Grasshopper tacos banned at SF taqueria

Discuss

76 Responses to “Grasshopper tacos banned at SF taqueria”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Don´t be afraid of grasshoppers. People have been eating them for centuries and no one has died from one.

    It´s unlikely that out of all the habits you adhere to you´ll find anything less harmful then a protein that has fed your ancestors. Believe in the wisdom of your own species.

    • Jonathan Badger says:

      The point isn’t whether grasshoppers are safe in theory, probably they are no worse than other arthropods that Westerns routinely eat such as shrimp.

      However: 1) Shrimp aren’t generally considered a pest and so aren’t routinely killed by pesticides. Grasshoppers are, and using those ones for food is probably not a good idea 2) Arguing that something is safe merely because it is “traditional” is not very convincing. Tobacco was used for hundreds of years (thousands if you want to count the more limited use of it by Amerinds) before anybody knew that it was harmful.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I had these when I was down in Oaxaca and they were bad enough there… not saying they shouldn’t be for sale, just saying no one should eat them.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The only approved Grasshoppers are from Iowa.

  4. SKR says:

    WTF!!!
    You have got to be screwing with us. I will continue to believe thusly since to accept your statements as honest would cause me utter despair.

  5. occlupanid says:

    (oops forgot to sign in). A little backstory on chapulines, and a possible reason why the Health Dept may have acted the way it did: Epidemiologists have found them to contain lead. I mean crazy amounts of lead. Here’s one of their published papers on the subject. As somebody who loves (and loves to eat) insects, and who lives in the Bay Area, I’m triply sad that I can’t chow down on these delicious treats. And though the Health Department and FDA can indeed be ham-fisted entomophobic organizations, sometimes it’s a good thing that this country has government orgs obsessed with food health. I hope it gets solved soon, because this article is making me so very hungry.

    • billstewart says:

      My take on it is that the SF Health Department isn’t doing this because of the FDA, they’re doing it because they’re the SF Health Department. As of a year or so ago, you could still get grasshoppers at Oaxacan restaurants in San Jose. (Shhhh – don’t tell the health inspectors. I think the place I went was El Tule. A yelp search found a couple dozen Oaxacan restaurants in the Bay Area, and about five mentioning chapulines, including the one in the news article, though searching for Grasshoppers will mostly get you bars making green drinks.)

      As a vegetarian, I don’t eat the things, so I wasn’t checking closely whether they were available as tacos, but my wife got a dish of crunchy fried grasshoppers.

      And yeah, lead poisoning is serious business, but they’re probably safe enough to taste them even if they’re not safe enough to make a regular part of your diet. That article said they had 400 times the safe level for children under six, so that says you can have them once a year if you’re an adult?

  6. mxjohnson says:

    Lead poisoning is serious stuff, people; if you haven’t read occlupanid’s links, do so. That’s what this is about, not ickiness.

    If you want to get all wobbly about food inspectors and edible insects, cicada ice cream is the real story.

    • SKR says:

      yeah but they only recommended that he not make the cicada ice cream any more.

    • NickP says:

      I seriously considered eating some of the periodical cicadas swarming around our house, until I noticed how many were emerging from the drainfield of our septic system.

      Then I thought about all the fungicides, etc that people love to spray on their lawns. 13-17 years gives the beasties lots of times to accumulate unpleasant chemicals in their fat.

      Cicadas from undisturbed woodland, on the other hand, might be yummy.

  7. userw014 says:

    I know that grasshoppers can be a good source of protein, that they’re kosher (parve, I presume), etc.

    But seeing this image was startling while eating breakfast – and having just seen the article about Yog-Sothoth.

    Now, I’ve got to share this article with someone else in my lily-white middle-america pseudo-liberal university-town circle just for the shock value of the picture.

  8. Anonymous says:

    We have a single place in Phoenix that sells grasshopper (chapulines) tacos. They aren’t really bad or really that good. There is certainly some sketchy stuff associated with the source (which is pretty much always Oaxaca). I think some people got sick from a chemical contamination due to fertilizer use in the fields where they collect them.

  9. dheisel says:

    “I’m OK with the occasional death from a SWAT raid or business ruined if it means the system as a whole still works for providing safe food. It’s not really that high of a cost to bear.”

    How about when it’s YOUR child or loved one killed? Still worth it? Maybe we could get you to comfort victims’ families at funerals… “He died so we wouldn’t have to think about where our food comes from!”

