Order foie gras while you can

Story in today's Tribune:

City Panel Backs Foie Gras Ban

I for one am glad that the officials in this town have stamped out all crime and corruption so that they can take on this important topic.

/sarcasm

I just hope they don't go visit any chicken farms...or veal.

I've always thought it was unusually cruel to take a happily growing vegetable, violently pull it away from the sweet earth that has nourished it for its entire existance, and then subject it to mastication, often after being heated to temperatures well above those that could possibly sustain its life. When will the city wake up and take action to outlaw these barbaric practices?

In some sort of perfect moronic convergence, apparently former famous person Loretta Swit was invited to testify against the production of this all-natural, small-family-farmed traditional food product, whereupon, with the sort of logic only Hollywood celebrities possess, she immediately compared its method of production to... the events at Abu Ghraib prison.

Of course.

nr706 wrote:I've always thought it was unusually cruel to take a happily growing vegetable, violently pull it away from the sweet earth that has nourished it for its entire existance, and then subject it to mastication, often after being heated to temperatures well above those that could possibly sustain its life. When will the city wake up and take action to outlaw these barbaric practices?

come on.. stop the sarcasm.

The way they obtain a fatty liver from ducks is torturing the animal! I'm sure you would love to be fed by a metal tube down your throat while your alive.

I dont see the purpose of torchering animals while there alive to feed snobby rich people. There are plenty of alternative food choices that dont torture the animals while there alive.

It's ok to breed them and raise them to be eaten, and then to kill them en masse, but it's not OK to feed them in unconventional ways?

That's the thing I never got. You're raising these animals to be slaughtered. What's the big deal? Yes, factory farms and foie gras production and their ilk are cruel to the animals. But isn't, uh, killing and eating them more cruel?

I hereby volunteer to be the test court case should this pass the city council. They will then have to ban: caviar (luxury ingredient, often from Iran -- or even from Trout in Michigan. Many people against), Veal (same argument for years), regular chicken (ever been to a "production" chicken farm???), etc. etc. Most of the council members voting on this can't pronounce it and have no idea what it is -- by their own admission. Absurd.

I for one doubt that this is an enforcible law -- and can't imagine the city health department or men in blue raiding offending restaurants. I also suspect that most of the luxury restaurants that have removed Foie have done so for the not-so-ethical reason of lowering their food costs while hiding behind a gray-area position.

I have to say that I don't find the "how would you feel" arguments on this subject compelling. I'm sorry but I do not equate my existence with that of geese. Feel free to call me a grateful recipient of evolution (but not in my home state of Kansas as evolution will likely join foie gras on the banned list).

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, but I know I would never want for another one of God's creatures to view the following, Ms. Swit's latest cinematic effort:

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/boardheads.php

Thank goodness her talents are being put to a higher use.

Nick,

While I'm sure Alinea's presentation might be a bit more artful, I kind of want Hot Doug's duck sausage with foie gras butter to be the test case.

Really, I just want it to show up on the specials board again. But it'd be a lot of fun seeing him take on Alderman Moore.

polster wrote:

nr706 wrote:I've always thought it was unusually cruel to take a happily growing vegetable, violently pull it away from the sweet earth that has nourished it for its entire existance, and then subject it to mastication, often after being heated to temperatures well above those that could possibly sustain its life. When will the city wake up and take action to outlaw these barbaric practices?

come on.. stop the sarcasm.

The way they obtain a fatty liver from ducks is torturing the animal! I'm sure you would love to be fed by a metal tube down your throat while your alive.

I dont see the purpose of torchering animals while there alive to feed snobby rich people. There are plenty of alternative food choices that dont torture the animals while there alive.

I dunno - what's in the tube? If it's foie gras I just might sign up. BTW, I've yet to see conclusive proof by objective sources that the force feeding actually is "torchering" (sic). If you could provide such a reference I'd be glad to peruse it and have my mind changed. Until then . . .

If you think it's cruel then you probably shouldn't look into fishing too much. Or cooking lobster.

gleam wrote:Nick,

While I'm sure Alinea's presentation might be a bit more artful, I kind of want Hot Doug's duck sausage with foie gras butter to be the test case.

