Latest news with #disgust
Irish Times
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Keir Starmer was quick to condemn Kneecap, but strangely silent on Moygashel
It's hard to avoid images and scenes that provoke disgust these days, but the burning of effigies of people in a boat atop a bonfire in Moygashel in Co Tyrone last week is an especially grotesque brand of racism. Stormont's First Minister Michelle O'Neill referred to 'openly racist displays that are sickening and deplorable' and called for political leadership. Where is that leadership? And how can it effectively tackle these annual expressions of unhinged hate? Where is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn , on this? Keir Starmer found the time to speak about an Irish band playing Glastonbury , making interventions that exerted huge political pressure on the festival. Why did he not have anything to say about the premeditated, explicit and threatening racism on display in Moygashel last week? In June Starmer condemned the racist violence in Ballymena . In May Starmer made his Enoch Powell-esque 'island of strangers' speech. Note the singular 'island'. Starmer is especially well-placed to speak on the North given that he was a human rights adviser to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, yet he said nothing. READ MORE Yvette Cooper declared Palestine Action a 'proscribed' group, turning a bunch of people protesting against genocide into 'terrorists' in the eyes of the law (and rhetoric) overnight. Expressing support for Palestine Action is now illegal in the UK – a ludicrous, dangerous situation that frames those desiring peace and an end to war crimes and mass murder as the enemy. There was not a peep from her on Moygashel either. Kemi Badenoch accused the BBC of 'rewarding extremism' by broadcasting Kneecap's Glastonbury set. On Moygashel's spectacle of actual extremism, however, she has been silent. Those who have called it out for what it is deserve credit. They include John McDowell, the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. He described it as 'racist, threatening and offensive. It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity or with Protestant culture and is in fact inhuman and deeply sub-Christian'. Sinn Féin's Colm Gildernew labelled it a 'clear incitement to hatred'. UUP leader Mike Nesbitt described it as 'sickening, deplorable and entirely out of step with what is supposed to be a cultural celebration'. Amnesty International's Patrick Corrigan called it a 'vile, dehumanising act that fuels hatred and racism'. Claire Hanna, the leader of the SDLP, called it 'disgusting' and 'a deeply dehumanising provocation'. On Friday, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said he 'was dismayed' by the display. 'Archbishop McDowell made a strong comment on it and he's right – it's racist, threatening, and offensive and it's unChristian and lacking in any appreciation of human dignity.' [ 'Clear incitement to hatred': Calls for removal of migrant effigies in boat placed on loyalist bonfire Opens in new window ] The PSNI eventually said they were investigating the 'material placed upon a bonfire' as a 'hate incident'. The PSNI did not dismantle another bonfire in Belfast when a city council committee voted that such action should be taken, and asked the PSNI to assist contractors in doing so. The request to have it removed was rooted in concerns that the electricity supply to Belfast City Hospital and Royal Victoria Hospital was at risk due to the proximity of that bonfire to a substation, and because there is asbestos at the bonfire site. The decision to let it burn regardless was driven by the potential for violence. The decision is understandable in operational terms – had the PSNI set about dismantling it, riots were inevitable, and everyone knows that threat of violence ultimately emanates from the UDA and the UVF. Northern Ireland's Environment Minister and Alliance Party MLA Andrew Muir also told the BBC that 'the removal of asbestos is very complex and delicate. It requires the site to be completely vacated.' He asked people 'not to light this bonfire if they could.' Year in, year out, the burning of effigies, hate slogans and flags is accepted. Were it not, effective action would be taken to end it. The reluctance to interfere – by politicians and police – is unacceptable when there are lives at risk, both from direct racist violence and the incitement of it. This is a tired cycle, the playing out of a pathetic desire for negative attention. Perhaps there is even a subconscious – or a tacit – understanding that the Britain those making such effigies are loyal to barely thinks about them. This reality may be so painful that it produces a desire to burn something. Anything. Anyone. Boats, mannequins, effigies, flags. I take no issue with bonfires as spectacle and community events celebrating culture. In a pluralist society, expressions of identity, community, and the rituals and traditions that accompany them are important. But there is something rotten about leveraging what is supposed to be an expression of long-standing culture and tradition for contemporary expressions of racist hate, with phraseology borrowed from the likes of Nigel Farage (a man who once got paid a few quid to say 'up the Ra' during his pathetic hustle selling personalised video clip messages via Cameo). It's a pity the imagery of this bonfire did not make the front pages the world over. Maybe then, the blind eye could open to confront a spectacle of festering racism and red hot hate.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘Safe route' or ‘sushi route' − 2 strategies to turn yuck to yum and convince people to eat unusual foods
