The Ethically Dubious Soup Kim Jong-Un Loves To Dine On Is Illegal In The US
Shark fin soup has a long history in Chinese imperial cuisine, where it symbolized wealth, power, and prestige. The soup is made using the fins of sharks, which are prized for their texture rather than their flavor. To meet the demand for this status symbol, the inhumane practice of "finning" became widespread: Sharks are caught, their fins sliced off while they're still alive, and their mutilated bodies are often thrown back into the ocean.
Shark meat itself is also unsustainable, but receives less attention, unless it's the Icelandic fermented shark that Anthony Bourdain refused to eat ever again. Some shark species have seen population drops of more than 90% in recent decades. Conservationists warn that removing apex predators like sharks from the oceans will destabilize entire ecosystems, yet the demand for shark fin soup continues in some parts of the world, fueled by tradition and status.
Read more: 10 Cheap Fish That Are Absolutely Not Worth Buying
Kim Jong-Un's love of shark fin soup is emblematic of the North Korean regime's tendency to flaunt excess, even as most of the country suffers from devastating food insecurity and economic hardship. According to reports from defectors and international observers, the North Korean elite enjoys access to expensive delicacies like Kobe steaks, caviar, and champagne . Serving shark fin soup at state banquets or private gatherings isn't just about taste — it's Jong-Un's way to signal dominance and privilege.
Kenji Fujimoto, a Japanese sushi chef who served the Kim family for over a decade, described making the soup for the political family after he defected to Japan in 2001. In an interview with Japanese media, he stated, "They both like shark fin soup three times a week." Fujimoto's stories don't stop there; he describes flying to Iran to pick up caviar, Denmark for beer, and Japan for fish. Nothing was too good for the family of Korean dictators.
Many American chefs and restaurants have voluntarily removed shark fin soup from their menus in response to legal pressure and growing public awareness of its cruelty. Chef Gordon Ramsey avoids the soup at all costs after starring in an investigative documentary about the brutal practice. In a country where food is weaponized and extreme poverty is widespread for everyday people, the presence of a controversial luxury dish like shark fin soup reveals a lot about Jong-Un's values and power plays in Pyongyang.
For more food and drink goodness, join The Takeout's newsletter. Get taste tests, food & drink news, deals from your favorite chains, recipes, cooking tips, and more!
Read the original article on The Takeout.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The push to defund Planned Parenthood hit other clinics in Maine. Now their group is suing.
Vanessa Shields-Haas, a nurse practitioner, said the organization's clinics have been seeing all patients as usual and completing Medicaid paperwork for visits — but not submitting it because it appears the provision took effect as soon as the law was signed. 'Knowing how hard it is to access care in this state, not allowing these community members to access their care, it's cruel,' Shields-Haas said. Advertisement Maine clinics appear to be only others included in cuts Republican lawmakers targeted Planned Parenthood in one piece of what President Donald Trump dubbed the 'big beautiful' bill that Congress passed and the president signed earlier this month. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up While advocates focused on Planned Parenthood, the bill did not mention it by name. Instead, it cut off reimbursements for organizations that are primarily engaged in family planning services — which generally include things such as contraception, abortion and pregnancy tests — and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The U.S. Senate's parliamentarian rejected a 2017 effort to defund Planned Parenthood because it was written to exclude all other providers by barring payments only to groups that received more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. The not-for-profit Maine organization asserts in its legal challenge that the threshold was lowered to $800,000 this time around to make sure Planned Parenthood would not be the only affected entity. Advertisement It is the only other organization that has come forward publicly to say that its funding is at risk, too. Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions. Instead, the money in question involves other health services, such as cancer screenings and tests, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Proponents of that wrinkle in the law say abortion providers use Medicaid money for other services to subsidize abortion. 'This has never been just about Planned Parenthood,' Autumn Christensen, vice president of public policy for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement. 'It's about any Big Abortion business or network that performs abortions. Taxpayers should never be forced to prop up an industry that profits from ending human lives.' The Associated Press has sought comment from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is named in the lawsuit. Maine Family Planning goes beyond abortion Maine Family Planning operates 18 clinics across the state. In 2024, it had about 7,200 family planning patients, including 645 who obtained abortions. Services include pregnancy testing, contraception, family planning counseling, breast exams, cancer screenings and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. Some of the sites also offer primary care services, where there are another 600 or so patients. There are about 800 gender-affirming care patients and about 200 who use its upstart mobile clinic, said George Hill, the president and CEO of the organization. Hill said that for about two-thirds of its patients, Maine Family Planning is the only place they get medical care in a typical year. Advertisement About half of the patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid, and the clinics have been receiving about $1.9 million a year in reimbursements, which accounts for about one-fourth of the organization's budget. 'It's a difficult state to provide care in and now we're facing this,' Hill said. In its lawsuit, the group says it has enough reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursement only through October. Finding health care can be a struggle in this rural state Maine Family Planning says that if it had to turn away patients, it would be more complicated for them than simply finding another provider. There aren't enough in rural areas, the group notes — and many don't accept Medicaid. One patient, Ashley Smith, said she started going to Maine Family Planning about five years ago when she could not find other health care she could afford. While she's not enrolled in Medicaid, she fears clinics could be shuttered because of cuts. 'I am so worried that if my clinic closes, I don't know what I'll do or if I'll be able to see another provider,' Smith said. Maine Family Planning also supports care at more than 40 other health care facilities. Other than the Planned Parenthood locations that receive money from Maine Family Planning, those other providers don't stand to lose their Medicaid reimbursements. But, Hill said, the loss of Medicaid funding for Maine Family Planning would mean the group would have less to send to partners. The Maine clinics say the law violates their right to equal protection The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Maine Family Planning in the challenge, says in its legal filing that the defunding denies it equal protection under the law because it would have funding cut off, but organizations that provide similar services would not. Advertisement 'The administration would rather topple a statewide safety network than let a patient get a cancer screening at a facility that also offers abortion care,' Meetra Mehdizadeh, a Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer, said in an interview. Planned Parenthood already sued and won a reprieve from a judge, preventing its Medicaid payments cutoff — at least until July 21 — while a court considers that case. Planned Parenthood has warned that the law could put 200 of its affiliates' roughly 600 clinics across the U.S. at risk of closing.
