudices" for the things that don't meet your strict definition of a "taboo". That article would have substantial overlap with this one, since religious/cultural food taboos are a subset of food prejudices. And there would be perpetual wrangling into the future about which article various foods ought to be described in, and proposals to merge them back together again. Would it not be better just to expand the scope of the current article to include general food prejudices, since that it its current de facto state anyway?
I'd also like to point out that I'm not arguing about my own personal food preferences. I grew up on a farm with brothers who hunted so I'm not squeamish about butchery or eating game, and I've eaten rabbit and various other critters. OTOH, there are certainly reliable sources that document many people's aversion to eating animals they consider pets or vermin. In fact, it seems to me that some of you are also arguing from your own personal food preferences -- because you have eaten such foods, or have seen them in supermarkets or restaurants, it seems to me that you are discounting other people's genuine aversion to such foods. Dr.frog 13:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Offhand, I think a Food predjudices article might be a good idea. This article and that could synergize by back & forth references. It's not quite WP:SS, but it's related. Regarding your point about "reliable sources that document many people's aversion to eating animals they consider pets or vermin", cites of good sources supporting assertions made in wikipedia articles are always a good thing, but the focus of this particular article is taboo food and drink. not aversion to eating animals they consider pets or vermin. -- Boracay Bill 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that food prejudices don't belong in Taboo food and drink; but instead of having an article devoted to food prejudices, how about an article devoted to Food preferences in general, both positive and negative. There it would be appropriate to say that brain, e.g. cervelles au beurre noir, was highly prized in France until it became illegal for health reasons. The article would cover cultural preferences ("fatty meat is highly prized in XXX, but reviled in YYY"), reporting on the normal range of variation, and discussing the health (vitamin, fat, and calorie content) and ethical considerations in food preferences (vegetarianism, animal welfare, etc.) that many people take into account, without repeating them in every section. I don't think it will be easy to get a good balance out of this, but it's better than mixing up food preferences with taboos. --Macrakis 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about those two suggestions. While they are good solutions for fixing this article, they create more possible problems than they eliminate. They both (though especially the preferences one) sound like potential dumping-grounds for unencyclopedic content and original research. How would you go about clearly categorizing what qualifies for inclusion in those articles and what does not? Obviously sourced things only, but is it the preferences of nationalities? ethnicities? What New Yorkers might eat and what middle America might not? The personal preferences of notable subjects of biographies? Even with the scope of who's preferences clearly defined, it seems awfully broad to me. VanTucky 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with VanTucky that a Food Preferences page could be a "potential dumping-grounds for unencyclopedic content and original research." However that is the hazard many pages face and the reason why we spend the time to review and edit content. As for the "who's preferences," as long as the sources define their study group I don't think the page would have to be that specific. If in the future there is a build up of 'Elvis loved fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches' sections, then that article could be split to a tertiary celebrity page.
I think it would be a good idea to have a page as Macrakis describes to reroute information inappropriate for this page. Unless the addition helps define the taboo, irrelevant comments on bizarre food should be eliminated. If group X doesn't eat food A, but group Y does because they have a different religion helps define the cause of the taboo. Nutritional anthropologists typically differentiate between what is considered not food (cultural aversion)from what is formally (i.e. taboo) and informally restricted from edibility. Insects are virtually uneaten in American culture, not because of any grand "thou shalt not eat bugs" taboo, but because we don't recognize them as a food source. The trivia that African tribes eat fried ants is irrelevant for this page, but Hebrew law regarding grasshoppers would be a formal taboo. Azimuthrising 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats III

I have allowed myself to add a small fact on the viewpoint of Brazilians on cat meat, the so-called "churrasquinho de gato" (cat barbecue), which a quite common practice here in Brazil though frowned upon. --Nikolausw 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh, what?

Jews follow the teaching in Leviticus 17:10-12, that since "the life of the animal is in the blood", no person may eat (drink) the blood on pain of excommunication.

