Arthur Allen's Slate article "Raw Deal: Is protecting consumers from uncooked oysters a rotten plan" (November 11th, 2009) misses the economist's view on banning oysters.
Ostensibly playing devil's advocate, he argues that banning raw oysters, which may cause food-poisoning deaths, is a slam-dunk case, unless you count 1) Heterogeneous risk across population 2) Economic impact on Gulf oyster industry 3) There are bigger fish to fry for the FDA.
While waving his hands at the point, Allen never states the simplest economist's perspective on the issue: individuals will know the risks when they decide to eat, and decide it's a risk worth taking for the enjoyment. (Indeed, for a near-parallel issue like cigarettes, individuals often overestimate the risk they are taking). Individuals know what they prefer much better than others do, and they maximize their happiness.