So is cooking or curing meat before eating it, but sushi restaurants haven't been blanket banned. There's a difference between driving one farmer that poisons people out of business and prohibiting it entirely.
Even stuff like fugu which can genuinely kill you remains legal. The difference is being told the caveats upfront loud and clear, instead of trying to hide it and lying to people. That's the crux of the issue isn't it, after all? Being informed enough to be able to make your own decisions, and making those disclaimers required by law. That's what needs addressing, not banning shit because it's easy.
> So is cooking or curing meat before eating it, but sushi restaurants haven't been blanket banned. There's a difference between driving one farmer that poisons people out of business and prohibiting it entirely.
I'm not sure why people always bring up sushi restaurants so incorrectly when discussing this topic.
Much like the requirement to pasteurise milk, when fish are caught we require they are processed to destroy bacteria and parasites via freezing.
> Even stuff like fugu which can genuinely kill you remains legal.
I had trouble establishing how widespread the legality of Fugu is. Some articles claim it's widely banned, whereas others that it must be imported from Japan, which requires the individual to be licensed.
The other difference is that fugu is entirely safe when prepared with care. Applying safety measures to the production of unpasteurised milk can reduce the risk of introducing new/more bacteria but it cannot remove any already present.
We do "ban" restaurants that sell to consumers while failing to take the proper precautions in the storage and handling of food.
When selling to consumers, the proper precautions for the storage and handling of milk is to pasteurise it.