Most world religions have foods that are taboo. Pork is the most well know do not eat meat. Other foods forbidden are shellfish, non-scaled fish, tigers, elephants, cows and snakes to name a few. For Hindu, the forbidden meats are not as much religious law as a sign of respect for what may be your elders. Buddha is said to have taken many animal forms, so some or all animals are avoided out of respect for Buddha. It is Judaism and Islam that have the most stringent laws pertaining to foods.
There will always be some debate over the validity of religious laws behind food. The main reason for the debate is Mosaic Law. In the Ten Commandments, the basis for most law (commandments six through nine especially) were set literally in stone. Forbidden food was not included in these commandments.
The laws for foods were set in other areas of the bible often considered teaching texts, for lack of a better word. Text that offered advice on living a healthy life or other advice, would be a teaching text. The food “laws” were intended to keep the chosen of God healthy. That intent, I feel is the key. This is not an attempt to persuade any religious group to change their beliefs, just to open their minds to what God may have intended.
Islam embraced many of these food laws from Jewish tradition and has added others. Corn or maize was unknown in biblical times, but added to the list of unacceptable foods in Islamic tradition. Corn was added because it is perceived to be only worthy of pigs by Islamic scholars. There does not seem to be a negative health reference to corn, just its association with pork. If Islam finds corn offensive, then they should avoid corn. The intent of the food laws is still maintained, but what about other foods generally accepted that pose new health risks?
A perfect example is horseflesh. Rounded hoofed animals are not forbidden, while some cloven hoofed animals (pork) is forbidden. The reason pork was forbidden is assumed to be trichinosis. A parasitic disease spread to man primarily by under-cooked pork. In some cases, the parasites cause brain inflammation and can make the infected to become insane. This would be more than enough justification in biblical times to declare pork unclean. For millennia, horseflesh was clean of these parasites, but in this modern age of mass production that is no longer true.
Italy and France both have had trichinosis out breaks associated with eating horsemeat tartar (raw horse flesh). While the exact cause of the parasite being present in the horseflesh is unknown, rodents being accidentally ground in the production of feed is the most likely cause. If that is the case, any mass produced animal feed could be contaminated with parasitic cysts. So any animal eating massed produced feed could have the same parasite that cause pork to be religiously banned.
So should religious teachers ban horseflesh, ignore the potential problem or explain the true cause of the disease? This situation with horsemeat can be easily resolved with more stringent standards for feed production. Heating the feed produced to 140 degrees F. for a short period of time kills the parasitic cysts. Fully cooking the meat also kills the parasite. These are the same processes used to virtually eliminate the trichinosis problem in commercially produced pork. The religious leaders should explain the cause to prevent possible infection.
This is not to suggest that any religion should accept pork as clean, but to say that more meats could be added to the unclean list, if religious leaders ignore science. In many parts of the world, the only accepted education is religiously based. Without compromising their religious beliefs, religious leaders should take a more active role in teaching factual food safety methods. That is the intent of religious food laws, to promote health. Quoting outdated literature to make a religious point is a disservice to all the world. Reconciling science with religion for the betterment of their followers, is the job of religious scholars.
Leaders of all religions can find examples in science where the public good can be improved. Food is just one example of where religion and science can differ. While some examples of science may be religiously offensive, in most cases compromise can be found. Stem cell research, food sciences, medicine, sanitation principles, vaccinations and other scientific pursuits are beneficial to mankind. Look for ways to enable science without compromising your religious beliefs.
This article was submitted for non-payment. Neither Associate Content nor the author advocate the consumption of horseflesh.