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
GOP Senators Interested in Shoring up Policy Trump Railed Against for Years
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Some Republican senators are started to eye an extension to the premium tax credit, a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), set to expire at the end of the year, according to a new report. Newsweek has reached out to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, for comment via email. Why It Matters The premium tax credit, which helps lower-income Americans purchase health care in the ACA marketplaces, is set to expire at the end of 2025 if Congress does not act. This could pose a problem in messaging for Republicans, who have generally opposed the ACA, as they face some challenges ahead of the 2026 midterms, when they are hoping to thwart losses that often come with the first midterms under a new administration. If Congress does not extend the premium tax credit, 4.1 million Americans would lose their health insurance, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released in June. President Donald Trump and his supporters have generally opposed the ACA, also known as Obamacare, and have pushed for its repeal. During his first administration, Trump almost repealed the health care law, but was famously rebuffed by Republican Arizona Senator John McCain voting against the administration. Trump criticized the tax credit in a 2012 post to X, writing Obamacare's "tax credit is underperforming by over 95% creating an even bigger cost to the debt." Polling suggests the ACA has remained popular, with a June KFF poll finding that 66 percent of all Americans support it. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event on August 29, 2024 in Potterville, Michigan. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event on August 29, 2024 in Potterville, To Know A handful of Republican senators have expressed an openness to extending the premium tax credit, according to remarks in Punchbowl News. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who recently voted against Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" due to concerns about Medicaid cuts, told the publication it would be a "perfect opportunity for us to move past the reconciliation process, which is clearly a partisan exercise." Tillis has already announced he won't run for reelection in 2026, making North Carolina a top target for Democrats in trying to slim the 53-47 GOP majority in the upper chamber. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, expressed support for bipartisan talks to extend the credit, while Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said Republicans must do something to "allow people to afford health care." "The cost of insurance on the exchanges is just astronomical. That's why so many people are on Medicaid," he said. Thune told the publication that leadership is having conversations about how to deal with the expiration, but leaders have not said for sure whether they support the extension. The debate about whether to extend the premium tax credit is "sure to be fierce and complicated," Michael Sparer, chair of Columbia University's Department of Health Policy and Management, told Newsweek. "That this vote will be close is not a surprise. Most Republicans have long opposed the expanded credits but many in the party also worry about the political backlash that might well follow a failure to extend the credits," he said. Medicaid cuts in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" further complicate the policy battle, though Republicans "delayed" the impact of those cuts "after the midterm elections in an effort to reduce the political backlash," according to Sparer. Republicans will hope to use the cuts in publicly funded insurance benefits to "scale back the nation's safety net as part of an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while also enabling their desired tax cuts," he said. Those efforts could, however,, lead to millions losing coverage, he said. Congressional Republicans have mostly opposed the ACA and sought to repeal it during Trump's first term, with those efforts ultimately being blocked by GOP Senators Murkowski, McCain and Susan Collins. Trump has frequently criticized the ACA and the premium tax credit over the years. Trump's plan to replace the ACA would have included the end of the program's premium tax credits, replacing it with a new tax deduction based on age. The report comes just one day after Trump pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward indicated Republicans in swing districts could benefit from supporting the extension ahead of the midterms. Historically, the party that controls the White House loses seats in the midterms, and their latest poll suggested Democrats have an early advantage against the GOP in swing districts. What People Are Saying Pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward wrote in a polling memo: "Republicans can position themselves ahead of Democrats in these districts by extending the premium tax credit and using the individual market as a landing spot for working age adults on Medicaid." Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, told Punchbowl News: "I'll work with anybody, but I don't see anything resembling that, and what I do see is all over the political rags is they're already planning the second reconciliation partisan bill." A Peterson-KFF report from June said: "The enhanced premium tax credits are now set to expire at the end of 2025. Unless the premium tax credits are extended, consumers can expect increases in both the net premium payments and gross premiums." What Happens Next Health care will likely remain a key issue in the midterms, particularly following Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Whether GOP leadership decides to extend the premium tax credits remains to be seen at this point.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
King Donald? Supreme Court grants Trump power to repeal laws at his whim
