Dish wrote:1. Starting on May 5th–and ending the day the foie gras ban goes into effect–Avenues (Peninsula Hotel, 108 E. Superior St.; 312-573-6754) will offer a foie gras add-on (foie gras lollipop! foie gras milkshake! et cetera!) to each of the 12 courses in its tasting menu (normally $138; $238 with FG). Try it: What’s $238 when it comes to gorging on forbidden food?

I was standing in the grocery store the other day, looking at packages of calf's liver. And I had to wonder, is anybody who inspect restaurants for the city really going to know the difference between one kind of liver and another?

Is the city likely to spend a lot of time and money sending liver off for analysis?

Obviously, anyone selling "foie gras" will be in trouble. But a restaurant sells "our special duck liver," how can anyone tell that it came from a duck that was subject to force feeding?

BR wrote:Mayor Daley is not supporting this ban, so unlike food safety searches and rodent patrols, I highly doubt anyone from the City of Chicago will waste their time trying to enforce the ordinance, especially considering the minimal fine revenues (unlike red light cameras, for example).

It is my understanding, from what I have read, that the enforcement of the ban will rely on reports of violations from consumers. What the "officials" do with the reports should only be left to the imagination.

Food Nut wrote:It is my understanding, from what I have read, that the enforcement of the ban will rely on reports of violations from consumers. What the "officials" do with the reports should only be left to the imagination.

Well, the other aldermen may have shrugged it through as a quid pro quo to ensure support for their bills someday, but I'm perfectly willing to believe that the fanatics who got it introduced in the first place will consider themselves enforcers.

Considering this thread goes back six months, it's a shame that chefs are only just starting to organize around the issue.

Food Nut wrote:It is my understanding, from what I have read, that the enforcement of the ban will rely on reports of violations from consumers.

Last October, chef Didier Durand of Cyrano's Bistrot spoke against the ban before the City Council Health Commitee. The next day, the window of his restaurant was smashed and the door was painted with fake blood. There is a whole army of "consumers" who will make sure the law is enforced.

d4v3 wrote:There is a whole army of "consumers" who will make sure the law is enforced.

So, these PETA types, many of whom are vegetarians, are going to spend the $$$ it takes to eat at the kind of places that typically serve foie gras, order "our special duck liver," pay for it and sneak it off to be analyzed?

And then they complain to the city, and the city sends an inspector and the restaurant says, "Oh, we had that last Tuesday as a special, we don't have any more, but it was regular duck liver." Then what?

I doubt complaining "consumers", have to literally consume or even buy the suspected contraband. If a restaurant is serving foie gras under the table, then at least part of the public would have to know about it. Otherwise, what's the point of serving it?

You wouldn't need a sample analyzed to prove a case, investigators would simply need to look at purchase orders and question employees. Would you risk going to jail for lying to an investigator just to keep your boss from paying a fine?

At any rate, I seriously doubt any restaurant will defy the ban. All it would take to get busted, is a single disgruntled employee to drop a dime. The restaurant business is full of disgruntled employees. Or how about an activist infiltrating the restaurant staff. They do that sort of thing all the time.

There are a lot of vacant storefronts along the Evanston border. Anyone want to open a Foie Gras Hut?

d4v3 wrote:Would you risk going to jail for lying to an investigator just to keep your boss from paying a fine?

At any rate, I seriously doubt any restaurant will defy the ban. All it would take to get busted, is a single disgruntled employee to drop a dime. The restaurant business is full of disgruntled employees. Or how about an activist infiltrating the restaurant staff. They do that sort of thing all the time.

We're talking about fines here -- no more than $500 per occurrence -- not jail. You don't go to jail for speeding, going through red lights, etc., so let's not get carried away.

Also, as I noted before, without Mayor Daley's support, I just don't think enforcement is going to be a priority -- that's how Chicago seems to work.

And I really doubt that the foie gras ban will create a James Bond-like scenario with animal activists secretly infiltrating all of the restaurants that have, at some point in time, served foie gras. If they do, good luck to those activists as they patiently await the first illicit service (assuming the restaurant decided to ignore the ban) of foie gras, while being forced to put on a happy face when serving fish, veal and sweetbreads to diners.

I am a vegetarian of over 10 years (although I am not sure I can call myself that anymore as in the last couple months I have tasted a couple great pieces of meat including a tiny wonderful bit of medium rare steak with fois gras butter) and I am against the ban. My philosophy is eat and let eat.

I had read that Durand and Michael Tsonton from Copperblue are forming a group to fight the ban. I hope that their efforts aren't too late and that it is reconsidered.

