Jamie Oliver uproar?

[Grub]

Uh, how are lambs normally slaughtered? ...

←

They are usually zapped in the head with a taser. Clearly a much more enjoyable experience. ...

←

Ah, I found something more on that one. Apparently, by law, that's the way it has to be done in Britain -- however, the episode was filmed in Italy, so unless their laws are similar, he didn't do anything illegal (but then, who knows with the EU).

Now, if the Food Network had some cajones, they'd do a Cook's Tour right, and covered the bit where Bourdain had a pig slaughtered in Portugal. That stuff read like Ichy The Killer or something. They should team up Bourdain with Takashi Miike -- and put Alton Brown in charge of the cinematography, of course...

[gsquared]

While I have no problem with the slaughter of animals for human consumption, I have to question the wisdom of showing the Jamie episode on TV. The process by which meat is turned from living flesh to consumable commodity is a grisly one and I for one would prefer not to be reminded graphically how the pig became bacon. There is a big remove between the abstract knowledge of how it happens and actually seeing it. I cannot help but think that the JO scene must have had a disturbing effect on children. There is no reason why children should have to deal with the realities of the production end of the food chain by seeing how it operates. It should be enough to know that the lamb chop on the plate was once a living lamb which was killed to provide food. No reason to be exposed to the gore as well. Sure, it is reality, but then all aspects of reality are not suitable prime time viewing for the young.

[bandregg]

"Dozens of complaints" reminds me of the recent Family Guy episode about the FCC.

FCC Chair, "We received twenty calls, and since we know that each call is a billion people, 20 billion people have complained."

[MarketStEl]

When I was much younger, my dad showed me how to slaughter and prepare a chicken.  I had no problems with it, and I was always happy to eat chickens prepared this way.  However, my sisters refused to eat these freshly killed chickens - and yet, they're always happy to eat chicken if it's been purchased from a shop.

Stranger still, my sisters are happy to eat lobsters, crabs, and fish that were killed only moments before cooking.

Go figure.

←

The difference (IMO)?

The lobster, crab and fish don't get dismembered before you cook them. The first two die by scalding to death and the third dies once it's out of the water. There's no blood or gore.

Similarly, all the gory stuff is long past by the time the chicken appears in the meat case. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say.

Which is why Jamie's act was a valuable public service. I would have also encouraged my children to watch, if I had any.

[Adam Balic]

While I have no problem with the slaughter of animals for human consumption, I have to question the wisdom of showing the Jamie episode on TV. The process by which meat is turned from living flesh to consumable commodity is a grisly one and I for one would prefer not to be reminded graphically how the pig became bacon. There is a big remove between the abstract knowledge of how it happens and actually seeing it. I cannot help but think that the JO scene must have had a disturbing effect on children. There is no reason why children should have to deal with the realities of the production end of the food chain by seeing how it operates. It should be enough to know that the lamb chop on the plate was once a living lamb which was killed to provide food. No reason to be exposed to the gore as well. Sure, it is reality, but then all aspects of reality are not suitable prime time viewing for the young.

←

I would imagine that children get there clues from their parents. Infact on that particular show it demonstrated exactly that, with some of the Italian kids being exposed to the animal being butchered. I very much doubt that these children will be traumatized by the experience. Having grown up in a farming family and experienced similar childhood experiences, my memories of the events was that it is was fun and exciting. Having looked into the issue during the Halal/Kashruth slaughter v animal welfare issue in the UK a few years ago, I am quite happy with the method of slaughter (it looked very similar to what my family did/still does; cut the throat, break the neck) as it result in very rapid brain death in small body mass animals like sheep.

Should it have been shown TV during prime time is another issue. Some people will be very upset by these types of images and to be honest, why wouldn't they be when the vast majority of viewers will be completely disassociated with animal husbandry and meat production. A warning would have been sufficient though I think.

It isn't nice but as the man said, much better this level of respect for the animal that will be eaten then the complete lack of respect for the millions of animals that end up commercially farmed and slaughtered in the UK every year.

