Pork

[Guest guest]

The Chinese combine pork with tofu. It's quite a popular combination as the

cooling aspects of tofu are tempered with the more warming (but still cool

according to Chinese dietary therapy) nature of pork (animal food).

I tend to have a negative veiw on consuming pork because I do tend to think

of pigs as natures garbage disposals. But it has been used for thousands of

years in Chinese medicine. Also I remember in an old issue of Wise Traditions

there was an article on the longest lived people and pork was a mainstay of

their diet.

piimaman

[Guest guest]

Hi,

It is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, that Sally

did not include pork recipes, because of her respect for her co-

author, Enig's faith. is Jewish and they do not eat pork

for religious reasons. Of course we know of native people who do fine

eating pork. Sally knows this too. The exclusion of pork recipes was

a thoughtful gesture on her part. End of story.

Sheila

> Until someone wrote that NT did nothave any recipes for prok, I was

not

> aware of it.

>

> I looked up pork in NT and on page 18 is says that pork fat is

considered a

> good frying fat.

>

> Then on later pages it says that consumption of pork support cancer

cells

> 100%. It does not state why, but does speculate that this may be

why the

> Bible condemns eating pork.

>

> I looked throughout the book, and sure enough no pork recipes.

>

> Kat

> http://www.katking.com

[Guest guest]

Sally explicitly lists pork as a " compromise food " in the beginning of the book.

I don't know whether that factors into why she doesn't have the recipes or not;

maybe it doesn't.

Anyway, she never makes a final judgment on the pork-cancer connection. She

says that there is a study done with organic bacon that found that cancer is

fueled at a much faster rate with pork than other foods. But, she adds, there

are some non-modernized folks who live mostly off of pork that don't have

problems with cancer.

on this list before had suggested that it might be that pigs are generally

fed awful diets whether they are organic or not that might be responsible for

the bad effects, and not anything inherently wrong with pork meat. And

certainly, the non-modernized folks aren't feeding their pigs fryer grease and

soybeans, but the pigs are probably naturally foraging in a woodsy place, which

would probably be almost impossible to find in the US no matter where you go

unless you do it yourself.

Also, I would add, soy has a inhibitory effect on cancer growth because it has

general anti-growth properties-- hardly a reason to consume it regularly. So if

pork has cancer growth-advancing properties, that doesn't necessarily mean it is

bad if you _don't_ have cancer. The study she mentioned found nothing about

_causing_ cancer, just causing pre-existing cancer to grow faster. Maybe pork

is good for growth.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>Also, I would add, soy has a inhibitory effect on cancer growth because

it has general anti-growth properties-- hardly a reason to consume it

regularly...The study she mentioned found nothing about [pork]_causing_

cancer, just causing pre-existing cancer to grow faster.

oooh! oooh! i have an idea! maybe anyone who eats pork should also eat soy

so the pro-cancer growth properties of pork can be countered by the

anti-growth factors of soy!

anyone care for a pork and tofu stir fry? maybe we could throw in some

potatoes and fry it all up in canola oil, just to be sure we're getting our

acrylamides! (or does fried *tofu* already have acrylamides??)

<bg>

sorry chris ;-) i'm in a wierd mood today. if i make it to the beverly

seminar, you can punch me in the shoulder or something

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

lol . . . can i have a side of crisco with mine? i like it straight

chris

In a message dated Mon, 7 Oct 2002 4:45:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> >>>Also, I would add, soy has a inhibitory effect on cancer growth because

> it has general anti-growth properties-- hardly a reason to consume it

> regularly...The study she mentioned found nothing about [pork]_causing_

> cancer, just causing pre-existing cancer to grow faster.

>

> oooh! oooh! i have an idea! maybe anyone who eats pork should also eat soy

> so the pro-cancer growth properties of pork can be countered by the

> anti-growth factors of soy!

>

> anyone care for a pork and tofu stir fry? maybe we could throw in some

> potatoes and fry it all up in canola oil, just to be sure we're getting our

> acrylamides! (or does fried *tofu* already have acrylamides??)

