Oysters: The Fox News of Mollusks?

First it was Fox News. Then it was the state of South Carolina. And now the Obama administration has a new target: oysters.

Yes, really. Oysters.

At issue is how far the federal government should go to save the lives of 15 people each year who die from eating contaminated raw oysters.

A top official at the Food and Drug Administration announced last month that the agency would ban as of 2011 the sale of raw oysters harvested from the Gulf Coast during the warm water months because they are the source for nearly all the deaths associated with raw oysters each year. The agency said processes like freezing and pasteurization that make the oysters safer are available and do little to alter the taste of oysters.

But oystermen and some restaurant owners say the difference in taste between raw and processed oysters is so profound that, were the rule to go into effect, the Gulf Coast oyster industry would be irreparably harmed and a cultural institution destroyed.

The oh so heroic efforts of Obama’s FDA could save 15 people a year from succumbing to Vibrio vulnificus, a type of bacteria that occurs naturally in oysters.  That’s nothing to scoff at. But is it worth yet another nanny state intrusion into our lives? And is it even necessary?

Food borne illnesses kill 5,700 people each year in the United States, but the FDA isn’t requiring irradiation of all produce.  Bungee jumping, flying, crossing the street, eating rare beef, leaving the iron on – these are all things that can lead to death, but we don’t allow the federal government to ban us from weighing the risks and making informed decisions.

What ever happened to “my body, my choice”?  I guess there’ll be none of that in Obama’s America.

One oyster lover calls the administration’s forthcoming ban on Gulf oysters “an attack on industries run in conservative areas who serve a blue collar clientele. Typical elitism.”  It’s hard to argue with his sentiment when thousands of oyster industry jobs are at risk in the Gulf region.  The economic effects in Louisiana alone could be staggering, and practical solutions that could save jobs and lives are not on the table.

Clearly we shouldn’t protect an industry at the expense of human life, but devastating the oyster industry isn’t the answer here. Instead of making decisions for people, let’s get them the information they need to make their own choices. Some people will still get themselves killed, but they’re free to do that because that’s how we roll in America.

Life is full of peril and uncertainty, and taking raw Gulf oysters off the market for half the year won’t change that. Not even in the era of hopenchange.

Published by Jenn Q. Public on November 13, 2009 at 2:23 am

Filed Under Liberal Absurdity, Nanny State

Comments

7 Responses to “Oysters: The Fox News of Mollusks?”

  1. theblackcommenter on November 13th, 2009 10:25 am

    I think they should ban stupid short sighted legislative proposals that do far more harm than good.

  2. Eclectic Radical on November 14th, 2009 7:23 am

    Without endorsing the political tone being lent to the article itself, I have to agree that banning raw oysters half the year is not particularly high-priority. If we want to get really technical, alcohol and nicotine have far higher death rates than any food-borne illnesses and we’ve all found out how stupid and counter-productive Prohibition was the first time round.

    I think raw oysters are pretty disgusting, but then it’s a lot more unhealthy for me to eat deep-fried clams and scallops (which I love) than it is for someone to eat raw oysters. Yes, all oysters carry the bacteria, but only a relative handful of people are sensitive enough to the bacteria to get sick and even smaller percentage of them suffer serious health risks. The majority of oyster deaths are not due to the natural bacteria in oysters themselves, but because of poor food safety procedures in restaurants that lead to more ordinary forms of food poisoning… like storing the oysters for too long and serving spoiled oysters instead of fresh.

    While I applaud the FDA doing its job properly, this is not such a case. This is a case of heavy-handed over-regulation that serves no purpose but to protect people from making bad personal choices. If they want to address a real problem, they should work on enforcing existing food safety regulations at ‘street level.’ I might even go so far as to call this bureaucratic laziness on the part of the FDA, selfishly trying to eliminate a need for proper procedure in this area.

  3. Jenn Q. Public on November 14th, 2009 12:44 pm

    I’m allergic to oysters and once spent four days in New Orleans with my lips swollen to Donatella Versace proportions from a bad reaction, so I’m with you on the nastiness of oysters. I’m also creeped out by eating something while it’s still alive.

    From what I’ve read, the people who die from this particular type of bacteria have compromised immune systems due to AIDS, cancer, diabetes, etc. Except for the rare cases in which people are not aware of their conditions, these deaths could be avoided if immunocompromised patients stayed away from raw oysters. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. For example, many people think eating raw oysters with hot sauce or an alcoholic beverage will kill the bacteria. So I think stringent enforcement of food safety regulations and a renewed emphasis on menu labeling and patient education are necessary to eliminate this infection.

  4. Eclectic Radical on November 15th, 2009 2:56 am

    ‘From what I’ve read, the people who die from this particular type of bacteria have compromised immune systems due to AIDS, cancer, diabetes, etc.’

