This Might Be Even Worse Than Lark’s Vomit

This tasty dollop of inspired lunacy by Monty Python’s Flying Circus was originally titled “Trade Description Act.” I surmised from this sketch that there were unfortunate people who actually purchased Mr. Milton’s violently nasty chocolates.

Milton: It says ‘crunchy frog’ quite clearly.

[Officer] Praline: Well, the superintendent thought it was an almond whirl. People won’t expect there to be a frog in there. They’re bound to think it’s some form of mock frog.

Milton: (insulted) Mock frog? We use no artificial preservatives or additives of any kind!

Praline: Nevertheless, I must warn you that in future you should delete the words ‘crunchy frog’, and replace them with the legend ‘crunchy raw unboned real dead frog’, if you want to avoid prosecution.

Milton: What about our sales?!?

I also surmised that the success of the Whizzo business model was predicated on keeping the public unaware of the disgusting ingredients involved.

Praline: I’m not interested in your sales, I have to protect the general public. Now how about this one. (superintendent enters) It was number five, wasn’t it? (superintendent nods) Number five, ram’s bladder cup. (exit superintendent) What kind of confection is this?

Milton: We use choicest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish ram’s bladder, emptied, steamed, flavored with sesame seeds whipped into a fondue and garnished with lark’s vomit.

Praline: Lark’s vomit?

Milton: Correct.

Praline: Well it don’t say nothing about that here.

Milton: Oh yes it does, on the bottom of the box, after monosodium glutamate.

Praline: (looking) Well I hardly think this is good enough. I think it would be more appropriate if the box bore a large red label warning lark’s vomit.

Milton: Our sales would plummet!

This might be even worse than lark’s vomit

The reason I mention this sketch is that I recently had a thought that I never thought before. It is a thought related to the labeling of food. For most people, most thoughts are recycled re-runs. But every so often a new thought emerges. What makes this happen? Steps to Knowledge, the book of spiritual practice of the New Message from God, offers an explanation for this phenomenon:

“Your Teachers are with you. They are not speaking to you except on very rare occasions, and then only if you are capable of hearing. From time to time they will send their thoughts into your mind, and you will experience this as your own spark of inspiration.” (Step 129, “My Teachers are with me. I will be with them.”)

(For more about the Teachers, please consider this or this.)

I was in my local grocery store, looking at the varieties of canned tuna. I noticed one of the brands of sustainably caught tuna. As I looked at the can, I noticed that the words “sustainably caught” were in tiny white letters.

Wild Planet tuna. This might be even worse than lark's vomit.They might have been smaller letters than those of the words “lark’s vomit” on the offensive box of chocolates. It then occurred to me that any brand of tuna that is not sustainably caught, must be unsustainably caught. Stein’s Law inescapably states, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

One day, there might not be any more tuna to catch, sustainably or otherwise. The thought that I had that I never thought before was placing a warning label in large red letters on unsustainably caught tuna. Much in the same way as the Whizzo Quality Assortment should have a large red label warning of lark’s vomit. On further review, this might be even worse than lark’s vomit.

Warning label for unsustainably caught tuna. This might be even worse than lark's vomit.

I’m not expecting this warning to appear on unsustainably caught tuna anytime soon, but maybe it should. The New Message from God encourages people to reduce their energy consumption to avoid depletion and ruin. One day, humanity will consider unsustainable practices as unacceptable as frog bones or lark’s vomit in chocolates. Who knows, this might be even worse than lark’s vomit.

* * *

Welcome to Mystery of Ascension! Добро пожаловать в Тайну просветления! We document the study of the New Message from God in general, and the book Steps to Knowledge in particular. Мы тут делимся своим опытом изучения Нового Послания от Бога, в общем, и книги Шаги к Знанию в частности. Find out more about us here. Узнайте больше о нас здесь. Find out how to contact us here. Узнайте, как связаться с нами здесь.

2 thoughts on “This Might Be Even Worse Than Lark’s Vomit

  1. Great post. What does this part of the New Message for Humanity mean for me and my relationship to the world, my relationship to the future?

    I have tried to live my spirituality more Douglas such as doing my best with living the Guidelines for Preparing for the Great Waves of Change that http://www.GreatWavesOfChange.org mentions, ‘cutting your energy usage and consumption by 25 to 50 percent or as much as possible,’ such as what the Messenger Marshall Vian Summers mentioned he did in 2009 on his interview with Noory on Coast to Coast radio.

    Marshall stated he had to cut his energy, possessions, everything because, ‘it’s going to save me in the long run; its going to save me time, energy, and money. I had to cut my energy use by 50 perecent. I did it because I knew I had to do it.’ (Paraphrasing both quotes as little as possible.)

    What does this mean for me? It means getting serious about my life in facing uncertain times. So to continue with the energy conservation example: Turning the heat down after bed, when leaving the house putting heat at 55 or lower, turning off all lights, hanging up clothes to dry where possible, biking, walking or busing for transport where possible including to the airport.

  2. Yes, it is certainly a good thing for people to become increasingly aware of how their food is produced and what the implications are. I appreciate the symbolic value of your food labeling idea. But I can’t help but think: as a practical policy it seems like it would be highly problematic. Like the “organic” label/movement. Something that seemed like a good idea in the beginning but got co-opted.

    “Sustainable” is such a subjective judgement–how could it be measured? How could claims of sustainability be verified? Would it be possible to avoid the same scenario that has played out with the “organic” label–which does not really signify sustainability–nor even that synthetic pesticides weren’t used–but which seems to give people a false sense of ethical exculpation or moral accomplishment–while reinforcing an unhealthy dependence on (manipulative) sources of authority?

    In the past, when people lived more locally, the consequences of unsustainable agricultural practices were more immediately felt, and I hope that returning to having stronger local economies will help a lot with sustainability issues. But we’re never going to go back completely … and figuring out how government on a national–or global(!!!) scale could be done better than what we’ve seen so far … well … only with Knowledge is it even conceivable, I think.

    Not trying to argue with you–I know you’re a poet and I grant you license (-; to suggest things that may seem impractical but point toward a greater truth. But in the spirit of open discussion … this is what your post brought to my mind. Thank you for sharing this thoughtful and thought-provoking piece.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.