>

> <bg>

>

>

> sorry chris ;-) i'm in a wierd mood today. if i make it to

> the beverly

> seminar, you can punch me in the shoulder or something

[Guest guest]

Quoting h2ocolor1937 <h2ocolor@...>:

> Hi,

> It is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, that Sally

> did not include pork recipes, because of her respect for her co-

> author, Enig's faith. is Jewish and they do not eat pork

> for religious reasons. Of course we know of native people who do fine

> eating pork. Sally knows this too. The exclusion of pork recipes was

> a thoughtful gesture on her part. End of story.

What about shellfish, then?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Good question! I didn't know Jewish people don't eat shellfish. I

hope somenoe else will answer this one.

Sheila

> Quoting h2ocolor1937 <h2ocolor@b...>:

>

> > Hi,

> > It is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, that Sally

> > did not include pork recipes, because of her respect for her co-

> > author, Enig's faith. is Jewish and they do not eat pork

> > for religious reasons. Of course we know of native people who do

fine

> > eating pork. Sally knows this too. The exclusion of pork recipes

was

> > a thoughtful gesture on her part. End of story.

>

> What about shellfish, then?

>

> --

> Berg

> bberg@c...

[Guest guest]

Quoting h2ocolor1937 <h2ocolor@...>:

> Good question! I didn't know Jewish people don't eat shellfish. I

> hope somenoe else will answer this one.

Now that I think about it, maybe she left pork out due to a combination of

its questionable nutritional value and its non-kosher status, whereas

shellfish were too nutritious to leave out for purely religous reasons.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

The exclusion of pork recipes was > > a thoughtful gesture on her part. End

of story.

>

> What about shellfish, then?

>>>>Good question! I didn't know Jewish people don't eat shellfish. I

hope somenoe else will answer this one.

------------->oooh! me! shellfish are *not* pro-inflammatory ;-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

No shellfish or other scavenger type animals...must have fins and scales

(no catfish or eels either)

The idea on swine, preditors (lions, etc.) and scavengers is that they may

eat diseased or dead prey passing along bad ju-ju.

Have fun catering an event with bacon wrapped shrimp stuffed with

oyster/crab stuffing and a nice creamy cheese sause on top!

:-)

bob

SLF

> Good question! I didn't know Jewish people don't eat shellfish. I

> hope somenoe else will answer this one.

> Sheila

[Guest guest]

At 05:33 PM 10/7/02 -0400, you wrote:

>Also, I would add, soy has a inhibitory effect on cancer growth because it

has

general anti-growth properties-- hardly a reason to consume it regularly.  So

if pork has cancer growth-advancing properties, that doesn't necessarily mean

it is bad if you _don't_ have cancer.  The study she mentioned found nothing

about _causing_ cancer, just causing pre-existing cancer to grow faster. 

Maybe

pork is good for growth.

>

>Chris

My husband always tells anyone who offers him soy that he doesn't eat pig

feed.

Soy's first use in the U.S. was to fatten pigs after it was found coconut oil

reduced their weight IIRC. Pig feed still contains a large amount of soy

because of its protein content. Some components of soy may inhibit but then

there is still the phytoestrogens that set the hormonal roller coaster off.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated Mon, 7 Oct 2002 6:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat

writes:

> I tend to have a negative veiw on consuming pork because I

> do tend to think

> of pigs as natures garbage disposals.

Because people _treat_ them that way. Throw a hundred pigs on the street and

they'll eat all the horse shit, but give them a choice of root veggies, acorns,

and fresh fruit and they'll opt for the latter. Pigs are historically the most

maligned creature on the planet. I read somewhere, I forget where, that one

reason for the Jewish prohibition of pork meat may be because to raise pigs

requires forest land for them to pasture, and as the Jews at that particular

point in their development were making way out of the forests for agricultural

land, pigs became an expensive burden to raise.

So the Jews were much smarter in, having decided to " civilize, " opting to just

not eat pork rather than to eat pork raised the " civilized " way of feeding them

" nature's garbage. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

The farmer I'm getting my grass-fed beef from is apparently the same

farmer Sally gets hers from. (I'm outside DC -- actually, I'm in the

area where all the sniper shootings have been recently -- it's

getting pretty scary around here.) Anyway, he also has pork and

mentioned to me that " Sally loves my pork. " So, she didn't include

recipes, but obviously doesn't feel it's harmful to her health.

