Cultural prohibition of food in two

Received Dec 4; Accepted Jun

Cultural prohibition of food in two

Foods 23 addition, scientists have concluded that the physiological effects of ingestion can induce likings for particular foods. Thus, humans tend to prefer foods with a high satiety value.

Moreover, even though scientists acknowledge that social, political, and economic factors can influence and at times override biological food preferences, 65 biology remains an ever-present constraint on daily human dietary choices. In sum, biology alone cannot explain tastes and distastes, but it is an influential factor that must not be ignored.

The Constraint of Availability Human beings the world over thus have the same need of securing an adequate diet. The ways in which these similar nutritional requirements can be met, however, vary greatly between societies. The diets of many of the world's poor consists almost exclusively of cereals, fruits, and vegetables.

This does not mean, however, that these people prefer such a limited diet, but only that sources of meat are not readily available to them.

Availability is thus an ever-present constraint affecting human food choices. Of course, availability is in turn influenced by many other material factors, both natural e.

Thus, material factors can affect the availability of food sources, in Cultural prohibition of food in two to influencing their acceptability as sources of food.

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia

However, as previously noted, the material factors are at best partial explanations for human food preferences. While economic and political structures, for 66 Elaine N.

Implications for the Regulation of Human Food Preferences The study of human food habits has a significance far greater than that of an interesting intellectual exercise. Understanding the reasons for human food preferences offers the possibility of improving people's lives.

The study of human food habits affords researchers the opportunity to develop general principles that may assist in understanding existing human dietary behavior, not to mention possible future variations in human diet. Such predictive principles are of immense importance to policymakers wishing to shape their population's patterns of food consumption so as to maximize human nutrition and health.

This section therefore examines both the likelihood and desirability of additional governmental regulation of human food preferences in the United States. As this section will demonstrate, although there are persuasive arguments for increased governmental activism, there are substantial tradeoffs associated with increased governmental intrusion in this area of human activity--costs that make any further 26 governmental activity in this area both undesirable and unlikely.

Government regulation of human food preferences should be confined narrowly to instances where specific sources of food present a significant threat to human health.

Such regulation should not be based on relativistic aesthetic and moral beliefs, however. It's Relative The classification of a product as a "food" determines the regulations to which that product must comply.

In certain cases, the classification of an item as "food" can affect its very legality. Obviously, the definition of such basic terms as "food" can be a matter of fundamental importance. Yet, as this paper has demonstrated, because of the unique set of material and cultural constraints that shape each society's dietary habits, different societies may have radically different conceptions of what constitutes food.

Why We Eat What We Eat:

The Scots, for example, cook a mixture of cows' lungs, intestines, pancreas, liver, and heart stuffed in a sheep's stomach and call "it haggis"; the Aghori ascetics of Benares survive on 69 alms, excrement, and on occasion, a putrid corpse. But most Americans, however, would not consider these examples to be food.

It suggests that each society's conception of food is fundamentally arbitrary--i. The inability to find such basic terms as "food" universally indicates how relativistic Western notions of food truly are.

Moreover, this diversity suggests that laws regulating food consumption cannot be understood apart from their cultural and material contexts. Similarly, terms such as "fit for human consumption", "edible" and "filthy" are meaningless absent a cultural context.

Cultural prohibition of food in two

Unlike other countries, such as India, for example, where the government has prohibited the sale and consumption of a specific source of food i. The Potential for Greater Governmental Activism Arguably, governmental bodies such as the FDA already possess the requisite statutory authority to prohibit the sale of certain foods.

First, such prohibitions arguably would not be beyond the FDA's mission--to ensure that food is "safe, pure, and wholesome. In addition, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the sale of adulterated foods; the statute defines "adulterated foods," 71 Animal food products are subject to specific regulatory requirements under existing law.

But although manufacturers of food products must comply with regulations governing the slaughter of animals and their processing, few restrictions exist that prevent manufacturers from exploiting specific sources of meat. Moreover, the courts have held that, under existing law, sterilized filth, although harmless, may be prohibited by the FDA on aesthetic grounds alone.

The Case for Greater Governmental Activism Although the federal government has in the past shown a great reluctance to interfere with human food preferences, the federal government could always choose to reverse this policy if it felt that compelling considerations warranted greater governmental regulation of American food habits.

Moral and Aesthetic Arguments Compelling arguments exist for why the government ought to prohibit the sale of animal products that offend Americans' 21 U.


While the consumption of products such as dog meat or worms may seem far-fetched, many Americans are already engaged in the distribution and consumption of exotic animal products.The cultural prohibition of food in both the Muslim society and the Hindu society is a very strong element in the religious lives of those who practice these faiths.

Firstly I would like to point out that ethics appear to be a major influencer into the practicing of dietary laws and codes in these religions. The prohibition of alcohol in the United States lasted for 13 years, from January 16, through December 5, It is one of most famous—or infamous—times in American history.

Like those chefs, the best part of my food career has only ever been sharing — sharing the labors of our Test Kitchen with colleagues and friends, the knowledge of the extraordinary chefs we work with and the little secrets that will help nervous home cooks become confident culinary enthusiasts.

A stimulant is a product, food, or drink that excites the nervous system and changes the natural physiology of the body, such as drugs and consumable products that contain caffeine, such as tea, coffee, or chocolate. The use of caffeine is prohibited or restricted by many religions because of its addictive properties and harmful physical effects.

Almost two-thirds of all states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents in political subdivisions to vote for or against local prohibition. Therefore, despite the repeal of prohibition at the national level, 38% of the nation's population lived in areas with state or local prohibition.

The Muslim cultural prohibition of food plays a very significant role in the lives of Muslims around the Islamic dietary laws are a matter of both social custom and religion (Campo ).

In Islamic dietary laws, foods are categorized into different groups.

The Idea Of Cultural Appropriation Of Food Entirely Perplexes Me