A British celebrity chef, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, has said what many of us vegetarians are not often courageous enough (or blunt enough) to say — what’s the difference between eating pork and eating puppies? Last I heard, dogs and pigs had about the same intelligence. So, why do we freak out about the idea of eating dogs but think it’s no big deal to eat pigs?
Of course, some might go the route of saying it’s no big deal to eat dogs or pigs, but I think that almost anyone who has gotten to know a dog won’t agree.
Anyway, here’s more on the chef mentioned above, via Stephen Messenger of TreeHugger:
Throughout his career as host of several cooking shows in the UK, Fearnley-Whittingstall has put his taste-buds to the test, eating, amongst other things, roadkill, giraffe testicles, fruit bats, and even some human placenta he whipped up as a pate. Needless to say, the TV chef has an iron stomach — but after swearing off meat more than 5 months ago, he’s wandered into controversy yet again. According to Fearnley-Whittingstall, eating puppy meat is really no different than eating pork.
And from the chef, via the Daily Mail:
In principle, but not in practice, I have no objection to a high-welfare organic puppy farm.
You can’t object, unless you also object to the farming of pigs. It’s an artificial construct of our society, a cultural decision, to make pets out of dogs and meat out of pigs.
Both animals could be used the other way round – although pigs probably do make better meat than dogs and dogs better pets than pigs. But it’s not a foregone conclusion.
I fully agree with the point made. What do you think?
Puppy photo via wsilver