    It’s pretty sick that you think its ok for random people to be killed and have their lives ruined to prop up a violent system you admit is highly flawed, just because moving to a voluntary alternative may involve some risks.

    • jlbraun says:

      “It’s pretty sick that you think its ok for random people to be killed and have their lives ruined to prop up a violent system you admit is highly flawed”

      Well, sure, but at least I’m honest about it. Having a government that provides food safety for us isn’t free and some of the costs aren’t monetary. I’m not such an idealist that I pretend that an entity like the FDA we give power to create regulations and enforce them isn’t going to whack a couple people or businesses along the way, by either abusing their power or simply by accident as long as the overall effect is to keep my and millions of others’ food safe I’m OK with it. If you’re OK with the FDA, you’re implicitly OK with this too, whether you know it or not. I do and I am.

      I’m not likely to be caught up in it anyway as I’m not a farmer or restaurant owner.

    • Jonathan Badger says:

      It’s considerably more rational to worry about loved ones getting killed by contaminated food than by SWAT teams trying to shut down suppliers of questionably safe food. If anything, the problem with the US today is that we don’t give health departments and the FDA *enough* power, because we’d rather allow bad food to be sold than interfere with the businesses of bad food sellers.

  10. RyanH says:

    This is a particularly interesting discussion to have given the e-coli outbreak in Europe right now and the efforts to track that down.

    Personally, strict food regulation is one of those things that you have to accept if you want to live in a large society. As soon as your community is too large for you to have a personal relationship with everyone in the food chain it needs oversight. And that doesn’t just mean the guy buying and preparing the food, but their suppliers all the way down the chain.

    I you want to grow something for your own consumption, that’s entirely your business. If you are making food to serve to other people and something goes wrong, the answer to questions about the source of your food can’t be “some guy who was selling grasshoppers”. That’s just not acceptable.

  11. Anonymous says:

    In the United States, the food inspection industry has suffered “regulatory capture” (look it up) and no longer functions as any sort of guardian of public safety. Fiorello La Guardia is spinning in his grave.

    The argument here is not really in any way about whether grasshoppers are safe to eat or not; it is whether corporations are more important than people. Providing safe edible grasshoppers without corporate sponsorship cannot be accomplished using the policies currently in force; nor can the Amish assure their customers of the safety of the raw milk they sell. These policies can crush individuals in favor of amoral conglomerates like Monsanto, yet they cannot force Monsanto to act in the consumer’s interest.

    Most of you (notably excepting SKR and Antinous – Yo! Represent, mutants!) are resoundingly in favor of the dominance of corporate interests. You don’t want safe food; you don’t want tasty food; you want food that has a magical stamp of approval, which of course will have nothing to do with its safety but rather with the wealth of its producers. That is the choice America has made – and if your cat or your baby died from Chinese food products tainted with melamine, I’m sure it makes you feel better that those products had the magic stamp on them.

    • Jonathan Badger says:

      This is some pretty twisted logic — because the FDA and other regulatory agencies have been weakened by corporate power (which they have been), we should weaken them more? Or even abolish them? And then what? Just let the market weed out the unsafe providers? The Koch brothers would love such a world.

      As for worrying about whether “crafters” can afford the regulatory fees to test their products, that sounds like Reaganite propaganda — “government red tape is killing businesses”, yadda yadda. If you can’t afford a small $4000 fee for testing that your product is safe, you don’t have a feasible business plan for it and should do something else with your time. If that means that we have fewer Amish milk sellers or wooden toy sellers, that wouldn’t be a great loss for society.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        If that means that we have fewer Amish milk sellers or wooden toy sellers, that wouldn’t be a great loss for society.

        Not all of us aspire to live our lives in vitro.

        • Jonathan Badger says:

          Not all of us aspire to live our lives in vitro.

          I’ve often disagreed with you, but you generally make clear what you are getting at. But not in this case. This is a non-sequitur in the guise of a witty statement.

  12. maco says:

    in Thailand, grasshoppers are one of the best snacks around.

    IMPORTANT: break off back legs before eating! the hooks on the legs stick in your throat.

    they are a little bit fattening, but fried grasshoppers and dried octopus (japan) are both begging to be washed down with cold beer.

  13. ackpht says:

    Remember when we used to make grasshoppers here in the States? I blame the unions.

  14. Flaminica says:

    They look curiously appetising. How does one eat grasshoppers? Do you peel them? Crunch them whole? Someone elucidate me.

