Scientific reason for Judaism's ban on Pork:

[Major Billy]

Originally Posted by Ian Sample, Guardian Unlimited science correspondent:

According to scientist Jaroslav Flegr, women infected with a common cat parasite give birth to more sons than daughters. In most populations the birth rate is around 51% boys, but women infected with toxoplasma had up to a 72% chance of a boy. It is spread by contaminated cat doo-doo, but also lurks in uncooked pork.

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Major Billy

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr

i was under the impression that in populations for which raw (or rare) meat is regularly consumed (eg France) a vast majority of the populace has the toxoplasma parasite.....but i'm not aware that France has a significant birth ratio difference......

i could be wrong though.....

[andyandy]

according to wiki.....

Quote:

In the U.S. NHANES III national probability sample, 22.5% of 17,658 persons over the age of 12 years had Toxoplasma-specific IgG antibodies, indicating that they had been infected with the organism. It is thought that between 30% and 60% of the world's population are infected. However, there is large variation countries: in France, for example, about 85% of the population are carriers, probably due to a high consumption of raw and lightly cooked meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis

and according to the CIA (france)

Quote:

at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.7 male(s)/female
total population: 0.95 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/fr.html

what are his figures based on..?

[Darat]

Always very dubious about trying to rationalise the weird ideas religions come up with - it assumes that there they had some rational purpose (perhaps some did but I'd like to see the evidence first). I'm much more of the idea that back in 3000BC Fred who started a cult just didn't like pork so made up some excuse why he shouldn't eat it.

In this paricular instance I would say there is very little chance of such a link being made way back in almost pre-history - not that our ancestors weren't just as intelligent as people today just they didn't have the tools required to undertake such a study.

[Darat]

Given the figures from the study wouldn't it be more likely that if they had worked this out they'd have been making rules to encourage the eating of pork?

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Darat

Always very dubious about trying to rationalise the weird ideas religions come up with - it assumes that there they had some rational purpose (perhaps some did but I'd like to see the evidence first). I'm much more of the idea that back in 3000BC Fred who started a cult just didn't like pork so made up some excuse why he shouldn't eat it.

In this paricular instance I would say there is very little chance of such a link being made way back in almost pre-history - not that our ancestors weren't just as intelligent as people today just they didn't have the tools required to undertake such a study.

i don't know, i quite like the magic mushroom hypothesis to rationalise all the OT trippy visions

[Darat]

Originally Posted by andyandy

i don't know, i quite like the magic mushroom hypothesis to rationalise all the OT trippy visions

And don't forget Revelations.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Darat

Always very dubious about trying to rationalise the weird ideas religions come up with - it assumes that there they had some rational purpose (perhaps some did but I'd like to see the evidence first). I'm much more of the idea that back in 3000BC Fred who started a cult just didn't like pork so made up some excuse why he shouldn't eat it.

In this paricular instance I would say there is very little chance of such a link being made way back in almost pre-history - not that our ancestors weren't just as intelligent as people today just they didn't have the tools required to undertake such a study.

You're not taking into account the natural selection and evolution of memes, Darat.

Back in 3000BC, Fred wasn't the only one who started a cult. Wilma, Betty, Barney -- and for all I know, Dino -- did, too. But Fred's is the only one that lasted to the present day. If Fred just happened to get lucky in his wierd beliefs, his cult will have transmission and survival advantages over the others.

There's a reason, for example, that there are only about a million Anabaptists worldwide, while there are that many mainstream Protestatnts at a single Oklahoma-Nebraska football game. Infant baptism works better than adult baptism. As far as cults go, Anabaptism just doesn't have the traction it needs....

[hgc]

Originally Posted by drkitten

You're not taking into account the natural selection and evolution of memes, Darat.

Back in 3000BC, Fred wasn't the only one who started a cult. Wilma, Betty, Barney -- and for all I know, Dino -- did, too. But Fred's is the only one that lasted to the present day. If Fred just happened to get lucky in his wierd beliefs, his cult will have transmission and survival advantages over the others.

There's a reason, for example, that there are only about a million Anabaptists worldwide, while there are that many mainstream Protestatnts at a single Oklahoma-Nebraska football game. Infant baptism works better than adult baptism. As far as cults go, Anabaptism just doesn't have the traction it needs....