Alderman Moore's grandstanding irks me. I don't think his ward has even one restaurant that serves fois gras. It is right next to our ward and it has the greater issues of its low income residents being pushed out by condo developments, a lack of jobs and a high crime rate. His time is better spent working on those issues. Also, as someone else mentioned, if the humane treatment of animals is really his concern, why doesn't he suggest a ban of most meat products? Most animals are raised and slaughtered in conditions that are less than humane.

d4v3 wrote:If a restaurant is serving foie gras under the table, then at least part of the public would have to know about it.

If a restaurant is serving foie gras under the table, I hope that their floors are clean. (yuk yuk)

Een wrote:I had read that Durand and Michael Tsonton from Copperblue are forming a group to fight the ban. I hope that their efforts aren't too late and that it is reconsidered.

Unfortunately, legislation of this type (even on the city council level) is notoriously difficult to overturn. Particularly, as here, where the issue does not affect the general populace at such a level that there would be a groundswell of public support for overturning the legislation. Too little, too late, in my opinion. It's part of the reason why (politically savvy) opponents of gay marriage want to enshrine it in a constitutional amendment -- even when public opinion turns to the point where a majority of folks would not be opposed to gay marriage (as would be likely if current trends continue), it would be really hard to undo such an amendment at a later date. (The threshholds for undoing a constitutional amendment are even greater, but some of the same considerations apply in terms of inertia setting in and the efforts generally required to overturn legislation.)

BR wrote:We're talking about fines here -- no more than $500 per occurrence -- not jail. You don't go to jail for speeding, going through red lights, etc., so let's not get carried away.

If you actually read the part of my post which you quoted, you will see I asked, "Would you risk going to jail for lying to an investigator just to keep your boss from paying a fine?". I am not talking about going to jail for serving the stuff, I am talking about going to jail for obstruction of justice which is a class 4 felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison. My point is who would risk 3 years in prison to save their boss $500?

Matt, you are right on all counts here. Thanks.

Matt wrote:the issue does not affect the general populace at such a level that there would be a groundswell of public support for overturning the legislation. Too little, too late, in my opinion

Exactly.

Time to open the Howard Street Foie Gras Hut right across from Joe Moore's 49th Ward.

d4v3 wrote:

Matt wrote:the issue does not affect the general populace at such a level that there would be a groundswell of public support for overturning the legislation. Too little, too late, in my opinion

Exactly.

Time to open the Howard Street Foie Gras Hut right across from Joe Moore's 49th Ward.

I'll invest!

I know I'm chiming in late on this thread and this topic probably has been exhausted -- but I recently was told by our waiter at an upscale north side restaurant that they intend to continue serving foie gras despite the ban (although it won't appear on the menu). He pointed out that they consider the ban silly, in view of the fact that nearby restaurants in Evanston, Oak Park, etc., are unaffected.

Clearly, in the air is the Prohibition Effect.

Ban it, and they will come.

I would wager that foie gras sales will increase over the next few months, not where it's banned, of course, but at places like the Evanston Foie Gras Hut and elsewhere. People who have never thought to eat the stuff will give the Forbidden Fruit a try.

Thus defeating the purpose, which was questionable from the get-go.

Hammond

Ron A. wrote:I know I'm chiming in late on this thread and this topic probably has been exhausted -- but I recently was told by our waiter at an upscale north side restaurant that they intend to continue serving foie gras despite the ban (although it won't appear on the menu). He pointed out that they consider the ban silly, in view of the fact that nearby restaurants in Evanston, Oak Park, etc., are unaffected.

I'm actually looking forward to the future of "underground" dining, having not lived through the prohibition era. Is is possible that the new law will make foie gras taste even better??? I can't wait until the chef slides the plate of foie gras in front of me and says "enjoy your steak sir!"

Anyone in the mood for some "chicken liver"? Just call ahead. I can have it ready. Seared, braised, sauteed, whatever you like. The foie ban wont last. Neither did prohibition. Its unconstitutional and in very bad taste. Shame on those that waste taxpayer dollars on this crap.

d4v3 wrote:
Also, as I noted before, without Mayor Daley's support, I just don't think enforcement is going to be a priority -- that's how Chicago seems to work.

Freedom of choice, its a beautiful thing.

"Case # 38775 - Sonoma Foie Gras Vs Whole Foods.........all rise."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/dining/03gras.html

PIGMON wrote:"Case # 38775 - Sonoma Foie Gras Vs Whole Foods.........all rise."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/dining/03gras.html

Having never eaten Foie Gras, I now plan to start to protest these types of laws.

homaro cantu wrote:The foie ban wont last. Neither did prohibition. Its unconstitutional and in very bad taste. Shame on those that waste taxpayer dollars on this crap.