    • Red Pill Junkie says:

      No need to peel or anything. Just add a little green lime juice and salsa, roll your taco, and enjoy :)

      I’m Mexican, and I’ve always liked grasshoppers as an appetizer. Especially if you’re drinking mezcal.

  15. jlbraun says:

    “As for worrying about whether “crafters” can afford the regulatory fees to test their products, that sounds like Reaganite propaganda — “government red tape is killing businesses”, yadda yadda. If you can’t afford a small $4000 fee for testing that your product is safe, you don’t have a feasible business plan for it and should do something else with your time. If that means that we have fewer Amish milk sellers or wooden toy sellers, that wouldn’t be a great loss for society.”

    I agree with your methods but not your reasoning. The fact is that if we concentrate the production or use of dangerous devices into a smaller number of businesses or people, then we’re more able to assure the safety of society at large, and the way to do it is with fees/taxes that raise the bar so small risky corner-cutting players are pushed out of the business, and we’re left with a few large companies that have proven they are willing to work with the government at all times any time safety is involved.

    Toys, milk, guns, grasshoppers – if we increase the regulation, fees, and taxes to the point where less dedicated individuals or small businesses cannot afford to own or manufacture them ($4000 product safety fees, $3000 annual fee to own a gun, $50000 annual fee to grow grasshoppers, $30/pack cigarette taxes), you actually wind up with safer products and a safer society by assuring that only sufficiently large businesses can manufacture them or sufficiently rich individuals can own the prohibited items (as they’ll act more responsibly with them).

    I agree that we should give the FDA more power, but we should also use the government’s taxing power as well in order to get rid of / control things that endanger society.

    • hep cat says:

      “If you can’t afford a small $4000 fee for testing that your product is safe”

      If you are making one of a kind toys, a $4000 fee means that every toy has to cost at least $4000 , and that is only if you can get the toy back after it’s tested. Make 20 similar toys and you only have to pass along $200 per toy , but that’s still a little steep.
      A certification that you use safe materials would be more reasonable.

      Or you can just stick a label on it saying “this is not a toy , for collectors only”

  16. Anonymous says:

    The FDA doesn’t “approve” sources of imported food. There is some other type of regulatory problem here, with either the FDA or USDA, that is not being communicated clearly.

  17. Mujokan says:

    Should’ve called them “Popplers”.

  18. IWood says:

    “You must buy your grasshoppers from an FDA-approved source.”

    “Okay. Can you point me to an FDA-approved source?”

    “There are no FDA-approved sources.”

    “But-”

    “We’re done here, Mr. Kafka. Next!”

  19. RebNachum says:

    Crickeats.

  20. tmdpny says:

    What about food/products that is imported from China? Is every source ‘FDA approved’ and are they therefor directly responsible when a toxic chemical is added, such as the 2007 diethylene glycol issue?

    It sounds like the FDA inspectors just did not like the idea of grasshoppers in food and they found a non-confrontational way of pushing their beliefs.

    • Doctor Popular says:

      Yes, if it came from China (or anywhere else) it needs FDA approval. Food is regularly removed from the market if it fails to pass FDA approval. It may sound like an anti-cricket conspiracy, but it’s just fundamental US food laws.

    • TooGoodToCheck says:

      If a company was trying to get FDA approval to sell grasshoppers, and they went through all the proper paperwork etc and still got turned down, then I might agree with you.

      As it stands, though, it sounds like the lesson here is perhaps that a food seller can’t just ignore the FDA and hope that the FDA will ignore them back.

      The FDA may not have any approved sources of oaxaca grasshoppers, but they did approve the “Cricket Lick-It” candies, so they’re not completely opposed to feeding people insects.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Just declare that it’s not food, it’s a supplement. Ta-da! No FDA approval necessary.

  22. Anonymous says:

    What is more offensive? – that the food is not locally sourced from the farmer’s market *gasp* or that the food is actually a pest *lol*

  23. 10brooks says:

    I’m unclear if we’re claiming scandal here. I understand that just because it’s posted on BB doesn’t mean it’s a scandal although it’s easy to get that impression. Do some think the FDA did something wrong? What exactly?

    If it’s that we shouldn’t have an FDA, that’s another discussion altogether.