I imagine that many of the distressed and vocal the viewers of this episode are also consuming large amounts bulk animal protein in curries, sandwiches, pizza etc, without giving a second thought to the animal welfare issues concerned. These are self-absorbed and willingly ignorant individuals that I have no respect for. (gsquared this rant was never intended to be aimed at you BTW).

I never thought the day would come when I would say this, but you know I am begining to respect Jamie more and more.

[FoodMan]

While I have no problem with the slaughter of animals for human consumption, I have to question the wisdom of showing the Jamie episode on TV. The process by which meat is turned from living flesh to consumable commodity is a grisly one and I for one would prefer not to be reminded graphically how the pig became bacon. There is a big remove between the abstract knowledge of how it happens and actually seeing it. I cannot help but think that the JO scene must have had a disturbing effect on children. There is no reason why children should have to deal with the realities of the production end of the food chain by seeing how it operates. It should be enough to know that the lamb chop on the plate was once a living lamb which was killed to provide food. No reason to be exposed to the gore as well. Sure, it is reality, but then all aspects of reality are not suitable prime time viewing for the young.

←

I do have to to disagree, like Adam I was also raised with the "country" close by and I have seen dozesn of animals slaughtered ever since I could remember. The difference is in the parenting. My folks made it quiet obvious to me that this is where food comes from, we need to cook a goat so the goat has to be slaughtered. It is not dramatized and my eyes were not covered, it was just food. The only way kids will be "traumatized" if they see their parents trying to shield them from it all their lives and baby talking the lamb or giving it a name....you get my drift. It's not a pet, it's food. I WAS horrifed once, when I learned that my "pet" rooster that I actually raised like a dog and named and was never to be eaten had to be put down because he broke his leg. See the difference? Everything else is just food. Again the show had a warning, and it really is hypocritical to "object" to it. Just change the channel and the kids can watch Bambi.

[FoodMan]

One of the most important culinary lessons in life is that the cuter an animal is the more delicious it tastes.  Ducks, rabbits, and lamb are prime examples of this.  Get over it or eat nothing but salad.

←

Oh, man, so true. Especially as it pertains to lamb. Wow.

←

LOL....never thought about it this way, but it is true . What about pigs? Are they the exception?

[Megan Blocker]

One of the most important culinary lessons in life is that the cuter an animal is the more delicious it tastes.  Ducks, rabbits, and lamb are prime examples of this.  Get over it or eat nothing but salad.

←

Oh, man, so true. Especially as it pertains to lamb. Wow.

←

LOL....never thought about it this way, but it is true . What about pigs? Are they the exception?

←

I dunno...piglets are pretty cute. Do we eat piglets?

Also, witness "Charlotte's Web." I do cry every time I read it. And yet, I still eat BLT's. Sometimes not for a good week afterward, though.

[Rebel Rose]

Infact on that particular show it demonstrated exactly that, with some of the Italian kids being exposed to the animal being butchered. I very much doubt that these children will be traumatized by the experience. Having grown up in a farming family and experienced similar childhood experiences, my memories of the events was that it is was fun and exciting.

Precisely the point of my earlier post, Adam. I'm afraid it annoys me "to the bone" when people complain on behalf of children, but clearly they are willing to abandon all of us poor chiluns' who were raised on farms to the perceived brutality and trauma of that life. Thanks, all.

I suppose the argument can be made that the gore would be startling to a city kid who has been sheltered from these concepts and never secretly killed a frog or slowly dismembered an insect. But if that's the case, wouldn't said sheltered children have parents supervising their television habits?

Edited to add: I still cry like a faucet when Bambi's mother gets killed.

[pterostyrax]

They show a whole lot worse from the pantheon of animal slaughter on the Discovery channel every day. I am always amazed that when any species other than man is involved in the slaughter of an animal, the folks that decry the "brutality of mankind" instead see the "beauty of nature".

