Food taboo

As a food taboo is the phenomenon that certain animals , plants or fungi , which in principle are edible, of an identifiable social group or within a cultural area with a taboo occupied and therefore not consumed. There is no food taboo that has universal validity. Many of these taboos are not set down in writing, but are nevertheless understood as binding and observed in the respective area of ​​validity. Since luxury foods are not counted among the foodstuffs , the alcohol ban in Islam , for example, is not scientifically regarded as a food taboo. The temporary avoidance of certain foods during fasting is not treated as a food taboo .

Several sciences are concerned with research into food bans, especially anthropology , ethnology , nutritional sociology and food research .

introduction

Humans are omnivores , so they can ingest and digest both animal and vegetable food . Nevertheless, in all known cultures a food selection is made, so that a distinction is made between preferred, less preferred, to be avoided and forbidden foods. Only the strict avoidance of indigestible and toxic substances is physiologically justifiable. All other food bans and avoidances are considered socio-culturally acquired and differ in different cultures, nations or groups. The human choice of food, unlike that of animals, is not controlled by instinct . Studies have shown that toddlers up to the age of around two are basically still ready to put anything in their mouth and eat, including stones, bugs or droppings. Feelings of disgust are acquired socially and learned through the behavior of the environment, so they are not innate. Real disgust reactions have never been observed in animals.

Guinea pigs grilled in Ecuador

Forbidden foods are also often associated with feelings of disgust. Since the same food that is decidedly inedible in one cultural area may be considered a delicacy in another , for example dog meat , this reaction cannot be interpreted as instinct; it is evidently not related to the properties of the principally edible object. The ability to suppress disgusting reactions in emergency situations such as famine and to eat something taboo varies from person to person. As a rule, strong reluctance to eat causes nausea , which makes it impossible to eat.

The majority of the globally known food taboos relate to meat and animal products, only a small part to plants. Daniel Fessler and Carlos David Navarrete found a total of 38 meat taboos in twelve examined cultural areas, but only seven plant taboos. In contrast, an actual threat from the consumption of poisonous plants is more realistic than from animal products in general. In the case of poisonous animals, only the consumption of the organs that produce the poison would be dangerous.

Worldwide the Chinese are considered to be the people with the fewest food taboos, in Europe the French. Historical sources show that the number of food taboos in Europe has increased significantly in modern times .

Explanatory models

There are several approaches to explain the development and maintenance of food taboos. The most well-known are:

1. the cultural-materialistic or economic-rationalistic approach . The best-known representative of cultural materialism is the American anthropologist Marvin Harris ( Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture , 1985). This approach assumes that food taboos can always be justified rationally and are the result of a cost-benefit analysis with regard to efficient food supply. That is the "theory of optimal foraging". Every culture and every social group develops eating habits that are ecologically and economically sensible due to the regional conditions and promise the highest benefit. Harris proves that the cows are or were very valuable living in India , so that it would be unwise to slaughter and eat them; From this insight, according to this argumentation, the taboo of the sacred cows arose .
2. the socio-cultural or functionalist approach . The advocates of this model assume that taboos primarily serve to strengthen group identity and to separate them from other groups. The food taboos are therefore in the service of a social order. Those foods and foods that are eaten by the groups from which a differentiation is sought are specifically tabooed. A well-known representative is Frederick J. Simoons ( Eat Not This Flesh. Food Avoidances in the Old World , 1967). As a rule, however, this approach cannot explain why a certain food is taboo, and not any other. The importance of the respective food is not questioned further.
3. the structuralist approach , which is mainly represented by Mary Douglas ( Purity and Danger , 1966), Claude Lévi-Strauss and, in Germany, by Ulrich Tolksdorf . In this explanatory model, food is viewed as symbols that are intended to help bring a certain imaginary order into the environment. Every culture therefore not only separates food into pure and impure, sacred and profane. Pure food is considered edible, unclean food is not edible. Certain criteria are established for the classification. Some social groups reject animals that do not fit into any category.
4. The ethnosociologist Edmund Leach introduced a modified structuralist nutritional model ( Kultur und Kommunikation , 1974). According to this, animals that are classified as either too foreign or too related, i.e. predators or insects in Central Europe, but also monkeys or dogs, are generally inedible. Leach related the edibility of animals to rules of marital union. If the relationship to the "object" is very close, the incest taboo and a marriage ban apply , and accordingly pets are not edible. Closer relatives or spatial proximity mean disapproval of marriage, but permission for sexual contact; accordingly, domestic animals (farm animals) are edible as young animals. Not related, but also not very far, correspond to marriage permits and wildlife edibility. “Very distant” excludes closer social contact with humans and the edibility of animals that are rejected as “too wild” or “too strange”.
5. the evolutionary psychological approach , represented by Fessler / Navarrete. These researchers assume that emotions are the basis of food taboos, arguing that feelings of disgust developed over the course of evolution in order to make food choices easier and to minimize the risk of dying from “wrong foods” . This risk is greater with meat than with plants. These feelings of disgust were to a certain extent anchored in the brain through nausea and vomiting after eating the wrong things. The authors write: "... disgust was the trigger for many taboos, which set off a cascade phenomenon in which normative moralization and egocentric empathy only played a role later." Due to its animal origin, meat also offers itself more as an object of projection for symbolic ones Attributions and so-called magical thinking of plant-based foods, which contribute to reinforcing the taboo. This approach is vulnerable because studies seem to show that disgust is not innate and therefore not an instinct; only certain, very elementary taste preferences are innate , which are relatively similar in all people, such as the preference for sugar, and often disappear in the course of growing up.

All of these considerations have the disadvantage that they cannot satisfactorily explain even the majority of all known food taboos. Eva Barlösius: “It is highly unlikely that phenomena as diverse as the ban on killing cattle in India, the rejection of horse meat in Northern Europe, the aversion to dog and cat meat in Europe and North America and the Mosaic and Islamic pork taboo each have the same causal principle underlying."

Religiously based food taboos

beef

One of the best known food taboos is the religiously based prohibition for Hindus to slaughter and eat cattle. Milking cows in particular are considered sacred and inviolable. The cow is considered to be the embodiment of the goddess Prithivi Mata, mother earth. In addition, according to Hindu tradition, Krishna, an incarnation of the god Vishnu , grew up in the family of a cowherd and is often shown in pictures as a shepherd with a cow. A bull named Nandi is the companion animal of the god Shiva . For some Hindus, rebirth as a cow means the level directly below that of humans and whoever kills a cow, the soul should sink back to the lowest of 87 levels. The cow's milk and all excretions from cows are also considered pure.

In most Indian states and Union territories, the slaughter of cattle is prohibited by law or only permitted to a limited extent, but there is no uniform Union-wide regulation in India.

The quote from Mahatma Gandhi has come down to us:

“The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection. Cow protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. [...] Cow protection is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live so long as there are Hindus to protect the cow. "

“The focus of Hinduism is the protection of the cattle. For me, protecting cattle is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. […] The protection of cattle is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live as long as there are Hindus who protect the beef. "

The veneration of cattle among Hindus is, however, very different. While some, especially in the north of India, have a close emotional relationship with the animals, in southern Kerala they only do without slaughter and sell old animals to Christian or Muslim butchers; Beef is also eaten there. Of the 450 lower castes that officially exist in India, 117 are allowed to eat beef. For financial reasons, they usually only consider the meat of dead animals. However, for the majority of Hindus, beef is taboo. Old age and unproductive cows can usually stay in the barn and continue to be fed; sometimes they are placed in special animal shelters where they receive the bread of grace . According to the anthropologist Marvin Harris, there were around 3,000 such "retirement homes" for cows in India in the 1980s, in which around 580,000 animals lived. Most of them belonged to followers of Jainism .

Cow on the streets of Delhi

Most Hindus believe that the Indians already worshiped cattle in ancient times and generally did not slaughter them - the consumption of beef was only widespread in the country with the Muslims. However, this opinion can be refuted based on sources. From 1800 to 800 BC The Indo-Aryan bearers of Vedic culture lived in northern India, a nomadic people who, according to sources, both ate cattle and sacrificed them as part of religious rituals. The sacrificial animals were divided after killing among the followers of the priests and warriors. This representation corresponds to the research findings of the Indologists based on the evaluation of ancient Indian sources. “In Vedic times, beef was not only one of the most important sacrificial animals, but was also eaten with pleasure and a lot in everyday life, as (...) numerous (...) texts show. Still at the time of the Emperor Ashoka in the middle of the 3rd century BC. Chr. There were no cattle killing taboo. The Brahmins ate beef, and especially guests were treated to beef (...). In the course of time, however, beef finally becomes completely taboo for all Hindus, while the products derived from the cow are declared sacred, pure and purifying. "

In Vedic times there were already four castes: the priestly caste of the Brahmins , a warrior caste, a peasant and craftsman caste and a servant caste. As the population grew, more and more arable land was needed, so there was less grazing land and therefore fewer cattle. So soon only the privileged boxes ate the coveted meat. Around 600 BC, wars and floods caused famine, and it was at that time that Buddhism emerged as a competing religion. He condemned animal sacrifice and the slaughter of animals in general.

