Why do you keep suggesting racism here? Bigotry is the word, but if the food source isn't endangered (some bats are, some aren't) (edit: or produced cruelly, to

Why do you keep suggesting racism here? Bigotry is the word, but if the food source isn't endangered (some bats are, some aren't) (edit: or produced cruelly, to your point), and if the education exists to safely prepare the food (e.g. cook it thoroughly to avoid pathogens), there's no real reason to dissuade routine consumption other than cultural biases or "ew that's gross," which frankly is the same thing. On the other hand, if the food tends to have high concentrations of compounds or substances that can cause harm with no easy mechanism to remove said compounds (think prions or e.g. mercury), then yes, now you have a substantial concern that justifies dissuading or banning consumption. Tldr: if you're gonna ban people from eating bats at all, do the same for chicken. Undercooked chicken can get you salmonella, live chicken might give you the flu, and you'll never know which bug might just be transmissible person to person, R0 > 1.