After 56 years, I have come to the conclusion that what separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom is an incredible capacity for self loathing.

[melkor]

After 56 years, I have come to the conclusion that what separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom is an incredible capacity for self loathing.

←

That and a fondness for bacon.

[malcolmjolley]

Fat lady defends Jamie Oliver

[Milagai]

Heh, the anti-meat-eating crowd should be perfectly happy with that episode -- imagine how many nitwits will have a Linda McCartney-moment and disavow meat forever, after watching something so utterly evil, wicked and horrible

←

Yes, we are able to connect the dots between animal suffering and our

personal refusal to eat animals. (i.e. you do what you want).

That makes us "nitwits"? (Moderator, where art thou?)

Those of you who revel in eating animals should be happy that more

people make a Linda McCartney decision...

more for you, right?

I do appreciate the fact that people should know where their food

comes from and how it is made, which is why I would never have dreamed

of complaining about JA's

show and not get bent if kids watched it......

Why that conversation should turn into vegetarian-bashing I fail to understand.

Was it vegetarians who complained? Or the meaters who didn't want to

be reminded where their fun food comes from?

Let us eat carrots!

Milagai

[FoodMan]

No one is "bashing" vegetarians as far as I could tell. I certainly did not. Rather most complaints are about those who...complained whether veg or not. You definitly are not in that group Milagai .

[Megan Blocker]

Was it vegetarians who complained?  Or the meaters who didn't want to

be reminded where their fun food comes from?

Let us eat carrots!  

Milagai

←

I do believe it was both, Milagai, judging from the piece linked to at the top of the thread...

I don't think there's any vegetarian-bashing going on here, so much as there might be hypocrisy-indicting. You know, the old issue - people who eat meat but don't want to think about where it comes from. GSquared brings up an interesting subtlety here - at what point is it appropriate to show children the butchering of the animals they eat? To me, this seems like something that may have more nuanced arguments on either side. My own gut says that they should see it earlier rather than later, and that it should be shown in a setting where the child feels comfortable asking questions, and so on.

People who don't eat meat for their own ethical reasons would, I should think, be pleased that the process is being shown. It puts reality out there and creates an atmosphere where a true discussion between people who know the facts can be held.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[gsquared]

The only way kids will be "traumatized" if they see their parents trying to shield them from it all their lives and baby talking the lamb or giving it a name....you get my drift. It's not a pet, it's food.

The way in which society is structured isolates kids from the realities of food production. I do not think that parents "shield" their children - the disconnect from what goes on behind the scenes is simply the way it is. Why should it be salutary for kids to be familiar with the gory details? Any more than they should be familiar with what an aborted fetus looks like?

[Megan Blocker]

The way in which society is structured isolates kids from the realities of food production...Why should it be salutary for kids to be familiar with the gory details?

←

My argument would be that in order to truly appreciate the gifts that food and nourishment are, a child needs to understand where that food comes from, meat or no.

This may not currently be the societal norm, and I think that's an issue.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[FoodMan]

The only way kids will be "traumatized" if they see their parents trying to shield them from it all their lives and baby talking the lamb or giving it a name....you get my drift. It's not a pet, it's food.

The way in which society is structured isolates kids from the realities of food production. I do not think that parents "shield" their children - the disconnect from what goes on behind the scenes is simply the way it is. Why should it be salutary for kids to be familiar with the gory details? Any more than they should be familiar with what an aborted fetus looks like?

←

the simple answer (and please let us not get into anything other than food) is because that's where food comes from. Period. There is nothing wrong with it, but both modern society, in the US and the UK apparently, and parents want to protect the "innocent children" from it. I say there is NOTHING to protect/shield/distance them from.

[Adam Balic]

The only way kids will be "traumatized" if they see their parents trying to shield them from it all their lives and baby talking the lamb or giving it a name....you get my drift. It's not a pet, it's food.

