Jump to content

Talk:Food and drink prohibitions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Cats II

I just made a small change in the "Cats" section, explaining the "rumored" incident of cat-eating in Argentina. Sources: [1], [2], [3] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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[4] 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. [5] 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

elephants

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

Reference section

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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) [6] -- 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)

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 ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [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)

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 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 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)

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.)
  1. 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)

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)

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)
Yeah I read "Over the last couple of decades, the eating of whale has become increasingly taboo." I can agree with it but what is the "Citation Needed" there for? I don't get it. Ron James 007 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Biblical birds

I noticed that this page now mentions the ostrich being banned, citing (without a link) Leviticus 11:16 from the Gutenberg Bible. I note that various bible translations differ on this point. Examples — Yes: Mechon-Mamre[7], New American Standard Bible[8]; No: King James[9][10]

I'm no expert, but I see that this source says:

11:16 the ostrich, the owl, the gull, the hawk family,
Ve'et bat haya'anah ve'et-hatachmas ve'et-hashachaf ve'et-hanets leminehu.

and comments:

ostrich
Bath yaanah in Hebrew; stouthion in Greek (Septuagint), autruche in French (Chizzkuni). The Targum translates it as naamitha, and the Mishnah notes that vessels were made of its large eggs (Kelim 17:14; Hai Gaon, Rosh, Bertenoro, ad loc.).
The scripture describes the bath yaanah as living in desolate places (Isaiah 34:13), and emitting a mournful cry (Micah 1:8; cf. Radak, Sherashim; Ralbag; Toledoth Yitzchak). Therefore, some identify it with the owl, particularly the dark desert eagle owls (Bubo bubo ascalaphus), which call back and forth, as if answering (anah) one another.

If the article is going to have biblical references, perhaps it should be a bit more complete about it. I don't have time to try to address this just now. I may or may not revisit this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Coffee & Tea

I believe the Seventh Day Adventists (and related groups) also forbid (or at least counsel against) drinking beverages containing caffeine. [11] 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)
Maybe something should be adding that historically the Adventist faith prohibited drinking said beverages, but currently merely recommend against it. That seems like a fair middle ground. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Probably others. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Papaya

I removed this statement: "In a few parts of China, the papaya can be taboo for men.[citation needed]" I have never seen it be a taboo food in anywhere in China. I know Chinese tend to say it is good for women, but nobody I have ever heard of says it is a taboo for men.18.138.1.34 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Snails

Where I live (Catalonia) snails are a typical food[12]. 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)

Snails are a delicatesse in some countries (like France, too), but seem to be frowned upon by a lot of countries. It's even a stereotype in popular culture. Note that people who are very open for foreign/ unusual/ etc. cooking tend to eat (or at least try) a lot of food generally frowned upon such as snails, frog legs, grass hoppers. This includes me and my family (Germany) why (most of) my classmates and friends are rarely eating anything but sausage from either pork or poultry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.44.42 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Swedish astronaut Christer Fuglesang was not allowed to bring dried reindeer with him on-board a shuttle mission as it was unthinkable for the Americans so soon before Christmas. He had to go with moose instead.

It's ok to eat Bullwinkle but not Blixem? But kidding aside, I doubt most Americans would seriously admit to eating reindeer if Santa believers were listening. In the State of Jefferson we eat all kinds of things other other American do not eat (anymore). Other than sensitivity to Santa believers, most of us would eat reindeer if it was available at the super market and reasonably priced (and labeled Caribou for the sensitive). [edit] Dogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.250.150 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Blood is not meat. Without any religious requirement, a lot of meat in many places is drained of its blood and even deveined before it is considered fit to eat. --75.109.250.150 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, regardless of whether or not blood is meat (and it is not), this article is a general food and drink taboo article, not a taboo meat article. The subsection about blood is in the section about taboo drinks. The Taboo meat article (which currently redirects to this article) was apparently moved to this name on 04:08, August 8, 2005 and the prior edit history (covering the time of the first few comments above) was apparently lost. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate etymology in cow section.

Removed from the article: "The economic origins of the cow-eating taboo can be observed from etymology: The Sanskrit word for cattle is pashu, which is cognate with the Latin word pecu, from which derives words pertaining to money in Latin (and into English) : pecunia, impecunious."

PIE *peku- means "cattle". Skt. pashu and Lat. pecu are both 'cow', and Lat. pecunia derives from this -- along the lines of the Scots or the Bantus measuring wealth as cattle. One also hears stories about the stockpiling of gold at a temple of 'cow-eyed Hera,' but I'm not sure that Juno shared Hera's attributes in pre-Republican Rome. See www.etymonline.com or an etymological dictionary for more details.

