A riveting new article in The Atlantic magazine blasts the notion that cruelty to animals is less cruel when it's disguised as "foodie-ism." "The Moral Crusade Against Foodies" examines why so many chefs and food writers abide by the misguided notion that the more suffering that goes into a meal, the better it tastes.
The article draws examples from some of the newest crop of foodie writings, which brag about everything from eating ortolan (endangered songbirds fattened in dark boxes) to crowding around to watch a pig be slaughtered and claiming that the experience was "solemn" and "reverent." I have a feeling that the pig begs to differ.
|leunix/cc by 2.0|
The article also quotes self-proclaimed foodaholics making oh-so-compassionate statements such as, "It's quite something to go bare-handed up an animal's [butt] … Its viscera came out with an easy tug; a small palmful of livery, bloody jewels that I tossed out into the yard." Sounds delicious, right?
Don't get me wrong: As any vegetarian or vegan can tell you, we love to eat. But food should not cause suffering, no matter how many different spice rubs can be invented for it.
Written by Michelle Sherrow