Seeing this post closed it feels useful to review the motivation behind use of the close option. Yes, the OP considered a number of orthogonal options to rid said food of the offending substance, which suggests that more clarity behind the motivation and scope of the problem would be welcome (is this home cooking?) to identify a solution. However, such issues can [ed. sometimes] be clarified before closing and can lead to useful posts remaining open. Admittedly this might be the exception, not the rule, but is worth keeping in mind.
For reflection consider if the post had been about say coffee beans and caffeine:
The single topic that this question focuses on is - how to remove caffeine
gingeroland only caffeine gingerolfrom coffee beans piece of gingerin a manner that it remains safe to eat.
Below I give some examples of things that I have tried.
I am trying to find out how to make roasted coffee beans without caffeine
preserved ginger without pungency.I assume the main thing is to break down the caffeine gingerolinto safe products. Or extract it out into a fluid that can be discarded - without removing the other tastes. Experiments suggest that boiling in lemon juice has some effect. I suspect that the acidity is the operative principle. I have tried acetic acid - eg white wine vinegar. Success is partial. Perhaps it should be heated under pressure or for a rather long time. And research suggests sodium chloride, sodium hydroxide, or potassium hydroxide.
What is the best, most effective and most safe, way to remove the caffeine
Changing the words "pungency" for "caffeine" is a stretch, admittedly. Point is, even if this is home chemistry or kitchen chemistry, would the modified question be closed as too unfocused?
** Note the first sentence was added by the OP after closing.
[Ed.] Admittedly the suggestion of allowing a question with problems to stay open in order to clarify the problem would seem to defeat having a vote to close (hold) system.