    If it’s that the FDA is sometimes heavy-handed, is that what’s being claimed here? SWAT raids on the Amish may be something worth discussing but this doesn’t seem to rise to that level.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Grasshopper tacos and government nitwits aside, La Oaxaqueña is awesome. Very nice and personable staff, delicious food, and low prices. If you’re dead set on eating Oaxacan delicacies, I’m sure you can still find something interesting on the menu. I like the tamales though.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Would someone please check the facts? The FDA does not police this kind of thing. The health department is either passing the buck or there is something else going on.

  26. SKR says:

    I remember when BB was full of happy antiauthoritarian mutants. Sure seems like a lifetime ago.

    • RyanH says:

      They all died from food poisoning and lack of vaccinations.

      Survival of the rational.

      • SKR says:

        Haha I lol’d. I think they were all afflicted with a much more debilitating neurological condition known as parenthood.

  27. jlbraun says:

    “It’s considerably more rational to worry about loved ones getting killed by contaminated food than by SWAT teams trying to shut down suppliers of questionably safe food. If anything, the problem with the US today is that we don’t give health departments and the FDA *enough* power, because we’d rather allow bad food to be sold than interfere with the businesses of bad food sellers. ”

    Exactly, and given that there are ~1800 deaths in the US from foodborne illness every year, it’s rational to accept even a few dozen people getting shot/killed every year as a result of SWAT raids of food producers that break the law (even unwittingly). Sure, a small business producing unsafe food shouldn’t merit the death penalty for those involved (or should it?), but the risk of an outbreak clearly merits swift and overwhelming force in shutting down even small producers that flout the law and in the course of applying that force some accidents and deaths are to be expected. Even if their food is safe today and has been safe for years, a lack of FDA certification means that it might suddenly become unsafe tomorrow and put thousands at risk with even a single hour more of operation.

    • RyanH says:

      “Even if their food is safe today and has been safe for years, a lack of FDA certification means that it might suddenly become unsafe tomorrow and put thousands at risk with even a single hour more of operation.”

      Yeah, that sounds about right. If their process for keeping out contaminants and ensuring their product is safe boils down to “We haven’t killed anyone so far” they need to be shut down. That is not acceptable for anyone producing food for sale.

      And if they are taking clear and accountable steps to ensure the safety of their product then certification shouldn’t be a problem.

      Produce anything you want for your own consumption. But when you are producing for the public consumption there are standards you need to adhere to.

      • jlbraun says:

        “Produce anything you want for your own consumption. But when you are producing for the public consumption there are standards you need to adhere to.”

        I disagree. Even backyard gardens should realistically be under the purview of the food safety inspectors as again, the risk is just too big. Just because the food isn’t being sold today doesn’t mean it won’t be sold tomorrow, and you can easily fertilize your garden improperly and get sick or die (or get others sick). We license cars and have building permits, so having garden licenses for a small fee ($50-$100/year) is perfectly reasonable.

        “If it’s that the FDA is sometimes heavy-handed, is that what’s being claimed here? SWAT raids on the Amish may be something worth discussing but this doesn’t seem to rise to that level.”

        The point is that what people see as “heavy handed” – the SWAT teams, shutting down quirky businesses, etc. is all necessary as the food system is fragile. In fact, it’s better to discourage small businesses from producing or selling food as much as is practicable as large businesses are easier to inspect and control.

        • SKR says:

          I disagree. Even backyard gardens should realistically be under the purview of the food safety inspectors as again, the risk is just too big. Just because the food isn’t being sold today doesn’t mean it won’t be sold tomorrow, and you can easily fertilize your garden improperly and get sick or die (or get others sick). We license cars and have building permits, so having garden licenses for a small fee ($50-$100/year) is perfectly reasonable.

          Ok this is a spoof right?

          • jlbraun says:

            Not a spoof. We had someone get sick from a garden pepper that was sold at a farmer’s market that was produced in an un-inspected garden. Just because you don’t think something will enter the food stream doesn’t mean it won’t. Having a local garden inspection and licensing program with reasonable fees is OK by me, I’d gladly pay.

          • SKR says:

            So the answer in your mind is not the have more careful regulations on the farmer’s market where produce is actualy being sold but instead put people under a licensing and inspection regime for growing their own food. While a modest fee might seem reasonable for someone who grows vegetables for their own table as a hobby, there are plenty of poor people in my neighborhood that grow their own food in order to subsist. Those people couldn’t afford any sort of licensing and inspection regime. But of course you will probably pose some sort of need based exemption which would result in furthur layers of unnecessary bureaucracy.
            I’m sorry but if you aren’t free to grow your own food are you really free? I am flabbergasted that anyone would actually support an idea such as this.

