I don't know of any cases where as a result of religious precepts a population have found themselves enjoying less food than they would have if they didn't follow this particular religion.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Yes, a general principle that comes out of research behind Good to Eat is that there are no world religions that have acted to decrease the potential for the nutritional well-being of their followers.
There's never been a culture that wasn't obsessed with food. The sort of sad thing is that our obsession is no longer with food, but with the price of food.
When you look at food as an ethical issue in the Christian tradition, you don't find very much about it. You don't find, as you do in the Jewish or Islamic or Hindu traditions, a lot of restrictions saying you can eat this but you can't eat that.
Food, in the end, in our own tradition, is something holy. It's not about nutrients and calories. It's about sharing. It's about honesty. It's about identity.
If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion and avoid the people, you might better stay at home.
I don't believe in depriving myself of any food or being imprisoned by a diet.
In vast parts of the world, people don't eat meat.
It can be demonstrated that in any society there is a distribution of religious tastes and concerns.
Food is the moral right of all who are born into this world.
The world is starved for spiritual food.