You can say that again. The built-in disadvantage of the Shakers is astounding. I'm surprised there's even a single one of them left. Not quite as self-destructive as the People's Temple or the Koreshians or the Hale-Boppers, but pretty close to planned obsolescence.

The success of early Christianity as a Jewish cult recruiting outsiders: sunset the covenent (circumcision). They were smart about what needed to be done to evolve from a tribal tradition into a expanding religion.

[andyandy]

guardian article on the OP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...920165,00.html

Quote:

Researchers in the Czech Republic collected medical records from 1,803 newborn babies between 1996 and 2004 and checked them for information on the mothers and babies including gender, the number of previous pregnancies, and the mother's levels of toxoplasma antibodies.

They discovered that women whose antibody count was high - suggesting a substantial infection - had a much higher chance of having baby boys. In most populations the birth rate is around 51% boys, but women infected with toxoplasma had up to a 72% chance of a boy. Toxoplasma causes congenital defects in newborns and can trigger miscarriages, but a link with the gender of newborns has never been identified before.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Darat

Always very dubious about trying to rationalise the weird ideas religions come up with - it assumes that there they had some rational purpose (perhaps some did but I'd like to see the evidence first). I'm much more of the idea that back in 3000BC Fred who started a cult just didn't like pork so made up some excuse why he shouldn't eat it.

These days, of course, Fred would just say he had a food allergy, and then get someone to prove it using applied kinesology.

[Wudang]

This book (which I don't have available at the mo) proposes ecological / economic reasons. http://www.amazon.com/Cows-Pigs-Wars.../dp/0679724680

[Orangutan]

Pork spoils quickly and must be cooked thourougly! I figured that the rule was to stop people who lived in hot environs to not poision themselvs. Or was made as a reaction to noticing the pork eaters got sick so pork itself must be unclean.

I would have thought this was a much simpler reason.

I'm going to see if I can find some links to support my claims.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Orangutan

Pork spoils quickly and must be cooked thourougly! I figured that the rule was to stop people who lived in hot environs to not poision themselvs. Or was made as a reaction to noticing the pork eaters got sick so pork itself must be unclean.

I would have thought this was a much simpler reason.

I'm going to see if I can find some links to support my claims.

Oddly, pork is also easy to cure so that it will last a long time and not need to be cooked. Look at all the hams and sausages that this is true for. This is why pork was well regarded by the romans.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Orangutan

Pork spoils quickly and must be cooked thourougly! I figured that the rule was to stop people who lived in hot environs to not poision themselvs. Or was made as a reaction to noticing the pork eaters got sick so pork itself must be unclean.

I would have thought this was a much simpler reason.

I'm going to see if I can find some links to support my claims.

happy to help a fellow ginger monkey out...

http://www.islamset.com/hip/pork/Abdussalam.html

[Orangutan]

Originally Posted by Orangutan

Pork spoils quickly

Ok a bit of digging makes me think that pork does not spoil more quickly than other meats it's just that the risk of Trichinosis is higher as you are more likly to undercook pork as it's muscles are usually larger than those found in birds. And this risk is not there with lamb or goat as you can virtually eat these raw, only have to cook the outside or lend themselves to being dried in a arid environment.

I still think the "Hey, notice how people get sick after eating pork, maybe pork is unclean." theory is more likley.

[Orangutan]

Thanks Andyandy. That was the kind of info I was finding too.

ponderingturtle, I thought about the presevation angle but then I realised that those are "Wet" presivation methods that need other ingridints like salts and acids. I think geographical influences may have made pork harder to preserve in those ways that just natrually driying stips of meat.

By the way im no expert on this stuff I just think that the explination of a more toxic payload is more likly than noticing a change in the avarage birth rates of boys and girls.

O.

Edit to add. Wow I think my post contains the most spelling mistakes ever!

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by andyandy

happy to help a fellow ginger monkey out...

Hardly a day goes by here when I hear a sentence I never predicted would exist.

[Cleon]

Marvin Harris, the anthropologist, had a different theory as to why Muslims and Jews banned pork. Harris was a big believer in the idea that virtually every human cultural behavior had a material reason for being there--whether biological, environmental, sexual, or what have you.

In Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, Harris theorized that the reason pig meat was banned had little to do with health reasons, but because pigs ate the same food people do. You feed them corn, meat, whatever. Goats and cows, by contrast, live off of grassy plants that humans don't typically eat. Therefore, in an environment like the Levant that was becoming more environmentally harsh, raising pigs became an environmental liability; the same food that you'd grow to feed humans would have to be grown to feed the pigs.