(It doesn't feel quite right to publically post 2nd hand info about

someone else, but I thought this was pertinent to the topic and not

too terribly personal.)

[Guest guest]

Doesn't she keep kosher? I may be wrong, but I got the impression that she

was an observant Jew. Pork is prohibited under Jewish dietary laws. You

will also notice that her book does not contain any recipes that mix milk

and meat together in the same dish, either.

From: " katking@katking " <katking@...>

Reply-

< >

Subject: Pork

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:14:32 -0700

Until someone wrote that NT did nothave any recipes for prok, I was not

aware of it.

I looked up pork in NT and on page 18 is says that pork fat is considered a

good frying fat.

Then on later pages it says that consumption of pork support cancer cells

100%. It does not state why, but does speculate that this may be why the

Bible condemns eating pork.

I looked throughout the book, and sure enough no pork recipes.

Kat

http://www.katking.com

_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Jewish dietary laws do not permit the eating of shellfish, either.

Shellfish include clams, shrimp, mussels, crab, scallops, etc.

Robin

From: Berg <bberg@...>

Reply-

Subject: Re: Re: Pork

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:47:38 -0700

Quoting h2ocolor1937 <h2ocolor@...>:

> Hi,

> It is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, that Sally

> did not include pork recipes, because of her respect for her co-

> author, Enig's faith. is Jewish and they do not eat pork

> for religious reasons. Of course we know of native people who do fine

> eating pork. Sally knows this too. The exclusion of pork recipes was

> a thoughtful gesture on her part. End of story.

What about shellfish, then?

--

Berg

bberg@...

_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated Mon, 7 Oct 2002 8:18:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ChrisMasterjohn writes:

> I read somewhere, I forget where, that one reason for the Jewish prohibition

of pork meat may be because to raise pigs

> requires forest land for them to pasture,

Pasture on forest, eh? Heh heh, oops, what I meant was " forage " not " pasture. "

chris

[Guest guest]

> Pasture on forest, eh? Heh heh, oops, what I meant was " forage "

> not " pasture. "

Either way you're right. One of the most respected anthropologists

from the cultural materialism camp, Marvin , wrote extensively

on subjects such as that. There's a good deal of evidence to suggest

that's precisely the case with pork. Other animals didn't make good

economic sense to raise for food either but were useful in other ways

so they were simply forbidden as food (such as horses). Pigs,

however, were both economically a bad idea as food *and* basically

useless otherwise as well. That's why pigs were not only labelled as

forbidden food but also so unclean that they should not even be

touched.

There's a similar background to beef in India. It was once feasted

on lavishly and considered the finest sacrifice to the gods. Then,

the population started to increase, the brahmans started to elicit

jealously from the poorer people who couldn't get adequate animal

protein and fat. Non-killing religions such as Jainism (no relation

to judyism ;-) )and Buddhism started to rise at that same time. The

Brahmans started to lose influence and power as their people went

hungry and began looking to other leaders. It was also becoming

increasingly obvious that cattle could be used as the power for

plowing fields and living cows produced more milk than dead cows.

The fact of the matter is there is more and better food available in

India as a *result* of most people not eating cows than there would

be if they started eating them. It's possible to keep the family

cow/bio-tractor alive and sufficiently productive on a subsistence

diet of paper, vegetable peels, tree leaves and scrub grass. It's

not possible to do the same with animals destined for meat. If the

people of India began eating their cows on a regular basis, they

would not be able to support sufficient cattle for field work and

milk without dedicating foods that can be utilized directly by people

such as grains, legumes and vegetables.

The result: the sacred cow.

The list of such explanations of various foods and why they were

taboo in one area, fine in another and indispensable in a third is

endless, and almost invariably explainable as an issue of socio-

economic pragmatism rather than as mystical insight or innate

nutritional wisdom.

Lest someone try to ambush me, I'm not sure what the explanation of

the prohibition on shellfish is. Nothing leaps out at me, but then

the impracticality of raising pigs in near-desert conditions never

really jumped out at my before starting to read Marvin ' book

either. He may eventually explain shellfish; I haven't finished the

book yet, I've had to shelve it for a bit while I get through a few

crazily busy months.

