CNN has divided its readers with its latest headline for an article on haggis, a Scottish food that’s banned in the United States.
In its headline, CNN described haggis as a “boiled bag of offal [that] is banned in the US”. However, according to the publication, “in Scotland, it’s a fine-dining treat”. The article went on to describe the food, including its texture and spice, and the history of it over the years.
The piece also specified the ingredients in haggis, such as a lung, liver, and heart of a sheep. From there, those parts are traditionally mixed with oatmeal, onion, beef strut, and other ranges of spices. Although this isn’t necessarily the case anymore, haggis were previously made by stuffing those mix of ingredients “into the stomach of a recently slain sheep and boiling the lot to a state of palatability”, per CNN.
The food has also been banned in the US, since the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) declared back in 1971 that animals’ lungs were not fit for human consumption. This ban also stopped the selling of livestock lungs for food.
After CNN’s article was shared on Twitter, there have been mixed responses to the headline, with some people expressing that haggis shouldn’t be eaten.
“This sounds absolutely disgusting and I would never consider eating it but I am not going to tell others that they can’t,” one wrote. “This story doesn’t really go into detail as to why it was and is still banned.
“Good thing we now live in a world where we don’t have to settle for the low bar of ‘palatability’ anymore,” another added, referring to how CNN described the way in which haggis have been made.
A third said: “Pronounced ‘AWFUL,’ which is how it looks and likely tastes.”
Some people, who said that they were from Scotland, disagreed about haggis being a popular dish. “As a Scotsman I have to say we don’t really eat it that much here anymore. It’s sort of like the deep fried Mars bar,” one wrote. “Just touristy now.”
However, other Twitter users praised this Scottish food and claimed that the ingredients appeared to be safe, when compared to other popular dishes in the US.
“Haggis is glorious. You won’t eat lungs but you’ll eat chicken that has to be chlorinated to get the shit off it. Right,” one wrote.
“Haggis is legit. It definitely is a food you have to try,” another wrote.
A third wrote: “Absolutely delicious and certainly no worse than any other sausage or hot dog in terms of ingredients.”
Medical professionals have also shared their stance on the USDA’s ban. Earlier this year, paediatrician Jonathan Reisman MD, who is the author of The Unseen Body: A Doctor’s Journey Through the Hidden Wonders of Human Anatomy, submitted a petition to the federal agency for use of livestock lungs in human food to be allowed.
However, when the ban was first placed in 1971, the USDA explained that “livestock lungs shall not be saved for use as human food”, since they “found to be affected with disease or pathology”. The agency also noted that the lungs “found to be adulterated with chemical or bio- logical residue shall be condemned and identified as ‘US Inspected and Condemned’”.