The result of this “competition” in India led, according to Harris, to the emergence of the food taboo in connection with the cattle: “For nine hundred years Buddhism and Hinduism fought for the stomachs and heads of the Indian population. In the end, Hinduism won the fight, but only after the Brahmins had freed themselves from the Rigweda's fixation on animal sacrifice, adopted the prohibition of killing [...] as a principle and established themselves as the protector of the cattle rather than its annihilator. […] Instead of meat, milk became the most important ritual food in Hinduism […] ”.

If the cattle had been treated with a negative taboo, that would have meant the end of cattle breeding, because “unclean” animals are not kept by believers. However, cattle played and still play an important role for the arable population in India and are indispensable because they serve as draft animals in the field, provide milk, and the cow dung is used both as fertilizer and as heating material. In addition, owning even a single cow gives many smallholders their status as owners of a tiny piece of land. Harris argues that this is the reason for the formation of the taboo on sacred cows . The actual motive has nothing to do with religion, but is of an economic nature.

According to the socio-cultural explanatory model, the food taboo serves to strengthen the Hindus' own identity and to separate them from other religious groups such as Christians and Muslims.

pork meat

Pork neck with bone

Both for Jews and for Muslims is pork taboo. In both religions this ban on eating is set out in writing. The Torah forbids the consumption of a number of animals, including that of the pig . It says in Leviticus :

“ ³ You are allowed to eat all animals that have split claws, are couple herders and chew the cud. […] ⁷ you should consider the wild boar to be unclean, because although it has split claws and is a couple, it does not chew the cud. ⁸ You must not eat of their flesh or touch their carcasses; you should consider them unclean. "

- 3 Mos 11.3-7  EU

The Jewish Christians in the early Jerusalem community also obeyed the Jewish food prohibitions . The success of the Christian mission even among non-Jews now raised the question of the extent to which converted pagans could also be required to observe these regulations. At the " Apostles' Council " around 48/49 AD, a compromise was first agreed to allow Jewish Christians to continue to eat together with Gentile Christians : Gentile Christians should at least abstain from "fornication" and from the enjoyment of what was strangled, blood and meat offered to idols ( Acts 15 : 1–29  EU . Pork is not explicitly mentioned here, but was one of the most frequently used sacrifices in cults by the Greeks and Romans). Paulus , the “Gentile Apostle” in particular , rejected the Jewish dietary regulations in principle. He considered it to be a sign of weakness in faith ( Rom 14.1-23 EU ), and even in the pastoral letters  any renunciation of food is branded as ingratitude for the gifts of God and as a "teaching of the demons" ( 1 Tim 4.1-5  EU ) . The Jewish-Christian views quickly lost their importance and could only last locally until the 4th century AD, especially in the East Bank and Syria.

The dietary regulations in the Koran are strikingly similar to those of the “Council of Apostles”. The Koran explicitly forbids only the pig as the only animal:

“He has forbidden you only (the enjoyment of) naturally dead things, blood, pork and that about which something other than Allah has been invoked. But if someone is forced to (to) desire without (it) and without exceeding the limit, then he is not to blame [...]. "

- Quran 2.173

However, there is also a basic division of food into pure ( halāl ) and unclean ( harām ) in Islam , which is considered binding, even if it is not explicitly based on the Koran text.

Since the 12th century at the latest, the pork taboo in Judaism and Islam has often been justified by the fact that pigs are, in the truest sense of the word, unclean animals that like to roll around in the dirt and eat their own droppings , as occurs when they are not kept properly or if there is a lack of food . The Jewish personal doctor of Sultan Saladin , Maimonides , wrote: “If the law forbids pork, it is mainly because the animal's habits and food are extremely unclean and nauseating. […] A pig's mouth is as dirty as the excrement itself. ”Since they have no sweat glands , they roll around in the mud to cool off. And chickens and goats sometimes eat feces too. A scientific justification from the 19th century justified the "impurity" with a possible disease of trichinosis due to not fully cooked pork. However, raw meat from other animal species can also cause serious diseases. Trichinosis was only discovered by scientists at the end of the 19th century and therefore cannot have been the reason for the emergence of this taboo. "If the hygienic aspect were the main cause of the ban, then beef would have to be banned even more urgently, as it can contain a parasite that causes the deadly disease of anthrax , while the consequences of trichinae contamination are less severe [...]".

Semi-wild domestic pigs in Corsica

Archaeological finds show that pigs were also kept and eaten in the Middle East in the past . At the time of the Neolithic there was still plenty of oak and beech forests in which herds of pigs could find food and shade. A herd of pigs in the area of ​​the Hellenistic Decapolis is also mentioned in the New Testament . Due to the population growth, however, more and more forests were cleared to gain arable land. Pig farming in this hot area became increasingly uneconomical, because pigs are omnivorous, but unlike ruminants, they cannot digest plants with a high cellulose content, i.e. grass. As pets, they have to be fed grain or other crops, which, unlike ruminants, make them food competitors for humans. In contrast to cattle, pigs are not suitable as draft animals, they are not riding animals, they cannot be milked, and their fur is less versatile. According to Harris, their attitude was therefore uneconomical from a certain point in time from a cost-benefit perspective and therefore undesirable.

Both the core area of ​​Judaism and that of Islam lie in the Middle East. “The repeated occurrence of aversions to the pig in different cultures of the Near East supports […] our view that the pork ban of the ancient Israelites was a reaction to widespread living conditions and not the result of a belief system that was based on the ideas of a particular religion and unclean animals arose. "

In contrast, the structuralist explanatory model assumes that food taboos reflect the thinking models of a society. Mary Douglas interprets the dietary laws of the Old Testament as part of an order in which the attributes "pure" and "unclean" play an important role. Sacred and pure are all things that are flawless, perfect and unambiguous. For animals, three groups are formed in the books of Moses for animals in the water, in the air and on the land, with certain criteria for each group. Animals that meet all the criteria are considered clean and therefore edible, the others are unclean. According to Douglas, the pig is classified as unclean because it does not meet the criteria for edible land animals. However, the researcher herself admits that these criteria were apparently only later set in writing in order to support and justify existing eating habits. Eva Barlösius: “Some of the taboo foods were not eaten long before the Mosaic dietary laws came into being. The classification of animals according to the criterion of 'pair-toed ruminants' was therefore only invented afterwards. "

Frederick J. Simoons as a representative of the functionalist theory sees the pork taboo as the result of a conflict between sedentary and non-sedentary groups. Pig keeping was unsuitable for the nomadic way of life , i.e. the ancient Israelites , and was therefore given up. The pig has thus become a symbol of sedentariness and has been rejected for this reason. Its consumption has been associated with tribes that threatened the people of Israel. Islamic scholar Peter Heine also considers this explanation plausible, who points out that pigs were valued sacrificial animals in ancient Egypt. He sees the "emphasis on monotheism versus a polytheistic environment" as the main reason for the taboo .

Another modern attempt at explanation by Marvin Harris is based on economic and ecological factors. Due to the increase in arable land, logging and erosion, the formerly extensive forests in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa declined around 2000 BC. Chr. Back to only small remnants. The pigs, which until then had found shade, food and moist mud to wallow in oak and beech forests , lost their ecological niche and became food competitors for humans, who supplied themselves with grain and the scarce water. Due to the changed living conditions, pigs were difficult and no longer profitable to keep and, in addition, due to the lack of water, they rolled around in their droppings. As a result, the keeping of cattle , sheep and goats prevailed, because as ruminants they feed on plants that are indigestible for humans and are better adapted to water scarcity and heat. In Phenicia , Egypt and Babylonia , the consumption of pork began to be increasingly frowned upon and religious prohibitions were imposed upon it, which later also occurred among the Jews and finally the Muslims.

Both Islamic and Jewish scholars reject such interpretations and considerations as "human attempts at interpreting the divine will" and simply refer to the definition of God, which a person can neither nor may interpret.

Horse meat

French soldiers eating horse meat on the Russian campaign

In some countries horse meat is considered to be a completely normal food like beef or pork, in other countries it is taboo or at least avoided. The Jewish dietary laws prohibit the consumption of horse meat, among other things, in Islam horses and donkeys are also not considered regular food, as they are not halāl as farm animals. And in Christianity, too, a papal ban on slaughtering horses was binding for a long time. Even in the 16th century, the consumption of horse meat was regarded as evidence of witchcraft and devilish activities.

From a nutritional point of view, nothing speaks against the consumption of horses. The meat is considered to be very lean, low in calories and rich in iron. Bone finds and cave paintings from the Stone Age show that people often killed and ate horses at that time. When the extensive pastures in Europe were replaced by forests due to climate change, horse meat was mainly eaten by typical equestrian peoples such as the Mongols and Huns . However, the horses were never bred for consumption only, because cattle and pigs are better suited as pure meat suppliers due to their more effective feed conversion. The Romans of antiquity ate the sources said no horses but donkeys.

The Moors had mounted armies. They conquered Spain in 711 and crossed the Pyrenees in 720 ; In 732 they were defeated with difficulty by the army of Karl Martell in the Battle of Tours , so that their further advance was stopped. The cavalry is said to have played an important role in this victory. At that time , animal sacrifices for the gods were common among many pagan peoples, including the Teutons ; horses were also slaughtered regularly. After the Battle of Tours in 732, Pope Gregory III wrote. a letter to the missionary Boniface , in which he asked him to forbid the consumption of horses with immediate effect: “Among other things, you also mentioned that some ate wild horses and even more ate tame horses. Under no circumstances, holy brother, must you allow such a thing to ever (again, supplement) to happen. [...] Because this activity is impure and despicable. "

Marvin Harris sees a clear connection between the importance of horses for the knights and the threatening advance of the Islamic Moors and the papal prohibition. The horses were too precious to defend the Christian lands to be slaughtered, he concludes. Yet animals that had died in Europe continued to be eaten by the lower classes of the population who could hardly afford any other meat. In France, there were repeated regulations banning the consumption of horse meat in the 18th century, which is an indication that this kept happening. A change of opinion is said to have occurred after the Battle of Eylau in 1807, when the chief medical officer in Napoleon's army, Baron Dominique Jean Larrey , recommended that hungry soldiers eat the meat of killed horses. Several French scientists emphasized the nutritional value of this meat in the 19th century and specifically recommended it for poor families. During the siege of Paris by the German army in 1871, horses are said to have been slaughtered en masse in the city in order to secure supplies for the population.

While in France and some other European countries the consumption of horse meat was allowed and even encouraged again in the 19th century, this is not the case in Great Britain and the United States, although Catholicism did not play an important role there. Harris explains this with the fact that because of its trading empire there has been no shortage of other edible meat in England since the 18th century, not even for the lower classes. The same applies to the United States. However, he admits that horsemeat is not simply ignored as food in these countries, but that most of the people strongly oppose it; it is regarded as "not edible", so it is taboo. Still, he claims that many Americans would be willing to eat horse meat if it was significantly cheaper than beef or pork. He also attributes the existing aversions to a "beef lobby" and ongoing protests by animal rights activists , whose motives he does not question. There are two large horse slaughterhouses in Texas that deliver the meat almost exclusively overseas; some is processed into dog food .

The maintenance of the horse meat taboo today and in countries that are predominantly Protestant can be more conclusively explained with a different sociological approach, which assumes that some animals are not eaten because they are considered pets , not farm animals , and so that people are too close to be considered as food.

Rabbit meat

→ Main article : Rabbit taboo

Deer meat

In the beliefs of South American indigenous people, especially of tribes in Eastern Peru and Central Brazil ( e.g. Matsigenka ), the consumption of deer is still strongly taboo. Through the observable way of life, which characterizes him as a loner who is also "nocturnal, shy, fast [and] quiet", beliefs have developed that see him as a carrier of human souls . "As the bearer of the human dead soul, the deer is considered a demon, and this demonic power, which is ascribed to the animal, constitutes its 'sanction potential'," Monika Setzwein emphasizes the origins of this idea. However, no social measures follow the consumption of deer meat. With the extinction of living beings in this region and Christian indoctrination campaigns by missionaries, this food taboo is slowly being broken.

blood

Smoked fresh black pudding with meat, on the right dried black pudding with bacon

In both Judaism and Islam, the consumption of blood , bloody meat and foods that contain blood are taboo. The Bible says in Deuteronomy (12:23): “But rule yourself and do not enjoy blood, for blood is life force and you should not consume life force together with the flesh.” This prohibition is repeated in the Torah ; it says in Leviticus (7: 26-27): “In all your homes you must not enjoy any blood, neither from birds nor from quadrupeds. Whoever always enjoys a little blood should be wiped out of his people. ”In the Koran the corresponding prohibition in Sura 5,4 reads:“ You are prohibited from eating dead animals, blood, pork […] ”. This taboo is complied with in both religions by slaughtering as a slaughter method, whereby the animal is supposed to bleed to death. The Jewish dietary laws also prescribe how the meat of animals considered pure is to be prepared in order to remove the blood from it before consumption. Even with the offerings in the temple , when the Jewish priests were allowed to eat the meat of some sacrificial animals, the consumption of the blood of the sacrificial animals was always strictly taboo.

What is less well known is that the consumption of blood was forbidden by the church even in the early days of Christianity . In the New Testament the apostle James ( Acts 15: 19–21 EU ) forbids the consumption of meat, strangled  meat and blood.

There is also a tradition of a blood sausage ban by the Eastern Roman Emperor Leo VI. : “We have heard that blood is packed in intestines, such as in skirts, and sent to the stomach as a very common dish. Our imperial majesty can no longer watch that the honor of our state is desecrated by such a wicked invention (...) of gluttonous people. Anyone who uses blood for food will be severely flogged, shaved to the skin and banished from the country forever. "

In an interpretation of the Koran (Razi, Vol. 2) it is said that slaughtering is necessary because in animals slaughtered differently, the blood stagnates in the veins, spoils there and thus makes the meat inedible; its consumption is harmful to health. However, this assumption is not tenable because even with conventional slaughter, death occurs by bleeding, but the animal is previously anesthetized.

With the well-known explanatory models for food taboos (impurity), the blood taboo cannot be explained, or only insufficiently. According to Jewish belief, blood is not unclean, but "the seat of the soul". If a woman is considered unclean for seven days after her menstruation , it does not refer to her bleeding per se, but because a process of dying has taken place in her that makes the affected person unclean. Blood from wounds of a fatally injured person (also in clothing) must be buried as far as possible so that no blood is lost. The food taboo cannot therefore be seen in isolation.

Non-religious food taboos

Dog meat

Dog meat dish in China with the tail pinned to the edge of the plate for garnish

Dog meat is a food in only a few countries, while it is absolutely taboo in many countries. However, it is not as if dog consumption was never common in Europe or was only restricted to times of need. According to the sources, this food taboo has only developed in the recent past and has largely been implemented, parallel to the growing importance of the animal protection movement in Europe. Dog meat is eaten in China, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, East Timor and the Congo, among others. However, there are serious indications that at least until recently dogs were eaten in Switzerland, where private consumption is legal, and in Germany as well. For the period around 1900 there is official information about dog slaughter for Chemnitz , Dresden and Zwickau . In May 2006, an interview with Prince Henrik of Denmark that appeared in a Danish magazine caused a sensation in which he openly stated that he was a lover of both live dogs and dog meat because dogs intended for human consumption were bred specifically for the so be comparable to chickens. The taste of dogs is reminiscent of veal . The prince was born in France and grew up in Indochina , where he learned about dishes made from dog meat.

From a purely nutritional point of view, dog meat is suitable for consumption. The acceptance or rejection of this meat as food by a society or social group is, as with other types of meat, to be regarded as culturally acquired. Since dogs are popular pets in Europe and the United States, the discussion about this food taboo or its non-existence is often very emotional in some countries. In connection with the Soccer World Cup in South Korea in 2002 , there was international criticism that the consumption of dog meat is not explicitly prohibited in Korea . The actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot , for example, spoke of “barbaric bad habits” and was accused of racism .

Pets, as it were, are considered part of the family and be "pampered", used by anthropologists like Harris as pet animals referred, to distinguish them from pets, the more are considered farm animals such as cows and pigs. In Europe and the United States, pets, such as dogs, are largely considered inedible . However, based on his socio-economic theory, Harris denies that the emotional attachment to animals is the main reason for the development of a food taboo. As a justification, he cites examples of originally living ethnic groups who keep and pet dogs or pigs in the house, but also slaughter and eat these animals, for example the Maori . According to Harris, the dog taboo is another example of a cost-benefit calculation: "We in the West refrain from eating dogs, not because dogs are our favorites among animals, but basically because dogs, since they are carnivores themselves, represent an ineffective source of meat; we have an abundance of alternative sources of animal food, and dogs can serve us alive in many ways that are far beyond the value of their meat and carcasses. ”He hypothesizes that dogs are eaten in China because they keep eating different meat is scarce. "And as far as the service that dogs do elsewhere as companions for people, society is the only thing you get a lot of in a country with a billion inhabitants." According to Harris, this social function of dogs is also a "service" and thus has a pure utility value.

Asia

Dog meat is consumed in several East and Southeast Asian countries and sometimes also offered in restaurants. However, it is not an everyday food; Dog meat is considered a high-quality specialty by lovers in these countries and has almost the status of a medicinal product , so it is not cheap either. A protest movement against the consumption of dog meat has formed in Seoul .

The most popular Korean dish made with dog meat is a soup called poshintang , but there are several other foods as well. At least for restaurants it is not true that any domestic dog ends up in the saucepan or in the pan; "Table dogs" called gu , while the usual domestic dogs are called gyun, are bred for consumption . In Korea, the consumption of dog meat is ascribed health-promoting effects, including the promotion of convalescence after illness, healing of tuberculosis , combating “heat wasting” in summer and the stimulation of male potency .

