Foie Gras Ban in Chicago?

9-20-2005 @3:17PM Dmnkly said... Agreed wholeheartedly. The alderman proposing the ban (Joe Moore, 49th ward, jmoore@cityofchicago.org, 773-338-5796) was inspired by the press surrounding Trotter's decision not to serve foie gras early this year. But it's also worth noting that Trotter, while he would certainly like it if Chicago were foie gras free, has himself stated that "the government shouldn't be meddling in things like this" (Chicago Tribune, 9/14).

Moreover, it's been widely pointed out that the same city council looking to ban foie gras because of the discomfort and health issues it causes for a few fowl has repeatedly balked at adopting a smoking ban in Chicago bars and restaurants despite the discomfort and health issues it causes for a multitude of Chicagoans.

But that double-standard aside, as well as a litany of other problems with this particular ban, what disturbs me most is precedent. The simple act of putting meat on a table involves some level of discomfort, pain or lack of freedom on the animal's part. Where that crosses the line from reasonable into cruel and inhumane is completely subjective. Foie gras is written off by many as unnecessary. As Joe Moore himself put it, "this is not the kind of food people require for their sustenance" (Chicago Tribune, 9/14). But when you establish the precedent that it is okay to ban a meat because a segment of the population thinks the production of that particular meat is inhumane, there is absolutely no reason for it to stop at foie gras.

And, let me be clear, while I have the utmost respect for those who believe eating animal products is wrong, and I encourage them to talk to others in an attempt to share their ideas, a governmental ban is flat-out wrong. I've written to all of the Chicago aldermen and women. I would encourage anybody who feels similarly to do the same. All of their contact info can be found at cityofchicago.org. Click on the "Community & Neighborhood" link under the heading, "For Residents".
Reply

9-20-2005 @3:41PM Tyler said... "Where that crosses the line from reasonable into cruel and inhumane is completely subjective"

That line not only exists in law, but is used frequently. Take a look at debates over methods used for the death penalty. Most states no longer use the electric chair because it's been deemed cruel and unusual, but that hasn't led to a complete ban on the death penalty.

More to the point, there already are regulations on how animals are slaughtered that attempt to limit the suffering of the animal. So the debate is not over whether or not we should have laws that dictate how animals are to be treated (we already have those), rather the debate is over what should be considered cruel and unusual.

I don't think an outright ban of foie gras is the right way to deal with this because it doesn't get to the root of the problem. Change the production techniques so that they fall under the threshold of "cruel and unusual" and the problem is solved.
Reply

9-20-2005 @3:48PM Finished.Law.School said... We kill them and eat them anyway so why not force feed them? We should be doing similar things to cows so that all beef is as good as Kobe beef...
Reply

9-20-2005 @5:24PM Dmnkly said... Tyler...

An extremely good point. I would counter, however, that part of the difficulty is that when it comes to animals, we don't have nearly as firm a grasp on what is unreasonably painful and what is not. When you're talking about humans, we ARE human... we know what hurts, we know what doesn't, and we're able to communicate with each other in such a manner that helps to clarify what is and isn't uncomfortable/painful/what have you, and to what degree.

When you get into the animal kingdom, in a lot of cases we just don't know. And there's a lot of pseudo-science on both ends of the debate. But what it largely comes down to is, quite simply, what you believe. The assertion that a lobster feels horrible pain in the same manner we do when boiled alive is largely unsupportable by any scientific standard. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to believe boiling lobsters is torturous for them, but we're not working within the realm of supportable fact, we're working within the realm of faith. To stay on point, there is a GREAT deal of debate about how uncomfortable/painful ducks and geese find the process of gavage. And intelligent people who watch the same process draw wildly different conclusions. But none of them can truthfully claim to know with any degree of certainty what those ducks and geese are feeling.

However, let's suppose for a moment that all of the worst-case scenarios are absolutely true. And let's even assume that there were a way to scientifically prove the amount of distress that birds raised for foie gras are put through, and that it's horrible awful terrible. Then at the very best, this is redundant and needless legislation. If animal cruelty laws are already on the books, then that burden belongs on those farming the animals, not on the restaurants and stores that sell their products. And furthermore, this proposed law bans the sale of foie gras, regardless of how it is produced. The purpose is clearly to fight perceived cruelty, whether this perception is accurate or not, but it makes no allowance for foie gras from birds that are raised in a non-traditional manner than is typical for foie gras.
Reply

9-20-2005 @5:45PM Dmnkly said... At the risk of totally commandeering this post, I should make one clarification as well. When I say something is or isn't scientifically supportable, I'm not necessarily saying that's the burden of proof for ME :-) Personally speaking, from what I've seen and read, I'm unconvinced when it comes to lobster and on the fence when it comes to foie gras. But the point I make is that this is what I believe, and I'll make a determination for myself about whether or not I believe these practices are torturous to these animals, but in the absence of conclusive scientific fact to support these beliefs, they should not be used as the basis for legislation.
Reply

9-21-2005 @6:00PM OPAlex said...
Talk about stuffing something down another's throat... ;)

Reply

9-21-2005 @6:31PM Dmnkly said... I deserved that.
Reply