I don't think that the cow as maternal and the cow as money can be linked within the scope of the article, so I've removed the sentence; if any such link does suggest itself to anyone, I would certainly not object to its being added, though. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Taboo food in India

--68.9.241.164 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Joe Jonas

Kutti pi is an Anglo-indian dish made from unborn fetuses. Since fetuses are not eaten anywhere else, it should be added.83.86.245.215 (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

The article has sources that say that bear meat is haram. Do you have a source that suggests it's halal? If so, please share. tomasz. 14:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bears

"Bear meat must be cooked thoroughly as it can often be infected with trichinosis." Is this sentence, with no fewer than four sources, really relevant to the status of bear meat as taboo food? i really think it isn't. i'll remove it in a few days if no-one objects. tomasz. 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bats

I quote: "the birds that are halal must have feathers (which presumably excludes bats)".

Presumably "birds that are halal" doesn't include bats for a more fundamental reason than their lack of feathers, I'm thinking more on the same lines as why primates of any kind aren't birds that are halal. 78.147.211.11 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition against eating live animals in Genesis

Islamic and Judaic law (including Noahide Law) forbids any portion that is cut from a live animal. (Genesis 9:4)[dubious – discuss][citation needed]

The Genesis text says only "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This seems to means the same as Leviticus 7:26 "You are not to eat any blood", Deuteronomy 12:23 "Only be sure not to eat the blood", Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water." etc., namely a prohibition to consume blood (cf. kosher methods of slaughter and meat preparation). http://bible.cc/genesis/9-4.htm.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I now find that this interpretation is in fact found in the Talmud (Sanhedrin), and it is one of the least far-fetched interpretations of the Tanakh that I saw in it (check out the "proof" that Adam and Eve were given 6 commandments!). So I'm removing my objections, but in both of these cases I'm adding the Talmudic reference as a source and clarify that these are the Talmud's interpretations. Providing just the Biblical reference, as the previous editors had done, is very confusing, because no reader would see such content in these quotes, and it is, hmm, not uncontroversial that the content is inherently present in them.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hedgehog

I am sure that consumption of hedgehog is forbidden in Christian Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox Church) religion (the reason is that hedgehog eats snakes which are representing Satan). However, I cannot provide any references right now. If someone knows more details on this issue please let as know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.138.118 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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 [13] (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 [14](your own source) for an example of why. Besides, religious penitential practices are different from taboos. Suppafly 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I've serious doubts about the part where it's indicated that the eucharist is to be considered canabalism. Even for Catholics who really consider the bread and wine to be body and blood of Christ and thus sacred it is clear that it is not canabalism. Nobody is eating Christ himself in that sence, that would be mad, he is revered by christians, so why would they eat him? Since there's being referred to the transsubtantiation, there should be no mistake made like this. For transsubtantiation means, that the "substance" (term by Aristotle and later used by Thomas Aquinas) of bread becomes the substance of the body of Christ. The appearances and attributes of the bread and wine remain the same, therefore the bread is not meat and the wine not blood in appearance or attribute. In other words, it is not believed that the molecules change at all, but the essence changes. The claim that the eucharist/holy supper is a form of canabalism has often been made in the past by persecutors of christians, mostly in the time when christianity was not a legal religion in the Roman empire.

To make my point of view a bit clearer for you: I'm a Protestant Theologian, so I'm not saying this because I'm an insulted Catholic (for I am clearly not that) and I consider the holy supper to be very special but still a rememberance of Christ, so without the bread being flesh and the wine being blood. But I do know how Catholics view this, since it's a part of my study.

Korneel, 22:37 (Dutch time) friday 26 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.168.196 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What we eat is the M. H. Body and Blood of Christ as Christ is now, i. e. Christ risen, and that is a difference from cannibalism, which is usually defined as eating man flesh but what actually in all cases consists in eating dead man flesh, dead at least in the moment we eat it. We might also say that though we do eat the Body and Blood of Christ, we eat it in the very form our Master, blessed be His Holy Name, provided it for us, and that is a quite eatable form, which may be called a miracle but certainly is no surprise given our Master's wisdom. I also think that the Blessed Sacrament is no longer consumed with which an Eucharistic miracle has occured, what maybe would give a light onto this topic. However, even if there was no change in molecules which I wouldn't as easily assume (given both the theory of transsubstantiation and the fact that molecules are experimental physics, i. e. not seen by eye but seen by experiment, and by concluding without experiment we might get a Schrödinger's paradox, and experiment itself would be sacrilegious), even in this case I wouldn't use it as an argument, because that'd seem like a "it's really the Body and Blood of our Lord but when it comes to it, it isn't really it to that amount" in my ears. --77.4.73.231 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


