tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30366295206580492042023-11-15T07:44:28.382-08:00Is Fish Meat?An exploration of the question: Is Fish Meat?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-47079789792198831072010-04-13T10:20:00.000-07:002010-04-13T11:13:30.671-07:00The IntroductionThere is a question that many people have: Is Fish Meat? Some people think that this is silly, and others know surefire that fish is, in fact, meat. We are not going to make any assertions at this point. What we aim to do here is take a step by step look at both sides of the question and try to arrive at a conclusion. Some people will not agree, but never will everyone agree, and we will try to be as objective as possible. There are many different groups, sects, and ideologies that have their reasons for believing whether fish is meat or not, and we will try to look as many as possible and examine their reasoning.<br />
<br />
We will try and follow the below structure:<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/1%20-%20The%20Introduction">Introduction</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/2%20-%20Definition">Definition</a></li>
<li>Arguments for fish not being meat</li>
<ul><li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/3%20-%20Catholic%20Perspective">Catholic</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/4%20-%20Jewish%20Perspective">Judaism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/5%20-%20Pescatarian%20Perspective">Pescatarian</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/6%20-%20Seafood%20-%20Not%20Meat">Seafood, not meat</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/7%20-%20White%20Meat">White Meat</a></li>
</ul>
<li>Arguments for fish being meat</li>
<ul><li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/8%20-%20Biological%20Perspective">Biological Perspective</a> </li>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://isfishmeat.blogspot.com/search/label/9%20-%20Conclusion">Conclusion</a></li>
</ul>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-16711540169017647152010-04-13T10:12:00.000-07:002010-04-13T10:20:01.966-07:00Defining the word "meat"Each word tends to have many definitions. Depending on these definitions, the word can take on completely different meanings. What we are going to do is explore some of the different definitions for meat and try to apply them throughout this website.<br />
<br />
We will start with the most obvious place: A dictionary. Merriam Webster defines Meat as follows:<br />
<blockquote><b>1 a</b> <b>:</b> food; <i>especially</i> <b>:</b> solid food as distinguished from drink <b>b</b> <b>:</b> the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (as a husk or shell)<br />
<b>2</b> <b>:</b> animal tissue considered especially as food: <b>a</b> <b>:</b> flesh 2b; <i>also</i> <b>:</b> flesh of a mammal as opposed to fowl or fish <b>b</b> <b>:</b> flesh 1a; <i>specifically</i> <b>:</b> flesh of domesticated animals. (<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meat">Merriam Webster</a>)</blockquote>What is interesting to note in this definition is <b>2a</b> where it differentiates it from fowl or fish. But many will immediately cite the first definition which is simply "animal tissue used for food" which includes fish. Now, 2a is a sub definition and could have been included due to popular belief. The English language is one of the few languages where we will alter definitions based on common ideals. This may be the case, but we will continue forward.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, let us see what Merriam Webster defines the word "Fish" as:<br />
<blockquote><b>1 a</b> <b>:</b> an aquatic animal —usually used in combination <i>starfish</i><span class="vi"><star>;</star></span> <span class="vi"><cuttle><i>cuttlefish</i>;</cuttle></span> <b>b</b> <b>:</b> any of numerous cold-blooded strictly aquatic craniate vertebrates that include the bony fishes and usually the cartilaginous and jawless fishes and that have typically an elongated somewhat spindle-shaped body terminating in a broad caudal fin, limbs in the form of fins when present at all, and a 2-chambered heart by which blood is sent through thoracic gills to be oxygenated<br />
<b>2</b> <b>:</b> the flesh of fish used as food. (<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fish">Merriam Webster</a>) </blockquote>These definitions are straight-forward but we must draw a few parallels between the two definitions. While the definition for "meat" does differentiate fish and poultry, we do see that in the definition of "fish," the terms "animal" and "flesh" are used. This lines up with the first part of the definition of "meat."<br />
<br />
Now looking at another resource we see that Dictionary.com defines "meat" a little bit more simply:<br />
<blockquote><div class="luna-Ent"><span class="dnindex">1.</span><br />
<div class="dndata">the flesh of animals as used for food. (<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meat">Dictionary.com</a>)</div></div></blockquote>And it is these types of discrepancies that lead to much of the confusion. Now, let us continue forward with looking at the different perspectives.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-65110499593212011542010-04-13T10:10:00.003-07:002010-04-13T10:33:11.692-07:00The Catholic PerspectiveTo understand the reason you must first understand that the Catholic religion follows a very specific set of rules a guidelines referred to as "Canon Law." This is one of the longest standing legal systems in the world and it is because of Canon Law that Catholics abstain from eating meat on Fridays. Now, if you know anything about the Catholic religion, you may know that there are things called "Fish Fries" held on Fridays. The reason they can eat fish on Friday is because Canon Law differentiates meat and fish.<br />
