Local oyster harvesters and restaurant owners complained the ban would hurt their business and wondered why the federal government seemed to be unfairly targeting oysters from only this region. Recently the powers that be have taken notice, and the legislation has been put on hold. The threat of the ban, however, still looms.
L’Observateur’s readers seem to agree with those who oppose the ban.
|
|
Furthermore, another 32 percent of respondents thought people could decide for themselves whether or not to partake in this particular delicacy.
A breakdown of the results from the poll follows:
• 1 percent of respondents chose “I agree with the ban because the risk associated with eating raw oysters during summer months is too great.”
• 32 percent of respondents chose “People know the risks associated with eating raw oysters and should be able to decide for themselves.”
• 53 percent of respondents chose “The federal government should keep out of the oyster business.”
• 3 percent of respondents chose “The legislation has its merits, but certain provisions need to be made.”
• 11 percent of respondents chose “It is unfair to target the Gulf Coast oyster industry when all oysters pose the same threat.”
Next week’s question: With Black Friday coming at the end of next week, the holiday shopping season is set to shift into high gear. On what type of gifts will you be spending most of your shopping budget?
Visit www.lobservateur.com to vote.





Comments
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The L'Observateur is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in The L'Observateur reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of L'Observateur. L'Observateur does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized L'Observateur spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!