Every region, every culture, had it's own idea of what 'food' is. What may be a delicacy in one part of the work is unthinkable to eat in another. Insects, eyeballs, various organs and such are all eaten in the world. It's all a matter of what is readily available in the area. Many Western cultures see such things as taboo to eat, simply because they are not as visually appealing as other dishes.
On a different note: Have you ever thought about how much of what you eat(regardless of culture) was ever considered to be food? Who was the first person to try eating something, and see if they lived? Or who first thought of how to prepare something for the first time, such as putting food in a vinegar/brine solution? Who first went "Huh, well I got this wine that went bad...some salt and other spices...wonder what will happen if I mix it all together and put this meat/vegetable in it and leave it there for a while..." I find such things interesting. It might be because I've devoted nearly a third of my life to food. Cooking it, eating it, learning about it.... Now I want to know what all of -you- think.
hmm interesting fact at first people in many areas of (I believe)Europe thought including Italy,and later on it has become one of what seems to be the most used ingredients in a lot of foods that are sold in America(at least from what I have seen) and another is that no one truly knows the origins of ice cream,but some believe that it was a delicacy of slaves in America,but was rarely made since there was a lack of means in producing ice back then.To tell you the truth I consider anything that is edible and of nutritious value as food.Now that doesn't mean I would necessarily eat it myself,as I don't even eat many other things that people in my cultural area eat either.So really to me anything that could be eaten to keep you alive is food.Not necessarily food I may want to eat all the time though.
taking ice from the alps and mixing it with honey and other such ingredients.
I have hears similar stuff ut wouldn't that be more of a "snow cone" or, at a strech, a sorbet type thing. I can't rmrmber if they actually ussed dairy in their version.
Humans are edible but we are not generally considered food. Some do, though, I guess.
taking ice from the alps and mixing it with honey and other such ingredients
Note: eating ice is not recommended due to the extremely high risk it carries that you'll pick up a nasty gastro bug.
Jews consider animals with cloven hooves holy...
...I don't think you mean holy there, I think you mean, to quote the Old Testament, ceremonially unclean.
There's a more "nutritionally related" argument though: cloven hooves are somewhat permeable, so they absorb toxins from the soils, or something like that. Pork is a bit iffy due to the risk of ingesting eggs of the trichina parasite. Similarly we generally do not consider carnivorous animals food because of the amounts of toxins in their flesh.
Note: eating ice is not recommended due to the extremely high risk it carries that you'll pick up a nasty gastro bug.
I heard that too, although I'm not sure the Romans were lucky enough to benefit from this medical advice. Anyhow I am pretty sure it was the Romans who invented ice cream. Italins today certainly claim credit for it at least.
Mostly, food is something you can consume to keep yourself alive. Although, in todays age, food has become more for enjoyment than suvival in many places. And addressing what strop said, we generally avoid carnivores as food, not because of toxins, but because there is so little energy available from eating a carnivore, you'd have to eat ridiculous amounts to get the same nurtition you would from something like a plant or an herbivore.
It is not a issue of how much energy we get from eating carnivores, since we would get just as much from eating a lion as a lamb. Thr problem with carnivorous animals is that toxins tend to compound in them. These days, the most familiar story is that of mercury in fish. What happens is that there is some mercury in the water, which algae/plankton absorb(because...umm...it's in the water, duh.) Then a slightly larger animal eats a whole mess of those, and then an even larger animal eats a whole mess of those smaller one, etc.. The amount of mercury in each successive animal increases. So by the time someone catches a fish to eat, it can potentially be pumped full of mercury.
Generally the amount of energy gained from eating a carnival is negligeable compared to that of a plant for instance, the reason being, plants do not use very much energy to photosynthesise. The zebra that eats that plant has had to use energy to find and consume said plant, the lion that eats said zebra would have had to stalk, chase and kill the zebra, using up more energy, so the amount of energy left from the initial stage is very small, which is generally why, carnivores, do not contain much energy, because they are at the end of the energy chain.
Although I am sure that toxins are an important factor too. In regards to that, does that not mean it is potentially dangerous to consume creatures such as fish. They are caught and supplied in such large quantities that it would be impossible to test them all and reove their toxins. Are these toxins removed during the cooking process? If not, why don't many more people drop dead from eating fish pumped full of toxins?
I try to stay away from carnivals when it comes to food. They taste too much like cheap booze, sweat, tears and Deliverence. XD /jab at honest spelling error
The way that energy goes on the chain is as follows: -Plant: obtains an abundance of energy from sun to maintain own growth, but imparts little when consumed -Plant eating animal: Must eat loads of plant life inorder to maintain weight and energy levels, yet overall gives decent energy when consumed. -Plant-eat eater: Does not need to eat all that many plant eaters, seeing as they give a good source of energy. Yet much energy is spent simply to get prey.
That's a real basic rundown of the foodchain and imparted energy levels.
Humans as a whole generally bypass most of these rules since they do not physically need to hunt, kill and eat the prey. They simply to to a market, by the food and cook it. All the energy which should be lost in the process is saved.
Toxins: it's not as if each animal has a leth amount of toxins in it. If that were true, the animal would be dead. The problem is that if one eats a large, constant diet based mainly off of tainted flesh, it builds up(as explained before.) Such toxins are not easily, if not impossible, to flush from the system. The amount of such tainted flesh consumed to feel illl effects is rather high. So unless you eat only fish, for example, you would increase your risk of being ill. And since humans live fairly long lifetimes and are rarely preyed upon...the compounding effect is compounded.
I heard the Romans invented ice cream, taking ice from the alps and mixing it with honey and other such ingredients. Although I could be wrong.
That was the ancestor to granita, a fluffy Italian sorbet that is very tasty. The ancient Oriental civilizations had some sort of an ice cream-like dish, and so did the Persians.
I try to stay away from carnivals when it comes to food. They taste too much like cheap booze, sweat, tears and Deliverence. XD
Ha, I see.
Thanks for the rundown on the toxins.
All the energy which should be lost in the process is saved.
That's probably why so many people in the developed world are overweight/obese. Living a lifestyle/diet which was designed for when most worked manually all day long.
Exactly. When mankind first wandered the plains of the ancient world, they have to keep on moving. At all times. Move to find food. Move to find shelter. Move to stay from being eaten.
Man was at one point in time always on the, he could not afford to stay in one area for too long. If he did, he would use up all the food sources there or (more likely) get eaten by a sabertooth lemon. Maybe a tiger, every now and then.
Even when man created tools, clothing and shelter he had to move in order to follow herds on animals. Wherever the food went, he had to go to also.