Also in China and Malaysia , on Taiwan and the Philippines , dog meat is considered a delicacy and also a male aphrodisiac . Particularly popular is the meat of St. Bernard , which is imported from Europe and then bred to produce "meat dogs". In Asia there are said to be over 60 such kennels. Animal rights activists from Germany and Switzerland have officially protested against the consumption of St. Bernard in China. In Switzerland, the “SOS Saint Bernard Dogs” association collected around 11,000 signatures. The consumption of dog meat in one's own country was not mentioned in this context.

Since dog meat is not an everyday food in Asia and is considered a rare delicacy, Harris' thesis that it serves as a substitute for other meat does not seem conclusive. Instead, the hypothesis to be tested would be that in Asia, unlike in Europe and the United States, dogs do not have a distinct status as pets , but, like cattle and pigs, are viewed more as farm animals.

For Thailand, on the other hand, it cannot be formulated that way. There are areas in which dogs are eaten, not as an everyday food, but also not in the sense of special delicacies, but rather out of mood, for a change or out of embarrassment. But even in villages where this takes place, only certain families do it, while the neighbors would never think of it. In Thailand, however, a distinction is made between ordinary domestic and farm dogs and cute petted lap dogs, the latter being something special that are not eaten. It is different with the Chinese minority in the country and with some ethnicities of the so-called mountain peoples, for whom the consumption of the meat of normal domestic dogs is more common.

Europe

For most Europeans, the consumption of dog meat is a taboo just as it is for Americans. The slaughter of dogs and the trade in dog meat has been banned within the EU since 1986. Trade is prohibited in Switzerland, but private slaughter is not. Media reports about the consumption of dog meat in Switzerland even in recent times can be classified as serious, and it does not seem to be isolated cases either. The animal rights activist Edith Zellweger has repeatedly commented on this in interviews and given examples. Dog meat is also traded illegally in Switzerland, with three major providers in the country; one kilo costs around 25 Swiss francs. "Dogs and cats are not only eaten in the Rhine Valley and Appenzell, all over Switzerland," says Zellweger. The journalist Markus Rohner conducted and published interviews with “dog eaters”. The consumption of dog meat should be common especially in rural areas, although there should also be buyers in Germany. Also, dog fat is considered an ancient remedy for coughs and respiratory diseases . The widespread use of dog and cat fat, but also dog meat within German-speaking folk medicine has been proven. In ancient Greece , the consumption of meat was widespread and Hippocrates also recommended boiled dog for female infertility .

Current archaeozoological studies have shown that over the millennia, too, the use of dogs in Europe was not limited to services such as social partners and work animals, but that dogs were also suppliers of meat and fur from the Stone Age to modern times. The fact that dog and cat meat is advised against in medieval medical science books leads to the conclusion that it was also eaten in the entire German-speaking area. In the source catalog for the dictionary of Bavarian dialects in Austria (WBÖ) there is a lot of evidence for the consumption of this meat in poor families in the 20th century. Dogs and cats were also often eaten in times of famine.

The fact that dogs were killed and their skins or hides recycled can be proven by sources in the German-speaking area and thus also their status as livestock. The hides were processed by tanners , cobblers , glove makers and furriers . There was the term dog bat ; the so-called dog strike was a task of the knackers to reduce the number of stray dogs in the cities. The bones from the Middle Ages found by archaeologists prove that numerous dogs were skinned, with the animals usually being young. The large number of such finds allows the conclusion that these were deliberately killed and did not die of natural causes. However, none of this proves that the animals were actually eaten.

For the German Reich there are official statistics on dog slaughter, which like other slaughterings had to be officially reported. Before the First World War , around 7,000 dog slaughters were registered each year, with numerous illegal slaughterings being assumed. "If you convert the official figures into quantities, before the war around 84 t of dog meat were slaughtered in Germany each year, between 1920 and 1924 it was around 115 t each - with a much higher number of unreported cases." The statistics show regional focuses , Most of the official slaughter took place in Saxony , Thuringia and Silesia . “Chemnitz had its own dog slaughterhouse and also a number of taverns where you could eat dog meat. (...) Especially as raw tartare , dog meat was considered a regional delicacy (...) ”. Between 1899 and 1901, 884 dogs were officially slaughtered in Chemnitz, 120 in Dresden, 93 in Zwickau, 52 in Leipzig . Dog meat was also considered poor food in Germany during the First World War. The German meat inspection law from the 1940s still lists the dog as a slaughter animal under Section 1.

The pets kept used to have a clear function. In the early modern times, lap dogs first came into fashion with noble ladies who carried them around with them. In England, the animal welfare movement only gained in importance in the 19th century, when the vegetarian movement emerged , which rejected all meat consumption, mainly for ethical reasons. At the same time, the public slaughter was moved to slaughterhouses and thus hidden from view of the public, who for the first time in history took offense at these processes.

According to an ethno-sociological approach (Leach), dogs are considered inedible in societies in which they are viewed as family members and, due to the emotional significance of these animals, are too close to humans to be considered as food. "In our culture, dog meat is not rejected because it is not nutritionally valuable, its consumption would lead to health problems or because it served to stabilize our collective identity, but because it has a meaning."

insects

→ Main articles : Entomophagy in humans  and food insect

Witchetty maggots can be bought packaged in supermarkets in some places in Australia.

Fried grasshoppers in the market in Agadez, Niger.

Insects are not considered as food at all by the majority of Europeans, although many species are in principle edible and are also consumed in many cultures in Asia, Africa and South America. In Europe and the United States, however, insects are commonly associated with dirt and are often disgusting. For the consumption of insects there is the technical term entomophagy in the western cultural area , from which it follows that this is regarded as unusual and deviant behavior. However, anthropologists assume that some insects used to be part of the European diet. The ancient poet Aristophanes referred to locusts as "four-winged fowl," and the Romans loved to eat the caterpillars of a butterfly called cossus ( willow borer ). In the Middle Ages, however, European eating habits changed and insects disappeared from the menu. Nevertheless, cockchafer soup is said to have been prepared in northern Hesse and France at the beginning of the 20th century . Eating locusts is mentioned in both the Bible and the Koran.

In view of the feared meat supply shortages with a steady increase in the world population, nutrition experts are considering making insects more popular as a suitable food in Europe as well. "Insect menus" are also occasionally offered by restaurants, and corresponding cookbooks have also appeared, but so far they have only addressed a marginal group in our cultural area. Insects intended for consumption fall under the novel food regulation within the EU and must be approved for trade.

Nutritionally, many insects are good sources of protein , especially larvae . 100 grams of African termites contain 610 kilocalories , 38 grams of protein and 46 grams of fat; 100 grams of moth larvae have around 375 kilocalories with 46 grams of protein and 10 grams of fat. Dried bee larvae provide 90 percent protein and eight percent fat. The fact that insects contain an indigestible substance called chitin does not prevent them from being consumed, as it can be removed or is excreted undigested; In the case of crustaceans such as lobsters and shrimp , which are not insect-based , the lime-reinforced and therefore very hard chitin layer must be removed before consumption. Some larvae contain only a small amount of chitin. The taste of termites and crickets is said to be reminiscent of lettuce , fried grasshoppers taste sweet. However, not all insects are edible, some are poisonous.

There are numerous examples of cultures around the world that view insects as food. Giant water bugs are consumed in parts of East Asia and Southeast Asia , in Thailand deep-fried grasshoppers are available in every market, in Mexico grasshoppers and other types of insects, some of which are covered with chocolate , are sold as confectionery . In Australia there are said to be a few supermarkets in which Witchetty maggots are offered in refrigerated shelves. These insects were the traditional bush food of the Aborigines of the central deserts in Australia . Many Indian tribes partially fed on insects. In Nevada and California they systematically drove swarms of locusts onto areas with glowing coal, where they were roasted directly for consumption.

As always, Harris answers the question of why insects are taboo in Europe and the United States despite their edibility with his theory of the “optimal foraging” and an unfavorable cost-benefit ratio. Only insects that are of a certain size and appear in swarms at the same time are really interesting as a source of nutrients. "If [...] a natural environment is poor in insect fauna - especially in large and / or swarm-forming species - and if it is at the same time rich in domesticated or wild large vertebrate species, then in case of doubt insects will not belong to the diet."