    There is a small number of people, from my own weak understanding of medical science (Ron Chusid would probably know this better than either of us, being an actual doctor), that are naturally more susceptible to the bacteria. They experience flu-like symptoms and can suffer more severe complications that require hospitalization, but most of them don’t die under normal circumstances, no.

    It is worth noting that there are conditions that compromise the immune system that are more common than the ones listed. The common cold can badly compromise the immune system and lead to many opportunistic infections. This is why it is so hard to get over a cold. Someone with a bad cold probably shouldn’t eat oysters just to be safe. ;)

    But I think existing regulation and better education about the reality of the problem is better suited to addressing the problem than a ban. Yes.

    This also shows the arbitrary nature of the regulatory framework we use to protect people from themselves. As I said, alcohol and nicotine are legal-but-regulated despite killing far more people. Many prescription drugs are far more fitting of ‘schedule one narcotic’ status than marijuana and LSD. More people get e.coli from beef every year than get sick from oysters. Yet it is just alien to consider banning beef, no matter how aggressively the PETA crowd might want it to happen.

  5. Jenn Q. Public on November 15th, 2009 10:56 pm

    Eclectic Radical wrote:

    Someone with a bad cold probably shouldn’t eat oysters just to be safe. ;)

    Agreed.

    This also shows the arbitrary nature of the regulatory framework we use to protect people from themselves.

    Absolutely.

    As I said, alcohol and nicotine are legal-but-regulated despite killing far more people.

    Fatalities from nicotine poisoning are extremely rare. It’s smoking that’s far more dangerous than eating oysters.

    Many prescription drugs are far more fitting of ’schedule one narcotic’ status than marijuana and LSD.

    True, but I wish legalization advocates would be more honest about the dangers of drugs, especially pot. All I ever hear from the NORML crowd is how safe and healthy it is to smoke pot. The status quo in the War on Drugs is untenable, but that doesn’t mean weed is the risk-free panacea it’s held up as. And unlike the consumption of raw oysters, irresponsible pot smoking can and does endanger others. It can impair judgment and relax inhibitions just as much as alcohol. I’m not saying prohibition is the answer, just that we would all be safer if there were fewer people drinking and smoking pot to the point of intoxication.

  6. Eclectic Radical on November 17th, 2009 9:01 am

    ‘Fatalities from nicotine poisoning are extremely rare. It’s smoking that’s far more dangerous than eating oysters. ‘

    Smoking tobacco would be far less dangerous if it were far easier to quit and the fact that nicotine is a drug as physically addictive as heroin or cocaine makes smoking far more dangerous as a result. I’m no more an advocate of banning tobacco than I am of any other kind or prohibition, but people don’t smoke a pack or more a day because of the menthol. ;)

    ‘True, but I wish legalization advocates would be more honest about the dangers of drugs, especially pot.’

    My approach to this argument is essentially libertarian. I believe the drug war to be a colossal economic failure that leads to large scale violations of otherwise law-abiding individual citizens’ rights and creates an artificial burden on the criminal justice system in the form of unnecessary prosecutions and incarcerations. I don’t believe in downplaying real health concerns.

    As for the substantive nature of those health concerns, let us simply say there is great room for debate on the issue and neither side is entirely honest on the issue. The health risks of pot are greater than many advocates of legalization wish to admit and less than many on the other side of the debate would wish to admit.

    As for the issue of intoxication, certain kinds of behaviors are unsafe while intoxicated. Regardless of how one became intoxicated.

  7. Jenn Q. Public on November 18th, 2009 12:35 am

    I’m an ex-smoker. I know how tough it is to quit. But when people say nicotine is as physically addictive as heroin, the implication is that it’s just as difficult to go without. Bull. Have you ever heard of a teenage girl selling her body in an alley for a pack of Virginia Slims? Do people end up dying in gutters from sudden nicotine withdrawal? It simply isn’t the same. The symptoms of withdrawal aren’t at all comparable and the lengths people will go to for a fix are completely different. So it’s meaningless to say nicotine and heroin are equally addictive. That’s a pet peeve of mine – bet you could tell. ;)

    Regarding the health risks of pot, I’m frankly not as concerned about those as I am about the risks to others from people who aren’t in full control of themselves. And I have enough personal experience with the substance to know that I don’t want high people driving, babysitting, or doing anything a drunk person shouldn’t. It drives me nuts when people say they’re better drivers or clearer thinkers when they smoke up. Again, I’m not saying prohibition is the answer, just that legalization advocates spread outrageous nonsense that’s far more dangerous to me personally than misinformation from their opponents.

    One of the ways I help to ensure my safety is by not drinking or taking drugs. Ever. I don’t need some high moron ramming his pickup through my living room wall because his NORML buddies told him driving while high is less dangerous than driving drunk.

Leave a Reply