[skatss]

The US government is starting to bring out legislation to make a whole bunch of foods illegal. Everything from foie gras, which is banned both because it's bad for the eater's health and bad for the poor geese and ducks who are force fed, to Ortolan, which are small, endangered songbirds which bring a $10,000 fine if one is caught hunting them in France. These small birds are roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner covers his head with a linen napkin. Some say that is to either preserve the precious aromas but the custom might also come from shame for eating the poor little song bird whole.

They are also trying to make beluga caviar, wild mushrooms, live lobsters, Brie de Meaux, (because it's made with raw milk, declared illegal here in the US) jamon iberico, (That's because Spain, unlike some other European countries, does not host a single slaughterhouse that has yet been certified by the USDA) all illegal!

You might not even be able to buy a rare hamburger here anymore because the government has declared that all meat has to be heated to 160 degrees, at the minimum, to kill bad bacteria.

I can totally understand not eating foods that are made in a cruel way, but when you get down to it, all meats and fish get on your table through an act of cruelty -- killing. I don;t understand why the FDA is acting like a mother when it tells people not to eat something because someone, somewhere, deems it unhealthy.

Should it be up to anyone other than your conscience to tell you what to eat? Should the US government get involved if you want to eat some cheese made with bacteria, the way that any really good cheese has always been made and the way great cheeses can only be made?

I don't think so.
*

[zzzjoy]

That is a good question.
I can see limiting food that is poison to humans and ones where the animal is caused extreme cruelty.
There are standards at least in the US of how an animal has to be killed.

I know none of this answers the question.
I think to a large extent it should be left to the individual.

[bubble]

Of course it is an individual choice.

If you prefer your steak / burgers rare, then eat it that way. However if it is causing health issues, then the restuarants may be blamed for poor quality and food poisoning. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing that the government is getting involved in that respect.

All in all food should be an individual choice, and I think perhaps banning certain foods could be a strech too far.

[Rabscuttle]

Welcome to the nanny state. We'll tell what to eat, how to eat and when to eats. Sit down and enjoy your gruel!

[Meander]

The only one I agree with is banning the consumption of endangered animals. Also, I think that animals should not be treated cruelly while living (such as squeeze pens or force feeding) to create a food.

All else goes in my opinion. If something is "bad" for you, that's your call. Anything, even water, can be bad for you in excess. I've eaten a lot of illegal cheese in my day. It's the good stuff. I've consumed a lot of unpasteurized milk, too.

I grew up on a farm - God, I miss fresh goat and cow milk. There are flavors and aromas that high temperature pasteurization utterly destroy. Even lower temperature pasteurization takes away a lot of flavor.

[DianaR]

Originally Posted by zzzjoy

That is a good question.
I can see limiting food that is poison to humans and ones where the animal is caused extreme cruelty.
There are standards at least in the US of how an animal has to be killed.

I know none of this answers the question.
I think to a large extent it should be left to the individual.

With the advent of anti-smoking legislation, Smokers will still get to have their rare steak, since many have stopped eating out, in my area!

[Ricardo]

I've also heard that in some areas, there could be a law against selling unpasteurized milk. Apparently chefs have spoken up in support of the dairy farmers who sell it that way, because they prefer cooking with the unpasteurized milk.

Has anyone else heard of this?

[twocents]

Foie gras was banned for almost two years here in Chicago, but the ban was just lifted a month or so ago I think. Some restaurants got around the ban by not selling it as an item on the menu, but offering it free when you ordered a specific dish.

And I can't believe what you said about jamon iberico, outrageous! I don't know what I would do without jamon.

I can understand the FDA coming in and wanting to check things out but they cant even manage to keep us safe from food poisoning so they should concentrate on that.

[ken7700]

This does not surprise me really. I mean certain times you have to protect the consumer. I will site an example in America. The beef pot pie which is one of my favorites had to be recalled because they were not getting fully cooked. if you followed the instructions on the box the meat would not be fully cooked and it would make you sick.

I did get sick from eating one. I guess it comes to protecting people. The real question is how far will they go with it.

[DianaR]

What if a synthetic of "mock" version of a banned food is created? Would that be banned also, or would it just have to be tested before it could be sold?