Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Think of it as a spell checker that insults you, as well.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                   

Halaal/Kosher Pork

Artificially Cultured Pork for Jews and Muslims
  (+2, -1)
(+2, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

Now that artificially cultured 'synthetic' meat products will eventually become commonplace as the technology for lab grown meat gets better, meat producers can start to produce pork muscle and fat cultures that are not from pigs.

With a bit of splicing and dicing of the DNA for pig stem cells, perhaps adding some florescent jellyfish DNA and maybe some celery DNA - the pork stem cells would technically no longer be from pigs. This fantastic product can now be marketed as Kosher/Halaal Pork - opening an entirely new taste sensation for those who are missing out.

Talk about making bacon!

AngelEleven, Jan 10 2016

Leon the Pig Farmer http://www.imdb.com...10/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Prior Art [8th of 7, Jan 10 2016]

John 12:49 http://www.quickmem...aa44426d9807805.jpg
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jan 13 2016]

[link]






       I don't think that would work because cultured meat doesn't ruminate, which is how it works. If an animal chews the cud and has cloven hooves, it can be eaten. Pork grown in a vat does not chew the cud. Also, I think some Jews hold by the idea that it might be an arbitrary rule which should be stuck to for simple reasons of obedience.
nineteenthly, Jan 10 2016
  

       <link>
8th of 7, Jan 10 2016
  

       What's the significance of chewing the cud? And, what does it matter what shape the hooves are unless you plan to eat them too? (and even then I don't really see it makes that much difference)?
pocmloc, Jan 10 2016
  

       Time to bust out that Deuteronomy, pocmloc. You might not correctly be identifying abominable things.
bungston, Jan 10 2016
  

       //What's the significance //   

       There is no significance. The whole religious food law business is just phenomenally childish and stupid.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 10 2016
  

       Totally agree Maxwell - I think in the Quoran and Bible - pigs, shellfish, primates, rodents and predators in general harboured diseases that could infect humans - I think this is the original reason behind 'no pork' etc. about 4000 years ago. Today these things are redundant in the most part because of modern medicine and hygiene.
AngelEleven, Jan 10 2016
  

       In your current Western society, yes. In the agrarian rural culture in which the Abrahamic religions originated, avoiding some foodstuffs is a rational precaution, particularly against parasites.
8th of 7, Jan 10 2016
  

       //In the agrarian rural culture in which the Abrahamic religions originated//   

       Yes, that's the problem. Things which may (or then again may not) have made sense 4000 years ago are redundant now, yet have become fetishes - childish, irrational obsessions.   

       Where is the religious guidance on opening spam emails? Where is the divine injunction against putting diesel in a petrol car? Which bit of the bible tells you that your electric lawnmower should be plugged into a socket with an RCD breaker? How come all the gods are so silent on the topic of statins? Gods have absolutely fucking useless customer service.   

       What I find most hilarious is the whole Jewish thing about dairy and meat. So the Jewish bible points out that boiling a calf in its mother's milk is a bit crass. Fair enough, perhaps. Fast forward a couple of thousand years, and you're not allowed to use a knife for butter if it's previously touched meat, unless it's been through some ritual to remove the meat-voodoo. Utterly bonkers. Thank gods for atheism.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 10 2016
  

       // Where is the divine injunction against putting diesel in a petrol car? //   

       There is no specific reference to cars, but the Book of Armaments, chapter three, verses seventeen to twenty-four, is very definite on the importance of discriminating between AVGAS and JP-1 ...
8th of 7, Jan 10 2016
  

       I dunno. With a twist of lemon, either is OK.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 10 2016
  

       Thanks [bungs] for alerting me. Indeed, I didn't realise how abominable Deuteronomy was.
pocmloc, Jan 11 2016
  

       Hmmm, I was just going to do a bit of genetic tweaking to provide our porcine friends with cloven hooves. The whole 'chewing the cud' thing might be a bit tougher. Couldn't agree more with [MB's] assessment of the whole thing. [8th] is also quite correct about lack of refrigeration, etc in a warm climate leading to trichinosis and so on but that concept is now beyond its useby day.
AusCan531, Jan 11 2016
  

