Week in, week out

William Hartston offers valuable advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of the epidemic of cannibalism in the United States

Has that fine novel and Oscar-hogging film The Silence of the Lambs done nothing to improve the lot of the humble cannibal? A report in the current New Scientist makes you wonder whether Thomas Harris's sterling efforts to portray the acceptable face of cannibalism have been in vain.

Researchers at the university of North Carolina have, we are told, come up with a new theory to explain why cannibalism is so rare in nature. What they did was to create diseased larvae of the tiger salamander, which are a cannibalistic type of tadpole, and of a different tadpole species. According to a PA report: "Diseased and healthy larvae of both species were then given as food to 24 larger and more mature tiger salamander larvae." Now comes the crucial bit: "The tiger salamander larvae that ate the diseased individuals of their own species grew more slowly and were less likely to survive metamorphosis - the transformation into adult salamanders - than those which ate the tadpoles." From this scant fact, the researchers concluded that cannibalism may be rare because it carries the risk of disease.

This totally unjustified conclusion cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Would Hannibal Lecter have eaten a diseased member of his own species, even if the flavour were disguised by fava beans and a particularly fine Chianti? I think not. What has happened to the image of the noble savage - a cannibal, perhaps, who selects his food with gourmet care?

I am astonished to hear such blatantly anti-cannibalistic views coming from a country with an unrivalled reputation for sensitivity and tolerance. Indeed, only last month Houston's director of affirmative action resigned because she had called a city councillor a midget when he was in fact a dwarf.

Already, however, the results of that calumny to cannibals has begun to have other effects on American society. Last week, in New York, a piece of a meteorite from Mars weighing only a hundredth of an ounce sold at auction for $4,600, compared with a pre-sale estimate of $1,000. What can explain this sudden rise in the value of Martian meteorites, unless it is the panic induced among American cannibals over the possibility of contracting unspecified diseases from their gastronomic exertions? It's just the BSE scare all over again: told that human flesh is dangerous, they look for another source of meat. A small lump of Mars and some bioengineering holds out the hope of designing a totally new food free of earthly disease. No wonder the price of Mars soared.

Or was it all a case of mistaken identity? Last week, the Haifa Municipal Theatre suspended the lead actor in their production of Othello because he had knocked out the leading lady, slapped Desdemona so hard that she flounced off the stage, and broken his hand through over-zealous acting in a fencing match. The name of the suspended actor was Giuliano Mar.

Of course! Forget that bit about the bioengineering. It was the cannibals themselves bidding for a bit of Mars, thinking that they were buying this fit young actor. A healthy chap, obviously, if he can knock out the leading lady. Strong, too, if he can break his hand fencing. No diseases there. Good prime flesh at around $50 a kilo. A bit pricey, but well worth it when you realise the risks of eating diseased meat.

Do I hear sounds of scepticism? Do you doubt the existence of cannibals in the United States of America? Do you find all this speculation to be, as one might say, in bad taste? Then how do you explain the report from Miami last week of police shooting a man who was dressed only in a white apron and black lace panties, after he tried to run them over in his truck?

The man had obviously just escaped in the nick of time from a cannibal's kitchen. Trussed with black lace panties and oven-ready, he fought his way free, threw on the only item of clothing you find in a kitchen - an apron - and jumped into a truck to make his getaway. Did the policemen clearly identify themselves as non-cannibals when they challenged him? No wonder he panicked and tried to run them over.

But surely, you may say, the Americans would not eat their own kind. Surely they'd prefer to import from over the border. And that is true - as far as it goes, but just look at the Mexicans and you will understand. As an item of the week's news from AP explained: "A study by a [Mexican] government clinic found that 86 per cent of government workers are overweight ... the study found that only 4 per cent reported perfect health."

No wonder. It's the only way that they can make themselves unpalatable to their North American neighbours.

If you still harbour any doubts, just ask yourself whether it can be a coincidence that this sudden outbreak of anthropophagy in New York has happened at the same time as the first-ever New York City Tattoo Convention. Cast your mind back to 1961, when Mayor Robert Wagner of that city banned tattooing because of a fear that it would create an outbreak of hepatitis B. No wonder tattoos are now so popular in New York. What simpler way exists of declaring your inedible credentials? A tattoo unmistakably says: "Don't eat me - I may have hepatitis B."

Well, there is one simpler, if somewhat less reliable way for anyone who does not want to become a tattooee - did you know, incidentally, that "tattooee" is the only English word apart from "bookkeeper" and "bookkeeping" to have three consecutive pairs of double letters? - and that is to wear spectacles. This week, a study revealed that while 49 per cent of the British population wear glasses, only 8.5 per cent of principal characters and presenters on prime-time television do so. In other words, 40.5 per cent of TV stars sneak out of the studio wearing glasses they don't need. It's a natural means of self-defence. After all, what self-respecting cannibal would eat a man who wears glasses?