I'm no great expert like all you people, but last time I checked, there's no such thing as excommunication in Judaism. --76.223.219.98 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Judaism has a practice called cherem which is very similar to excommunication. There is already a Wikipedia article on cherem and it is also mentioned in the article on Baruch Spinoza the cherem against whom is famous. Appropriate references are given in those two articles. --[Leo Wassercug 21 September 2007]--

I've clarified this in the article. -- Boracay Bill 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Cherem exists, but it is not the punishment for eating blood. I doubt it's the punishment in Islam either. Blood is simply not kosher and has no special punishment. Ariel. (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but AFAICT that's right. Since the burden of proof lies with the editor adding disputed material, I've removed the "on pain of" portion of the assertion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You got a drop confused - it's challenged for Judaism, but it's unchallenged for Witnesses, I put it back. I had already removed it for Judaism and Islam. Oh, and the way I wrote it, it's only for transfusions, not for eating, since I'm not sure about eating, but I am sure for transfusions. Ariel. (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I just placed a [citation needed] on that. It may well be true, but it needs a supporting cite. Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood suggests several specific Watchtower articles as supporting sources, but Watchtower archives don't seem to be available online and I have been unable to convert that these articles do in fact support this assertion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, that's because Jehovah's Witnesses don't publish ANYTHING of theirs online. They're paranoid of the internet because there are a lot of critics of their religion that dig up some of their dirty laundry. But rest assured, you look up those articles in the old fashioned way, you will find the sources backed up. ColdRedRain (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your response caught me traveling and checking WP quickly from an internet cafe. I'm afraid that I don't have the time to look into this at any length just noq. Also, My home is on boracay Island in the Philippines, and my bet is that I am not nearly as well situated to "look up those articles in the old fashioned way" as are you. At a quick look back, the {{cn}} was placed on the assertion, "Jehovah's Witnesses are also forbidden blood transfusions on pain of excommunication." The assertion, having been challenged, needs to cite a supporting source. The claim made by the assertion needs to be made verifiable by citation of a reliable supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee & Tea

I believe the Seventh Day Adventists (and related groups) also forbid (or at least counsel against) drinking beverages containing caffeine. [12] 66.191.19.217 03:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

From the page you cite:
  • Diet: Members are expected to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, and every other "soul-defiling habit".
They were once also expected to abstain from caffeinated drinks such as coffee, tea, cola drinks etc. The church has since removed this from the baptismal vows, although they still recommend that policy. They have interpreted the Old Testament dietary laws as prohibiting the eating of some foods. The church recommends avoiding red meat. Many SDA member are vegetarians who supplement their diet with eggs and milk."
I think that it would be a stretch to characterize this as a present-day taboo against caffeine. -- Boracay Bill 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milk & Cheese in China

I'm just a little curious after reading the aforementioned section, since it doesn't really elaborate. Were milk & milk products taboo in China because ethnic Chinese are largely lactose intolerant? I'm lactose intolerant myself, although not Chinese, so this is what made me curious about this section. Anyone know if this is specifically why milk products were rarely consumed by Chinese, or if not, what the real reason was? 24.13.34.230 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. Milk has been around in China since the Mongols introduced it (primarily goat milk) back in the Yuan Dynasty and even before that. I've removed it unless someone provides a creditable source. 158.121.88.71 19:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

China is a large country. I guess it depends on what part of China you're refering to. I don't think it's a taboo as such, but theer are areas of China (I don't know how large) where people don't consume a lot of milk and milk products. // Liftarn

[edit] Chicken

Is there any culture in the world that refuses to eat chicken? I find it hilarious that nearly all cultures that have come in contact with that bird have eaten. I told my friend it was the universal meat, but I want to check my facts to be sure. Figured if anyone knew it would be u all. HOLLA :) Scott Free 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Googling, I found this book, which reports at least one partial case. The author reports that his marriage was delayed three years because his prospective father-in-law refused to sanction the marriage due to a rumor that some members of his family may have been eating chicken. Also, this turned up, telling weight-loss dieters who had previously considered dark-meat chicken taboo that it's now OK. Also, my googling turned this up, referencing this self-test regarding personal morality and taboos. -- Boracay Bill 03:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Knew I could count on y'all. CHEERS Scott Free 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primates

There seems to be some confusion of the terms primate and ape. The word ape was used to include mandrills and other monkeys which are primates but not apes. Also the section mentioned the eating of apes in southeast asia. The only apes in southeast asia that I know about are Orangutans and Gibbons. Although I may have heard of Gibbons being hunted and eaten, hunting of monkeys is much more common. Perhaps the person who wrote the section would like to clarify. --Sirkeg (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] beef

In modern times, beef-eating has gained some acceptance in various parts of India, but only by those Hindus who are sometimes considered (and sometimes even scorned) by the others as being "extra-modern" or "over-Westernized". By Indian law, the slaughter of cattle is banned in almost all Indian states except the states of Kerala and Arunachal Pradesh.