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)

As a matter of fact, fasting, to which belongs the Friday fast, has nothing to do with any taboo. The reason why fish is no meat, is by some theologians (e. g. Karl Hörmann, I believe) given as because it is simply less satisfying to eat fish than to eat meat, and I can agree to that in personal experience. I don't know whether the fact that sometimes you fast by abstaining from the one the other being allowed, makes the allowed one a bit less satisfying on its own, of course. I might also suggest that even when today the obligation can be fulfilled by an easy extra prayer on other days than Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (in my region; don't stop fasting if it's different in your region), you might ask somebody whether he wants meat or fish and I'd extremely doubt you'd get an odd look. --77.4.73.231 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I add, it is even a saying here that something is "neither fish nor meat" meaning that something is somewhat undecided. --77.4.127.122 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cows in India.

I think there are some mistakes in that section. I know that beef is sold in the Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu which is not a state listed of beef being legal. And some Muslims friends of mine in Tamil Nadu had said that some Hindus and all Muslims there eat beef. The reference provided was about an attempt by Hindu fundamentalists Bharatiya Janatha Party to make beef illegal in 2003 when they were in power. They are no longer in power and the bill was not passed. But recently a bill making beef illegal was passed in state of Karnataka [15] despite strong protest. Karnataka is currently ruled by Hindu fundamentalists BJP and the law is effective in that state only. I know that cows are held sacred in certain parts of India but I do not know of them illegal by law. i think someone should correct that section. --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fruit

I think this section should be completely removed. The article is based (loosely) around foods that are taboo in certain cultures; this section exists only to mention a tree of life/tree of knowledge, of which there actually is none. Since this is just a metaphorical fruit, it has no bearing on the list of taboo foods. Should the overall consensus believe that this information should still be listed on the page, it should be listed atop in the beginning summary or in a separate section away from the "real" items. Kfm003 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the tree of life was not taboo to eat - the only reason the way to it was barred was because it would result in them living forever, and sinful people living forever would not be an ideal situation. Before they ate the actual forbidden fruit they were able to eat the tree of life.

But I agree neither should be in this article. 217.44.100.142 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Fruit section doesn't belong here. Since there isn't any forbidden fruit available to eat, how can it be taboo? I'm removing the section now. – jaksmata 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian whale meat

(That section currently requires more references.)
I personally enjoyed whale (hvalbiff, whale beef) in a sit-down restaurant in Bergen in 1987, because whale was the most affordable thing on the menu, cheaper than beef.
Delicious, very lean, with an odd purplish colour.
My favourite exotic meat, way way way better than cat, for example. Better than crickets, worms, ant eggs.
Varlaam (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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)
Food psychologist Prof Paul Rozin argues, if I remember correctly, that the tendency for meats to be taboo is related to the disgust response shown to novel meats, as opposed to the differing distaste response shown to novel plant-derived foods. I'll look up some citations and stick them in. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"As they are molluscs, snails are not kosher."

i think snails are not molluscs at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.218.74 (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Italy -- horse meat consumption level and bill to ban horse meat -- sources

Following on the recent unsourced addition re the consumption level of horse meat in Italy, I googled for a supporting source. I found several sources (e.g., [17], [18]) but those sources also reported the introduction of a bill in Italy in 2010 to "ban horse meat" (whatever that means), some sources saying that the bill had the support of the Agriculture minister. I could find no info on what became of the bill, and I don't want to cite a source introducing info about the pending bill without giving some supported information regarding its disposition. Re the bill, see additional sources [19], [20], [21] etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions re the Philippines reverted

I've reverted this edit, which added unsupported assertions re the Philippines. Re the parts of this which assert that selling and eating dog meat in the Philippines -- that is simply not true, as far as I can determine, except as might be the case in individual municipalities (MMC Ordinance 82-02, for example, bans the killing, storing, or offering for sale for food and the offering of dog meat for sale in Metro Manila -- see here). It is fairly common to see assertions that RA8485, the Philippine Animal Welfare Act of 1998, bans the selling and eating of dog meat, but that is simply not the case. Read the act here. For some more info on this, see Dog meat#PhilippinesWtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Horse meat markets in Canada - "really"?

The "Horses and other equines" section includes this statement

In Canada, horse meat is legal, but there is only really a market in the French-speaking province of Quebec ...

