Does it matter what the name of a food is when choosing what to eat? For me, the answer is yes. I absolutely do not eat seafood, especially a lobster. I eat meat, just normal land animal meat that I have grown up that possesses a name far removed from the source (example: poultry, beef.) I cannot fathom the idea of eating something from the sea that has the same name as when it was alive, and most of the time when it is on the plate, it STILL looks the same as when it was alive. I think this is so gross and I do not want the eat the animal.
I will eat poultry and beef because these are staple foods that most American families grow up with. The form of the meat and name are removed from the process and therefore I don’t think about the poor animal. I am still choosey with land animals and won’t eat abnormal meats, for example veal, which some consider normal. I am still grossed out when thinking about eating a non-typical animal.
I completely agree that culture and society have to do with the mentality of what and how people consume food. My personal account is one view on eating animals. I am not the majority, I definitely am made fun of for my pickiness, but I feel it is a good example of how the name of a food can modify our feelings towards the next meal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Im not making fun of you or anything, but how do you feel about turkey?
ReplyDeleteI think youre feeling about not wanting to eat something that looks the same as when it was alive is pretty standard in american culture. Almost all of our staple foods are distorted in a way so that they look nothing like the animals they came from (I.E. chicken nuggets, hamburgers, hotdogs, fish sticks, lunch meat, ect) This seems to me to be a deliberate product of the industrial food chain. I used to work for a culinary school and per the request of our very weathly main line customers, we bought strictly locally grown organic food, which was supposed to be fresh. However, whenever we got something like a fish or a whole chicken, our m.o. was to cut the head off. Even though our customers wanted their food fresh, they were unwilling to eat things that could look back up at them.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting point. Many people can't stand the thought of eating something that once had a life of it's own. The thing is, regardless of how it looks, the meat still comes from an animal that was killed for you to eat. The form of the meat doesn't change the origin. I just think it's strange how we, as a culture, can build up these thoughts of "No, I can't eat that until it no longer looks like the animal it once was". This, to me at least, seems a little bizarre. Wouldn't it make more sense for the "freshest" foods to be the least altered from their live state?
ReplyDeleteI think you’ve raised a very interesting topic of discussion; however, I would have to go the opposite direction on this one. Sometimes I hate the fact that our culture alters meat so much from its original state just to make it look more inviting i.e. a chicken nugget or a hotdog etc. I also agree with the comment before mine that when meats are processed to give them a different look/taste they lose a lot of freshness are they are much less healthy for one to eat.
ReplyDelete