Utter stuff and nonsense. where's the proof. i am indian hindu and have eaten beef (i don't like the taste, that's a diff. matter) , and nobody has called me over-westernized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.156.156 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Para re dog slaughter in the Philippines moved here from the article.

I've moved the following para here from the article:

In the Philippines, it is against the law to slaughter dogs as food and most Filipinos find it repulsive to eat dog meat. However, illegal slaughterhouses exist,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-97507371.html|title=80 dogs rescued on the way to Philippine slaughterhouse}}</ref> and these are located mostly in the northern part of the country. The brutality of the manner of slaughtering the animals has come to the attention of the media which showed television documentaries of the illegal trade of dog meat.
  1. The statement "it is against the law to slaughter dogs as food" inaccurately portrays Philippine law on this subject, at least as far as I understand it. Metro Manila Commission Ordinance 82-05 (Metro Manila Commission Ordinance 82-05. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.) does prohibit the killing and selling of dogs for food within metropolitan Manila, but does not apply outside of metropolitan Manila. RA8485 The Animal Welfare Act 1998. Retrieved on 2006-08-30.) applies countrywide, but does not treat slaughter for food specially. RA8485 provides an exception "When it is done as part of the religious rituals of an established religion or sect or a ritual required by tribal or ethnic custom of indigenous cultural communities; ...", and there is argument in the areas of the Philippines where dogs are commonly slaughtered for food that this falls within that exception as a tribal or ethnic custom in those areas. See Dog_meat#Philippines for a bit more info on this.
  2. The paragraph, as written, seems not to be focused on the topic of this article.
  3. The paragraph, as written, appears to advocate a particular POV, which is contrary to WP:SOAP. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other topic that could be added

Suggestion for other topics that could be added :

  1. Eating/drinking human fluids/excretions (feces, urine, mucus, hair, nails, etc.)
  2. Political taboos, like eating food specialties from a country/culture with which you are in conflict. This would being considered as unpatriotic (boycott of french wine for instance)

Marder01 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For 1, see Cannibalism --Error (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BEars?? Haram in islam are you kidding guys

There is only 3 kinds of haram meat and this is well known among muslims, none else can be declareed as haram, due to the fact that they have been told Rizk in qoran. these 3 are 1 Human flesh 2 Pork and any part of a pig 3 any animal which was slaughtered to a name other than Allah(for some pagan god or a human...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

There seem to be a few problems with this article:

  1. While the article is supposed to be about food and drink taboos, there is a lot of information of various animals that are eaten around the world, ie frogs, dogs, elephants etc. The only reason they seem to be in the article is that they are taboo in the editors culture. This article should be about taboos, not a list of strange things people eat around the world.
  2. There is a lot of discussion on the reasons for various taboos, almost all of which are unsourced.

If no-one has a problem, I'm going to go through (slowly) and remove of the offending material. Ashmoo (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetically modified food

The article states "many Europeans have a taboo on it as they see it as being unnatural" which reads like "some crackpot Europeans are scared for no conclusive reason". The objection towards genetically modified food is not related to being "unnatural", but 1. introducing material with unknown properties into the ecosystem and food chain, and 2. the possibility of introducing unpredictable genetic information into our organisms.
It is unlikely that there will be something like a "direct DNA-uptake" by humans from genetically modified food (even though some people are afraid of that too, and there is no evidence for or against that idea). However, it is a well-known fact that DNA uptake and exchange regularly happens with bacteriae, virae, and phagae.
Scientists performing genetic modifications on food today are acting unresponsibly, since they do not have the faintest idea of what they are doing. Genes as well as most transductors, receptors, hormones, and most everything in nature are known to regularly serve more than one purpose. Even among the "well-known, well-researched" things, entirely new and puzzling effects and purposes are discovered almost weekly. The risk of playing (and it's just that, playing) with something as potent as DNA without understanding all of it cannot be estimated.
A likely worst-case might be breeding corn that grows fast, replacing all the naturally occuring corn with the "better" one, and discovering that it is susceptible ot a particular contagion which wipes out the entire nationwide occurrence overnight.
However, the possible worst-case might be breeding corn that grows fast, feeding it to 200 million people for 10 years, and then discovering that the "grow fast gene" is a "produce prions" gene at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.156.218 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)