Sublime Qur'an Subsumes Science
As a Muslim and a marathoner, I eschew pork following Islamic guidelines on proscribed foods. This, like other Qur’anic injunctions, has helped me to avoid a plethora of health problems, to stay out of the doctor’s office, and to maintain a rigorous athletic regimen free of injury. Recently, I participated in an exchange with friends (and some of their friends) on a social networking site. A young black (Afrocentric) Towson University student—not a Muslim—was recommending to all of his friends not to eat pork. This is an increasingly common phenomenon among activists of color—even those who do not claim the label of Muslim (or who do not claim it openly). Some of these are directly influenced by Qur’anic teachings, by their Muslim friends, or by the writings of Elijah Muhammad such as How to Eat to Live.
Pork and pork products are a major source of health problems in the Black community. Historically, White slavers fed Black slaves chitterlings (or chitlins, for short) and other pork products. Chitterlings are the worse part of the pig--a reminder to the slave that he was lower than an animal, worthy only of eating the slave master’s rubbish. I was proud of my Towson University friend who had thrown off his mental shackles and encouraged others to do the same. But immediately many of his friends assailed his position. Pork is no more deleterious than beef or chicken; some parts of it are white meat and quite lean—and therefore worthy of consumption—they said. Pork is intrinsic to soul food, said others; how can we possibly do away with it? I knew that the instinctive revulsion I felt for pork mightn’t be shared by others, particularly those who were not Muslim, and so determined to find intellectual support for my feelings. Here are the initial findings of my inquiry, which I shared in the course of the online exchange:
Pork takes longer than most foods to digest (4.5 hr, according to some reports). One of the reasons for this: It is rich in residues of the amino acid Proline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20356084
I'm guessing that the high incidence of Proline, which contains a hetercyclic ring, may be one reason for the difficulty in metabolizing pork. Unfortunately, lengthy retention of food—in this case pork—in a digestive tract that is relatively short (compared to that of most carnivores) leads to elevated colorectal cancer risk.
Additionally, prevalence of Staphyloccus aureus bacteria in pigs is relatively high (e.g., 25-30% in the Netherlands). In fact, locating swine populations not afflicted to some degree by the Staph species in question is highly unlikely.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=first-pork-invades-washington-then-2009-03-12
As a result, very high dosages of antibiotics are administered to most pig populations. So, consumers of pork are partaking of a product, which has been doused with antibiotics. And— by supporting the administration of antibiotics to this animal population, they are inadvertently contributing to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria.
Staphylococcus aureus is thought to be carried by rats in a pig farm setting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523703
Unfortunately, the bacterium may be conveyed between the pig and rat population to humans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145257
So, the answer seems to be: Either administer massive dosages of antibiotics to pig populations (and then consume the antibiotic-laden pork products)--a strategy which may work in the short term, but has serious long-term implications for the production of drug-resistant strains of Staphyloccus aureus--or find other alternatives to pork products. While it's true that some cuts of pork contain a relatively low lipid content, comparable to those of beef or other meats, given all of the forgoing, as well as the dynamics of pork between White slavers and Black slave descendants, the choice of whether or not to partake of the pig seems rather obvious.