            And having worked in the food industry, I’m not quick to believe that anyone could conclusively trace back a food-borne illness back to a single pepper from a farmer’s market. People pick up “food poisoning” from disparate sources constantly and it’s labeled the 24hr flu. It is very difficult to source a specific claim of food poisoning unless it is widespread and the causitive agent (e.coli for example) is uniquely identifiable. But that also begs the question, how many times has that happened and does it justify the intrusion into the lives of people that don’t go around selling their produce. AFAIC, the answer is that is doesn’t happen often enough to warrant the regime you posit.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Or, you know, government agencies could encourage a reasonably-priced testing industry so that small vendors can maintain quality AND stay in business.

          Consumer safety rules could drive crafters out of business

          But, no. Small businesses are anathema to the US government.

  28. pjcamp says:

    Give Davey a nickel and he’ll eat a bug.

  29. Anonymous says:

    grasshoppers, dont be silly. here, have some genetically modified papaya instead.

  30. Angryjim says:

    I’m sure you’ve all read the jungle? coming away from reading that into the modern world is like the ending of it’s a wonderful life.

  31. Anonymous says:

    I don’t eat bugs or organ meat. Bleeech!

  32. Anonymous says:

    Freedom Fries anyone? got lots of those, for low low prices!

  33. Brainspore says:

    Dang! I just was planning a food tour of the city based on the plagues of Egypt but now I’m back down to blood pudding and frogs’ legs.

    Just as well, I guess- that last course was bound to be controversial.

  34. jlbraun says:

    Well, it’s really the price we pay for having an FDA in the first place, which is OK. I’m perfectly willing to put up with the occasional grasshopper-serving business ruined or Amish farmer raided by a SWAT team if it means that overall the food I eat is safe, as it really doesn’t happen all that often (if it were common, it wouldn’t make the news when it does happen).

    Power always inevitably gets abused like this, but there’s no way around that – when you hire people to work at the FDA, they’re self-selected individuals that like having power, so the job of government is to take their need for power and turn it to constructive ends (especially because people with power cravings will do the job with the most zeal, and those are the people you want cracking down on corrupt corporate food producers!). Someone that doesn’t want power over others isn’t someone that would work at the FDA anyway, so we have to put up with the abuses of the FDA in order to get the good effects, the two are inextricably linked. It’s not possible to run a government office without *some* power abuses, as it needs power-craving people to function – if you prosecute power abuses and corruption too vigorously, the office as a whole loses effectiveness as power-craving people don’t want to work there anymore, and those are the ones that get the job done best.

    It would really be easier if people like this grasshopper-serving eatery and the aforementioned Amish farmer just followed the law anyway, there are consultants that can help you through it and it’s really not that hard. If you can’t find a way to do business within FDA regs, then you really should go find another business.

    • dheisel says:

      “I’m perfectly willing to put up with the occasional grasshopper-serving business ruined or Amish farmer raided by a SWAT team if it means that overall the food I eat is safe”

      With that logic, don’t expect anyone to care when you are raided by a SWAT team that had the wrong address and shoots you and/or your dog because you reacted to a sudden armed intrusion. If you want freedom for yourself, you must allow others to be free. Try to control others, you will wind up being controlled yourself.

      • jlbraun says:

        My point was that we gave the FDA largely arbitrary power, and it’s going to be abused – indeed, abuse and corruption is an inseparable part of all government bureaucracies, as the people that do the FDA/SF Dept of Health’s mission best are also those who are most likely to abuse the power in the first place, if these people weren’t there then it wouldn’t work nearly as well.

        Sure, it’s possible that we could say “No corruption or abuse is acceptable”, but that would mean getting rid of the FDA/health inspectors altogether – voluntary associations might arise that fulfill the same function and do quite well (or better), but I’m not willing to take the risk of that not working, so I’m OK with the occasional death from a SWAT raid or business ruined if it means the system as a whole still works for providing safe food. It’s not really that high of a cost to bear.

  35. Neon Tooth says:

    I remember when BB was full of happy antiauthoritarian mutants. Sure seems like a lifetime ago.

    Maybe logical people don’t see protecting citizen’s health as “anti-authoritarian”. I remember when BB’s comments sections weren’t completely overrun by anti-social Paultards and Koch/Reason/Cato-bots.

