Are pigs really "dirty" to eat?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Let's be clear: Ancient peoples were no dumber than moderns, with respect to problem solving, observation and what-not.

They had well understood cause and effect (even if they did not always express it formally) long before pigs were domesticated.

These people would well have known the problems with not cooking pork-- just as they understood the issues with chickens.

Really, the religious prohibition against some foods, assumes that people are dirt-stupid.

It is actually quite insulting to human intelligence.

On the other hand? A Classic Aphorism states The Collective IQ is inversely proportional with the size of the group.

So, I suppose as a Group Rule, it may have been useful*.







* especially if you consider all the other rules people were expected to live by in these religious groups -- many of which seemed designed to make people even more stupid... and to never-EVER question anything, quashing any and all curiosity.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Whenever you start trying to explain religious taboos in scientific terms, you end up with nonsense.

Badly cooked pork can spread disease, but so can badly cooked chicken or eggs.

Pork does spoil more rapidly, but in a hot climate anything will spoil unless you preserve it, and pork preserves well.

Pigs are omnivorous: a useful factor, as they are not dependent on grass. That's why they have always been popular in densely populated countries like China.

Again, think of some other food laws. If you are a Jew, you can't eat meat and dairy products in the same meal. Wine manufactured by non-Jews can only be drunk if mulled. Muslims cannot eat lobsters or crabs.

The points about free-range animals and antibiotics that have been raised here only apply in the USA. In the UK most cattle and poultry are free-range and about half the pigs. Conditions are well regulated. Non-theraputic use of antibiotics in farming is illegal.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... Non-theraputic use of antibiotics in farming is illegal.

<ahem.... steps up on soap box>

Antibiotics in food animals, as a prophylactic? Bothers me-- not because I'm worried about consuming the chemicals-- I am absolutely not. Cooking de-natures proteins, you see, and would destroy the delicate and complex nature of these things.

Not to worry.

No.. .what chaps my chain ... a LOT? Is that this absolutely wastes the use of previously effective antibiotics!

In the Real World? Where bacteria live and reproduce? You have a maximum number of uses for any given antibiotic-- and then? It is DONE-- as it has made extinct all bacteria that lack immunity to it's power.

Let us be clear here: Evolution is real, and it never stops. All bacteria are capable of exchanging DNA between individuals and among groups-- even if they are of a different "species" or type. Bacteria are somewhat unique in this ability-- they reproduce by simple binary fission, so there is relatively little evolving going on from one generation to the next, with respect to DNA shuffling.

But. They do exchange DNA externally, as groups, as individuals and so forth-- in fact, this seemingly free flow of DNA information is not all that well understood in the very fine details. We can observe it's effects, however...

So, here's how it works: Every time a particular antibiotic is used? Doesn't matter on whom or which species it's used on, not really-- humans or animals, it's all pretty much the same. Every time one is used, the odds of killing 100% of the bacteria because of the antibiotic? Is low. The best typically only kills something in the upper 90% range, the rest are killed by the natural antigens in the host's body.

It's that tiny percent that do not die, that is Bad-with-a-B. If they escape back into the "wild" as it were? (i.e. are ejected by the host's body in some way) they become a pool of antibiotic resistant bacteria that this particular antibiotic can never have a positive effect on, ever again.

And what's worse-- these survivors can share that immunity with other strains, if conditions are ideal...!

So dose by dose by dose? Each flavor of antibiotic slowly becomes useless....

SO IT IS ABSOLUTELY A WASTE TO BE USING THESE ON FOOD ANIMALS BECAUSE THE LIVING CONDITIONS (or diet) OF SAID ANIMALS ARE TOO FILTHY TO PREVENT DISEASE NATURALLY.

Uggg.

<steps down off soap box>

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pork spoils very fast in the heat, unlike mutton and lamb so this may be one reason why the two desert religions don't like it. But danieldemol raises a good point re transmissible parasites. Pigs, being omnivorous, could well pick up a range of things to infect humans through eating their meat. It is still the practice to cook pork throughly to this day, for that reason.

Those are two of the three reasons I have heard for the prohibition on the dietary use of pork. The third reason I have heard argued is the similarity of flavor and texture to human. This seems--to me--the least plausible reason, given it would have required a knowledge of the similarities between the two. But it is possible I suppose.