The word "really" here appears to me to be unencyclopaedic - either there is a market or there is not. Perhaps it should say "...there is only a significant market ..." or similar, but I'm not knowledgeable about the topic. Could someone who does know please reword to remove "really". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was that no clear consensus emerged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This page contains a large section that is a duplicate of unclean animal (not to mention the pages on kasrut, halal, etc.) Either merge the two articles (perhaps too long for that) or merge the relevant section to the unclean animal artilce. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


I think these articles should stay separate. There are many non-religious reasons why certain foods are taboo, cultural, health-related, etc... This page is a compendium of taboo food and drink regardless of reason. Some religions have formalized and named guidelines on food and other things, and sometimes the formalized and named set of guidelines expand beyond foods. To do justice to the taboo foods topic and to these religious guideline topics, separate pages should be maintained even if there is overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.116.161 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The articles as a whole should stay separate. There are other things that are taboo besides animals, and I concur with the above that considerations of ritual cleanliness are not the only reason for it. Length will be an issue if we merge them and coherence of subject will be problematic for the above reasons. So, I definitely oppose. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

We've been eating "Genetically Modified" food since Day 0 when we learnt to cross favourable traits from one plant or animal into another plant or animal of close relation (heck, nature does this with cross-pollination between plants of similar families). This is the same way we've bred traits in or out of various animal families (particularly canines and equines) for various reasons (such as work horses or race dogs). The big hullabaloo is only about food who's source has been "Genetically Modified" by modern science as we've grown a better understanding HOW and WHY the crossing of genetic traits works and we've been able to adjust the changes in a stable environment with easier experimentation than the trial-and-error field experimentations that required a year's worth of work and wait to make or break a possible bountiful harvest. So basically: The chances of the more precise experimentation of genetic modification turning the world into a big ball of grey goo is so damn low we'd have better chances of being hit with an asteroid the wipes out life on the planet (again). 124.171.22.148 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

If Acts says it, surely it is a taboo, tho' not one that is generally followed. I know at least one Christian who will not eat black pudding because of this verse.217.44.100.142 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Acts report it as a piece of positive law, which was decreed by the Apostles' Council for certain justified reasons and has since, obviously, be abrogated by contrary custom.--91.34.248.15 (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
More info at [22] (JW-focused), [23], and elsewhere. This appears to vary from one flavor of Christianity to another. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

As somebody living in Japan, I would say that meat such as chicken, pork, and beef are among the most common meats eaten in present day Japan. Modern day Japanese people do NOT consider pork to be taboo, or rarely eaten. (Although consumption might be lower than some Westerners, it's not 'rarely eaten'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.173.251.124 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheese and yoghurt

I heard that cheese and yoghurt were not consumed in Japan. Is it simply squeamishness about milk that is "off", or actually taboo? Astronaut (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not taboo. Infact, it seems to be quite popular from my personal expereince. Why did you get such an idea? --Koheiman (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the idea came from some contact with some lactose intolerant persons of asian extraction. From the article: "Lactose intolerance is the inability to metabolize lactose, a sugar found in milk and other dairy products, because the required enzyme lactase is absent in the intestinal system or its availability is lowered. It is estimated that 75% of adults show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood worldwide. The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from nearly 5% in northern Europe to more than 90% in some Asian and African countries. (See Bulhoes, A. C.; et al. (2007-11). "Correlation between lactose absorption and the C/T-13910 and G/A-22018 mutations of the lactase-phlorizin hydrolase (LCT) gene in adult-type hypolactasia". Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. Retrieved 2008-07-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cattle meat and diary was formerly taboo in Japan until the 19th century, while certain sects of Buddhism and Shintoism remain vegetarian or restrictive on what meat or diary products can be eaten or consumed. The Ainu people native to Hokkaido had domesticated the brown bear, they were known to raise bears for food and magical charm fetishes, plus bear cubs in captivity were fed breast milk by human mothers. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I live in Japan (my family is from there). Maybe in the ancient times, dairy products were not consumed, but nowadays, it is consumed by most modern Japanese, although obviously not to the quantities of Europe/N. America, In schools, milk is commonly served with children's lunches, and most Japanese people can consume moderate amounts of dairy products without serious health problems (even though they tend to be lactose intolerant to some degree). I don't where you got this misinformation from. Hardly anyone in 2011 considers in taboo in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.173.251.124 (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


Just pointing out to whoever wrote this comment that I am a hindu also,that said, I agree with the take that Hindu who eat beef (in Canada/US/Britain), and to some extent pork, do not openly advertise that fact, even within peer social groups as it does attach itself to having a loss of culture and an adoption of the "Anglo" standard. You might not be aware of this prejudice as it rarely is said to someones face, but the ridicule is there. And I would like to say that you are over-westernized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.203.143 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Portugese phrase "to pass a cat off as a hare"

Hi, 184.60.2.129 (talk · contribs) has corrected the spelling of lebre to liebre, which according to Google Translate (Babelfish) seems ike that word is correct, but the phrase itself I am not sure of, I am getting "like a pig in a poke" with lebre, or when I convert it from Spanish instead of Portugese it says 'to take for a ride' whcich sounds more right to me? Can anyone who knows Portugese better maybe check into this? Now there are two different spellings a sentence or two from each other it looks like it's getting a bit out of hand
" Sorry, I skipped a line while reading and thought that this was still referring to the Spanish phrase with a simply typo. I'm reverting my change as I know nothing of Portuguese. 184.60.2.129 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "roof-hare" (roof-rabbit, German Dachhase) applies to cat meat presented as that of a hare, another small mammal used as a source of meat. Subtracting the skin, feet, head and tail, hare and cat carcasses appear similar. The only way to distinguish them is by looking at the processus hamatus of the feline scapula, which should have a processus suprahamatus. Dar gato por liebre ("to pass off a cat as a hare") is an expression common to many Spanish-speaking countries, equivalent to "to pull the wool over someone's eyes" derived from this basic scam. There is an equivalent Portuguese expression Comprar gato por liebre, meaning "to buy a cat as a hare". More specifically, in Brazil, cat meat is seen as repulsive and people often shun barbecue establishments suspected of selling cat meat. The expression churrasco de gato ("cat barbecue") is largely used in Brazil with a humorous note, especially for roadside stands that offer grilled meat on a stick (often coated with farofa), due to their poor hygiene and that the source of the meat is mostly unknown. Also, in the Philippines, there is an urban legend and a joke that the some vendors use cat meat to make siopao (steamed bun), leading some Filipinos to name their pet cats "Siopao". Meanwhile "kitten cakes" and "buy three shawarma - assemble a kitten" are common Russian urban jokes about the suspect origin of food from street vendors' stalls.

" --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 03:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pigs are not a martian species

  • [Pigs] are forbidden among Muslims because they are unclean and are believed to feed on their own feces. Also because this animal is most scared to them.
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)
If you want more details read Christopher Hitchens 'God is not great', there is a chapter called 'Heaven hates ham' devoted to the pork taboo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.112.24.9 (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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
  • Hippopotamus -- who wont eat that guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.115.134 (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church Classifying Capybara as Fish

This text was previously in the article: "The Catholic Church's restriction on eating meat during Lent does not apply to the capybara, as early missionaries gave a faulty description to the Pope, leading him to declare it a fish.", supported by an indirect link to an AP story on an otherwise unreliable web site (I couldn't find this story anywhere else), as well as by an op ed piece referencing a legend to this effect. In my research, I was able to find much evidence that eating capybara during lent is not restricted, but nothing more than urban legends and unreliable rumors as to the exact reason (specifically, I could find no reliable sources that stated that the Church actually classified capybara as fish, rather than just giving an exception, and several sources seemed to imply the opposite).

In addition, neither source cited makes any mention about missionaries giving a faulty description of the animal to the Pope (or, more properly, to the Vatican). I decided to go ahead and be bold, and I have removed both of these claims, and replaced them with a less contentious version that simply states that there is an exception in place for eating capybara during lent.

There does exist one more source, cited in capybara (I must have seen it somewhere else, as this article states it more reasonably. If I can find it again, I'll add it here), which appears to support at least the classification as fish, but it is a book by what appears to be a non-notable author, and may even be self-published, though I make no claims either way as to the reliability of that source, since I haven't had a chance to look into it yet. If that source is indeed reliable, and someone can verify that it does indeed support one or both of these claims, I have no objection to this information being re-added with the new source. I'll be doing my own investigation in the next few days, which I suspect will result in the same claims being removed from capybara or it being re-added here with a more reliable source. Arathald (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We have someone saying[24] that it was on "The Real Lost World" on Discovery. Is The San Diego Zoo reliable?[25] A search on capybara lent on Google Books give many hits including one in Encyclopaedia Britannica.[26] // Liftarn (talk)
Thanks for taking some time to look into this. I've looked at the three sources you've cited, and have comments about each:
- Aside from the fact that citing and verifying a documentary as a source can be somewhat problematic, is a documentary (whose primary purpose is entertainment, often over factual accuracy) considered a reliable source? I'd say not, considering that there are documentaries on paranormal activity, alien visits, and historical conspiracy theories that, while I won't claim are necessarily wrong, do tend to make very loosely substantiated and dubious claims. If there is consensus or policy otherwise, though, I'll happily concede to that.
- I would consider a zoo reliable on zoological data (animal habits, diets, evolutionary history, etc.), especially if it was published in some kind of peer-reviewed format. A "trivia" section on their site, though, especially when unattributed and uncited, could have come from anywhere, even an intern searching for facts on Wikipedia (since Wikipedia seems to be a fairly common source for this rumor), and I would posit that zoos are not nearly as authoritative on such matters. Without knowing where this information came from, I can't consider it reliable.
- The entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica certainly is reliable, but its claims are even less than the ones I left the article with. Specifically, it says that at some point, monks ate it during lent, due to its amphibious nature. It says nothing about it being considered a fish, any misinformation provided to the Vatican, or even whether there are currently rules in place allowing its consumption during lent.
Arathald (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Taboo vs Laws

I began to notice in the whales section that some of the laws governing certain countries prohibit the compsumption of certain meats, but it isn't seen as taboo. Other than whale meat, I can't remember any other "illegal" meat that isn't taboo. Before the laws, I donb't think the meat was taboo. I think the article should be cleared up as it is about TABOO food & drink, not illegally acquiered meat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.158.162 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Whale meat is illegal and taboo in many countries for the same reasons: that many species of whales are endangered, so it's not environmentally friendly to eat them. Eating whale is also in general taboo in some places, regardless of whether it's legal or not. I don't have any direct sources handy, but many people, at least in the US, strongly oppose eating whales as meat, and dislike the alleged hunting of whales for meat by Japanese research vessels. I can't speak for any other country, but it is clear that there is a taboo against eating whale meat in many circles, so it's worth a mention in this article. Arathald (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Deer unusual in the UK?

I'm not sure about the UK as a whole but in Scotland, venison from deer is seen as a delicacy and there is no taboo on eating that, in fact it is seen as a luxury food. I agree that it's not a common food but it's certainly not seen in the same way as eating dogs or cats.--KayWad (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Venison is not an unusual dish in the UK. It's not exactly a common dish, like beef or lamb, but I would expect to eat it a couple of times a year. Also, that section doesn't appear to belong in the article at all, as it's not clear that eating venison is taboo anywhere.Havelock Jones (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I am cutting the section, and reproduce it below. It does not appear that there is a taboo here - the only thing I can see from the references is that one blogger finds the idea of eating reindeer distasteful.Havelock Jones (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
=== Deer and ungulates ===
Caribou or reindeer is popular as a dish in Norway, Sweden, Finland (especially sautéed reindeer), Russia and Canada, along with Alaska, but is unusual in United Kingdom and Ireland. This may relate to the popular culture myth of the reindeer as assistant to Father Christmas/Santa Claus ("eating Rudolph"), as opposed to the "cows of the north" vision of the northern countries.[1][2][3]
Swedish astronaut Christer Fuglesang was not allowed to bring dried reindeer with him on board a shuttle mission as it was unthinkable for the Americans so soon before Christmas. He had to go with moose instead.[4][5]

More on Pork

The Mesopotamians ate ghee and meat from goats, sheep, gazelles, ducks and other wild game. Around 30 percent of bones excavated in Tell Asmar (2800-2700 B.C.) belonged to pigs. Pork was eaten in Ur in pre-Dynastic times. After 2400 B.C. it had become taboo. Here's the info... anyone want to record this as a ref? http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1521&catid=56&subcatid=363 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.28.94 (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the source is self-published.Havelock Jones (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oct 2012 edits

Many parts of this article describe the consumption of unusual foods, but as an article on taboos, material on foods that are eaten is not relevant. Other parts of the article describe other sorts of prohibitions (e.g. legal) rather than taboos. I've been going through removing these, but thought I should explain my reasoning here. I suggest the article stick to describing taboos that reliable sources describe as taboos. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

SupportHavelock Jones (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Caffeine and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I don't know how to properly edit a Wikipedia page, but I have included links to the Church's own website and others which specifically state that the Church takes no position on the consumption of caffeinated drinks. Several of these pages also cite one of the Church's scriptures, the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in support of that statement. Within the Church, doctrinal pronouncements are made by the Prophet and Apostles. Local leaders who claim doctrinal insight contrary to official instruction are sometimes subject to Church discipline. While individual members might proclaim a caffeine taboo, no such teaching is currently endorsed by the Church. I know that Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) rely on personal experience for data; in the interest of transparency, I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in good standing. FWIW. Someone with the expertise to do so should clarify the relevant entries in this article, and the edits from November 24th and 25th, 2012. The source citation (about.com--really?) for the current entry contains material from 1988 at newest--material which has been superseded, as can be seen from the Church newsroom link and the others. Please read these links thoroughly!