The way in which society is structured isolates kids from the realities of food production. I do not think that parents "shield" their children - the disconnect from what goes on behind the scenes is simply the way it is. Why should it be salutary for kids to be familiar with the gory details? Any more than they should be familiar with what an aborted fetus looks like?

←

I think that the comparison of food to an aborted fetus is getting a little beyond the focus of this thread. I think that on these emotive issues it is very easy to offend without meaning to and any mention of an aborted fetus (I assume human) is sre to offend somebody - after all there was no content warning at the begining of this post.

I don't think that there was anybody suggesting that child X should be dragged down to the slaughter house to prove an intellectual point, what would be the point except for scaring the crap out of them. Take it from me they are not nice places. In fact the point of the show that is under debate was about the exact opposite - respect for animals and food from pasture to plate.

This would be similar to saying how dare Jamie show images of an animal being slaughtered on TV where the younglings might see them - without any reference to the fact that there was a warning at the begining of the program in question.

[tighe]

When I was about 7, my dad gave me a tour of the lamb slaughterhouse that he was part owner of. Traumatized? Maybe, but in a way that made me understand clearly how the lamb I ate every week got on the table. Seeing lambs gutted and skinned in person has to be 10X as dramatic as watching JO slit a lamb's throat on TV.

Knowing where meat comes from is every bit as important as knowing where other food comes from. Understanding that your food is the product of the hard work of farmers, ranchers, etc. makes it a lot more difficult to take for granted. It is also the starting point for understanding how the choices you make about food have wider impacts.

[Adam Balic]

The only way kids will be "traumatized" if they see their parents trying to shield them from it all their lives and baby talking the lamb or giving it a name....you get my drift. It's not a pet, it's food.

The way in which society is structured isolates kids from the realities of food production. I do not think that parents "shield" their children - the disconnect from what goes on behind the scenes is simply the way it is. Why should it be salutary for kids to be familiar with the gory details? Any more than they should be familiar with what an aborted fetus looks like?

←

the simple answer (and please let us not get into anything other than food) is because that's where food comes from. Period. There is nothing wrong with it, but both modern society, in the US and the UK apparently, and parents want to protect the "innocent children" from it. I say there is NOTHING to protect/shield/distance them from.

←

I guess another issue is that is that the attitude of the complaints is a little bit Western-centric and middle-class (not that there is anything wrong with that). I imagine that there are lots of people all of the shop for whome this debate would seem rather bizarre .

[Milagai]

To clarify: i felt that only the post using the word "nitwit" crossed the line

into vegetarian bashing.

Others: not you, so you may return to your regular lunacy.

Milagai

[FoodMan]

To clarify:  i felt that only the post using the word "nitwit" crossed the line

into vegetarian bashing.

Others:  not you, so you may return to your regular lunacy.

Milagai

←

Look at it this way, a person is so clueless that the only reason they decide to become a vegetarian (note: they'll probably still eat fish !) is that JO slaughtered a lamb on TV! If I was a strict vegetarian I would not want them to be one. why? Because they are "nitwits" .

[Pontormo]

Uproar aside, one thing that's so interesting to note is the choice of animal.

Fall menu? Roast pork is good too. Practical? Maybe, grabbing onto a squirmy large pig might be a bit too much for Jamie Oliver unless he had assistance, but, still...

The slaughter of a lamb?

It's so symbolic! So biblical!

Postscript: Consult the new link I added to the revived thread entitled "Food in Poetry." It is a prose poem, "The Beef Epitaph" and is related to this topic.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Pontormo (log)

[Rebel Rose]

Thanks for your patience, Milagai. I agree that the term 'nitwits' is skating through the thin ice of impropriety, but I also agree that I got the sense the poster wasn't referring to vegetarians, but to people in general who take brainless, bacon-bashing stands on an issue because of a twenty-minute television show.

I have customers who are vegetarian, and I am frequently asked for food and wine pairings for vegetarian dishes, so if you can help me out with that, please come visit the wine forum!