Submit your comments on this article | |||||||||
-Lurid Crime Tales- | |||||||||
Norway: Food writer boils crabs, charged with animal cruelty | |||||||||
2007-06-14 | |||||||||
Aftenposten's food writer Yngve Ekern has been charged with animal cruelty by animal rights group NOAH after an article about cooking crabs. The case against Ekern has been dismissed and instead referred to the Conciliation Board, reports trade newspaper Journalisten on its web site, but there will be repercussions.
Crabs are haram, too, so get with the program, infidel food writer. "It is highly probable that crabs have the ability to feel pain. We know too little about it and the animals should get the benefit of the doubt," she said.
They'll be looking for several volunteers with tiny brains.
| |||||||||
Posted by:mrp |
#13 ... it is not specifically true that eating relies on death. ... It is possible to live on a diet of fruit, nuts, milk, soybean products and non-root vegetables. To use a food-related term, HORSERADISH! Need I point out that this world's concentrated population centers make hunter-gatherer survival obsolete to all but a small percentage of this earth's people? Bulk agriculture of the sort needed to yield population supporting harvests require that the soybean, corn, tomato and wheat plants be killed after harvest. Your exceedingly rosy scenario simply no longer applies. No, we need not kill cows right after milking them, but unless you are maintaining your own dairy herd, you'd better believe that non-producing dairy cattle are ground up for pet food the instant a teat runs dry. Same goes for fruit trees, once they stop bearing a crop, they're uprooted in the time it takes to rev a chainsaw. You evoke way too much of the noble savage myth. Our world's population requires the fast turn of crops and food stocks that no longer grants us the luxury of low impact harvesting. While this in no way justifies environmental rape, it certainly precludes the level of sensitivity you evoke. |
Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-14 20:39 |
#12 Barb S. fruit and nuts are not considered "living" by most biologists; the tree they come from is living; as ed implies, they have the potential for germination as for milk, I don't think anyone would call it living |
Posted by: mhw 2007-06-14 20:37 |
#11 I think Fred's Inspector Legume might object... |
Posted by: Frank G 2007-06-14 20:18 |
#10 fruit, nuts, soybean Jeeze what a ghoul. That's eating plant fetuses. |
Posted by: ed 2007-06-14 18:40 |
#9 #8: "it is not specifically true that eating relies on death. It is possible to live on a diet of fruit, nuts, milk, soybean products and non-root vegetables." All of which cease to exist (DIE) when you eat them. |
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-06-14 18:16 |
#8 zenster Although the 'life relies on death' trope has a bit of truth to it in a general sense, it is not specifically true that eating relies on death. It is possible to live on a diet of fruit, nuts, milk, soybean products and non-root vegetables. It's not a fun diet and probably requires some monitoring to avoid specific deficiencies, but it is possible. |
Posted by: mhw 2007-06-14 16:47 |
#7 Well said, Zenster! :-) |
Posted by: trailing wife 2007-06-14 16:17 |
#6 All of this was covered rather succinctly during an interview with a Maine lobsterman regarding whether lobsters feel any pain during the cooking process. His basic response was that, were the tables turned, lobsters wouldn't have the least compunctions about scarfing us down the instant they could latch a pincher onto our still-warm bodies. These PETA morons seemingly fail to grasp that the miracle of life is that it relies upon death. In order to obtain nutrition, something's gotta die, be it crustaceans, plants, animals, mollusks, micro-organisms, fungi or the odd insect. If nothing died, this planet would be overrun in a matter of weeks. It's up to us right thinking humans to keep snuffing the competition in order that we maintain our position atop the food chain. Causing needless suffering is and should be a bad thing. Worrying about the feelings of every last damned microbe on earth is flat-out STUPID. Lobbing crabs into some hot oil is a dandy way to perform a final quality spot check. If they don't skitter about for a few seconds, maybe they weren't such healthy specimens after all. |
Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-14 15:04 |
#5 Needs a better headline. How about "Animal Rights Group Steamed Over Boiled Crabs"? |
Posted by: Mike 2007-06-14 14:35 |
#4 Crawfish are a lot like crabs, and they try real hard to get out of the boiling pot (for a few seconds), but so far I don't see the Louisiana authorities prosecuting crawfish boiling as animal cruelty. Cockroaches are also kin to crabs - do Norwegians risk getting arrested for stomping on them? |
Posted by: Glenmore 2007-06-14 13:16 |
#3 Norway's Food Safety Authority will establish a committee to examine the question of what crabs can feel during the boiling. Looks like a job for...The Crab Whisperer! |
Posted by: tu3031 2007-06-14 13:13 |
#2 I don't doubt the critters feel pain. It does not give me joy to inflict it on them (since I am not an Islamofascist jihadi), but they taste good. I have the benefit of being higher than they are on the food chain - at least while I am living, but if my dead body lands in the sea they'll be above me. |
Posted by: Glenmore 2007-06-14 13:10 |
#1 If more animal rights activists were boiled in oil, this would be less of a problem. Maybe the writer needs to do some investigation of these people, after all, we have PETA here in the US slaughtering thousands of animals in their 'no kill' shelters. |
Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-06-14 11:52 |