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news--getting-it-right-august-29 http://ldsliving.com/story/70005-did-the-lds-church-officially-ok-caffeine http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.38.106 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ape

What's about Apes meat? 95.114.120.147 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Crustaceans/ seafood

This section states that the lack fins & scales is the reason these animals are not eaten, and then says that Islamic beliefs may be for the same reason. This explains nothing about the reason, only the definition.

IceDragon64 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cats redux

This is an article about food tabus. Cats are a taboo food in the US and elsewhere. The places where its taboo should be listed. the places where it IS eaten are secondary. there are probably places where its not taboo but not eaten anyway. the section starts with where its eaten. detailing how cultures other than US/europe eat our taboo foods shows ethnocentric bias. section should be rewritten to reflect NPOV and a focus on the taboos on cats organized by culture.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.140.19 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight. I had not noticed it, but you are right. We westerners are oftne guilty of this kind of accidental bias. I will try to improve it.

IceDragon64 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Traditional taboo food among Korean pregnant women during the Chosun Dynasty

우리 조상들이 황당하게 정해 놓은 임산부 금기음식. There were many apparently with multiple reasons. Komitsuki (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dog Fat

Used in Germany after the war to support those ill with TB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.149 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dolphins and Porpoise

Does this article make the assumption that these animals are included under whales? If not, its something that might be considered as an addition to the article... Phil (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the documentary The Cove (film) that in ancient Greece, it was a capital offence to kill a dolphin. This might be the origin of the taboo on eating dolphins and porpoises in Western society. A friend of mine discovered a magazine article about actor Guy Williams (Zorro, Lost in Space,), in which Williams described catching a dolphin while fishing and eating it. He republished the article in his Lost in Space newsletter, causing many readers to complain that they couldn't imagine eating a dolphin. Eligius (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"Dolphin" is not only the name of a marine mammal, it is also a common name that is used for at least two different kinds of actual, real, fish: the mahi-mahi and the pompano dolphinfish. Hence there is often confusion when a fisherman says he ate a "dolphin". Invertzoo (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
In Perú, we used to have lots of "pescadores artesanales" (low tech traditional net fishermen) bringing dolphin that got snared on the nets. It reached the fish markets as "chancho marino" (sea pig) or other such names. Nowadays it is unlawful to sell dolphin for food. But the shark hunters keep on making numbers of dolphin kills, still http://elcomercio.pe/peru/lima/matanza-delfines-peru-cinco-acciones-combatir-pesca-ilegal-noticia-1646892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.167.184 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Seal meat (in an airtight container)

So, can a case be made that seal meat is taboo, what with the pelt protests and all? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable source citations that describe objections to eating seal in terms of taboo? That's the key question. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point. There was an incident where some politician was served seal meat and it sparked controversy. I can't find the articles any more. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I found http://www.aaanativearts.com/mailbag-archive/1425-foods-native-americans-consider-taboo.html#axzz3Dsfgmlr0 and http://thestir.cafemom.com/food_party/163062/restaurant_serves_seal_burgers_because Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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 [27]. 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)

Since the above comments were posted, Kangaroo meat is now available in nearly every Australian Supermarket at similar prices to beef and lamb. --MichaelGG (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Major re-work

Much of the content of this article is not about taboos: it's about what foods are eaten where, about common practices, or about legal restrictions. Those are all potentially interesting, but they don't come under the title of the article, they are not taboos. So, what should we do? We can either remove all material not about taboos (which I've begun doing on a small scale) or we could re-name the article something like "Food and drink prohibitions" or "Acceptance and rejection by food type". What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have further thoughts on this? I plan to move this article to "... prohibitions" in the next few weeks if no-one feels strongly about the issue and then maybe re-create an article under this name focusing on taboos. Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Feces

I wonder if this is so taboo that it hasn't risen to the level of being added. No culture (presumably?) eats feces-- this must be about the most taboo food item there is! (moving this to its own section, from the section below) Perhaps Divine's performance in Pink Flamingos can serve as a reference.

How can you call it a food item? It's not a food item. It's an act which might be taboo but it has nothing to do with food. Food has a different meaning to "something that can be placed in the mouth". By all means put it into an article on taboo if you feel the need, but not this one. JohnHarris (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In Germany, there are videos sold in porn shops where people eat feces, so this practice is not entirely unheard of. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good statistics

The Polish version of this article created a table with taboo statistics taken from there. -> Maybe somebody uses it too here, e.g. by pasting? Zezen (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That link does not appear to be a reliable source (although the content may be from a reliable source). Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The linked table in itself is not RS, but the full table in PL version has this source: 

Fukuzo Nagasaki: Pro- and Anti-Whaling Attitudes as Revealed in Public Opinion Polls, (Table 11)