As with all evolutionary cultural changes, the ban wouldn't necessarily be a conscious result of the environmental impact, but it could be a root reason nonetheless.

It's an interesting theory, if nothing else. If you haven't read the book, I do recommend it. Harris has an interesting idea of evolutionary changes in culture that's worth checking out.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Orangutan

Thanks Andyandy. That was the kind of info I was finding too.

ponderingturtle, I thought about the presevation angle but then I realised that those are "Wet" presivation methods that need other ingridints like salts and acids. I think geographical influences may have made pork harder to preserve in those ways that just natrually driying stips of meat.

I am not sure about that, most hams are cured dry(by putting salt on it, not a brine or anything). As pork is drier than other meats it is easier to cure in this way.

[Bikewer]

Years ago, I read a fun little book by the anthropologist Marvin Harris called Good To Eat.
Harris explored the odd dietary practices of many cultures, and felt that at the core, there were sound economic reasons behind most of them.
In "pig-hating" groups, the area common to both Jews and Arabs is unfriendly to pig husbandry. The critters need a lot of water, mud, and shade, and also eat foods that are perhaps better consumed by humans in this desert-y area.
No better way to make your people stop raising tasty pigs than to say God hisself forbids it...
Likewise the cow-love of the Hindus. The cattle in India are not nearly plentiful enough to feed the populace, but they provide milk and milk products throughout their lives, produce manure which provides (when dried) cooking fuel, and eat stuffs that humans wont.
When the cow finally expires, the meat, leather, etc. are used by lower
castes.
Interesting little book.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Darat

Always very dubious about trying to rationalise the weird ideas religions come up with - it assumes that there they had some rational purpose (perhaps some did but I'd like to see the evidence first). I'm much more of the idea that back in 3000BC Fred who started a cult just didn't like pork so made up some excuse why he shouldn't eat it.

I always thought the prohibition was caused from the significant likelihood of contracting trichinosis. Not that the underlying mechanism was understood back then but that eating pork was more likely to cause disease and/or death than eating ruminants.

Quote:

Risk factors

Eating raw or undercooked meats, particularly pork, bear, wild feline (such as a cougar), fox, dog, giraffe, wolf, horse, seal, or walrus puts one at risk for trichinosis. This is the only way that infection can occur. It is not transmitted from one person to another. Even ingesting infected feces will not cause trichinosis because adults and unencysted larvae cannot survive in the stomach.

[Ichneumonwasp]

O.K. now explain the ban on shellfish.

All nice theories. The only thing holding kosher laws together is that the items banned a rule breakers. Shellfish do not have fins or scales as other fish do. Pigs don't follow the rule of animals that chew cud and have a cloven hoof, so they are category breakers. The reasons are even given in deuteronomy......

Every animal that parts the hoof, and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, that may you eat.

7 Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of those who have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit; because they chew the cud but don't part the hoof, they are unclean to you.

8 The pig, because it has a split hoof but doesn't chew the cud, is unclean to you: of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.

9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales may you eat;

10 and whatever doesn't have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean to you.


Categories were very important to the Israelites. Even the supposed prohibition against homosexuality was not against homosexuality per se but really only against the member of the pair who was penetrated -- since that was supposed to be the woman's role.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by andyandy

guardian article on the OP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...920165,00.html

I don't like this methodology. In particular, it doesn't compensate for the fact that there could be a cultural relationship that causes both an increase in infections, and a proclivity to use birth control to favour males.

[Major Billy]

...and whatever doesn't have fins and scales you shall not eat:

It is unclean to you.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

O.K. now explain the ban on shellfish.

All nice theories. The only thing holding kosher laws together is that the items banned a rule breakers. Shellfish do not have fins or scales as other fish do. Pigs don't follow the rule of animals that chew cud and have a cloven hoof, so they are category breakers. The reasons are even given in deuteronomy......

Pigs are also omnivorous, so they can be classed as carnivores which I have heard is the nature of some prohibitions against them

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

O.K. now explain the ban on shellfish.

All nice theories. The only thing holding kosher laws together is that the items banned a rule breakers. Shellfish do not have fins or scales as other fish do. Pigs don't follow the rule of animals that chew cud and have a cloven hoof, so they are category breakers. The reasons are even given in deuteronomy......