Really, I just want it to show up on the specials board again. But it'd be a lot of fun seeing him take on Alderman Moore.

Well, I agree totally. And not only that, but it is not only a "luxury ingredient" for the rich as some claim.

Also, what if it is served as "fat duck's liver"... after all, all ducks have livers... I am sure some of them even get naturally fat.

It is simply a case of a vocal minority teaming up with publicity seeking pols... I don't blame the vocal minority -- after all, it is a debatable subject. But a politician who votes to ban this and has never even eaten it or visited a farm is begging to be skewered.

Kman wrote:If you think it's cruel then you probably shouldn't look into fishing too much. Or cooking lobster.

Fishing and boiling lobster dont compare to torturing an animal while its alive for an extended period of time. Your not going to go hungry because you cant eat fatty liver anymore!

There has to be a line where people cannot cross and thats why laws or societal mores come from. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to know force feeding large quanties of food not normally consumed by the animals diet in nature is torture. Especially when there doing it with a pipe down the animals throat.

Kman wrote:

polster wrote:

nr706 wrote:If you think it's cruel then you probably shouldn't look into fishing too much. Or cooking lobster.

I love goose liver (and had the fortune while living in Budapest to eat lots and lots of the stuff, of very high quality, and dirt cheap prices [compared with here] It's not just snobby rich people food), but this analogy really doesn't stand up.

Boiling lobster is not comparable to stuffing a tube down a goose's neck and force-feeding it grain. First, for all practical purposes, a lobster does not have the capacity to feel pain like "higher" species do. It's reaction to pain is just an autonomous reflex--the lobster having no brain to process pain in the way we do.

Regardless. Let's assume that lobsters and fish do feel pain. Catching a fish or boiling a lobster is a much quicker death than stuffing a tube down a goose's (or duck's) neck and force-feeding it every single miserable day of its existence.

That said. Yes, it's cruel. But I love my goose liver, and I could live with myself eating the organs of animals that are, for all practical purposes, tortured. If I couldn't, I'd be a vegetarian. I also love veal.

Fujisan wrote:I for one am glad that the officials in this town have stamped out all crime and corruption so that they can take on this important topic.

yes, what's next, trying to ban smoking in rest.


Can u believe some people wanted to stop Illinois from building a slaughter house to slaughter horses (meat going to Japan with a former kentucky derby winner being one of the horses slaughtered). good thing that didn't so thru. Didn't want texas to be the only state slaughter them.

Anyone ever eaten horse meat?

polster wrote:It doesnt take a brain surgeon to know force feeding large quanties of food not normally consumed by the animals diet in nature is torture. Especially when there doing it with a pipe down the animals throat.

Well, I'm not a brain surgeon, but as far as I know there is no proof that the feeding doesn't play in to the duck/goose's natural gorging instinct. Also, I don't believe all of the feed goes directly to the animal's stomach to be digested right away.

As you can probably guess, I think this move by the city counsel is totally absurd. Typical knee-jerk politics. On the other hand, I look forward to attending foie gras speakeasies.

Speakeasies, hmm. I see the ordinance will ban the sale of FG in Chicago. So I figure BYOFG will be ok also. [Edited to reduce snarkiness.]

I have written Aldermen Moore on this topic with no reply from him. He is in the Roger's Park Ward, where I once lived, and I can assure you there is no crime and the streets are paved with gold there. But seriously, chicken farming has a higher percentage of casualties than foie gras farming, i.e.; the mortality rate before they are supposed to die is at least double than on a foie gras farm. If an alderman and city council wants to ban a product they cannot pronounce and are unsure they have ever tasted and wants mine and the cities approval, perhaps they should do some research and visit a farm or two. Most farmers have a beautiful relationship with their animals, especially the sustainable and small producers such as Hudson Valley Farm's and LaBelle Farm's. It is the giant mass producing farms of Perdue and the Jewel chicken farms that set a bad example for the good ones such as Gunthorp Farm's and Swan Creek Farm's. The better an animal is treated, the better quality it is, like Kobe and Wagyu beef. Poor or mistreated animals are cheaper, easier to raise and taste like nothing. Give me a lovingly cared for piece of veal, chicken or foie gras over anything mass produced any day and I will be happier and more enriched for it.
Also, the ducks do it to themselves, as any migratory or hibernating animal does.
They naturally fatten themselves up for a long flight or winter nap. Look at a pigeon today, and then again in July, and you will notice the obesity that has overcome them. This is how the whole thing got started in ancient Egypt. The pharoahs noticed the difference in flavor from the winter months to the summer months. Therefore, our government should not mess with nature, unless you live in Kansas(sorry to the earlier poster) where nature and evolution is obviously false and do not exist.

