Anything to do with eating any meat can be dangerous.
We don't know why religions banned certain meat. Anthropologists etc give us post facto rationalisations, and, to my mind, even the holy books might be retrospective excuses.
We don't know why religions banned certain meat. Anthropologists etc give us post facto rationalisations, and, to my mind, even the holy books might be retrospective excuses.
- to encode social and higienic rules as understood at the time
- to signal heressy, prohibiting a common practice carried out by heretics (double points if it is a practice central to those heretical beliefs).
For religions originating in the desert where meat spoils quickly, it makes sense to ban those kinds of meat more prone to transmiting deseases if mishandled.
Is pork any more prone to spoilage, or spoilage-related health risks, than other meats?
My understanding is that the health risks from pork relate mainly to the transmission of disease and parasites in undercooked pork, not spoilage.
But the kosher prohibition isn't "don't eat meat slaughtered a week ago", which would be easy, it's about cloven hooves.
The other hypothesis I've seen put out there is that viruses tend to have an easy time jumping from (living) pigs to humans. We think of the flu as relatively minor now but without clean water it would be a big deal.
I am not going to get involved in a religious argument, but I didn't mention it was the only reason, I said it was one of the reasons.
If we compare contaminated meat, okay, maybe pork is more dangerous. If we compare what people actually encounter, pork appears much less dangerous.