Every animal that parts the hoof, and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, that may you eat.

7 Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of those who have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit; because they chew the cud but don't part the hoof, they are unclean to you.

8 The pig, because it has a split hoof but doesn't chew the cud, is unclean to you: of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.

9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales may you eat;

10 and whatever doesn't have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean to you.


Categories were very important to the Israelites. Even the supposed prohibition against homosexuality was not against homosexuality per se but really only against the member of the pair who was penetrated -- since that was supposed to be the woman's role.

This does not demonstrate that there is no link between the prohibition of pork and the likelihood of transmission of trichinosis. That the rules are to a degree arbitrary does not prove that they are completely arbitrary.

Ruminants, AIU, are less likely to transmit disease. If this is true then there may well be a basis for this rule.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Randfan

This does not demonstrate that there is no link between the prohibition of pork and the likelihood of transmission of trichinosis. That the rules are to a degree arbitrary does not prove that they are completely arbitrary.

It wasn't meant to do so. It was meant only to show that one needn't look elsewhere when someone directly tells us why they act the way the do. While there may be unconscious motivations one must be able to demonstrate more than a mere possibility for anyone to buy into them when a perfectly reasonable explanation is already offered.

As for trichinosis, we must assume that ancient people couldn't figure out that cooking was important. We must also ask why the ban was not placed on pork in every society throughout the world, as trichinosis is not restricted to the near east. Not even every social group in the area put a ban on pork. Why? Must we assume that all those others were stupid? Why the Abrahamic traditions, then? Might it simply be that their own explanation suffices?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

It wasn't meant to do so. It was meant only to show that one needn't look elsewhere when someone directly tells us why they act the way the do. While there may be unconscious motivations one must be able to demonstrate more than a mere possibility for anyone to buy into them when a perfectly reasonable explanation is already offered.

As for trichinosis, we must assume that ancient people couldn't figure out that cooking was important. We must also ask why the ban was not placed on pork in every society throughout the world, as trichinosis is not restricted to the near east. Not even every social group in the area put a ban on pork. Why? Must we assume that all those others were stupid? Why the Abrahamic traditions, then? Might it simply be that their own explanation suffices?

Thanks, I don't know if your claims about bans are correct. I'll take your word for it. I don't understand your assumptions about cooking. Cooking, especialy that which was done during these times was not always sufficent to get rid of trichinosis. Pork must be cooked to 170 degrees to protect against it.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks, I don't know if your claims about bans are correct. I'll take your word for it. I don't understand your assumptions about cooking. Cooking, especialy that which was done during these times was not always sufficent to get rid of trichinosis. Pork must be cooked to 170 degrees to protect against it.

Actually 138 degree's is all you need to kill Trichinae. The CDC recommends 170 for much the same reason that they want all eggs cooked to excessively high temperatures. It is fine to eat pork cooked to say 145-155.

[Bikewer]

The trichenosis threat doesn't hold up well, many other primitive peoples absolutely loved pig.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Actually 138 degree's is all you need to kill Trichinae. The CDC recommends 170 for much the same reason that they want all eggs cooked to excessively high temperatures. It is fine to eat pork cooked to say 145-155.

The incidence rate in domestic swine is basically 0.001%, and even then, it is most confined to various "pockets" of high incidence where the swine is in close proximity to wild animals.

Pork obtained from modern "hog confinement units" is going to be even cleaner.

If the cooking recommendations for pork are not followed, and the trichinosis infection rate due to eating pork goes up by a factor of 10 because more people are eating it rarer, that means there will be 100 cases a year in the US.

Yeah, it sucks if you are one of the 100, but the concern is way overstated. There is nothing wrong with eating pork that is medium rare. There is a bigger risk of E. coli infection in your food than trichinosis.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The incidence rate in domestic swine is basically 0.001%, and even then, it is most confined to various "pockets" of high incidence where the swine is in close proximity to wild animals.

Pork obtained from modern "hog confinement units" is going to be even cleaner.

If the cooking recommendations for pork are not followed, and the trichinosis infection rate due to eating pork goes up by a factor of 10 because more people are eating it rarer, that means there will be 100 cases a year in the US.

Yeah, it sucks if you are one of the 100, but the concern is way overstated. There is nothing wrong with eating pork that is medium rare. There is a bigger risk of E. coli infection in your food than trichinosis.