And about the horsemeatr issue. We are one of the two states, Texas the other, where it is legal to slaughter horse and eat it. It was the origanal tartar meat, and in France, the finest butcher shops displayed a golden horse above the doorway to let them know the quality of their meat was of high standards. I've never had horse, although I have been offered it from one of my purveyors. If I knew I could sell it, I might run it as a special, but my guess is it probably would not taste great.

Binko wrote:

Kman wrote:

polster wrote:

nr706 wrote:If you think it's cruel then you probably shouldn't look into fishing too much. Or cooking lobster.

Interesting .. I don't remember writing anything like that. I was just trying to defend poor litle veggies ...

In a more substantive vein, here's what Wikopedia has to say on the topic of foie gras production:

Production methods
Birds do not chew their food and have no gag reflex, thus they can be force fed large amounts of whole foods. Ducks and geese are omnivorous, and like many birds, have very elastic throats which expand and allows them to store whole food in the esophagus while awaiting digestion in the stomach. In the wild this dilation allows them to swallow large items, such as a whole fish, for a long digestive process. A wild duck may double its weight in the fall, storing fat throughout much of its body and especially on the liver. This weight gain is entirely reversible both in the wild and with farmed fowl used in foie gras production.
The geese or ducks used in foie gras production are initially free range, feeding on grasses that toughen the esophagus. While still free roaming they are gradually introduced to a high starch diet that by itself leads to about half of the enlarged liver's size. The next feeding phase, which the french call finition d'engraissement, or "completing the fattening process", involves careful stuffing of feed into the birds throat. This exploits a natural process through which geese and ducks store fat in their livers in preparation for winter migration. The feed, usually corn, causes large amounts of fat to deposit in the liver producing the buttery consistency.

As I read this, the feeding may not cause the birds any more discomfort than when they swallow a whole fish in the wild.

When I visited Palmagri, Cooperative des Eleveurs Gaveurs in Bordeaux a couple of years ago, I went to their foie gras processing facility. Among other things they said was that their ducks are hand-fed, but not force fed; the ducks are such gluttons that they'll fatten their livers sufficiently just by having massive quantities of food available to them, as they would naturally do in the wild prior to a long migration.

In that case, if the issue is the morality of gavage (which I don't personally have a problem with), should both gavage and non-gavage foie gras be painted with the same brush?

Twice I e-mailed [Chief Hypocrite] Alderman Moore asking why his proposal is limited to foie gras. Everyone knows about the conditions at commercial farms raising chickens, calves, pigs, etc., and yet he seems entirely unconcerned with those products, which by the way everyone consumes (as opposed to foie gras which so few of us enjoy). Needless to say, Hypocrite Moore didn't respond (and believe it or not, I was polite).

This is just another example of a loud-mouth politician pretending to effect change without substance. With a little luck, it won't pass or it won't be instituted into law by Mayor Daley.

This is a very sad day for the City of Chicago when a group of moronic alderman led by Pied Piper Moore decide what should be on the menu at high-end Chicago restaurants, but choose to leave unaffected the by-products of real animal cruelty which show up as thinly sliced "meats" at our local Subway "sandwich" shops.

BR wrote:Pied Piper Moore decide what should be on the menu at high-end Chicago restaurants, but choose to leave unaffected the by-products of real animal cruelty which show up as thinly sliced "meats" at our local Subway "sandwich" shops.