'The Executive has seized for itself the power to repeal federal law by way of mass terminations, in direct contravention of the Take Care Clause and our Constitution's separation of powers.' Read that again. These are the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court's one-paragraph July 14 ruling, in which the majority basically held — without any justification or explanation whatsoever — that it's fine that America has become a land of lawlessness with power consolidated in one person. President Trump is the law now. The case is McMahon v. New York, and it involves Trump's stated plan to abolish the Department of Education by basically firing half the workforce so that the agency cannot function. Unlike Elon Musk's slash-and-burn DOGE experiment, this maneuver is not even thinly disguised by the pretense of government 'efficiency.' Trump just wants the Department of Education to go. The trouble is that, as a matter of the Constitution's core separation of powers, Congress makes the laws. In 1979, Congress enacted the Department of Education Organization Act for purposes of 'ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual.' As Sotomayor explained in her dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, 'only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive's task, by contrast, is to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' By shutting down the Department of Education 'by executive fiat,' Trump is blatantly intruding on the powers of the legislature to make the laws while ignoring the constitutional mandate, and his oath of office, that he duly execute those laws. Trump's plan ignores a bunch of other laws that the Department of Education is also responsible for executing, including laws governing federal grants for institutes of higher education; federal funding for kindergarten through high school (which was over $100 billion during the 2020-2021 school year, or 11 percent of the total funding for public K-12 schools across the country); and laws banning discrimination in federally-funded schools on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and disability. Then there's the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which, according to the department's current website, 'is a law that makes available a free appropriate education to eligible children with disabilities … and ensures special education and related services to those children, supports early services for infants and toddlers and their families, and awards competitive discretionary grants.' Seven million students across the country receive special education services supported by that law. Another statute the department administers, the Elementary and Student Education Act, provides financial assistance programs to tens of millions of low-income students, too. All of these laws are now being gutted by the stroke of Trump's pen, as if he were a king. No public debate in Congress, no mark-ups of bills amending the law, no ability for voters to call representatives to lobby for or against proposals to amend the Department of Education and the statutes it administers. No budget analyses, no media coverage of congressional horse-trading, no interviews of people from both parties on the steps of the Capitol, no hearing from public school officials or teachers or parents on whether this is a good idea. None of that — because Trump simply snatched the power to make and repeal major federal legislation and programs that affect millions of American children for himself. Worse, the majority on the Supreme Court is letting him do it. Like Trump, it made its ruling on-the-fly and behind closed doors — without full briefing, oral argument or a written decision explaining the justices' rationale for their end run around Article I of the Constitution (which lodges the lawmaking power in Congress) and Article II (which mandates that the president take care that the laws are faithfully executed). The majority's silence left it to the dissenting justices to — once again — try and back-fill the majority's reasoning in a dissenting opinion so that the public has some sort of record about what is possibly going on here. Sotomayor explains that Trump, shortly after taking office, condemned the Department of Education as a 'big con job' that he would 'like to close immediately.' A week into her tenure, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon eliminated 'nearly 50 percent of the Department's workforce' as 'the first step on the road to a total shutdown.' She closed entire offices — including the team responsible for administering bilingual education, every lawyer in the general counsel's office responsible for K-12 education funding and IDEA grants, numerous regional offices that deal with civil rights laws and most of the office that certifies schools to receive federal student financial aid. On March 20, Trump signed an executive order with a directive titled 'Closing the Department of Education and Returning Authority to the States.' Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued, arguing that his actions violated the Take Care Clause and the Constitution's separation of powers, incapacitating core components of the Department of Education on which the states rely. A similar lawsuit by school districts and unions followed. The cases were combined, and a district court issued an injunction preserving the status quo, keeping the department and the nation's school system intact while the case was pending. An appeals court upheld that injunction. Mind you, the district court issued its injunction after considering dozens of affidavits from Department of Education officials and recipients of federal funding describing how McMahon's mass terminations have already affected the ability to pay teachers, purchase materials and equipment, and enroll students on federal financial aid — and how full implantation of Trump's plan could be far worse. The government submitted no evidence in response. Ignoring the record entirely and on an emergency motion filed by the administration, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority overturned the injunction, effectively handing Trump a win — just weeks before the start of the new school year — without even bothering to actually grapple with the Constitution, the lower court's findings or the dire impacts on millions of children and young adults that rely on the department's programs in order to get an education. This sounds like a dystopian science fiction storyline that a bunch of Hollywood writers and producers dreamed up. But it's real. This is Trump's — and the Supreme Court's — America.