Arachnids as a snack: Roasted tarantulas in Skun, Cambodia

However, this approach only explains why insects are avoided as food, it does not explain the explicit taboo and the disgust associated with it. Harris admits that himself; Even skin contact with crawling insects is considered disgusting by many. His explanation for this is: “Whether an animal species is made a deity or abhorred depends on whether it has any other use or is just harmful. […] A pig that is not eaten is useless […] Therefore it is loathed. Insects that are not eaten are worse than pigs [...] Not only do they devour the fruit in the fields, they also eat the food off our plates, bite us, sting us, make us itchy and drink our blood . [...] They are harmful through and through and have no use whatsoever. […] Since we do not eat them, we are free to identify them with the epitome of evil […] and to make them symbolic of filth, of what is frightening, of what is hated. ” This explanation has the disadvantage that it obviously does not apply to other cultural areas, because there - also according to Harris - insects, which endanger the harvest and are therefore food competitors, are preferred to eat in order to reduce their numbers. Harris writes, for example: "In view of the destruction caused by the locusts in the area of ​​plant and animal food sources, those affected have no other choice than to expand their diet and consume the consumers." In Europe, too, swarms of locusts are as Plague occurred.

shrimp

David Gordon, author of an insect cookbook, contradicts Harris and, on the contrary, assumes that insects are taboo in agricultural societies precisely because they destroy crops and thus human beings' food sources. That makes them hated pests . However, this does not explain why insect species that are harmless to useful for humans are also taboo.

So there are completely different attempts at interpretation, depending on which cultural area is considered. In addition to the problems already mentioned, it is difficult to explain with rational arguments why other arthropods such as shrimp or crabs in Europe are not classified by many as disgusting, but are accepted as food and sometimes even as a delicacy .

Plant taboos

While there are meat taboos in all cultural areas, plant taboos are rare and known mainly from smaller ethnic groups; these taboos are gender-specific in some places, i.e. only for men or only for women. They are only mentioned by a few authors, some equate the term food taboo with meat taboo.

The ethnologist Anne Meigs researched the culture and social life of the Hua tribe in Papua New Guinea and, among other things, made a list of the food taboos of the initiated men. All foods are taboo with femininity and female sexuality associated . Taboo are, for example, red vegetables, reddish fruits and red mushrooms, which are associated with menstruation, as well as "hairy" vegetables (pubic hair), foods with a certain smell (one type of mushroom and two types of yams ) that are said to be remind of menstruating women, as well as wild plants such as wild bananas (wild = harmful to men). The men expect sanctions if they break these food taboos. It is a form of magical thinking in which foods are assigned special properties. In the western cultural area, some plants were also associated with sexuality in the past, but they were not tabooed, but consumed as aphrodisiacs.

Broad beans, also called broad beans

An example of a historical plant taboo is the tabooing of beans by the Pythagoreans , the followers of Pythagoras of Samos , and the Orphics . The existence of this taboo is passed down from ancient sources. Both groups have not given an explanation for the food ban, so that contemporaries have already given several interpretations. The most common explanation is based on the belief in rebirth and transmigration of souls among Pythagoras and the Orphics. Therefore, nothing “animated” was allowed to be eaten, which meant a ban on eating animals (meat and fish); In addition, beans were also considered to be "inspired". According to Aristotle, this assumption was based on the fact that the beanstalk grows hollow and undivided from the earth, so that a direct connection to the realm of the dead, to Hades, was assumed, from which the souls rose. This is how the saying should be understood: "Eating beans is like eating your parents' heads".

Pythagoras is said to have also declared, referring to Zarathustra , that after the creation of the earth, the bean came into being first and thus is the origin of all life. As evidence, according to the sources, he cited that a bitten bean left in the sun gives off the smell of semen after a while . Another evidence is that a bean blossom buried in the ground in a pot, which is dug up again after a few days, resembles the female genitalia and, if you look closely, the head of a child. The ancient Greeks are said to have only known broad beans (broad beans).

Another justification for the bean taboo of the ascetic Orphics and Pythagoreans is the idea, widespread in ancient Greece, that the consumption of beans increases sexual desire. Also among the possible reasons given by Aristotle is that the beans resemble genitals. Finally, there is the assumption that the gas-producing effect of beans in digestion played a role, since flatulence was viewed as animalistic, which would also disturb mental concentration and dreams. The disease favism was still unknown in antiquity and was only associated with the consumption of beans in the 19th century.

Another historical plant taboo has come down to us from ancient Greece . Consumption of garlic was considered undesirable, and garlic eaters were barred from participating in ritual acts for certain gods. They were also not allowed to enter the temples of the goddess Cybele .

Some Orthodox Brahmin groups (e.g. Chaturvedi) avoid garlic and onions . The founder of ISKCON A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada forbade his followers from eating garlic and onions, as this is forbidden for Vaishnavas according to the Shastras (the Hindu scriptures).

Overview of various food taboos

designation	Food taboo z. B. in	Food e.g. B. in
Bush meat ( monkeys etc.)	Europe, United Kingdom, United States, Judaism, Islam	Southeast Asia, Latin America
frog	United Kingdom, Judaism, Islam	France, Asia
dog	Europe, United States, Judaism, Islam	China, Korea, Congo, Switzerland
insects	Europe, United States, Judaism, Islam	Asia, Africa, Mexico, South America
Rabbit	Judaism	Asia, Africa, Europe, United States
cat	Europe, United States, Judaism, Islam	China, Korea, Switzerland
Crayfish, crabs, prawns, lobsters	Judaism, Islam (Hanafi law school only)	Asia, Africa, Europe, United States
Guinea pig	Europe, United States, Judaism, Islam	Peru, Ecuador
Shellfish	Judaism, Islam (Hanafi law school only)	Asia, Africa, Europe, United States
horse	United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Judaism, Islam (not harām but makrūh )	France, Italy, German-speaking countries
Rat meat	Europe, United States, Judaism, Islam	Ghana, Thailand, parts of India
Beef	Hinduism	Christianity, Judaism, Islam
turtle	Judaism, Islam	Asia, South America
Snails	Judaism, Islam	Asia, Africa, Europe, United States
pig	Judaism, Islam	u. a. Christianity, atheism
Songbirds	Germany, Austria, Judaism	Italy, France, Spain, Portugal (see also bird trapping )
spider	Europe, United States, Judaism, Islam	Laos, Thailand, Cambodia

Food bans and avoidance

The trade in products from certain animal species is prohibited by law for reasons of species protection . Examples of these species are turtles , beavers , some species of seals, and whales . However, not all states have signed the Washington Convention on Endangered Species . This agreement is in force throughout the EU . In addition, other bans apply, for example the production of dog and cat meat, which is to be seen in connection with the corresponding food taboo in the EU, or the use of beef brain in food production to protect against BSE infections.

However, a legal ban is not to be equated with a taboo. There are animal species that are avoided by the majority of the population in individual countries regardless of a ban - although they are still regarded as (potential) food, in fact only a few eat them. The transition between basic food taboo and mere avoidance is fluid. Most authors therefore do not make a definitive distinction and treat both phenomena as taboo.

The sociologist Monika Setzwein differentiates between prohibition , taboo and avoidance , whereby she rates the general acceptance of taboos and avoidance higher than that of prohibitions. She defines taboo as an “internal prohibition” that does not require any special justification as it is taken for granted. “An essential characteristic of the taboo is its emotional occupation and its often ambivalent character, in which awe and disgust are united. […] Prohibitions and taboos can be used to distinguish food avoidance based on the social connotations of the food. Avoidances concern substances that [...] are not expressly forbidden, but are rejected by different parts of society due to the social associations they evoke. ”According to Setzwein, both avoidances and prohibitions can turn into taboos over time.

For Klaus Eder, food taboos are fundamentally linked to emotions and moral aspects: “Eating taboos are culturally deep-seated and at the same time emotionally charged eating bans. They express a collective moral feeling or sentiment […] ”However, not all authors share these definitions. The non-consumption of some animal species for no religious reasons can therefore be interpreted as both avoidance and taboo.

Songbirds

Thrush tongues were once a fine food of the nobility, but whole birds were also eaten. The picture shows a wood thrush.

There are no consumption restrictions for songbirds within the EU, but hunting and trapping bans for bird trapping are based on nature conservation, hunting, species protection and the EC Birds Directive. Nevertheless, songbirds have not been considered acceptable food in the countries north of the Alps for some time, while they are served as a delicacy in restaurants south of the Alps, especially in Italy and France. Particularly noteworthy here is the Fettammer , a fattened Ortolan .

Historical cookbooks have shown that songbirds were eaten in northern Europe for centuries, in principle by all strata of the population. It was only with the strengthening of the bourgeois animal protection movement in the 19th century that attitudes towards bird trapping, which were widespread at the time, changed, as the cultural scientist Friedemann Schmoll has shown, who investigated the question of how “natural foods” gradually became “inviolable creatures”. The author treats the non-consumption of songbirds as a food taboo, not as an avoidance.

Well-known bird dishes from Italy are polenta e osei , from Germany for example Thuringian titmouse soup , Heligoland thrush soop or the internationally known and popular Leipzig larks . Schmoll notes that since the 18th century in Northern Europe there has been increasing protest against the consumption of songbirds. Forest science began to emphasize the value of these birds as biological pest controllers at this time. This view gradually led to a change in public opinion that the birds were increasingly viewed as "feathered friends". "This also made it more difficult for birds to eat, because good friends - according to the laws of friendly interaction - are not just brought around the corner to eat them."

