Freedom is not an absolute. It cannot be, it never will be. Each one of us has a limit to our freedoms, and they end where everyone else's begins. That limitation keeps us from being able to do whatever we want. People whining about "losing the choice" to eat, produce or even serve such a disgusting and evil food should be shot in the head, but alas I'm not given that freedom. There are some freedoms worth fighting for, this is not one of them. Good for Chicago for making that clear. I hope it passes, and the restrictions are immediate and the punishments severe. Forcing the violator to go through what the duck does seems a good start.

Now if only it were legal to eat human babies. I hear they're really tasty roasted on a spit with lime sauce. What? How's it any different?

Reply

why does it have to be such a gross procedure but soooo tastey!!!!

Reply

I've been watching this very carefully. The singlemost compelling piece of evidence I've seen is from the American Veterinary Medical Association... but perhaps not how you'd expect:

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep05/050901q.asp

In 2004, at the suggestion of animal rights groups, the AVMA (essentially the veterinary version of the AMA) drafted a resolution opposing force-feeding for the production of foie gras. Some cooler heads prevailed and suggested that since they are a scientific institution, they should do their own research rather than simply accepting conventional wisdom and making a snap judgement. So they sent a team to foie gras farms to observe and report. The team came back, reported, and the AVMA House of Delegates UNANIMOUSLY voted to overturn the previous resolution. They found ZERO evidence that the animals were in any significant amount of pain or discomfort, and in fact reported that they were treated in a much more humane fashion than they would be at typical poultry farms.

It was also pointed out that while it is called force-feeding by many, a very similar technique is referred to as tube-feeding, and is a practice commonly used by veterinarians in the treatment of sick birds. Personally, I'm familiar with this as it is how my family was taught, by a vet and a breeder, to feed our pet cockatoo when it was young. Their point was that duck and goose anatomy is NOT the same as human anatomy, and to assume this manner of feeding affects birds in the same way it would humans is to anthropomorphize. It is completely unsupported by any kind of scientific evidence, and in direct contradiction to the qualitative observations made by the AVMA. These are SCIENTISTS who have devoted their lives to the welfare of animals, who have studied the issue, and have UNANIMOUSLY voted not to recommend against the practice.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, the possible legislation has been held up. It was passed by the health committee with a recommendation for passage by the full city council, but stalled when it went up for a vote on November 1st, when a couple of aldermen threatened to hold up the vote in process. When or if it will return to a full vote is unknown at the moment. I've already spent half an hour on the phone with my local alderman, Manuel Flores, and he's been fantastic... genuinely trying to learn about the subject and make an informed decision. I don't know which way he's going to fall, but after we spoke I found the AVMA info and forwarded it to him, so hopefully that gets around.

Reply

The problem I see with these potential bans? Once again they target the better products. When would we see a ban on industrial chicken farms producing KFC's chicken? I don't have the money to buy foie gras (even if it is a growing industry in the province where i live, it is still unafordable) but I just don't understand regulators sometimes... We barely escaped a ban on raw milk cheese a few years ago here but our government are still unsure about a ban on hydrogenated fat. For some reasons, I see huge similarities between all these issues.

Reply

Thanks Dmnkly for the great post. I went to the AVMA site you linked to.
I don't eat foie gras, so banning it wouldn't affect me. But I'm always against blanket banning of stuff that doesn't affect me since eventually someone will get around to blindly banning something I like.

Three points in the AVMA article that hit home with me:

-- The process of tube feeding is similar to a standard veterinary practice and so in itself couldn't be considered "cruel"

--"Inducing disease to produce a food delicacy does not benefit society" That sounds about right, that's been one of my reasons for not being tempted.

--"Do we want (foie gras) produced in our country, where we have control and guidelines, or (to be) importing it?". Realistically, a prohibition situation wouldn't remove foie gras from the U.S., it would still find it's way here. So wouldn't we be better off having locally sourced product that is produced under specific rules?

Reply

Glad it was useful info for you, Mike.

And to address the point some members of the AVMA's BoD made regarding essentially inducing liver disease in the animals, I agree, that's clearly the case. But, as the AVMA pointed out, to conclude that having a hypertrophied liver for a couple of weeks creates great suffering on the part of the animals is a conclusion that's completely unsupported. To object on that basis is not to object to animal suffering, it's objecting to the mere idea of feeding an animal in a manner that makes it unhealthy, which would also put a lot of loving dog owners under the heading of "inhumane". And I think it's also important to point out that similar practices of controlled feeding to produce a certain type of meat which also results in what would, in the wild, be considered an unnatural or diseased state is extremely common, and not at all limited to foie gras.

To be clear, I'm all for minimizing the potential for pain and suffering on the animals' part. But "humane", when it comes to livestock farming, is not a digital state. It's a sliding scale where perfection is impossible, and clearly there are some practices that create more discomfort/pain/suffering than others. But to single out foie gras and identify it as an exceptionally inhumane example is patently false. I think the bottom line is that there's no evidence to show that foie gras production is any less humane than typical livestock farming, in most cases it's actually far MORE humane, and if the level of care involved in foie gras production is where the line is drawn in terms of a LEGAL BAN, then most livestock farming and meat processing also has to go... and I think many of those who oppose foie gras production don't realize that this is the case. We could, of course, argue whether animals should be raised and slaughtered for food at all, but that's a completely different argument.

In short, foie gras isn't an exception. It's just a soft target.

Reply

The descriptions of animals-for-food production in books like Fast Food Nation seems like a worse process than most of what I've read about foie production. Although the knowledge that you're eating a diseased liver sounds so much less appealing than what it looks on the plate. *grin*

What I haven't seen anywhere is what happens to the rest of the foie'd bird...is it sold as meat? Special, expensive meat? Or does the "foieing" process make the rest of the bird unhealthy somehow?

Reply

The meat is sold, not at any special markup or anything. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing special about it. If you look at the Hudson Valley site, you can see they sell a lot of duck thighs and breasts, also.

http://www.hudsonvalleyfoiegras.com/

LTHForum.com, a chicago-specific food board, has a few threads about the foie gras ban:

General discussion of the proposed ban:

http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5615

Where to find foie in chicago (just a small list):

http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3411

Reply

The breasts of ducks raised for the production of foie gras is traditional sold with a slight premium too since it has a thicker layer of fat on it. My guess is that this might have changed over the years due to various helth concerns.

Reply

Dmnkly thank you. I was reading this and trying to remember where I'd read about my home town's latest foray into misguided social law. Then I read your post and realized I'd read it first on your own blog! Excellent coverage.

My (rhetorical) question: isn't there some MORE IMPORTANT issue for the city to be concerned about resolving?! Like, oh, say, education funding, homelessness, hunger, gang violence, or even safe-guarding the CTA for cryin' out loud?!?!

Reply

The 80% figure is totally bogus. The question the "pollsters" used contains this: "Often, this process causes the animals' internal organs to rupture. Several European countries currently prohibit this practice as cruel."



Besides being factually questionable and meaninglessly vague (define 'often'), tell me this wouldn't bias the people taking the poll. Read the entire poll question here: http://www.nofoiegras.org/FGzogby.htm



If you are looking for a balanced look at the foie gras debate (in other words, from a non-animal rights extremist source), check out the wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras

Reply