Should we ban food?

Over history, governments have banned foods. Some, such as Foie Gras or Ortloan, are disallowed because the animals were tortured in the preparation of the cuisine. Painful, inhumane treatment for our supposed culinary pleasure strips us of humanity; I agree; outlaw such barbarian practices.

Oft times, food police serve to "protect" public morality. In the mid 1800s, Absinthe, a strong alcoholic liqueur, was immensely popular in France because it induced creativity, hallucinations, and acted as an aphrodisiac. Called "la fee verte" (the green fairy) because chlorophyll was one of its ingredients, France outlawed it in 1915 due to "harmful neurological effects." European romance has never been the same.

Puffer fish (or blowfish) is no longer served because 60 percent of those who consumed it died. Quite frankly, I'm shocked it took an act of government. One would surmise that if you attended a dinner party where six out of ten expired from the gastronomy, it would be a deterrent to preparing the same repast next time. Dunno, maybe it's just me?

Finally, I am aghast at what some brand as "food." (Warning: if you have a weak stomach, skip this paragraph.) Casu marzu ("rotting cheese" in Sardinian) is not just aged and extremely malodorous, it is described as "a runny white cheese," produced by injecting Pecorino Sardo cheese with one-half inch larvae. (Are we hungry yet?) If such a repugnant recipe doesn't make your mouth water, tradition says Casu marzu is to be consumed with the maggots running through it. Sardinians claim these critters make it creamier... and it's absolutely delicious. The preparation itself should be banned, let alone the cheese.

California has become the first state to ban restaurants from using trans fats. Should you have been hiding under a truckload of fried or sugary sweets, you might not know that trans fats increase the risk of heart disease by lowering "good" cholesterol, known as HDL, while increasing "bad" cholesterol (LDL).

In case it is unclear, let me put on the record that I stand unwavering in the heart-disease-is-bad, anti-high-cholesterol camp. As I illustrated, I am also aware that, at times, it is the government's duty to protect the public health, even if that involves eliminating certain "delicacies" from the collective palette.

That stated, and in addition to the "slippery slope" argument inquiring "where it stops?" (Should we ban potato chips? Crackers? Popcorn? Pizza? Why not sugar itself?) I become concerned that we - and I write only of adults, not children - periodically fall behind government as an excuse to avoid personal accountability. Supposedly we are mature enough to make wise - and informed - decisions, therefore shouldering the consequences; good, bad, or indifferent. Should I periodically opt for a greasy, gooey, crunchy treat dipped in boiling hydrogenated oil - KNOWING full well of the ramifications - I assume it's my option.

I am not anti-regulation; a healthy, involved, concerned society protects those who cannot do so for themselves. But, let's also make sure we increase and promote healthy education and don't simply use statute as a justification to avoid reading nutrition labels or taking care of our own responsibilities.