Poll

What is your favorite type of cookie?

View Results

More anti-foie gras nonsense

11/28/06 @ 08:29:10 am, by Kate Hopkins Email 1490 views • Categories: Foie Gras

Here I am in the midst of my annual December vacation, high amongst the mountains of Whistler, British Columbia. It is beautiful and relaxing, far removed from the stresses and strains of my regular life. My hope was that I could sneak away, hoping that no silliness would go on in the food world.

Enter Alan Gerson, a New York City Councilman who is planning on introducing yet another "anti Foie Gras" bill.

Like Michael Ruhlman, I feel as if this topic is tiresome, for a whole bevy of reasons. But this is how political movements operate - keep working the issue until you either convert or subvert the electorate.

While there are many ways to refute the claims of 'cruelty' to the ducks and geese who are being watched out for, there is a larger issue here. A group of individuals are trying to have governments tell me what I can and cannot eat, something which I (and others) have stated time and time again.

Let's boil this down to the core issue - These types of bills aren't about foie gras as much as they are about animal cruelty. The questions that arise from this are as follows:

  1. What standards are we going to use to define what constitutes animal cruelty when it comes to food production?
  2. Will these standards be applied to every food product that has animal ingredients, or will it apply to only a subset of these food products? If it's only to a subset, how are we to differentiate one from another?
  3. Will these standards apply to every food producer? Or will allowances be made between larger food producers and artisinal production?

One of the many problems with the anti-foie gras advocates is that none of the above questions are being addressed. Instead we get a handful of people saying that "gavage is bad" based off of their response to videotapes made out of context and a carefully selected group of veterinarians.

I, for one, would like to see the above questions addressed, because they would require us to actually consider how we get our food as well as force us to recognize what being an omnivore entails.

Sadly, I believe that's not going to happen.

UPDATE: As Tana noted in the comments, Councilman Gerson has agreed to table his talk of the foie gras ban...for now.

tags technorati :

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: George [Visitor]
Good article, Kate.

I'm with you on this. Let's talk about the real question. Is meat morally acceptable? I personally feel that it is but I certainly respect those who disagree with me.

The fois gras legislation is simply testing the water for broader bans later. How long before all farm raised meat is banned? Is the next step a ban on eating any animal, wild or domesticated?

Soylent green is people!!!!!
PermalinkPermalink 11/28/06 @ 10:58
Comment from: Tana [Visitor] · http://www.iheartfarms.com
PermalinkPermalink 11/28/06 @ 12:25
Comment from: Nicholas Caratzas [Visitor]
These types of bills aren't about foie gras as much as they are about animal cruelty.

These types of bills aren't about animal cruelty as much as they are about scoring easy political points with people who don't think too hard.

There are plenty of practices in the food industry that are undoubtedly crueler than gavage, and that affect more creatures. But it isn't as politcally feasible to tell your constituents that you plan on, e.g., outlawing the sale of battery eggs.

As I think you've said before, foie gras is an easy target because it's easily characterized as a product for the rich and decadent.

PermalinkPermalink 11/28/06 @ 17:22
Comment from: Carla [Visitor] · http://www.localforage.com
Kate, exact! Your question #1 is most important. If we're going to consider ducks, what about cows? What about the the cruelty and biological blasphemy that occurs when industrial farms feed a grain-only diet to these ruminant animals? What about the cruelty of CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations)? You make excellent points. Gerson, with his inane proposed legislation, opened a Pandora's box. No doubt he closed it quickly when he saw what was in there.
PermalinkPermalink 11/28/06 @ 17:29
Comment from: Ethan Lowry [Visitor] · http://urbanspoon.wordpress.com
Ugh, now New York? When will this plague hit Seattle? So Chicago says, "foie gras is cruel!". I just checked - there are 63 KFC's within 10 miles of the center of Chicago. Not to be outdone, NYC has 64. Haven't they seen the videos of how those chickens are treated? Now that's horrific. The difference in the scale of cruelty is just immense.

Oh, and we have 16 KFC's in Seattle!
PermalinkPermalink 11/28/06 @ 17:32
Comment from: martin [Visitor] · http://www.mwnch.co.uk
Some very good points.

We have had a similar issue in the UK when it comes to fox hunting. A minority issue that needs intelligent debate being hijacked by politicians to gain easy points.