 

[onlytruth]

human flesh has many similar genetic traits as pig , why not eat humans. meat is meat right

 

[gnostic]

Considering that the ancient people living in the arid climate, where meat get spoiled more quickly, no way refrigerate or frezeze food, it is understandable why some cultures don’t eat pork.

But for people to adhere to not eating pork, for religious reasons, when there are better ways, today, to preserve it, prepare it and cook it, I think the religious dietary have become outdated.

Also pig farmers have ways to control what pigs eat, that can eliminate most fear about pigs being dirty or unclean animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

<ahem.... steps up on soap box>

Antibiotics in food animals, as a prophylactic? Bothers me-- not because I'm worried about consuming the chemicals-- I am absolutely not. Cooking de-natures proteins, you see, and would destroy the delicate and complex nature of these things.

Not to worry.

No.. .what chaps my chain ... a LOT? Is that this absolutely wastes the use of previously effective antibiotics!

In the Real World? Where bacteria live and reproduce? You have a maximum number of uses for any given antibiotic-- and then? It is DONE-- as it has made extinct all bacteria that lack immunity to it's power.

Let us be clear here: Evolution is real, and it never stops. All bacteria are capable of exchanging DNA between individuals and among groups-- even if they are of a different "species" or type. Bacteria are somewhat unique in this ability-- they reproduce by simple binary fission, so there is relatively little evolving going on from one generation to the next, with respect to DNA shuffling.

But. They do exchange DNA externally, as groups, as individuals and so forth-- in fact, this seemingly free flow of DNA information is not all that well understood in the very fine details. We can observe it's effects, however...

So, here's how it works: Every time a particular antibiotic is used? Doesn't matter on whom or which species it's used on, not really-- humans or animals, it's all pretty much the same. Every time one is used, the odds of killing 100% of the bacteria because of the antibiotic? Is low. The best typically only kills something in the upper 90% range, the rest are killed by the natural antigens in the host's body.

It's that tiny percent that do not die, that is Bad-with-a-B. If they escape back into the "wild" as it were? (i.e. are ejected by the host's body in some way) they become a pool of antibiotic resistant bacteria that this particular antibiotic can never have a positive effect on, ever again.

And what's worse-- these survivors can share that immunity with other strains, if conditions are ideal...!

So dose by dose by dose? Each flavor of antibiotic slowly becomes useless....

SO IT IS ABSOLUTELY A WASTE TO BE USING THESE ON FOOD ANIMALS BECAUSE THE LIVING CONDITIONS (or diet) OF SAID ANIMALS ARE TOO FILTHY TO PREVENT DISEASE NATURALLY.

Uggg.

<steps down off soap box>

To be fair gene swapping came as quite the surprise. Biologists used to have no idea how quickly bacteria could evolve in the past. But we have known of this for more than long enough. Not only for the good of humanity should the use of antibiotics on animals be severely limited, but it would also be good for the industry in the long run.

 

[Looncall]

Just going off the top of my head I think from memory trichinella parasites were discovered in pork within a couple of decades of 1835, however adequately cooking the meat destroys the parasites.

However no one would have known about microbes until after the invention of the microscope, so there was benefit to banning pork products until these modern scientific discoveries were made.

I note that these regulations come from desert peoples who lacked cooking fuel. One doesn't find them among forest dwellers.

Just as with stir frying.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Considering that the ancient people living in the arid climate, where meat get spoiled more quickly, no way refrigerate or frezeze food, it is understandable why some cultures don’t eat pork.

But for people to adhere to not eating pork, for religious reasons, when there are better ways, today, to preserve it, prepare it and cook it, I think the religious dietary have become outdated.

Also pig farmers have ways to control what pigs eat, that can eliminate most fear about pigs being dirty or unclean animals.

Except that once cooked? Pork is no worse than any other meat...

You can also preserve it by smoking, drying and a combination of either of these.

All of that technique was known by humans, long before pigs were domesticated.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I note that these regulations come from desert peoples who lacked cooking fuel. One doesn't find them among forest dwellers.

Just as with stir frying.

Sun-dried strips of meat can be done safely with pork, just as easily as other meats. The key is to cut them very-very thin, so the sun dries it quickly before it spoils.

Ancient peoples were not dumb, and more than capable of figuring this out.

 

[gnostic]

Except that once cooked? Pork is no worse than any other meat...

You can also preserve it by smoking, drying and a combination of either of these.

All of that technique was known by humans, long before pigs were domesticated.

Right.