What will the diets of the future look like? The answer depends in part on what foods Westerners can be persuaded to eat. These consumers are increasingly being told their diets need to change. Current eating habits are unsustainable, and the global demand for meat is growing. Recent years have seen increased interest and investment in what are called alternative proteins – products that can replace typical meats with more sustainable alternatives. One option is cultivated, or cultured, meat and seafood: muscle tissue grown in labs in bioreactors, using animal stem cells. Another approach involves replacing standard meat with such options as insects or plant-based imitation meats. All of these products promise a more sustainable alternative to factory-farmed meat. The question is, will consumers accept them? I'm a philosopher who studies food and disgust, and I'm interested in how people react to new foods such as lab-grown meat, bugs and other so-called alternative proteins. Disgust and food neophobia – a fear of new foods – are often cited as obstacles to adopting new, more sustainable food choices, but I believe that recent history offers a more complicated picture. Past shifts in food habits suggest there are two paths to the adoption of new foods: One relies on familiarity and safety, the other on novelty and excitement. Disgust is a strong feeling of revulsion in response to objects perceived to be contaminating, polluting or unclean. Scientists believe that it evolved to protect human beings from invisible contaminants such as pathogens and parasites. Some causes of disgust are widely shared, such as feces or vomit. Others, including foods, are more culturally variable. So it's not surprising that self-reported willingness to eat insects varies across nationalities. Insects have been an important part of traditional diets of cultures around the world for thousands of years, including the ancient Greeks. Many articles about the possibility of introducing insects to Western or American diners have emphasized the challenges posed by neophobia and 'the yuck factor.' People won't accept these new foods, the thinking goes, because they're too different or even downright disgusting. If that's right, then the best approach to win space on the plate for new foods might be to try to make them seem similar to familiar menu items. During World War II, the United States government wanted to redirect its limited meat supply to troops on the front lines. So it needed to convince home cooks to give up their steaks, chops and roasts in favor of what it called variety meats: kidneys, liver, tongue and so on. To figure out how to shift consumer habits, a team of psychologists and anthropologists was charged with studying how food habits and preferences were formed – and how they could be changed. The Committee on Food Habits recommended stressing these organ meats' similarity to available, familiar, existing foods. This approach – call it the 'safe route' – focuses on individual attitudes and choices. It tries to remove psychological and practical barriers to individual choice and counteracts beliefs or values that might dissuade people from adopting new foods. As the name suggests, the safe route tries to downplay novelty, using familiar forms and tastes. For example, it would incorporate unfamiliar cuts of meats into meatloaf or meatballs or grind crickets into flour for cookies or protein bars. But more recent history suggests something different: Foods such as sushi, offal and even lobster became desirable not despite but because of their novelty and difference. Sushi's arrival in the postwar U.S. coincided with the rise of consumer culture. Dining out was gaining traction as a leisure activity, and people were increasingly open to new experiences as a sign of status and sophistication. Rather than appealing to the housewife preparing comfort foods, sushi gained popularity by appealing to the desire for new and exciting experiences. By 1966, The New York Times reported that New Yorkers were dining on 'raw fish dishes, sushi and sashimi, with a gusto once reserved for corn flakes.' Now, of course, sushi is widely consumed, available even in grocery stores nationwide. In fact, the grocery chain Kroger sells more than 40 million pieces of sushi a year. Whereas the safe route suggests sneaking new foods into our diets, the sushi route suggests embracing their novelty and using that as a selling