I find the crude economics of these topics repulsive - ignore the plight of battery hens and factory raised meat as people don't want to see their shopping bills rise, BUT clamp down on minority (and less clear cut) issues such as foie-gras…
PermalinkPermalink 11/29/06 @ 06:02
Comment from: Verna [Visitor]
the food police hard at work!! I think this is about forcing others to submit to your beliefs... have we heard the word "facism"? I live in sonoma, ca... where some fanatics set fire to a restaurant which served foie gras, and managed to put the owners out of business!! what do we call that?
PermalinkPermalink 12/02/06 @ 12:13
Comment from: Wendy [Visitor]
I hear what all are you saying... but I must ask you, if this was an issue that had no merit, why has it been outlawed in countries from Israel to Italy? In over 12 countries in Europe. The introduction of legislation will eventually happen in NYC. People argue that if the ban happens, it's like being told what they can and can't eat. Others argue, what's next? Veal Production, etc... The truth is, we as a society need to look at factory farming in this country. There's a lot that's wrong with it. I would still be a meat eater if I didn't find out the awful truth of what these animals endure just so I can enjoy a burger, etc... We are compassionate people, and should act consistantly in every aspect of our life. The reason why I am for the ban of Foie Gras, is because, yes, the only way to produce it is cruel and inhumane. But think about it. These ducks are being raised to become sick and diseased. What is the purpose of raising an animal to become so sick right before slaughter? That is inhumane. If there was a humane way to produce Foie Gras, I would have nothing to say. I am just a compassionate person who believes that the only way to have peace in this world is to start where we can. If we continue to sell and produce Foie Gras, we're saying as a society, that this kind of cruelty is OK. What message does that send to our children? What does that say about us as a society? To me, it's not an animal right's issue. It's about compassion and morals.
Sincerely,
Wendy Berner
NYC Campaign Coodinator
Ban Foie Gras Campaign
646-369-6212
PermalinkPermalink 12/02/06 @ 13:20
Comment from: Chef Mark [Visitor] · http://remarkablepalate.blogspot.com
Claims that ducks with enlarged livers are sick and diseased are specious. Federal law does not permit U.S.D.A. inspectors to approve diseased
product. By no objective veterinary standard is foie gras viewed as diseased. The fattening of livers is a totally natural phenomenon which migratory birds like ducks and geese engage in on their own in preparation for migration.

Just about every argument made against the production of foie gras relies on anthropomorphism (applying human characteristics to non-human creatures).

Advocates of government control of what we eat depend on emotional responses and applying human feelings (and oddly enough, rights) to animals. These people would have you believe that animals have the same rights that we do. They drop the context that the concept of rights is a human construct to begin with.

The reality of our development as a species is that we would not have evolved to even stand erect, much less develop sophisticated culture, language, and technology, had we not subsisted on animal protein. our brains would not have developed in the same way.

We have the great luxury now that we HAVE evolved to choose individually NOT to eat meat. And that's wonderful. I have many vegetarian friends and clients, and I choose to eat vegetarian meals often. However, to argue that eating meat is unnatural is ignoring the reality of our development as a species.

You say that we should act consistently based on our compassion. I wonder, how much time have you spent trying to help humans who are suffering on this planet?
PermalinkPermalink 12/03/06 @ 16:34
Comment from: Wendy [Visitor]
To Chef Mark,
I appreciate your viewpoint, and sincerely respect it. I do however have a problem with your last comment, because I feel I have done more than your average citizen in regards to helping humans who are suffering. Especially the ones who have to walk 8 miles a day for water that isn't fit for drinking.
PermalinkPermalink 12/03/06 @ 20:05
Comment from: Kevin Miller [Visitor] Email
To state that we shouldn't address the cruelties of foie gras production because there are greater cruelties elsewhere is a ludicrous argument. If we applied such a thought process to all our lives we would not try to help the starving child in California becasue there are more children starving in Bangla Desh. We wouldn't fight crime in New Hampshire because there is more crime in Chicago.
If we wish to claim to be an "enlightened" species with the power and ability to reason and act, any issue that can be addresses, or any area in which we can improve and stop cruelty is worthy of our attention. Some will say that we are the "superior" species so we can do what we want. They will argue that we can treat "food animals" however we see fit. Both of these arguments show just how "unenlightened" some can truly be. And it also shows that "superior" is often only applicable to our ability to conquer, not to our mental ability, wisdom, or compassion.
PermalinkPermalink 03/20/07 @ 18:39
Comment from: Jonathan [Visitor] · http://www.marketquarter.com
Thanks for your coverage of the foie gras debate. As a seller of foie gras in the UK we are trying to compile a set of stories for and against - yours was an extremely useful summary.
PermalinkPermalink 03/22/08 @ 01:53
Comment from: Leigh [Visitor] Email
Its not whether its wrong or right to eat meat. Its about how that meat gets onto your plate. Force feeding ducks/geese, sticking them in tiny cages, not treating their ailments etc is cruel. All forms of factory farming is cruel. Its great that they are introducing legislation to protect animals, even if it is one species at a time, one battle at a time. It would be fantastic if there was one set of humane rules that applied to all animals, but major reforms don't happen overnight, if ever. Sadly, vegans and those really concerned with the issues are in the minority. However, each new legislation introduced for the betterment of "production" animals is a small victory, a glimmer of hope.
PermalinkPermalink 08/07/08 @ 09:02

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?

AH Food Journals