Bite me!

Will we see you in a year saying, "Oh, I had drinks with Rachael Ray, and actually, she's all right"?

Yeah, right. "After the hot-tub incident, I've changed my mind." You know, listen, like I said, I could be wrong. Unlikely. But maybe she's nice to puppies.

Sure, sure -- you haven't seen her kicking any old people lately.

Actually, that would be cool. If I ever saw her getting trashed on Old Crow, pistol-whipping a vegan after a bar crawl, I would think, "That's an interesting woman. I would like to know her."

You've never had much love for vegans, and that doesn't seem to be something you've revised your opinion on.

Never. They're rude! People's choice to become vegan, from people I've spoken to, seems motivated by fear. Like, "it's possibly toxic, or ungroovy, or poisonous, or loaded with chemicals or some kind of harmful things that'll make me less healthy." I certainly don't see that as a good reason to do anything, certainly not a good reason to be rude to your host.

How can you travel? Before you've even left home, you've already decided, "I reject most of the world's bounty and the expression of their hopes and dreams and culture." Some nice, possibly impoverished Vietnamese rice farmer is nice enough to offer you the one chicken he can kill a month, or a week, and you say, "Sorry, I can't"? It just seems antihuman. It's antisocial.

And for anyone who says that everyone should eat like that -- it completely ignores the fact that, well, we can't afford to. We've got hungry people in this world. Go stay with the Bushmen for a week. Ninety-eight percent of their diet is meat. [Chuckles darkly.] That would be a funny reality show.

But what about vegans who follow that diet because they're concerned about environmental destruction or feeding the world's people more efficiently?

Hmm. That's an unthinkable scenario. Like, what, that the planet will survive longer if there are more vegans?

Well, it would be better for the planet, but I think the idea is also that the human race would survive longer.

What's so great about that? I'm a radical environmentalist; I think the sooner we asphyxiate in our own filth, the better. The world will do better without us. Maybe some fuzzy animals will go with us, but there'll be plenty of other animals, and they'll be back. The world will do better without us, when the blight of humanity is removed. That would be my academic argument to that.

You're pretty tough on obese people, too, though.

I just don't see [obesity] as a lifestyle decision. If you need a support system, if you're blocking egress from a burning building or taking up half my seat on a plane, that is not a lifestyle choice. That is a menace to society.

What's sad is that so few obese people are even getting big on good food. They're chawing themselves listlessly to death on crap. I don't think people should be encouraged to look like Kate Moss; I think that's unreasonable. I think the normal human body should be glorified. By the same token, if you need a stick to wash yourself, you're not healthy.

You've spoken out against the recent bans on foie gras, but you're also opposed to animal cruelty in general. Would you support banning other practices that are regarded as cruel, like those practiced by the industrial poultry industry?

No. It would be nice to think that people know the difference between a crap chicken and a good chicken. If you can afford a good-quality free-range chicken, it's nice that you have options. A lot of people in the world can't afford that.

I like the idea that we could live in an agrarian wonderland, where there are heritage animals wandering freely and making delicious farm-fresh eggs, but that ain't gonna happen; there are too many hungry people in the world.

I love Whole Foods talking about lobster and clam cruelty, when people are being fucked to death, kidnapped, starved, bombed. [The grocery chain recently stopped selling some live shellfish on the grounds that the practice is inhumane.] There is so much cruelty to humans -- so much cruelty to animals -- in this world. And people are worried about a fucking mollusk. Unbelievable.

Are you just as skeptical about organic products, or the movement to eat locally grown food?

No, I think that's good. I admire people who want to cook only regional; any time you focus on quality, I think that's good.

Just don't pretend that we can all do that, or that it's not going to be expensive. To eat like our peasant ancestors, the simple things that they took for granted -- only the rich will be able to afford those things.

You also suggest that the relentless focus on safety and sanitation in kitchens is a bad thing. Why?

I think fear of dirt is often indistinguishable from the fear of unnamed dirty people. There's something kind of racist about it, about people who are hesitant to try street food in another country. [The food] is part and parcel of culture; it's an expression of identity.

And I think the notion that the government or somebody owes you absolute safety and security in everything you eat is a destructive one, with cheese being the easiest example. With cheese having to be pasteurized or aged to a certain degree, none of us will ever experience a real brie, or how good that used to be. There are laws that you have to sign a release, or at least read a warning statement, before you eat a rare burger. I think we've slipped over into the twilight zone here. Does McDonald's really have to label their coffee cups to say "Danger: Will cause burning if poured on genitals"?

I think it's destructive to quality, and pleasure, and tradition. So I'm skeptical, to say the least, if not hostile to that kind of thinking.

Next page: "Kitchens are the last meritocracy, the last workplace where men and women can speak to each other honestly"