point. Sushi is just one example of a food adopted via this route. After the turn of the millennium, a new generation of diners rediscovered offal as high-end restaurants and chefs offered 'nose to tail' dining. Rather than positioning foods like tongue and pigs' ears as familiar and comforting, a willingness to embrace the yuck factor became a sign of adventurousness, even masculinity. This framing is the exact opposite of the safe route recommended by the Committee on Food Habits. What lessons can be drawn from these examples? For dietary shifts to last, they should be framed positively. Persuading customers that variety meats were a necessary wartime substitution worked temporarily but ultimately led to the perception that they were subpar choices. If cultivated meat and insects are pitched as necessary sacrifices, any gains they make may be temporary at best. Instead, producers could appeal to consumers' desire for healthier, more sustainable and more exciting foods. Cultivated meat may be 'safe-ly' marketed as nuggets and burgers, but, in principle, the options are endless: Curious consumers could sample lab-grown whale or turtle meat guilt-free, or even find out what woolly mammoth tasted like. Ultimately, the chefs, consumers and entrepreneurs seeking to remake our food systems don't need to choose just one route. While we can grind insects into protein powders, we can also look to chefs cooking traditional cuisines that use insects to broaden our culinary horizons. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alexandra Plakias, Hamilton College Read more: Plant-based meat alternatives are trying to exit the culture wars – an impossible task? Gluten-sensitive liberals? Investigating the stereotype suggests food fads unite us all Would you eat 'meat' from a lab? Consumers aren't necessarily sold on 'cultured meat' Alexandra Plakias does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Telegraph
13-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
The reason why vegetarians are repelled by meat
Many vegetarians feel disgust towards eating meat similar to the aversion widely felt towards cannibalism, research has found. A study set out to investigate whether there is a difference in the psychological mechanisms by which people reject meat compared with vegetables. In an online study involving 300 people, who were mostly vegetarians, researchers found people who reject vegetables they dislike do so because they feel distaste – a simple aversion to the taste, texture or smell of a food. In contrast, when people dislike and reject meat that would be considered appetising by omnivores – such as roast chicken or beef steak – they feel the more complex emotion disgust, in a similar way meat-eaters were disgusted by the idea of eating human meat, faeces or dog meat. Reaction helps people avoid eating meat Professor Natalia Lawrence, of the University of Exeter, said: 'This is the most robust evidence to date that we reject meat and vegetables that we find repellent based on different underlying processes. 'Obviously, finding meat disgusting can help people avoid eating it, which has health and environmental benefits. 'Other research we've conducted suggests that these feelings of disgust may develop when people deliberately reduce or avoid eating meat, such as during Veganuary.' The study recruited 252 people who reject meat and 57 omnivores who eat meat. Researchers tested responses to images of 11 different foods, such as palatable meat, olives, sprouts, raw aubergine and beetroot. Participants were asked several questions about how eating each of the foods would make them feel. Each question was linked to either disgust or distaste, which allowed the researchers to make a distinction between what people felt when they rejected different foods. Subjects also shown disgusting images To compare reactions, the meat-eating participants were also shown images of substances overwhelmingly considered disgusting to eat, such as human flesh, dog meat and faeces. The team recorded 557 rejections of meat and 670 rejections of vegetables. Where participants said they would not eat the item pictured, they completed questions to investigate the grounds for rejection. Consistently, people rejected vegetables they did not like based on distaste, and rejected meat and disgust elicitors in a strikingly similar disgust pattern. Dr Elisa Becker, the study's lead author, said: 'Meat eaters responded to the idea of eating these truly disgusting substances like faeces in the same way that vegetarians responded to images of meat that they didn't want to eat, and this was very different from the way they responded to vegetables they rejected. 'Although we may think we're rejecting a food simply because we don't want to eat it, we showed that the basis for this rejection is quite different – and we think that's evolved to protect us from pathogens that can lie undetected in meat.' The paper, Disgust And Distaste – Differential mechanisms for the rejection of plant- and animal-source foods, is published in the journal Appetite.