Is the 138 temp correct or not about killing Trichinae?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Cleon

In Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, Harris theorized that the reason pig meat was banned had little to do with health reasons, but because pigs ate the same food people do. You feed them corn, meat, whatever. Goats and cows, by contrast, live off of grassy plants that humans don't typically eat. Therefore, in an environment like the Levant that was becoming more environmentally harsh, raising pigs became an environmental liability; the same food that you'd grow to feed humans would have to be grown to feed the pigs.

Pigs will eat anything. They will literally eat ****. They turn agricultural waste into meat and manure. They are the animal of choice for settled, agrarian people. A peasant with a pig is a happy peasant. What pigs aren't good for is nomads. They don't travel well. Goats will eat anything, travel very well, and create deserts. Pigs distinguish settled from nomadic societies. It has nothing to do with disease.

Quote:

It's an interesting theory, if nothing else. If you haven't read the book, I do recommend it. Harris has an interesting idea of evolutionary changes in culture that's worth checking out.

I may do so, it sounds intriguing.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

No better way to make your people stop raising tasty pigs than to say God hisself forbids it...

And no better way to justify attacking, robbing and killing people than that they're doing something "we" don't do and the god takes "our" side in the matter.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The incidence rate in domestic swine is basically 0.001%, and even then, it is most confined to various "pockets" of high incidence where the swine is in close proximity to wild animals.

Pork obtained from modern "hog confinement units" is going to be even cleaner.

If the cooking recommendations for pork are not followed, and the trichinosis infection rate due to eating pork goes up by a factor of 10 because more people are eating it rarer, that means there will be 100 cases a year in the US.

Yeah, it sucks if you are one of the 100, but the concern is way overstated. There is nothing wrong with eating pork that is medium rare. There is a bigger risk of E. coli infection in your food than trichinosis.

Are you talking about current animal husbandry practices or the those of the past?

[Polaris]

Wasn't trichinosis a cold-weather disease when Judaism was being founded as a religion?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Are you talking about current animal husbandry practices or the those of the past?

Right now.

Stats I found online were something like 75 cases of trichinosis over a 5 year period in the US, with 45% of them coming from wild game. 30% from pork (half commercial, half non-commercial)

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Right now.

Stats I found online were something like 75 cases of trichinosis over a 5 year period in the US, with 45% of them coming from wild game. 30% from pork (half commercial, half non-commercial)

Thanks, I think things were quite a bit different back then but I'm only speculating.

[Meadmaker]

Pigs have a reputation, perhaps undeserved, of carrying food borne illness unless properly handled, like with refrigeration and inspection for parasites. Meanwhile, fish spoils quickly, and shellfish and scale-less fish even more quickly, which means people who eat shellfish bought in a market are more likely to succumb to sudden unexplained illnesses. Meat boiled in milk won't reach temperatures as high as if it were baked in an oven or fried in fat, and probably won't be boiled even as long as that boiled in water, so that method of cooking will result in more people dropping dead shortly after eating it.

So, reverse the tape 3000 years. The priests could see healthy people dying suddenly, and it happened more often after they ate clams and pigs. Why do people die suddenly? Obviously, because God wants them dead. God, apparently, wanted people to die after they ate pig meat boiled in milk, with a shrimp appetizer and blood pudding for dessert. The only reasonable interpretation was that eating pigs, shrimp, cheeseburgers, catfish, and blood made God angry, and he was more likely to kill you afterwards.

It's all perfectly scientific.

Observation: Those people who ate the foul smelling pig meat at Rachel's wedding died.
Hypothesis: God was angry at them for eating that stuff.
Experiment: Observe the number of people who are struck dead with illnesses that take a few days to kill you, and have abdominal pain associated. (The data collection is best peformed by asking patients, "Are you sure you didn't eat any pig meat lately? How about kid boiled in its mother's milk?" Don't bother writing it down. You'll remember it just fine.)
Theory: God has a list of foods that will make him angry, and he might send a plague upon your house that gives you a stomach ache and kills you.

As a scientific theory, it worked pretty well. Kashrut really is good advice for nomadic goat herders.

Some centuries later, an even better theory would come along that explained the evidence much better, and showed that the illness didn't come from the pork at all, but from little tiny critters in the pork, and so, a new theory replaced the old one, because it fit the evidence better.

Science marches on. Now we know that God isn't angry at people who eat pork. Now we know that he is only angry at people who eat meat that has certain kinds of little critters in it.