October 11, 2011
TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has said that eating puppy meat is the moral equivalent of eating pig meat.
"In principle, but not in practice, I have no objection to a high-welfare organic puppy farm. You can't object, unless you also object to the farming of pigs. It's an artificial construct of our society, a cultural decision, to make pets out of dogs and meat out of pigs," he said.
For his latest television show, Fearnley-Whittingstall has been vegetarian for five months and has authored some non-meat recipes for an upcoming cookbook.
In the past, the chef has eaten "placenta pate, curried fruit bat, giraffe and calf testicles."
What do you think of the chef's philosophy in principle?
Image Sources:
.
Comments
October 11, 2011
I think that at the basis of his argument is a valid point ... who's to say that one animal being used for meat is better/worse than another animal being used for human consumption. Though I suspect his comments were said purely for shock value/publicity stunt he makes a point I can agree with. If you're going to eat pork or beef or chicken or fish or any animal product, you're really not too far away from eating a puppy or kitty, really.
On a side note, the headlines seem to try to imply that he actually did consume puppy meat, which clearly he has not. Sensationalism in journalism at it's finest.