       So Soylent Green is not kosher. Hmmmm. Learn somethin new every day.
popbottle, Jan 12 2016
  

       It's no coincidence that Quoran and Quorn are nearly the same word...
hippo, Jan 12 2016
  

       ...and yet the Bibble is generally opposed to bibulousness.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 12 2016
  

       It's not that there's a good reason for cloven hooves and chewing the cud. It's just what they use as criteria. I imagine there are cultural evolutionary reasons for it. If we weren't about to become extinct, I can easily imagine our descendants a la 'Sleeper' laughing at our own ideas about nutrition and food hygiene in a few millennia too, and maybe at the relative primitivity of the scientific method too.
nineteenthly, Jan 12 2016
  

       // I can easily imagine our descendants a la 'Sleeper' laughing at our own ideas about nutrition and food hygiene in a few millennia too//   

       Bollocks. Secular ideas about nutrition and food are generally adaptable and responsive to current cultural and scientific beliefs.   

       Yes, of course atheist Americans in 500 years might be amused by the fact that we didn't eat locusts, but the point is that those future atheist Americans will go ahead and eat locusts if they feel so inclined. Meanwhile, the religious nutters will still be following 2500-year-old dietary guidelines.   

       Jews today don't (as far as I know) laugh at their ancestors for not eating bacon. That is the whole point.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 12 2016
  

       Maxwel, following traditions doesn't make you a nut. Its just something that gives people a sense of identity. That's what fashion is all about, and don't tell me you don't have anything to do with fashion. Just check your haircut, the look of your car, and the front of your home.   

       In the case of kosher food and any dietary tradition laws, there are several other things that come into play, including historical memories, issues of community and of loyalty, as well as health and hereditary adaptation to different types of foods. There are cases where it is easier to see this, such as Aborigines and their use of kangaroos, South American natives and guinea pigs (back to pigs again), or the Beduins and Camels.   

       You may find it stupid that the Yemenites feel at home when they eat Malawach, or the Mexicans with their chapatas but I'm sure you have a special feeling when you smell some special food that your grandmother would make on a certain occasion.   

       Most people in the west agree that eating pets is unacceptable, killing monkeys to eat them is unacceptable and these days the vast majority of people on earth, although sadly not all, think that eating humans is not the best way to go. Still Thais eat anything moving, and - not a joke - there were issues with endangered species becoming close to extinct when Thai workers were brought in to the Negev desert. Should we call these moral issues? Who's to determine what is or isn't moral? So maybe cultural issues?   

       Anyway this idea is baked to a crisp, even if it may not be kosher.
pashute, Jan 13 2016
  

       //Maxwel, following traditions doesn't make you a nut. Its just something that gives people a sense of identity. That's what fashion is all about...//   

       Well, kinda. But I've seen clothes shops (and even been in a few) and the fashions seem to change more often than every few thousand years.   

       It's not just judaism or islam, either. Catholics eat fish on Fridays because (AFAIK) Jesus had fish one Friday. Isn't that even sillier than some fashions?   

       As it happens, I had moussaka tonight. If I come back in 2000 years time and discover that half the population of Earth believes that they have to eat Moussaka on Wednesdays, I'll be pretty much aghast.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 13 2016
  

       // baked to a crisp //   

       Oh good, we like crispy bacon.
8th of 7, Jan 13 2016
  

       This idea wouldn't work because dietary laws represent power of a few over the many, and the few would not give up that power.   

       Also, the whole notion that parasites or disease originated these laws conveniently forgets the universal meat aka chicken.
the porpoise, Jan 13 2016
  

       // // Where is the divine injunction against putting diesel in a petrol car? // //   

       //There is no specific reference to cars,//   

       [link]   

       Not all Jews keep kosher. I know several personally who don't and since many of my friends are vegetarian anyway that suggests it's quite common for that to be so.   

       We don't actually know that the future will be secular. Religious people tend to have larger families because the likes of the Catholic church recognise that breeding new Catholics to be is more effective than coercion.
nineteenthly, Jan 14 2016
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle