Comments on: What’s Cooking – Wednesday, July 23rd

By: Jan

Jan — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:34:02 +0000

Sheryl, thanks for that eloquent review of Kim Honey's rambling and self-absorbed article. Does the Star no longer use editors?

Interesting that she wrote a piece awhile back about the use of animals in art to get a shock reaction from viewers (think Casuistry). She needs to go back to reviewing cake icing.

By: Sheryl Kirby

Sheryl Kirby — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:05:47 +0000

I think you've hit the rabbit on the head Tsila. Because anyone knowledgeable on the subject of ethical eating, or the global food crisis, or the environment in general, has to know that eating meat is unnecessary and destructive, and is the last bastion of selfish hedonism that we permit. Ethical foodies will give up their SUVs and their incandescent light bulbs, but will desperately fight to be able to continue to eat meat. Honey appears to believe that if she buys into the vegetarian mantra of "if you eat meat you should be able to kill it and clean it yourself" she gets some sort of "get away from PETA free" card, but she misses the point. As I point out, there's more to killing your own food than just whacking it with a stick - and failing. All she manages to do is demonstrate exactly WHY we DON'T let people kill their own food and instead have rules and regulations that animals be slaughtered in a specific way, in a specific slaughtering facility - because most people just aren't bright enough to do it properly themselves.

By: Tsila

Tsila — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:50:37 +0000

It's this post-Pollan craze that so many food writers are into, right now. It's as if, in the name of trying to show themselves as unhypocritical conscientious meat eaters, these writers feel that they have to show that they have the cajones to kill the animals themselves. I seriously think that the Kim Honey and the Toronto Star were hoping to be sensationalist, though. I mean, c'mon? The photo of her cuddling the rabbit with the description that she's trying to calm it before slaughter? They knew exactly what this article would do and now they're hoping that enough people have read Michael Pollan that they'll jump to Honey's defence, but that's missing the point (as was pointed out above) that the reason people are outraged is that this women wrote an unapologetic piece about a rabbit getting its head bashed in. And for what? To sell a couple of newspapers. Shame on the Toronto Star!

By: Sheryl Kirby

Sheryl Kirby — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:55:15 +0000

Melissa,

Oddly, I missed that bit about fish faces. I have no idea what she means, perhaps she's confusing fish with shellfish. It's all a bit disjointed.

Amy,

Agreed, it seems like no one edited the editor in this case, like there was nobody there to go, "No, seriously, you're joking right??"

A Google search reveals that the leaves of Queen Anne's Lace are poisonous, but the root is edible.

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:01:04 +0000

Well put regarding the Star article. It's all over the map and full of some very bad ideas, but the main thing that gets me is that she shows no compassion. Also, I'm fairly certain that Queen Anne's Lace is poisonous.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:59:50 +0000

The comments section over at The Star is closed on Kim Honey's piece, so I'm commenting here.

If someone can't make some flipping toast without setting it aflame (http://www.thestar.com/living/article/419237) they probably shouldn't be attempting to dispatch some creature via blows to its head with a stick.

What does Kim Honey mean by "fish may not have faces, but they do bleed"? Fishes have faces, don't they? What constitutes a "face" in Ms. Honey's world?