Haggis. A concoction of sheep stomach stuffed with innards and boil and prepared in the traditional scottish art. A delicious delicacy that Americans cannot recreate. However in America we cannot enjoy this dish due to a ban on the import of Haggis
American haggis-lovers were elated last week when word spread that the ban might be lifted. Haggis producers in Edinburgh were pretty excited, too. They were already salivating over potential sales to a U.S. market.But when the BBC contacted the U.S. Department of Agriculture, they said not so fast. "Recently, several news articles have incorrectly stated that the U.S. will be relaxing or lifting its ban on Scottish haggis," a spokeswoman wrote the news organization. While a review of the ban on beef and lamb is underway, there's no timeframe for its completion. Plus, there may be another barrier to importing haggis: Since 1971, the U.S. has banned all food made with lungs.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123179163
And Haggis is not the only foreign delicacy that we can only dream about appearing on our plate. Many soft cheeses of France and other European countries are banned due to the fact that they do not pasturize the milk before making the cheese. Now I understand that mostly these bans are due to concern for public health, but really, when we allow all sorts of imports of toys ridden with deadly toxins from foreign markets, what is the real danger of a little sheep innards? Personally I don't see the logic in it. Is America just being protectionist against the possible impending competition with sheep stomach? Or worried that the cheddar cheese industry cannot withstand the intense taste of a fresh Camembert?
I would rather have a child nibbling on a bit of cheese than drooling on a toy horse ridden with lead.
I suppose the U.S. is just looking out for the best interest of its citizens. Personally, I don't think there should be a ban because people should be able to make their own decisions. If someone wants to eat the insides of a sheep, more power to them. A
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah but I also agree with Ajminch. I think the government is carrying out the bans on these products because they are trying to protect the consumers and also because they are trying to ward off foreign competition. One of the roles of the government is to protect the citizens of its country. Importing products that are potentially hazardously is not a means of protecting its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people do and should have the choice to purchase whatver it is that they want but these choices do not only affect the consumer. What if a consumer purchase the supposedly hazardous haggis and gets an infection (maybe contagious too). Imagine if thousands of people puchase these same haggis, thousands of people will become sick. This will put more pressure on the health sector, loss of productivity of these persons and the list goes on. I am just thinking of stuff... I think that the govt. is doing the right thing if it bans these products because they pose a health risk. If we spend our money on imports, these imports should meet our standard of production.
Ha, this was a weird, but interesting story. I agree it is totally crazy the things tht the US does allow into the country verus what it doesn't allow...like sheep stomach.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I can defintiely understand why the government would put bans on these things; if someone were to get sick and die the government would have totake the blame and it would be quite the hassle.
I really enjoyed this article :)
I think the United States has many reason to ban the import of many foreign products. First of all, the restrictions that the Health Department has set are simply to protect its citizens from diseases that can cause a tragedy among the people. The second reason is to prevent foreign companies to take over the market and then people will stop buying what’s produce domestically. People should have the choice to choose their own products but as long it’s safe to eat and will not cause an outbreak of diseases. (A)
ReplyDeleteI think the major issue here is the protection of the citizens. The United States should just examine any foreign products that enter the country. The haggis should be regulation in how much is sold and where it is sold at in the states. Keeping a close eye on these things would reduce the effects of a major breakout. (A)
ReplyDeleteInstead of importing things like cheese and haggis, the U.S. would do well for itself economically-wise (as well as health-wise) by just making the products. Though the taste may not be the same (as certain practices must be followed according to federal regulation), this will open up the market in the U.S. for these products. The U.S. would benefit from doing this, as the demand couldn't be filled from imports due to the ban; the world price would therefore not have much of an impact.
ReplyDeleteI agree that U.S. citizens should be allowed to eat as they please, but I can also see how the FDA might be concerned about allowing too many loopholes into our food policies. Since the FDA would be the nation's scapegoat if there were to be a sweeping food virus epidemic from one of these imported goods, I can see why they're cautious about bringing in food that has not been regulated to the same standards that most American-made foods must pass. I'm also wondering if our government-structured diets would react poorly to goods that haven't gone through as much regulation (like that non-pasteurized cheese you mentioned)? I'm all for diversity in my dairy intake, but doubt my stomach has the same resistance to any strains of bacteria in those raw products that Europeans might be able to tolerate more easily since they have been consuming such products all their lives.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what kind of research led to the decision to ban lung-based foods.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you mention the imported toys made with lead. There were some laws passed fairly recently banned imported toys made with lead, or something like that, which has caused the overseas toy factories to produce toys made with chemicals that are even MORE harmful. Talk about not getting the point.
The U.S is just looking out for it's citizens. The government is trying to protect us from eating something that could possibly make us sick. The children toys produced with lead paint aren't meant to be eaten or put in the mouth. The government banned the toys once the information regarding the paint was discovered. A
ReplyDeleteA ban on imported foods or other items is usually to block foreign copetition in that area. By blocking the cheeses, our own subsidized cheese production may suffer. I wonder if it is allowed to make haggis in the U.S.? If the ban is really becasue of health concerns, perhaps there should be a warning label on them and state the possible risks, but for those food lovers, it would be a big treat to have these delicacies.
ReplyDeleteA ban on food made from lungs...
ReplyDeleteWell, I assume that the US is looking to stop us from spending money on food like this from other countries because
1.) It's easy to ban because the government can say that it poses possible health problems and
2.) If we can't eat lungs, we're probably going to substitute it with something grown (or processed) a little closer to home.
A
I believe the U.S. is always looking for the best of it's citizens it seems with whatever they are trying to do. But i think this way of going about it is making the U.S. no longer the original u.s. it was. All these taxes bans regulations are not needed and just hinder trade. People are entitled to their rights here and if they want to eat soft cheese or stomachs you might as well let them, it isn't going to hurt anyone.
ReplyDeleteBridgett made a good point of adaptation. Europe, from what I've heard, is far less restricted than the US, except for restrictions on keeping things in their natural state as much as possible.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/7-foods-banned-europe-available-us.php
This site contains a list of seven things Europe has banned that the U.S. allows, even promotes in some cases.
among them: Genetically modified Foods, Pesticides, Bovine Growth Hormone, Chlorinated Chickens, Food Contact Chemicals, and Stevia.
Interestingly, at the bottom it notes plans for a future ban on food dyes.
Can you imagine going to Meijer and only finding products that don't contain these things? would we be healthier for it?
I wonder if the ban on Haggis was a reciprocal measure to fight aggainst a UK ban? either way, this is the choice of the consumer to chose whether or not to purchase, a fully pasturized or approved product. The only requirement should be full discloser of ingredients and possible risks, cigarettes are still sold? so why cant sheep intestines? im sure its alot less harful to an individual... A
ReplyDeletePublic safety should be the first priority when it comes to what is being imported into our country. I believe that it was the right thing to do when the decision was made to ban haggis. Although there are many people who may enjoy this, it still doesn't make much sense to endanger the lives and well-being of our population.
ReplyDeleteI think this is more of a concern of health issues from animals in the UK dating around the time of Mad Cow Disease and before. Also I think that the US wants to protect its citizens from potentially harmful foods. It may also have to do with health codes in different countries not up to par with what USDA thinks it should be. Anyways with our population also being so obese already they may be watching our health standards a little more as well. Anyways I am for a little cheese and haggis but find that the US Government may not be as concerned with it as much as others issues right now.
ReplyDelete