My point is that these ancient religious texts that applied to these ban, in this day and age, would seem quite pointless and archaic.

 

[firedragon]

As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - the rule that Muslims cannot eat pig's meat did not come from Allah, but Muhammad. He made the rule himself.

So ....is pig's meat really dirtier than cow's or bull's or deer's or rabbit's or donkey's or dog's etc.¿

It just feels to me like Muhammad may have been one of those people who simply didn''t happen to like pigs or their meat and now 1500 years later all these Muslims refrain from eating it.

Interesting. Why do you think the Bible speaks of pig mean in a worse way? I mean, you cant even touch the carcass.

 

[Anthem]

Interesting. Why do you think the Bible speaks of pig mean in a worse way? I mean, you cant even touch the carcass.

Does it say somewhere that I'm some kind of a bible specialist?

 

[FearGod]

As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - the rule that Muslims cannot eat pig's meat did not come from Allah, but Muhammad. He made the rule himself.

So ....is pig's meat really dirtier than cow's or bull's or deer's or rabbit's or donkey's or dog's etc.¿

It just feels to me like Muhammad may have been one of those people who simply didn''t happen to like pigs or their meat and now 1500 years later all these Muslims refrain from eating it.

I won't eat Pig's meat regardless of religion.

I saw a strange thing in my own eyes when I was in a public market in Manila,
there were 2 butchers close to each other side by side, one was hanging
cow meat and the other one was hanging the pork meat, a huge number of
flies were on the pork meat while none on the cow meat, I was really surprised
and shocked of what I saw.

 

[Altfish]

I won't eat Pig's meat regardless of religion.

I saw a strange thing in my own eyes when I was in a public market in Manila,
there were 2 butchers close to each other side by side, one was hanging
cow meat and the other one was hanging the pork meat, a huge number of
flies were on the pork meat while none on the cow meat, I was really surprised
and shocked of what I saw.

Strangely, I have just seen the opposite in China, the cow attracted the flies much quicker... but that proves nothing.
Posting videos by 'Islamic scholars' hardly backs up your argument!

 

[FearGod]

Strangely, I have just seen the opposite in China, the cow attracted the flies much quicker... but that proves nothing.
Posting videos by 'Islamic scholars' hardly backs up your argument!

Maybe you have a pig farm and are worried.

 

[onlytruth]

why not refuse to eat pig because the god who Jews,Muslims, and Christians say they worship says not to eat pig.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems to me that the Jewish prohibition on pork came from the fact that the ancient Jews were nomads and pigs were associated with a rejection of a nomadic lifestyle: if you keep pigs, you keep them in a pen on your farm. Nobody wanders the countryside with a herd of pigs. For Jews who were trying to make themselves separate and distinct from the cultures around them, pigs would have been a major indicator that distinguished “us” from “them.”

For the Muslims, I’m not sure if the prohibition on pork came from the same mindset, or if it came from the idea that if they were going to co-opt the Abrahamic god, then they also ought to adopt some of the teachings that were attributed to that god.

Also, the pig was sacred to (if I recall correctly) the Ugarits, who were close by. To distinguish themselves, the Israelites banned them. They did the same thing for goats cooked in their mother's milk.

 

[Tumah]

Pigs are only one of a number of domesticated animals that we are forbidden to eat. Whatever reason you have to prohibit pig should also somehow be applicable to the donkey, horse, camel, dog and cat and they were all forbidden using the same brushstroke of lacking rumination and spit hooves, with only the cow, sheep and goat of domesticated animals making the list.

Again, think of some other food laws. If you are a Jew, you can't eat meat and dairy products in the same meal. Wine manufactured by non-Jews can only be drunk if mulled.

These two things are not directly related to the topic. We can't eat meat and dairy at the same meal because of a stringency, not a prohibition. Similarly, we don't drink wine made by non-Jews unless it was boiled as a way to avoid partaking of foods that may have been used in idolatry. Wine libations were not made with cooked wine as that was understood to ruin the wine.

Also, the pig was sacred to (if I recall correctly) the Ugarits, who were close by. To distinguish themselves, the Israelites banned them. They did the same thing for goats cooked in their mother's milk.

I believe Maimonides' make a similar point, although I understand the evidence that goat cooked in milk as a religious practice has not be conclusively proven.

 

[onlytruth]

they only prohibit a few animals strongly not to eat, camel, hare,pig ,and it is described with same disgust as idolatry. they also list other animals they own we can eat.