In general, according to Schmoll, during this time the middle classes - in contrast to the nobility and peasantry - began to develop clear sympathies for animals and thus a more emotionally motivated attitude towards the killing and consumption of animals. In addition, bird trapping lost its economic importance in the 19th century, as there was enough other meat to feed the population. Bird meat went from being a sought-after delicacy to a food for the poor who otherwise could not afford meat. With regard to nationalistic ideas , some authors raised the rejection of songbird consumption as a sign of the high civilization and culture of a people. Ludwig Reinhard explained in 1912 that the Germans, as “people of culture”, differed so positively from other cultures: “Unlike the emotionally raw novels, which were still from the Roman Empire (itself, erg.) With bloodshed and cruelty to animals ... corpses plucked, drawn up on thin willow branches, bringing to market and sell their fellow [...]. "However, had Reinhard admit that larks in aspic a preferred court of the German Emperor Wilhelm I had.

Turtles

butchered turtle in a market in Hanoi , Vietnam

An example of a legally vested food ban the import ban on sea turtles , the kind that for the meat insert the real turtle soup was used green turtle is called. This ban came into force in Germany in 1984; Sea turtle products have not been on the market since the late 1980s. The sea turtle is an endangered species and is protected by the Washington Convention on Endangered Species . According to the Jewish dietary laws, turtles are unclean and therefore taboo.

The turtle soup was invented in Great Britain in the 18th century and was soon considered a special exotic delicacy for the upper class in Europe. Eating this soup became a status symbol . Consumption of turtle meat had been popular before, however; it was imported in large quantities from the 16th century and was considered very nutritious. Since the turtles were classified as "fish", their consumption was permitted during Lent , which significantly increased consumption. These turtles are still considered a fasted food in South America today. In Mexico alone, according to animal rights activists, around 10,000 specimens are eaten in the week before Easter despite the fishing ban.

The import of turtles to Europe continued to increase in the 19th century, so that their population already decreased sharply during this time, which, however, increased the image of exclusivity. The canned meat was also quite expensive. In the post-war period , canned turtle soup became a coveted product in West Germany that was now affordable for the middle class as well . “Lady Curzon” turtle soup was particularly popular. Since the 1970s, however, with the growing importance of the ecology movement, criticism of the consumption of turtles has intensified . The mock turtle soup made from veal's head had been available as a replacement since the middle of the 18th century , but not for species protection reasons, but because of the high price of the real turtle soup.

Germany was a major importer of turtle meat until 1984. It can be assumed that without a ban it would only be avoided by part of the population in Europe and would continue to be eaten by many. In South America and Asia, various tortoise species, but also green turtles, are still consumed; In China, turtles are also processed into alleged sexual enhancers and various medicines. In China alone, around 20 million copies are said to be consumed annually.

More vertebrates

Beavers are also under species protection, but had disappeared from cookbooks some time before - the species was extinct in many places in the 19th century. Just like the green turtle, beavers were declared a "fish" due to their scaly tail in the Middle Ages, so that they could be eaten during Lent. The tail in particular was considered a delicacy. Squirrels used to be eaten in Europe too. In Germany they fall under the Federal Species Protection Ordinance , in Switzerland hunting has been banned since 1989. In the Basler cooking school of Amalie Schneider Schlöth was in 1877 read: "squirrel meat is very fine and delicate and is considered a particularly popular dish." Let there be best known as stew prepared.

Offal

Fresh lamb kidneys

Traditionally, after the slaughter of cattle, pigs and poultry, all usable parts were eaten and processed in some way, not just in poor households. In the meantime, however , innards are rarely used in the kitchen, the proportion of such recipes in cookbooks has declined sharply since the 19th century. The Englishman Stephen Mennell states: "Many people today do not feel the most violent aversion to the consumption of meat in general, but in particular to certain edible parts of animals, which are called offal." Offal can therefore be understood as an example of the avoidance of food, The rejection in individual countries and also regionally differs in strength.

The increasing reluctance does not affect all innards equally; in addition, something that is strongly rejected by large sections of the population can also be viewed as a delicacy by a minority, for example sweetbreads .

Pig brain

“Social psychologists could probably set up a Guttman scale of attitudes towards innards, with increasing rejection from liver to kidneys, tongue, sweetbreads, brain, tripe to testicles and eyes, in which the Americans have the highest level of rejection, the English a middle position and the French [...] would take the lowest level. "

According to the butchers' trade, the consumption of offal in Germany has decreased significantly, primarily due to the fear of BSE . For 1985 an annual per capita consumption of 2.1 kg was given, in 1995 it was only 1.2 kg, in 2003 it was only 600 grams.

Since offal was previously considered less valuable and nutritious than muscle meat, it was often given away after slaughter in soup kitchens for poor and poor families, which over time made them appear as typical poor food. As early as the 17th century, English cookbooks contained fewer offal recipes than French ones. In the 20th century, the number of recipes decreased significantly. In 1939, an article in Wine and Food said: "There are a number of parts of the animal that are usually considered unsuitable for proper eating and that lovers usually consume with slight feelings of guilt [...]" 1969 mentioned one Survey in France on aversions to food 4.1 percent of those questioned offal, but twice as many celery and beets .

milk

A glass of milk

While milk and dairy products are popular foods in Europe and the United States, many people in other cultures reject and avoid them, including many Asians. This has nothing to do with the taste of milk, but is based on the fact that the majority of the world's population does not have the enzyme lactase in adulthood , which is necessary to break down and digest the milk sugar (lactose) in milk . This phenomenon is called lactose intolerance and is genetic. Infants , on the other hand, still have this enzyme in all cultures, which they need to be able to digest breast milk . As a rule, the body stops producing after about three years; lactose tolerance is therefore not the rule, but a genetic variation. Without the enzyme, the lactose reaches the large intestine undigested and ferments there, causing abdominal pain, flatulence and diarrhea , although the extent of the discomfort depends on the amount. For many peoples the renunciation of milk is not a taboo, but an example of avoidance for physiological reasons.

The livestock was not introduced until about 10,000 years ago, probably in the Urals spread from where they. Only since then have milk and dairy products been considered for human consumption, because wild animals cannot be milked . According to this theory, cattle breeders who were able to feed on milk due to a genetic mutation were more viable and therefore had an advantage in terms of reproduction, since milk also contains calcium in addition to fat and protein . A calcium deficiency leads to rickets in children . Since lactose promotes the absorption of calcium in the gut, lactose tolerance was beneficial in this regard as well. This could especially apply in northern regions, where the body's own production of vitamin D is insufficient due to the rather low level of solar radiation , which also promotes calcium absorption. The ethnic groups that can tolerate milk today are the descendants of these ranching tribes. In many regions of the world, however, livestock farming did not play a role until recently, so that the enzyme lactase was superfluous.

Camembert is considered by the Chinese as "moldy milk"

Unlike the Chinese, most Indians are able to digest milk without any problems. In India, cattle farming traditionally plays a major role. Harris explains the different development with the fact that in the Chinese agriculture based on irrigation and with terrace cultivation no draft animals can be used, so that keeping cattle would have been pointless. Pigs cannot be milked. Since calcium is also found in dark leafy vegetables , milk was not necessary as a source of calcium.

However, in the recent past, the dairy industry in China has developed. After the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, there were already 120,000 dairy cows , the annual milk yield was 250,000 tons. Milk was seen not as a food but as a remedy and was considered a tonic for the sick. The Chinese government has been promoting milk consumption for several years; since 1999 there has been the campaign “a glass of milk to strengthen our people” and the “school milk project”. According to official information, this is intended to improve the calcium supply to the population.

In 2004 there were around 10 million dairy cows in the People's Republic of China; almost 22 million tons of milk were produced. The annual average per capita consumption was given as 12 liters, in cities it was 25 liters, in Beijing 47 liters. Around 200 million Chinese (out of 1.3 billion inhabitants) now drink at least small amounts of milk. Most people in China still regard cheese as "spoiled milk" and inedible.

Live animals

In the East Asian region (China, Japan, Korea), live animals (snakes, octopus, lobsters, oysters, "drunk (en) shrimp", "Ying Yang fish", " Ikizukuri ", " Odori ebi ", "Sannakji", etc.) or fish fried in such a way that the head still shows "life", which is intended to prove the freshness of the food. According to Andreas Nieder, Professor at the Institute of Neurobiology at the University of Tübingen, parts of the body can still be active for a while without a brain: "If parts of the animal's body are separated from the head and still move, even smaller nerve clusters are intact." German animal welfare law prohibits only the painful killing of vertebrates , which excludes octopuses , for example . The Sardinian cheese specialty Casu Marzu with live maggots does not fall under this law. Eating live lactic acid bacteria , which are used in the production of sour milk products such as kefir , sour milk and yoghurt , is also unproblematic .

cannibalism

Cannibalism by the Tupinambá , illustration for a travelogue by Hans Staden , 1557

→ Main article : cannibalism

In the meantime, cannibalism is considered a strong taboo in almost all cultures, which is often viewed as a benchmark for civilization. The consumption of human flesh is only socially accepted in exceptional situations, for example with shipwrecked people who can only survive in this way. Marvin Harris limits the term to “the socially sanctioned consumption of human flesh in the presence of other foods”, the term food being controversial in this case.