<br />
This isn't because they wanted to make up confusing laws, but literally because of the words chosen. The word, in the Latin translation of Canon Law 1251, used to describe meat is "Carne" which is literally defined as meat, but it doesn't include fish in that definition. Fish was defined by a different word. The text of Canon Law 1251 can be read here:<br />
<blockquote>Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. (<a href="http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4M.HTM">link to text</a>)</blockquote>So, when the above Canon Law states "Meat" it is specifically excluding fish because the latin word "Carne" doesn't include fish in the definition. This is why Catholics view eating fish on Fridays as being acceptable, and because of the misunderstanding about the translation, people erroneously view that act as hypocritical. Using different definitions, including words based off of more specific translations, has lead to a lot of confusion in this aspect.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-23267793145109716682010-04-13T10:10:00.002-07:002010-04-13T10:33:25.684-07:00The Jewish PerspectiveIn the Jewish faith, they follow a very specific set of dietary rules called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut">Kashrut</a>. Kashrut specifies that meat and milk are to never be combined but it goes to differentiate meat and fish. In fact, not only are you to not mix meat and milk but you are also not to mix fish and meat. This clearly demonstrates that there is a huge difference between fish and meat when looked at from the perspective of the Kashrut. One interesting thing, however, is that the Kashrut includes poultry in the definition of meat, whereas the Merriam-Webster definition 2a excluded poultry.<br />
<br />
Much of the Kashrut laws are derived from the book of Leviticus, but the one pertaining to fish specifically is located in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:9-11:12&version=NKJV">Leviticus 11: 9-11</a>:<br />
<blockquote>9 ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat. 10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. 11 They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. 12 Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you. (NKJV)</blockquote>The inclusion of poultry in the definition of meat is also contrary to another argument we will be discussing which is the argument for "White Meat." In the perspective of Judaism and the Kashrut laws, meat and fish are two very different things. They are so different that they cannot even be eaten together or prepared with the same utensils.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-90949701782549809922010-04-13T10:10:00.001-07:002010-04-13T10:33:40.793-07:00The Pescatarian PerspectiveThe Pescatarian (<em>pesce </em> diet is slightly similar in some aspects to the Jewish Kashrut in that they, generally, believe meat and fish to be different, and poultry is considered meat. There are some within the Pescatarian ideology that believe fish to be meat, but they eat it because it is believed to be healthy as opposed to red meat. Pescatarianism should not be confused with Vegetarianism. Often people consider Pescatarianism to be a subsystem of Vegetarianism, but many would refute this as Vegetarians don't eat any meat, which includes fish.<br />
<br />
The Pescatarian ideology generally exists more for health reason rather than moral ideologies, but obviously there are some that do it on moral grounds. In some instances, Pescatarianism is used as a stepping stone to get from a standard red meat diet, over to a Vegetarian diet. Generally, there are two schools of thought within the Pescatarian movement: Those that believe fish is not meat, because it is healthier and lacks many of the health deficiencies that are attributed to red meat; and those that believe fish is meat, but eat it because it is healthy and they don't eat red meat because they believe it to be unhealthy.<br />
<br />
In short, some Pescatarians believe that Fish is meat, but healthy and worth eating, while others in the sect believe that due to the healthful qualities, fish is now meat, but considered to be apart of its own category.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-76905151882356646722010-04-13T10:10:00.000-07:002010-04-13T10:10:01.540-07:00It's Called Seafood, Not MeatThis is more of a general claim for people that don't necessarily have a strong opinion for any other reason other than they consider meat to be from land dwelling animals. The basic thought process behind this ideology is: Does it live on land? If yes, then it is meat, if not then it is seafood.<br />
<br />