    • SKR says:

      Maybe logical people don’t see protecting citizen’s health as “anti-authoritarian”. I remember when BB’s comments sections weren’t completely overrun by anti-social Paultards and Koch/Reason/Cato-bots.

      Wow, if being logical means being like you then count me out. And will someone please pass the grasshopper tacos topped with magic mushrooms and a nice glass of raw amish milk with which to wash them down. Maybe I’ll follow that up with some smart drugs and a neural implant.

  36. joeyjoeyjoey says:

    I’m sure if these grasshoppers were GMO’d by Monsanto, the FDA wouldn’t be having these issues. <_<

  37. Neon Tooth says:

    FDA doing exactly what they’re supposed to. Glad they are. Move along.

  38. Anonymous says:

    While I support food safety regulation, I also wish I’d tried these before they got shut down. Had the opportunity at Noisebridge (hackerspace across the street) but chickened out. Fail.

    • occlupanid says:

      Right there with ya, Anon. Pb or not Pb, I’d have loved to have at least tried some right here in the city.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Unlicensed, “straight from Oaxaca” does not strike me as something you want to brag about when it comes to food safety. I’ll stick to my FDA approved, “straight from Germany” organic produce, thank you.

    • Anonymous says:

      People brag about the high quality of unlicensed food from Oaxaca all the time when it is chocolate, coffee, or suave tequila.

      But they use Oaxaca as a negative food label when it is outside their usual diet.

      Face it. One of the last racist behaviors we allow is racism again people who eat differently than we do.

      OH and the VAST majority of insect dishes are served in the asian community and somehow the police never raid them for publicity. It has always been easier for me to buy asian giant water bugs for food than has been to buy crickets.

  40. hep cat says:

    So what is the acceptable number of insect parts in a grasshopper taco?

  41. Anonymous says:

    Note how this comment thread went from “Hey, eating grasshoppers is cool/gross/a basic right— back off, G-man” to “OK, these grasshoppers are dangerous and we want the state to protect us from them.”

    Somewhere along the way the Hive Mind has turned against the crickets, presuming based on hearsay and precedent that the SF Health Dept. must have had a “good” reason for their action.

    In fact, there is no evidence that these grasshoppers tacos are harmful. As the original story noted, the grasshoppers are legally imported along with other foodstuffs. The OGP (Original Grasshopper Manufacturer) just happens to not have the paid the bribes…er.. fees needed to get the FDA’s seal of kashrut.

    Do you think the SF Health Department inspect every single weird foodstuff in this town to confirm that its documents are in order?

    Lack of FDA approval = legal pretext, not evidence of threat

    Repeat until you learn: “The government is not my friend.”

  42. subhan says:

    This is to prevent situations like this:
    “Hey, I sprayed the corn field with heavy doses of pesticides like you asked”
    “Great, now grab a bunch of guys & go pick up all the dead grasshoppers before the birds eat them. We can sell them to that guy that makes tacos”

  43. grimc says:

    Just as a point of clarification: SF Health Department =/= FDA. I don’t think the FDA is in the business of sending inspectors out to hole-in-the-wall taquerias.

  44. Verre says:

    Too bad. Grasshoppers are among the tastiest of fried insects. For some reason they always reminded me of Pringles.

    • Anonymous says:

      Pringles? The one’s I tried tasted like burnt popcorn. Perhaps I shouldn’t have ordered the “extra crispy”?

  45. Anonymous says:

    Classic San Francisco City Hall thuggery dressed up as protecting. the public interest. I find it hard to believe that all dubious foodstuffs imported from China, for example, are blessed by the FDA, so this may be selective enforcement. In the old country, Persaud’s problems could be solved with a “donation” to the Health Department.

    Bleepin’ Nanny State.

    Fellow San Franciscans— fight the power and demand your right to eat grasshoppers!

  46. niktemadur says:

    For my money, the best grasshopper taco is in a medium-thick corn tortilla with dab of black beans and a little rice, chopped white onion, cilantro, lime juice and green salsa. On the side, sun-dried chile guajillo, then chase it all down with ice-cold fresh cucumber water… cucumberade!

    Man, I’ll bet Xeni’s mouth is gonna water when (if) she reads this! ;-)

    It’s a well established fact that Oaxaca City is one of the world’s premier gastronomical meccas.

Leave a Reply