Can we get over this whole “weird meat” thing?

Posted by Stone February 5, 2013 2 Comments 197 views

By now you’ve probably heard about the “beef” horse meat scandal going on in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and parts of mainland Europe.  The public reaction has been swift and disgusted.  I don’t get what the big deal is, and really I think it’s time for “westernized” countries and upper-middle class individuals to get over this whole weird meat thing.

Yes, it’s unfortunate that meat is being sold packaged incorrectly, and consumers reasonably expect when they buy one kind of meat to get only that kind of meat, but the outcry is more over the stigma around certain kinds of meat than anything else. Keep in mind there is nothing unhealthy about horse meat (it’s actually more lean than beef). Nobody had food poisoning from the meat. Presumably most people who ate this meat enjoyed their burgers.  There’s no evidence to suggest the horses were slaughtered cruelly (as if the majority of beef and poultry eaters would have any moral high ground on that anyway). The meat was clear of parasites. Heck, some burger joints in the US could probably increase their overall meat percentage in their “beef” by adding horse meat. There’s nothing wrong with the meat…other than the fact that it came from a horse.

I’ve eaten horse. And whale. A wide variety of birds, deer, elk, bison and buffalo, bear, reindeer, raw fish, caviar, rabbit, and probably at least a few other “weird” meats that I just can’t remember right now. So far I haven’t met a meat I didn’t like (you can keep the jokes to yourself).

It’s odd to me that the affluent who can afford to scoff at certain meats seem to think that the rest of the world, or others in their own country, should share their disgust to the point of legislating against some meats.  It’s one thing to protest cruelty to animals or to penalize eating an endangered species (though 77 years in prison seems really unreasonable), but it’s without reason to draw an arbitrary line between what meats are acceptable and unacceptable with no medical or scientific justification.  It’s ultimately classist and culturally ignorant: you don’t have to eat it if you don’t want to, but who are you to tell someone else they can’t?


About Stone

Stone (not a pseudonym) considers herself to be a bit bookish (and doesn’t consider than in insult). Stone enjoys comics (her thesis was on Batman), sewing, working on stained glass windows, and writing. Stone is particularly interested in how Liberty thinking was applied differently in the American and French Revolutions; she is a student of History with a specialty in Enlightenment Era Thought and Revolutions, obtaining her Bachelor’s Degree in History in 2009 from Agnes Scott College.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cathy-Reisenwitz/41801462 Cathy Reisenwitz

    “It’s ultimately classicist and culturally ignorant: you don’t have to eat it if you don’t want to, but who are you to tell someone else they can’t?” A thousand times yes!

  • Wyn

    When reading literature on the American meat industry, I serious respect for the author of “Eating Animals” for making case to eat more dog. The moral high ground for horse, for example, really baffles me when we as a society know for a fact that pigs are quite intelligent compared to other animals.
    Side note, I was surprised how much what a bear eats prior to slaughter affects the meat. Mine seriously tasted like fish out of a stream.

  • Madonnahorr

    I'm troubled about your stance on "morality clause …

  • Brendan Morse

    You're right about gay rights/marriage, but I thin …

  • brianrw

    Fair enough, but if you take even a cursory look a …

  • Chad Murphy

    But the Democrats generally don't claim to be for …

  • sandra sanchez

    I omitted the democrat ticket because their primar …

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Social Followers

Find Us on Facebook

Latest Tweets

  • Loading...