The Blackberry Walk

Fussy eating is a growing problem - a problem I participate in, no less. Selecting certain foods at the exclusion of others, however, has a long history whose shadows we live under without noticing. Take dog meat for example: the average Joe on the streets wouldn't touch a dog meat curry with a long pole; is this fussy eating? In a sense, it is insofar as it's a cultural convention. What about vegans? Jews? Even those with nut allergies could be fussy eaters despite the fact the eating of certain foods would mean death. In this article, I'll attempt to form a hierarchy of fussinesses to grade certain dislikes and aversions. We'll start from the top: the allergy. This level, which I'll dub the 'biological excuse' is the highest and most permissible level of fussy eating. If a friend served you a nutty curry of some kind and you have horrendous nut allergies where to merely touch a nut would colour you scarlet, no good host would look down on you for placing the plate to one side and not trying a bite. You can't argue with the deadly side effects. You can't feed the coeliac bread and butter pudding for fear of churning their viscera. As a piece of advise for the fussiest of eaters for whom a certain food is beyond disgust, using the excuse of an allergy as a white lie can get you out of awkward social situations, I can confirm from experience. Next we have the 'religious excuse' which is not to eat a food out of faith. Here we have the Jews and the Muslims who avoid pork alongside the Hindus who avoid beef with many more examples such as the Jains and some Buddhist who are vegetarian. Offering orthodox Jews charcuterie outside the synagogue would also be incredibly rude, unlike the example with nut allergies, since pork is a kind of temptation. Even though the pig is considered a dirty animal, few can argue that pork does look rather tasty when you have the virtues of bacon and ham propounded through the television screen every other advertising break. The pig and the cow especially are animals which resemble meat on legs - the temptation for the impoverished of Asia must've been strong. But we must remember that back when the world was larger and their peoples more isolated, a homogeneous society of Hindus had little trouble avoiding the temptation of beef, since culturally it was regarded as we regard dog meat: utterly abhorrent. The modern Western (particularly Anglophone) man's worship of dogs doesn't risk the same fate unfolding over here any time soon, however a visit to China or Indochina and witnessing their selection of 'delicacies' on offer proves that ex-Christendom too has a set of taboo foods. Particularly Anglophone ex-Christendom where offal meats are becoming more taboo (and somehow simultaneously more gourmet?). Third is the 'ideological excuse' which is to not eat food out of belief. Before I start, this distinction between religious dietary decisions and ideological ones is not an attempt to lynch the vegan cause, but rather quite an important difference. The self-proclaimed vegan or vegetarian decides to avoid meat for personal reasons, rather than religious ones. Even though many a time I've most likely written or said that ideologies are a kind of religion, there is an important difference - ideologies point towards an idea, whereas religions point towards a being. The Jew foregoes pork not by his volition, but rather by Yahweh's commandment; contrast this with the vegan who avoids animal products by their own commandment, by their own ideological decision. The difference is the direction of power: the Jew avoiding pork does so due to a higher power, God; whereas the vegan does so due to a lower power, an idea, which they follow for the purpose of self-satisfaction rather than the satisfaction of God. This category goes beyond stronger convictions like vegetarianism and into weaker whims like Keto and whatever other diet's popular. The vast majority would cater for the needs of vegans and vegetarians, whereas only most would cater for fad dieters. Finally we have the 'personal excuse' which can be simply summed up as "I don't like it." At the dining table, this is an excuse which would struggle to fly - it's an excuse crippled from birth since it reeks of selfishness. Being a fussy eater myself, I've felt that guilt and disappointment others have when you say you just can't deal with a certain food - neither side is happy. It occupies the lowest wrung of the ladder principally because it's pure personal whim. At the start, we saw allergies, a phenomenon quite outside of the individual's control for if you weren't fussy, there's be physical damage to their body; then, religious reasons which to the outsider is a choice, but to any believer is a reality and any consumption of pork or beef or whatnot incurs spiritual damage; next was ideological reasons, which shouldn't incur any kind of spiritual damage, unless they begin to deify their beliefs, but nevertheless is a moral decision. The personal excuse is the lowest excuse because the fussy eater has the most agency over it - there is no anaphylactic shock, no smite of God, no ideological convictions, just 'no'. 'I don't want to'. Food fussiness is nevertheless a hard hurdle surmount - there's a kind of physical disgust which accompanies certain foods which prevents one from getting close like a strong AT field. It's a kind of phobic response of intense disgust for which it's one's responsibility to overcome. However, as our notions of agency change and as fads like 'gluten intolerance' grow, public perception as to what kinds of fussiness are acceptable may change in the not so far future. Through medicine and growing self worship, this hierarchy may in decades be turned on its head.