The Accidental Hedonist's Guide to:




My Book



99 Drams of Whiskey:The Accidental Hedonist's Quest for the Perfect Shot and the History of the Drink


Communication

Poll

Would you support a soda tax if the revenue went to improving our health care system?

View Results

-->

Rating our Food Threshold

09/01/09, by Kate Hopkins Email 888 views • Categories: Food

Recently a friend of mine made me aware of a web site that seeks to determine a person's food threshold. The basic premise, for those of you too lazy to click on the link, is that there are different levels of adventurism or tolerance in our food choices. Someone who is a vegan may rate a score of four, while someone who eats shark fin soup will rate as high as an eighteen. While their post is nominally about how some food folks seek to push culinary boundaries while others seek to restrict themselves for ethical reasons, there was something about its idea that seemed a bit off.

Part of it was the Dungeons & Dragons rating system that seemed to make food choices into levels of culinary accomplishment. Part of me wondered that if I had chocolate covered ants, did that mean that I was now level 15, and able to purchase new feats and skills?

But the larger issue here is the use of a rating system to determine a person's place on a food ethics scale. As food ethics are inherently an individual's interpretation of what is and is not acceptable, a single, linear rating system, while laudable in theory, breaks down in application. I know of many people who have no problem with eating rabbit, but draw the line at veal. For others, insects are okay, but horses are right out.

The problem here is that a person's food choices are a result of the culture in which they were raised. Growing up in Western Pennsylvania, where the opening day of deer season is a public holiday, eating game is no big deal. If you were to head to any area of the world where protein was difficult to find, you'll find that eating insects becomes no big deal.

Additionally, affluence allows for a greater range of ethics when it comes to food decisions. The less financial resources one has, the more difficult it becomes to adhere to decisions based off of ethics or taste, such as "I won't eat organ meat".

That's not to say that one can't model a person's food threshold. But perhaps a linear scale probably isn't the way to go. There are too many variables that influence our food choices to make a scale mean anything substantial.

Meanwhile, I'm going to chow on this plate of Frog's Legs.


Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Dana McCauley [Visitor] Email · http://danamccauley.wordpress.com
Thanks for the link! I totally agree that my scale isn't the be all and end all of assessment tools. It has started a pretty interesting dialogue though and that makes it a success on a certain level.


I haven't had frog's legs in ages. I asked my executive chef hubby a while ago why they seem to have fallen out of favour on menus and he pointed out that it's hard to get good quality frog's legs these days here in Toronto.
PermalinkPermalink 09/01/09 @ 10:34
Comment from: New Mexicow [Visitor] Email
Is it bad that I have a morbid curiosity for cannibalism? But I'd be ethical about it, only someone who perished in a natural and tasty way.
PermalinkPermalink 09/01/09 @ 16:53
Comment from: Joe R. [Visitor] Email
I would eat horse, but I'm not keen on organ meat. So I guess I average out to 14.
PermalinkPermalink 09/09/09 @ 02:01

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?