Another day, another neurosis about eating right and living a good life.

Today's conundrum comes in the form of the ethics of eating.

The New York Times just published a "think piece [1]" on the guilt factor related to eating luxury foodstuffs, like lobster, free-range chicken and grass-fed beef.

The article touched on the buying and boiling of live lobsters (the result of Whole Food's recent announcement [2] that it will not sell live lobsters becuase they disapprove of scalding them alive and/or dunking them in butter sauce) and the outlawing of fois gras (the result of the Chicago City Council's recent decision to stop force-feeding duckies).
Now, I'm fairly sure that these are key points that the New York Times intended as our take away messages:

• Order the free-range chicken, but take care not to enjoy it since any rational person ought to be racked with guilt about 1) the fact that so many other chickens don't have it so good and 2) worrying about such matters is a privledge of the rich and content.
• The Chicago City Council has a strangely sizist bias when it comes to fowl, with a clear preference for those which are "non-forcefed" -- which is probably code for "supermodel-thin."
  
• The best sushi comes from fish that died quick; if tuna underwent a protracted struggle in its final minutes, apparently my sashimi reflects this negative energy by "feeling and looking stressed out." (And yes, this is a direct, in-context quote from our nation's paper of record.)
  
• Take time to ponder this question the next time you're tempted to order a bowl of seafood chowder: Is it better for your karma if the shellfish were slowly boiled to death -- or if a merciful chef used his sharp knife to lop off their heads?