Ponmo

         As far back as I can remember, the concept of 'balanced diet' has been drummed into my ears. In my earliest years in primary school, Uncle (Mr Ibrahim)  had a diagram of a pyramid showing foods that provide protein. Meat and fish were atop the pyramid. Milk and eggs directly underneath... below them were cheese, soybeans (beske) and the likes.
One thing I never spotted on the pyramid was ponmo (cow skin). Ever since primary school, as much as finances would allow, I've always tried to balance my diet. You know; bread n tea, rice n beans, yam n egg. Even with swallow, one would try to eat with meat. Or fish (I don't like). Or cheese. Or God (didn't always) forbid, beske.
          Invariably, tough times came frequently and it was one of the unwritten principles of the family to NOT eat 'empty'. Ponmo was never the first option, it was always the last resort. Nutritionists would stress that it has no fattening properties. More staunch (wicked) nutritionists said it had no nutritional value whatsoever. But we still had to put something in the soup...and ponmo always, always came to our rescue.
Imagine the shock horror I felt when I saw on Linda's blog that the FGN was gonna ban ponmo. So I googled 'FGN and ponmo' and saw a news feed from Vanguard newspaper in which the Minister of Agriculture Dr Akinwunmi Adesina, represented by Dr Ademola Raji summarily said that he commends the National Institute of Animal Science (NIAS) for its programs that promote value addition in livestock -- (fair enough, but wait for it) -- as AGAINST sale and consumption of primary products alone, PARTICULARLY with the issue of CURTAILING the widespread CONSUMPTION of hide and skin as PONMO -- which OUGHT to be TANNED INTO LEATHER for a very high dollar return to the farmer and the tanneries.
          In this context, 'curtail' is an euphemism for ban. Gaskiya, I don't think this is an either/or kind of situation.. there should be no absolutes here dear Minister. We can eat ponmo and still make leather -- we only ever really have to increase livestock production. Am I missing something here?! Why are these people so shallow. Why do you have to do something controversial just to let people know you're in office. Ponmo didn't do anything. We know it has no nutritional value, but many a great idea has been conceived over plates of hot, spicy ponmo and a cold bottle of stout -- plus the illusion it gives a vast majority of families that their soups aren't empty is reason enough for me (to NOT 'curtail' it).
          For Ponmo's sake, isn't this a democracy? Should what we (don't) eat be determined at the whim of a man seemingly intent on doing something so incredibly rash, patently unnecessary and downright injudicious. A little poem I saw on twitter to wrap up the rant:         
      "Why are we banning ponmo,
         Ponmo never hurt anyone,
           Ponmo never embezzled,
             Ponmo never ran for President,.
        Ponmo never abducted schoolgirls."
    And it was ever thus.
              
                               ---->>>>Cue (Dear ponmo, you are not alone//I am here with you…)