[Guest guest]

Fish must have both GILLS AND SCALES to be acceptable for an observant Jew to

eat. note that not all Jews follow the orthodox guidelines.

Pork is forbidden for Moslems too though not shellfish.

Dedy

----- Original Message -----

From: panamabob

Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:36 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Pork

No shellfish or other scavenger type animals...must have fins and scales

(no catfish or eels either)

The idea on swine, preditors (lions, etc.) and scavengers is that they may

eat diseased or dead prey passing along bad ju-ju.

Have fun catering an event with bacon wrapped shrimp stuffed with

oyster/crab stuffing and a nice creamy cheese sause on top!

:-)

bob

SLF

> Good question! I didn't know Jewish people don't eat shellfish. I

> hope somenoe else will answer this one.

> Sheila

[Guest guest]

There's wild boar, albeit not may, still roaming the middle east. you can go

hunting them to this very day and people do.

as for Hindus not eating 'cows' it began much later as a defiant act and

national identity marker against the Moslem mogul invaders.

.... " It is only in the early medieval period that the eating of beef became a

taboo, if only for upper-caste Hindus. But the cow was far from holy. It is

significant that no cow-goddesses, or temples to cows, feature in India's

anarchically all-inclusive polytheisms. "

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,753657,00.html

Dedy

----- Original Message -----

From: Kroyer

Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:09 AM

Subject: Re: Pork

> Pasture on forest, eh? Heh heh, oops, what I meant was " forage "

> not " pasture. "

Either way you're right. One of the most respected anthropologists

from the cultural materialism camp, Marvin , wrote extensively

on subjects such as that. There's a good deal of evidence to suggest

that's precisely the case with pork. Other animals didn't make good

economic sense to raise for food either but were useful in other ways

so they were simply forbidden as food (such as horses). Pigs,

however, were both economically a bad idea as food *and* basically

useless otherwise as well. That's why pigs were not only labelled as

forbidden food but also so unclean that they should not even be

touched.

There's a similar background to beef in India. It was once feasted

on lavishly and considered the finest sacrifice to the gods. Then,

the population started to increase, the brahmans started to elicit

jealously from the poorer people who couldn't get adequate animal

protein and fat. Non-killing religions such as Jainism (no relation

to judyism ;-) )and Buddhism started to rise at that same time. The

Brahmans started to lose influence and power as their people went

hungry and began looking to other leaders. It was also becoming

increasingly obvious that cattle could be used as the power for

plowing fields and living cows produced more milk than dead cows.

The fact of the matter is there is more and better food available in

India as a *result* of most people not eating cows than there would

be if they started eating them. It's possible to keep the family

cow/bio-tractor alive and sufficiently productive on a subsistence

diet of paper, vegetable peels, tree leaves and scrub grass. It's

not possible to do the same with animals destined for meat. If the

people of India began eating their cows on a regular basis, they

would not be able to support sufficient cattle for field work and

milk without dedicating foods that can be utilized directly by people

such as grains, legumes and vegetables.

The result: the sacred cow.

The list of such explanations of various foods and why they were

taboo in one area, fine in another and indispensable in a third is

endless, and almost invariably explainable as an issue of socio-

economic pragmatism rather than as mystical insight or innate

nutritional wisdom.

Lest someone try to ambush me, I'm not sure what the explanation of

the prohibition on shellfish is. Nothing leaps out at me, but then

the impracticality of raising pigs in near-desert conditions never

really jumped out at my before starting to read Marvin ' book

either. He may eventually explain shellfish; I haven't finished the

book yet, I've had to shelve it for a bit while I get through a few

crazily busy months.

[Guest guest]

> There's wild boar, albeit not may, still roaming the middle east.

you can go hunting them to this very day and people do.

> as for Hindus not eating 'cows' it began much later as a defiant

act and national identity marker against the Moslem mogul invaders.