Archaeological finds suggest that cannibalism was common in early human history. The oldest corresponding bone finds are around 350,000 years old and were found in China. There are also finds from the time of the Neanderthals that clearly show signs of processing and fire, because the meat was obviously not consumed raw. Human sacrifice as part of a religious cult was discovered in Bad Frankenhausen in Thuringia.

Anthropologists and ethnologists generally distinguish four forms of cannibalism:

• the profane cannibalism , is seen in the human flesh as food
• the antisocial Cannibalism , also Kriegskannibalismus be named, killed in the captured enemies and eaten
• the judicial cannibalism , (often from their own community) eaten at the condemned man as punishment
• the ritual cannibalism as part of a religious cult

Cannibalism as a characteristic of a mental disorder is a topic in the fields of psychiatry , sexual medicine, and psychology .

Burial rituals, for example, are counted as ritual cannibalism, which included the consumption of the ashes of the deceased, for example among Indians in the Amazon region . The background is the idea that the spirit of the dead is not lost, but lives on in the body of the relatives.

In the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea , the buried dead were quickly dug up again by the women who then ate the meat. According to Harris, this practice did not emerge until the 1920s, earlier only the bones were dug up again after a certain time. In the 1950s, women of this tribe in particular contracted a previously unknown disease called kuru , which was probably caused by eating infected human brains. Harris explains the introduction of cannibalism among the Fore by saying that the women and children of the tribe were given significantly less meat from larger animals than the men and had to feed mainly on plants, frogs and insects. They therefore suffered from a lack of protein, so that cannibalism served as a way out.

Marvin Harris believes that in most cultures human flesh was consumed only in connection with war cannibalism. It made more sense for them to kill and eat prisoners than to keep them as slaves . “The Tupinambá , Hurons or Iroquois did not go to war to steal human flesh; they captured human flesh as a waste product of their campaigns. […] What they did was a nutritionally sensible approach if they did not want to leave an impeccable source of animal food unused […] ”. The tabooing of cannibalism did not start for ethical and moral reasons, but was also the result of a cost-benefit calculation, since larger state-organized societies had different interests than small groups; on the one hand they needed more workers and on the other hand they needed taxpayers. In addition, the keeping of farm animals increased. Harris concludes, "[...] that human flesh lost its suitability for consumption for basically the same reasons as beef for the Brahmins and dog meat for the Americans: the balance between costs and benefits spoke against it."

Depiction of a sacrifice by the Aztecs from the “Codex Florentino”, around 1570

The cannibalism of the Aztecs seems to contradict Harris' theory, because with them it was not abandoned in parallel with the development of the state. With the Aztecs, massive ritual human sacrifices were part of their sacrificial cult , and to a considerable extent. Extensive bone finds and built skull towers attest to this centuries-old practice, which was first described by Hernán Cortés in 1519. The offerings took place in Tenochtitlán on the top platform of pyramids in the temple precinct. There the victims' hearts were cut out of the chest by several priests, each of which was offered to a deity. The head was cut off for the skeleton of the skull, the rest of the body went to the owner who had captured the victim during a campaign. The corpse was then consumed as a stew at a feast. Estimates of annual casualties range from 15,000 to 250,000. Men and women were sacrificed, rarely children.

Harris explains that the Aztecs ate potential slaves and taxpayers by saying that they did not have any notable livestock breeding; their only pets were turkeys and dogs . He assumes that this was not enough for the upper class as a source of meat . Nevertheless, he rejects Michael Harner's thesis that cannibalism was a result of the lack of domestic animals and that the sacrificial cult was, so to speak, “meat procurement in the Aztec way”; if so, he believed the cost of the forays would have been greater than the benefits. “The shortage of animal food among the Aztecs did not necessarily force them to consume human flesh; it simply made [...] the political advantages of suppressing cannibalism less compelling. "

Harris calls the cannibalism of the Aztecs war cannibalism, according to Harner it is profane cannibalism, but in connection with religious cult it is also ritual cannibalism. Harris does not mention that the center of the Aztec cult was the sun, which according to mythical lore emerged from the flesh and blood of sacrificed gods. Life in the hereafter was considered more important than earthly existence, according to their belief sacrificed and warriors who fell in battle had access to paradise . Both types of death were considered the highest on a 13-point scale. According to Aztec belief, the course of the sun could only be secured by sacrificing human blood, since the gods had previously sacrificed themselves for the existence of the world. The continuation of cannibalism among the Aztecs can therefore also be explained by the fact that they did not give up their cult with the establishment of a state.

literature

• Eva Barlösius : Sociology of Eating. Juventa, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-7799-1464-6 .
• Mary Douglas : Purity and Danger. (Original title: Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. 1966.) Berlin 1985, ISBN 3-518-28312-X .
• Marvin Harris : Taste and reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 .
• Jerry Hopkins Strange Food. Quirky specialties. Insects, jellyfish and other delicacies. Comet 2001, ISBN 3-89836-106-3 .
• Dwijendra Narayan Jha: The Myth of the Holy Cow. Verso Books, London 2002, ISBN 1-85984-676-9 .
• Stephen Mennell : The Cultivation of Appetite. History of food from the Middle Ages to today. (Original title: All Manners of Food. ). Athenaeum, Frankfurt / Main 1988. ISBN 3-610-08509-6 .
• Paula Schrode: Sunni-Islamic Discourses on Halal Diet. Constitution of religious practice and social positioning among Muslims in Germany. Ergon, Würzburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-89913-816-0 .
• Perry Schmidt-Leukel (ed.): The religions and the food. Hugendubel, Kreuzlingen 2000, ISBN 3-7205-2115-X .
• Calvin W. Schwabe: Unmentionable Cuisine. University of Virginia Press 1988, ISBN 0-8139-1162-1 .
• Monika Setzwein: On the sociology of eating. Taboo, prohibition, avoidance. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1997, ISBN 3-8100-1797-3 .
• Frederick J. Simoons: Eat Not This Flesh. Food Avoidances from Prehistory to the Present. Wisconsin Press, Madison 1994 (2nd ed.), ISBN 0-299-14254-X .
• Sabine Wilke: The eating culture. Food and food taboos. Tectum Verlag, Marburg 2005, ISBN 3-8288-8789-9 .
• Jörg Erwersen: Dog keeping on the Wurt Feddersen Wierde from the imperial era - an attempt at reconstruction. Settlement and coastal research in the southern North Sea area 33 (2010) pp. 53–75.
• Jörg Erwersen: The dog - loved, used and eaten. In: B. Ramminger, H. Lasch: Dogs - People - Artifacts. Commemorative publication for Gretel Gallery. Studia honoraria vol. 32, Rahden / Westf. 2012, pp. 249-262.
• Marvin Harris Cannibals and Kings. The growth limits of high cultures. dtv, Munich 1995. ISBN 3-423-30500-2 .
• VB Meyer-Rochow: Food taboos: their origins and purposes. In: Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. Volume 5, 2009, p. 18, doi : 10.1186 / 1746-4269-5-18 , PMID 19563636 , PMC 2711054 (free full text) (review).