This ideology generally neglects many important aspects of classification such as what the meat is actually composed of. Many people of this ideology would also generally agree that both seafood and red meat would fall under the large umbrella category of "Meat," which somewhat contradicts the claim that it is different from meat. As illustrated below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8m6GV3JjJWA/S8SHB4aMqKI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/EBgSuuZcXDE/s1600/meatheirarchy.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8m6GV3JjJWA/S8SHB4aMqKI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/EBgSuuZcXDE/s320/meatheirarchy.JPG" wt="true" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>This argument is not often used, especially when in a debate about whether fish is meat or not. It is a more relaxed method of classification where no serious thought was put into it, but seafood and meat have just been considered to be separate. This why people of this ideology will generally agree that seafood is a subclass of "meat." Another contributor to this ideology is that most chain grocery stores will often separate "Meats" and seafood into their own respective sections of the store.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-29209372631029713382010-04-13T10:09:00.002-07:002010-04-13T10:09:47.867-07:00White Meat ExplanationMany have heard, and will generally classify meats, in one of two categories: red meat, or white meat. Often people believe the coloration of the meat is based on the presence of blood. This is actually false but is one reason that many will reject the idea of eating "red" meat because it has blood. Fish and poultry do in fact have blood and it is how the oxygen is carried through to their vital organs.<br />
<br />
What makes red meat red is the increased presence of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myoglobin">Myoglobin</a> (not to be confused with hemoglobin which is in blood) in red meat. Blood will absolutely be present in raw meat (including white meat), but the red color is not primarily because of the blood but because of the Myoglobin. White meat is white because it lacks the elevated Myoglobin levels present in red meat, but this should not be confused with lack of blood. Fish, generally, don't appear to have blood in the filets (especially at super markets) because the filets are thinner, they've been rinsed, and fish contain less blood then adult mammals, which makes it easier to "clean." Anyone who has filleted a fish knows that fish contain red blood.<br />
<br />
The basic idea behind this ideology is that it is fine to classify the meats this way, but to believe that red meat isn't clean because it has blood in it would be neglecting the fact that white meat has blood as well. Cooking both red and white meat thoroughly would eliminate this issue, but people just can't help but to think that red meat is red because of blood.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-52480106159229543802010-04-13T10:09:00.001-07:002010-04-13T10:09:37.951-07:00The Biological PerspectiveNone of us, at <em>Is Fish Meat,</em> are biology majors but we have a general understanding about the body and what makes the various muscles, organs, and tissues. Most meat would be classified in the muscle category of the body, so we will focus mainly on the muscles aspect.<br />
<br />
We will try to not get too simplistic with our approach, but when assessing the question in this manner, it is hard not to. Think of the pieces of meat that are consumed, and don't discriminate with which animals you choose. Chicken Wings, Pork Shoulder, Beef Steaks, Turkey Thighs, and Fish Filets all have some things in common. They were all used to move the animal in some fashion, and these pieces of meat are also considered muscles. Some of these are considered red meat, such as the Beef Steaks, and others are considered white meat, such as fish filets and chicken wings.<br />
<br />
But they are all essentially the same things, muscles made of protein that come from animals. From a biological perspective, fish are just as much meat as cow, chicken, turkey, and deer are. We also stumbled upon a great little article where the author uses this perspective to argue his point. It is a short read but it is interesting to see the comments as well. Many of the comments are addressed, in one way or another, by some of our explanations on this site. Click for the <a href="http://hubpages.com/_infor/hub/is-fish-meat">"Is Fish Meat"</a> article we found.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3036629520658049204.post-91825783537696242432010-04-13T10:09:00.000-07:002010-04-13T10:09:27.959-07:00ConclusionIt is hard to arrive at a firm conclusion because it all depends on your perspective. To determine if fish is meat to you, then you need to choose your perspective and assess it. Unfortunately, many of these perspectives are correct in their own regard as they created the definition of meat for their perspective, much like you deciding if the term "truck" refers to only trucks, or trucks and SUVs.<br />
<br />
There are many arguments that occur because people are looking at things from a different perspective, and everyone believes that their perspective is the correct one. The only way to truly understand is to make sure that both people are using the same ruler. Is it 3-feet or one yard? Many people hate to arrive at the conclusion of "everyone wins," but in this situation that may be the case. If a person's definition of meat excludes fish, and you take the biological approach to determination, then you both will undoubtedly disagree.<br />
<br />
Many people use simple approaches to determine if fish is meat, such as: is it the flesh of an animal? If it is, then it is meat. Depending on your purposes, this approach may be perfect for you, but there are others out there that must consider many other things before they can arrive at a determination.<br />
<br />
If the terms "meat" and "fish" are differentiated by language, which is the case with the Latin word "Carne" used in the Catholic Canon Laws, then it is no fault of the authors that, when "Carne" is translated into a different language, it takes on a different meaning. The only thing that can be done is to say: It means meat, but excludes fish.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0