> ... " It is only in the early medieval period that the eating of beef

became a taboo, if only for upper-caste Hindus. But the cow was far

from holy. It is significant that no cow-goddesses, or temples to

cows, feature in India's anarchically all-inclusive polytheisms. "

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,753657,00.html

>

> Dedy

Interesting book! Thanks for bringing it to my attention; the

history and anthropology of food and nutrition are definitely

a 'thing' of mine. It's too bad though that the Guardian, which I

tend to like, let such a non-journalist write the story. There was

such a strong cultural bias running through that article that it

almost taints the book that it announces...almost; like I said

though, it sounds like a really interesting book.

Marvin argued that the aversion to beef began among the lower

classes before Ashoka, but it may have well been still taking hold by

the time Islam arrived. directly speaks of Ashoka's stance

regarding cattle. Although he did not prohibit the consumption of

beef, he did try to end the practice of animal sacrifice. Although,

what Ashoka did is not of great *direct* significance to Hinduism

since he was a buddhist convert. There is evidence of a rising

sentiment against slaughtering cattle going back to around the time

of the rise of Buddhism. The characteristics of buddhism were most

likely shaped heavily by the discontent of the period...and the

characteristics of hinduism were undoubtedly shaped by competition

from buddhism. The sanskrit scholar, Rajandra Mitra, wrote in 1872:

" When the Brahmans had to contend against Buddhism which

emphatically and so successfully denounced all sacrifices,

they found the doctrine of respect for animal life too

strong and too popular to be overcome, and therefore

gradually and impreceptibly adopted it in such a way as to

make it appear as part of their [teachings]. "

I find it to be a rather unlikely notion that a people would

spontaneously choose to define themselves as " other " than another

group by rejecting an otherwise acceptable and available food.

However, if is correct, and the doctrine of the sacred cow

began much earlier as a social adaptation for survival, the influx of

Islam would have served to strengthen the already existing tendency

since it would present an existing cultural divide that could be

exaggerated. Indeed, if is right, and the Sacred Cow dogma

began as a largely practical response to the need for plow and cart

power and vastly more efficient milk production, then the influx of

Islam would have been a very sore point since it would have

challenged a structure that was carefully constructed to for the sake

of survival.

It's a fascinating subject! Maybe I'll keep the debate in mind when

it comes time to select a dissertation.

[Guest guest]

just a little add-on to the discussion re - Pork.

....' It is believed that the majority of the breeds we now know are descended

from the Eurasian Wild Boar (Sus scrofa). Archaeological evidence from the

Middle East indicates domestication of the pig occurs as early as 9,000 years

ago, with some evidence for domestication even earlier in China. Figurines, as

well as bones, dating to the sixth and seventh millennia BC have been found at

sites in the Middle East. Pigs were also a popular subject for statuettes in

ancient Persia.

From here the pig spread across Asia, Europe and Africa. One interesting point,

while most livestock where utilized initially by nomadic peoples, swine are more

indicative of a settled farming community. The reason for this is simply because

pigs are difficult to herd and move for long distances. Pigs have become vital

to the economy in parts of the world. For example, there exists a " pig culture "

in New Guinea as strong and complex as any African culture based on cattle.'...

from http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/swine/Swine-w.htm

thought the historical/archaeological evidence is interesting.

Dedy

[Guest guest]

>We have custom butchers in Washington State, too. I buy my bacon most of

>the time from a butcher who raises his own certified organic grass fed

>beef, and also sells organic chicken, turkey, and pork, and he smokes his

>own bacon and ham and sells it. He's a big proponent of organic food, so

>I feel very confident about buying from him. He has his business right on

>his farm. I buy his eggs, too.

I'm in Washington state also! Do you mind sharing his name/location?

Probably East of the mountains, unfortunately.

>I save the bacon fat and cook with it as my mother did. I notice, as far

>as life span, that my family's is going DOWN -- my ancestor who came on

>the Oregon Trail at the age of 63 and lived to be 102 (dying in 1890), to

>his granddaughter who lived to 90, to her daughter (my grandmother) who

>died at 68 of cancer. So is the food simply getting worse every generation?

Ditto in my family. A lot of them died really young (typhoid and all that)

but the ones that lived old got real old. They also were more active later

in life. My own parents started getting " old " a lot earlier, and before I

started all this, I was getting rather decrepit at 40! Yeah, there is

something that is getting really worse in each generation, it is hard to

pin it down to one thing.

-- Heidi