Talk:Blood as food

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

i dont know which cultures but im sure there are african societies who drink blood let directly from the live cow - which i believe was also practised in the past in Europe - anyone know more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.113.18 (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural considerations[edit]

"Some Christian cultures also avoid eating blood, and for this reason blood is not commonly consumed in the United States." First and foremost, this claim is unsourced. I had posted a request for a source for this claim, and none were forthcoming. After an editor removed my request, I decided to remove this sentence for the following secondary and tertiary reasons: The United States is not monolithically Christian, and Christianity does not prohibit per se the consumption of blood. Logically, if blood were taboo in Christian cultures, those of Europe would not have produced blood puddings. Moreover, the Christian sects which do prohibit blood do not necessarily constitute a majority of the people of the United States. All of this suggests a potential non-neutral point of view inherent in this sentence, which makes removing it a good idea for now. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. I mean, the United States was, culturally speaking, founded by Puritans who believed the European churches were not enforcing Biblical rules strictly enough. But I haven't been able to find any sources that comment on the sparsity of blood-based foods in the U.S. I wish I had an adequate source for the claim, but without one I concede that the statement should probably go. – Quadell (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it has more to do with early 20th century American regulations on food preparation, rather than anything religiously based. As for the Puritans... well, they founded only one of the thirteen colonies. I'd rather not concede to an a priori assumption of the United States as a Christian nation, particularly when there's no practical reason to do so for the purposes of this article. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ideological or religious about the modern Americans' dislike of blood sausages. American consumption of organ meats is likewise minimal. Let's face it, dietetically, America is not a a "Christian", but a Wonderbread and McNugget nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.111.59 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right, but without a source it's all original research (including what I wrote above). I just saw need to link blood sausage to neither an alleged US national distaste for it, nor a supposed Christian religious proscription of it, without a source to substantiate the claim. Besides, in a number of parts of the US (Louisiana, Rust Belt communities with concentrations of German and Eastern European populations, Hispanic regions, etc.) sausages made from organ meats and blood are not uncommon. But again, original research: Best that we leave such statements out of the article until sources can be found to back them up. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health risks?[edit]

Cannibalsim can result in fatal diseases, but I've only heard that blood is difficult to digest, doesn't digest, or enduces nausia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition[edit]

It seems like it would be a great source of easily absorbed iron. Adding the nutritional pros and cons would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.71.43 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here specifically to know if blood is unhealthy or not. Why is the nutritional value not mentioned? I hear blood is not something that our stomach's can digest, but after reading this I am shocked it is so often eaten ans now more curious than ever to know if it's okay to eat/drink.--194.80.204.20 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah only "and is sometimes called "liquid meat" because its composition is similar to that of lean meat".. dehydrated it's like 91% protein. Here's a russian language source on liquid pig blood composition: https://hdburger.ru/pig-blood-is-good-caloric-content-blood-pork/ BTW that article under "Cultural considerations", claiming that blood is poisonous, is misleading and vague click-bait, it doesn't say anything about animal blood and preparation and how it's just food or food ingredient. Gendalv (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization[edit]

I've just made an initial attempt to rearrange and organize this page a bit better. The "types" and "dishes" sections were a bit confused and redundant, so I've renamed "types" to "methods of preparation" and moved most of the info on specific dishes down to the "dishes" section. I've also organized the dishes a bit by region to try to give it a bit of structure. It's by no means perfect, and could still use some work, though. (I also didn't make any attempt to check the content for accuracy/citations/etc. It looks to me like this page could use some work in that department, but I don't currently have the expertise or time..) -- Foogod (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information[edit]

Additional information regarding nutritional value, digestion and potential health risk should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.5.79 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic details missing[edit]

The article should contain information on digestibility of blood in humans, yet it contains nothing of the sort. --Wykypydya (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist is Irrelevant[edit]

Reference to Eucharist is irrelevant. Christians do not literally consume blood (but wine). 5.53.16.36 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because Catholics believe it literally becomes blood. The article is about ingesting blood, and that's what Catholics believe they're doing. 97.88.167.88 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood as food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood as food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious consumption of blood[edit]

"However, nowhere in Christianity is the drink consumed at the Eucharist actual blood, even among denominations believing in transsubstantiation (the literal transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood). The consumption of actual blood is in fact forbidden according to the book of Leviticus, part of both Jewish and Christian holy scriptures. The "words of institution", which includes the words Jesus said to his Disciples at the Last Supper, would have been surprising and even unsettling to those present for this reason, especially as the Last Supper was a Passover seder. The ban on consumption of blood by Christians was affirmed after Jesus' death by the Apostolic Decree, chronicled in the Acts of the Apostles." Much of this section strikes me as a misunderstanding of at least a few Christian denominations. As I understand it, both members of the Catholic and Orthodox Church believe in the consumption of real blood, despite the sensory illusion of wine. So on the one hand, the "drink consumed" would be blood, while the "drink prepared" would be wine. On the other hand, much of what follows seems to be a defense of that first claim. Again, my understanding would be that the ban on blood was what made Jesus' words in John 6 so difficult for his followers to hear. And the practice, picked up in some parts of Christianity, of consuming/not consuming blood seems to me one of sectarian difference and not some universally accepted rule. For example, in this, I believe the Orthodox and Catholic churches are in disagreement. Anyone offering clarification is welcome to do so and to edit the section to reflect better sources for the claims. HumanBeing14 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants don't generally believe in transsubstantiation, believing it to be a false doctrine of the Vatican. Most of them see it as representative of Jesus' sacrifice, not as the literal imbibing of blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.79.129 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church no longer requires Catholics to follow the Apostolic Decree. Despite what the citation about the Orthodox in the article says, Pope Gregory III's ban on blood is no longer current. Pope Eugene IV's "Cantate Domino" explains the Church's current stance on eating blood, which is the same as Jesus when he said in Matthew 15:10-11, "Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." So, essentially, all foods are fair game for Catholics. 97.88.167.88 (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cured blood as food[edit]

Cant find any sources for this? is this real? Sirsnowy7 (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blood_as_food&oldid=1210925796"