Web links

Wiktionary: Food taboo  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

• Rolf Degen: It's not just spoiled things that are scary. In: Tabula. SVE, Bern 2005.02.
• Daniel MT Fessler, Carlos David Navarrete: Meat is Good to Taboo. In: Journal of Cognition and Culture. Brill, Leiden 2003 (pdf; 260 kB). ISSN  1567-7095
• Ram Puniyani: Beef Eating, Strangulating History. In: The Hindu. Madras 2003.
• Alexander Rabl: Taboo zone plate. In: A La Cart. Gourmet magazine. D + R Verlag, Vienna 2006.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Rolf Degen: Not only spoiled things cause fear, in: Tabula 02/2005 ( Memento from August 9, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
2. ^ Eva Barlösius: Sociology of eating. Juventa, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-7799-1464-6 , p. 45
3. ^ Daniel MT Fessler, Carlos David Navarrete: Meat is Good to Taboo. In: Journal of Cognition and Culture. Brill, Leiden 2003 (pdf; 260 kB). ISSN  1567-7095 , p. 4
4. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6
5. ↑ Monika Setzwein: On the sociology of eating. Taboo, prohibition, avoidance. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1997, ISBN 3-8100-1797-3 , p. 109 f.
6. ^ Daniel MT Fessler, Carlos David Navarrete: Meat is Good to Taboo. In: Journal of Cognition and Culture. Brill, Leiden 2003 (pdf; 260 kB). ISSN  1567-7095 , pp. 1-40
7. ^ Daniel MT Fessler, Carlos David Navarrete: Meat is Good to Taboo. In: Journal of Cognition and Culture. Brill, Leiden 2003 (pdf; 260 kB). ISSN  1567-7095 . Original quote:… for many taboos, disgust was the spark that initiated a cascade phenomenon in which normative moralization and egocentric empathy then played later roles.
8. ↑ ^{a b} Eva Barlösius: Sociology of eating. Juventa, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-7799-1464-6 , p. 104
9. ↑ Legal provisions for the protection of cows from slaughter in the Indian states and Union territories ( Memento from April 25, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
10. ↑ Gandhi quote
11. ↑ Nicolai Schirawski: Dear cow. In: PMMagazin. 09/2002
12. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 61
13. ↑ Ram Puniyani: Beef Eating: Strangulating History. In: The Hindu (2003)
14. ↑ Interview with the Indian historian DN Jha ( Memento from October 13, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
15. ↑ Renate Syed: The holy food - eat the holy. Religious aspects of eating behavior in Hinduism. In: Perry Schmidt-Leukel (Ed.): The religions and the food. Kreuzlingen, 2000, p. 131 ff.
16. ↑ Renate Syed: The holy food - eat the holy. Religious aspects of eating behavior in Hinduism. In: Perry Schmidt-Leukel (Ed.): The religions and the food. Kreuzlingen, 2000, p. 135
17. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 48 ff.
18. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 53
19. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 60 ff.
20. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 67 ff.
21. ↑ Peter Heine: Food and food taboos in Islam. In: Perry Schmidt-Leukel (Ed.): The religions and the food. P. 90
22. ↑ Mt 8: 30-33; Mk 5: 11-14; Lk 8.32.34
23. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 72 ff.
24. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 82 f.
25. ^ Eva Barlösius: Sociology of eating. Juventa, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-7799-1464-6 , p. 102
26. ↑ Monika Setzwein: On the sociology of eating. Taboo, prohibition, avoidance. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1997, ISBN 3-8100-1797-3 , p. 103 f.
27. ↑ Peter Heine: Food and food taboos in Islam. In: Perry Schmidt-Leukel (Ed.): The religions and the food. P. 91
28. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance . Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-608-94412-5 .
29. ↑ Hermann Schreiber : How the Germans became Christians. Lübbe, Bergisch Gladbach, 1984, p. 187; ISBN 3-7857-0343-0 .
30. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 89 ff.
31. ↑ quoted from Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 98
32. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 98 ff.
33. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 105 ff.
34. ↑ cf. Niels Kayser Nielsen: Food, Hunting, and Taboo. P. 66 ( Memento of December 18, 2005 in the Internet Archive )
35. ↑ All information and quotations from: Monika Setzwein: Zur Sociologie des Essen - Tabu. Prohibition. Meleid, Opladen 1997, p. 72
36. ↑ Erich Lissner : Wurstologia or It's about the sausage. Wiesbaden 1939, p. 43
37. ↑ Manfred Goetz: Shafts of sacrificial and farm animals. ( Memento of March 5, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
38. ^ John Feffer: The Politics of Dog. 2002
39. ↑ Art. 2 Para. 4 lit. a Food Act: " The law does not apply: for foodstuffs and everyday objects that are intended for personal use."
40. ↑ ^{a b} Markus Rohner: Not only Asians love dog meat ( memento from May 29, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ) and article about dog meat consumption in Switzerland ( memento from July 31, 2008 in the Internet archive )
41. ↑ Erhard Oeser: Dog and man: the history of a relationship. Darmstadt 2004, p. 143 ff.
42. ↑ ^{a b c} ZEIT article on dog meat consumption in Korea (2002)
43. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 193
44. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 194
45. ↑ NDR report on dog meat consumption in China (2002) ( Memento from February 14, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
46. ^ Corpus Hippocraticum z. B. De morbis II and De superfetatione .
47. ↑ J. Ewersen: Dog keeping on the Wurt Feddersen Wierde from the imperial era - an attempt at reconstruction. Settlement and coastal research in the southern North Sea area 33. (2010) pp. 53–75.
48. ↑ J. Ewersen: The dog - loved, used and eaten. In: B. Ramminger, H. Lasch: Dogs - People - Artifacts. Commemorative script for Gretel Galley. Studia honoraria vol. 32 (Rahden / Westf. 2012) 249-262.
49. ↑ ^{a b} Gertrud Blaschitz: Man and his relationship with his pets dog and cat ( Memento from November 15, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
50. ↑ Uwe Spiekermann: Digesting the other. Encounters of food cultures. In: U. Spiekermann (Ed.): Nutrition in borderline situations. Berlin 2002, p. 92
51. ↑ ^{a b} Uwe Spiekermann: Digesting the other. Encounters of food cultures. In: U. Spiekermann (Ed.): Nutrition in borderline situations. Berlin 2002, p. 93
52. ↑ Uwe Spiekermann: Digesting the other. Encounters of food cultures. In: U. Spiekermann (Ed.): Nutrition in borderline situations. Berlin 2002, p. 102
53. ^ Lothar Penning: Cultural-historical and sociological aspects of disgust. 1984, p. 80
54. ↑ cf. Stephen Mennell: The Cultivation of Appetite. History of food from the Middle Ages to today. (Original title: All Manners of Food. ). Athenaeum, Frankfurt / Main 1988. ISBN 3-610-08509-6 , p. 386 ff.
55. ↑ Hans-Werner Prahl, Monika Setzwein: Sociology of nutrition. 1999, p. 97
56. ↑ ^{a b c d} Eating insects - disgust or pleasure? ( Memento of February 28, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Website of the retailer Insecteneten.nl
57. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 172 f.
58. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 167
59. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 185
60. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 186 f.
61. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 182 f.
62. ↑ Monika Setzwein: On the sociology of eating. Taboo, prohibition, avoidance. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1997, ISBN 3-8100-1797-3 , p. 137 f.
63. ↑ cf. Birgit Punks: Vegetarianism. Religious and political dimensions of a diet style. P. 22 ff. (PDF; 1.1 MB)
64. ↑ ^{a b c} James Dye: Explaining Pythagorean Abstinence from Beans ( Memento from March 1, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
65. ↑ Hippolytus of Rome: Refutation of all heresies. Book 1, chap. 2
66. ^ Pythagoras and the Bean.
67. ↑ Hans Wiswe: Cultural history of the culinary art. Munich 1970, p. 117
68. ↑ http://chaturvedisamaj.com/page2.html
69. ↑ http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/profiles/blogs/srila-prabhupada-tells-story-of-origin-of-onion-and-garlic
70. ↑ Monika Setzwein: On the sociology of eating. Taboo, prohibition, avoidance. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1997, ISBN 3-8100-1797-3 , p. 79
71. ↑ Klaus Eder: The socialization of nature. Frankfurt / M. 1988, p. 111
72. ↑ ^{a b c} Friedemann Schmoll: Man is what he does not eat, in: Science Lunch, Oct. 2004
73. ↑ WWF information (2006)
74. ↑ mare article ( Memento from December 15, 2005 in the Internet Archive )
75. ^ Pro Wildlife (2002)
76. ↑ https://www.fisch-hitparade.de/forum/threads/wie-der-biber-zum-fisch-wurde.71669/
77. ↑ Andreas Grossweiler: Brain pudding and squirrel pepper.
78. ↑ Stephen Mennell: The Cultivation of Appetite. History of food from the Middle Ages to today. (Original title: All Manners of Food. ). Athenaeum, Frankfurt / Main 1988. ISBN 3-610-08509-6 , p. 392
79. ↑ Stephen Mennell: The Cultivation of Appetite. History of food from the Middle Ages to today. (Original title: All Manners of Food. ). Athenaeum, Frankfurt / Main 1988. ISBN 3-610-08509-6 , p. 392
80. ↑ Press release of the German Butchers' Association (2003)
81. ↑ ^{a b} Stephen Mennell: The Cultivation of Appetite. History of food from the Middle Ages to today. (Original title: All Manners of Food. ). Athenaeum, Frankfurt / Main 1988. ISBN 3-610-08509-6 .
82. ↑ Stephen Mennell: The Cultivation of Appetite. History of food from the Middle Ages to today. (Original title: All Manners of Food. ). Athenaeum, Frankfurt / Main 1988. ISBN 3-610-08509-6 , p. 395
83. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 146
84. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 159 ff.
85. ↑ ^{a b c} China today: The hotly contested dairy market (2005)
86. ↑ Frederick J. Simoons: Food in China. A Cultural and Historical Inquiry. 1990, p. 466
87. ↑ When the food bounces off the plate , Welt online, May 22, 2013, accessed May 10, 2016
88. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 216
89. ↑ Cannibalism in the early days of humans
90. ↑ Susanne Wetzel: Cannibalism. ( Memento of March 2, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
91. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 220 f.
92. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 235
93. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 241
94. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 247 ff.
95. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 254
96. ↑ Marvin Harris: Taste and Reluctance. The riddle of food taboos. (Original title: Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture. 1985.) Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1988, ISBN 3-608-93123-6 , p. 256
97. ↑ Information on the culture of the Aztecs ( Memento from December 9, 2006 in the Internet Archive )

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on December 1, 2006 in this version .