-> Do you think it is OK now? Zezen (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that source is reliable. Thanks for finding that. Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Food and drink prohibitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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. According to Hinduism, Cow is a god figure in a living form. many people in India do not eat food unless they feed a cow or the small portion of food is given to cow everyday. Therefore , Almost Hindus consider it as a taboo — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikitaA18 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism and alcohol

Added Citation Needed to inclusion of Hinduism in list of religions forbidding alcohol. Hindu ascetics must abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, Hindu tantrics use alcohol as part of their religious practice. It isn't like the LDS Church or the Jains, who forbid alcohol in all circumstances (except, I believe, medical emergencies). IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

you cant even mention Trichinosis? DUH simple reason - Occams razor Juror1 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
There isn't even a citation for the old Chinese taboo on pork--certainly your intuition about the reason for a phenomenon that isn't demonstrated to exist can't go into the article.IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The house-burning story comes from Charles Lamb's "A Dissertation Upon Roast Pig," a humorous piece afterwards included in the collection Essays of Elia. If I remember correctly, the first house-burning is accidental. The man (I don't think he was a general) finds the roast pig so delicious that he repeats the process several times. It eventually dawns on him (or someone else) that it is not necessary to burn one's house down in order to roast a pig. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I just read the story again (it is available at https://archive.org/stream/adissertationup00lambgoog/adissertationup00lambgoog_djvu.txt). I was right. The main character is a swineherd, one Ho-Ti. It is his son Bo-bo who accidentally burns down the house. According to the story, prior to that, meat was eaten raw, clawed or bitten from the living animal! It is a sage who comes up with the idea that it is not necessary to burn one's house down. Kostaki mou (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed this again after Kostaki's response. The section-starter refers to people from Atlantis(!) and also to pre-Columbian American people not eating pork (before Europeans introduced pigs to the New World). I now doubt he/she was serious in the first place.

IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The pig is native to Eurasia and Africa. Pigs in North America, South America, and Oceania were transported there by humans.

The article on Suidae themselves specifies "All suids, or swine, are native to the Old World, ranging from Asia to Europe and Africa." Dimadick (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Food and drink prohibitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Taboo not same as prohibitions

The suggestion that "eating dog meat is considered taboo" is misleading, indeed false. Dogs are considered in most cultures to be our friends and not food. But there is no prohibition on eating them.203.80.61.102 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Food and drink prohibitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Overlapping with Speciality foods

Reading Specialty foods includes for e.g. Foie gras, Caviar or Artisan cheese I ask myself, why these things are not Taboo food and drink? I'm sure you guys have your own view how to integrate these articles here as well. Thanks! --Never stop exploring (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Such foods do not have taboos associated with them, as far as I know. I can't see any overlap. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? I know loads of people who won't eat Foie gras or Caviar (and they are all not Vegans like me). As taboo is more subjective, Artisan cheese is something I would relate to all Vegans, like the part about onions/garlic within Vegetable. But yes, it's so subjective, if you close one eye you might not see everything :) --Never stop exploring (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone not wanting to eat something does not necessarily demonstrate a taboo. It may just be food neophobia or pickiness. Typical avoidant reactions to foie gras and caviar are readily explainable as neophobia to an animal-based product producing disgust, as per the work of Paul Rozin and others. For something to be covered here, it should have reliable source citations demonstrating a taboo. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Then let's stay focused on a single topic: Foie gras, so is Foie_gras_controversy#Statutory_and_voluntary_bans evidence enough to be a taboo? But I begin to understand why garlic and onions are more a taboo than the topic of Force-feeding, it's not religious :) --Never stop exploring (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Would Balut (Philippines) count as animal fetus? Balut is a duck egg that is not fully brooded, and then cooked. It is often offered as snack in the streets and on beaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.214.68 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Prairie 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)

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tug53884.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Amphibians "foods such as frog legs"

What else is there that is like frog legs, but isn't frog legs? 2607:FEA8:FF01:78AF:8D1F:AF6E:B0DB:71E3 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Salamanders. [28] --Macrakis (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "BBC - Food". Archived from the original on 2006-02-08. Retrieved 2006-02-08.
  2. ^ "This is Travel - Sweden's greetings". Retrieved 2006-09-06.
  3. ^ "Rudolph, the dried up reindeer". Retrieved 2006-09-06.
  4. ^ "Christer Fuglesang redo för rymden efter 14 års träning". Retrieved 2006-11-19. (in Swedish)
  5. ^ "Torkat renkött störde julfriden". Sydsvenska dagbladet. (in Swedish)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Food_and_drink_prohibitions/Archive_1&oldid=1140152028"