The question of whether this is constitutional is an interesting one, but I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for this to be overturned. I imagine that the main challenge would be on the basis that under the commerce clause of the constitution, this ordinance is unconstitutional because only the U.S. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce (unless the new incarnation of the Supreme Court reinstitutes a Lochner-era freedom of contract constitutional jurisprudence, in which case all bets are off but say goodbye to a whole lot of health and safety legislation). However, this is not a complete ban on the sale foie gras in the state or importation of foie gras into the state, but is more limited, so that likely cuts against the commerce clause argument. Also, the city council will certainly argue that there is a legitimate public policy reason for enacting the ban that trumps any impact of the ban on interstate commerce. If Alabama can ban the sale of sex toys and the Supreme Court won't hear the appeal from the federal appeals court of a decision upholding that ban, I have a hard time believing it's going to take up Chicagoans' fight against the foie gras ban.

If Alabama can ban the sale of sex toys and the Supreme Court won't hear the appeal from the federal appeals court of a decision upholding that ban, I have a hard time believing it's going to take up Chicagoans' fight against the foie gras ban.

They are taking the time to hear Anna Nicole Smith's marital estate dispute, though, and I believe this issue affects a heck of a lot more people than that. If enough uproar is raised over the ban, who knows what might happen?

I agree wholeheartedly with Chef Cantu, as well as with Chef Durand and that fellow from Copperblue. If we eaters of foie grascave without a fight, what's next to go? Veal? Live crustaceans and shellfish? Will there be a ban on the sale of live poultry within the city limits?

I do believe that I have found a good reason to stop shopping at Whole Foods.

YourPalWill wrote:I do believe that I have found a good reason to stop shopping at Whole Foods.

After reading the NY Times article, I had reached the same decision earlier today . . . and now I'm backtracking a bit. Of course, I'm still very upset about the foie gras ban (it's always one of my favorite menu items) and I believe the Chicago city council has no business telling people what to eat. And I was sure that after a little research, I would find that Whole Foods was being hypocritical in their approach to foie gras.

Now I'm not so sure -- it turns out that they are much more conscientious when it comes to the animal products they sell than I would have given them credit for:

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/issues/ ... #standards

http://www.satyamag.com/mar05/whole.html

Therefore, I at least have some respect for Whole Foods. On the other hand, I cannot stand hypocrites like the Chicago alderman (mainly Joe Moore) who run around wearing leather shoes, carrying leather briefcases, eating pork and chicken products from caged, mistreated animals, while at the same time dictating that I cannot eat foie gras because it is the product of animal cruelty.

I think that it is perfectly permissable for the folks who run Whole Foods to say, "We oppose the way that geese are raised in the production of Foie Gras. Therefore we won't sell it in our stores."

However, their attempt to alter the market for Foie Gras, with this form of corporate blackmail of their suppliers is unaceptable to me as a consumer.

What I chhose to eat is my own business. Where I choose to shop is my own business.

I will choose to spend my grocery dollars elsewhere going forward.

HI,

Today at the Fancy Food Show, there were a number of vendors smearing duck's liver on crackers for conventioneers to taste. Maybe a major convention threatening to take their business to Las Vegas or Orlando or Rosemont might change their tune. Just a thought!

Regards,

Ha that's funny Cathy...I was there this afternoon too, and thought the exact same thing.

found this petition against the city's ban on foie gras...

http://animalagalliance.org/petition


b t w... if the fine is between $250-500/day (no more, according to ordinance) that doesn't seem like that much for a high end restaurant to take a hit on.. especailly if they did it just every once in awhile as a treat or publicity.

Hey, I tried to read over this whole thread, but got tired after two pages. Anyway - live just across the road from Joe Moore's Ward - and let me tell you, he needs to get out more. For instance, the geese that land in his parks are equally likely to be mistreated by our local gang bangers who use them as bait in dog fights - but by all means, let's go after the high-end restaurants. I may open the Foie Gras hut at my house; I'm only half a block off.

Has the Jewish community come out against this ban? I read a book on Foie Gras, and the history is directly connected with Jewish influence on French cooking - apparently the lovely fatty liver was discovered by Jewish butchers who were fattening geese and ducks to produce schmaltz. So, if you ban Foie Gras production, you're essentially banning schmaltz production.

Unfortunately, I can't muster indignation backed by thousands of years of history - but if I were Jewish, I'd be down at Moore's office knocking on the door!

BTW - ate horse in Paris. Or should I say cheval. Very like brisket.