Good point, BR, and while I think it is a true statement, it also could create an impression that your are setting forth a false dichotomy. It's not just a few high-end, hoity-toity purveyors of foie gras versus Subway and Jimmy John's. Let's not forget that a lot of the factory-farmed meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products end up at good restaurants and food purveyors "in the middle," including GNR recipients and others that are highly praised and thoroughly enjoyed by many who post here. The very few restaurants (percentage wise) that serve organic or free-range meat/dairy products, in my experience, use that as a form of advertising, including right there in the menu. And the customer (as well as the restaurant) pays a premium for those products.

Does consuming factory farmed products promote cruel treatment of animals? Yes. There can be no argument; it's just a matter of what you can tolerate morally as to whether you purchase and consume factory-farmed animal products. Does factory farming result in a less tasty product? Arguably, although many (in fact, most) restaurants rely heavily on factory farmed products. But is factory farming significantly cheaper? Darned tootin'! Factory farming provides abundant, cheap meat, eggs and dairy products. It also provides abundant cruelty. Other, more humane methods, cost more (I usually buy cruelty-free eggs that run $4.00/dozen, versus $0.80 for the factory farmed variety). So not to get too far off topic here, but let's not sugar-coat the issues, either. It's not just foie gras and veal sweetbreads that lead to animal cruelty; they are but the tip of a massive, massive iceberg.

This is a very sad day for the City of Chicago when a group of moronic alderman led by Pied Piper Moore decide what should be on the menu at high-end Chicago restaurants, but choose to leave unaffected the by-products of real animal cruelty which show up as thinly sliced "meats" at our local Subway "sandwich" shops.

I have enjoyed foie gras in the past. I have enjoyed veal in the past. I was practically raised on KFC Beakless Fried Chicken as a kid. Don't get me started on the Patagonian Toothfish or the host of other delicious but overfished species fighting for survival. As I have gotten older, I give more thought and consideration to the world around me, and what my actions might be causing down the road. The list of things I now elect not to eat for conscious reasons continues to grow--sometimes frustratingly so. I don't consider it my birthright to be able to ingest whatever I want because its brain is smaller than mine and god dammit, it tastes yummy. This sentiment does not make me part of some wacky fringe group. Many, many people feel this way. The argument that legislating against animal cruelty is somehow a waste of the government's time is odd. It's legislated against all the time. For dogs trained to fight and kill; for horses left to starve in a locked stable; for bovines that are locked down in pens and fed bits of feces and parts of their own kind, there is outrage and a call for action. For geese, there are jokes. Can an alderman stop all factory farming in his position? No, but where he is able to effect change regarding something in which he and a good many of his constituents believe, he does. If there were a tabby cat slaughterhouse operating within the city limits, should the alderman look the other way as well because, by golly, he needs to first do something about animal cruelty everywhere for fear he may be branded a hypocrite? Of course not.

Moderators -- Should this topic be moved to Not About Food?

Binko wrote:
Yes, it's cruel. But I love my goose liver, and I could live with myself eating the organs of animals that are, for all practical purposes, tortured. If I couldn't, I'd be a vegetarian.

Have you had the Rockit burger? Kobe beef topped with foie gras
Like the subject of the post, get it while you can!
(Rockit Bar and Grill 22 W. Hubbard St. ... )

polster wrote:

Kman wrote:If you think it's cruel then you probably shouldn't look into fishing too much. Or cooking lobster.

Fishing and boiling lobster dont compare to torturing an animal while its alive for an extended period of time. Your not going to go hungry because you cant eat fatty liver anymore!

There has to be a line where people cannot cross and thats why laws or societal mores come from. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to know force feeding large quanties of food not normally consumed by the animals diet in nature is torture. Especially when there doing it with a pipe down the animals throat.

You still refuse to answer my original question and provide conclusive proof from objective sources that the force feeding is indeed torture. The fact that you believe that, subjectively, it must be doesn't make it so. I mean it seems quite obvious that the world is flat and that heavier items must fall faster than lighter items, no?

In articles I've read where the people raising ducks/geese for foi gras were interviewed I've seen where they admitted that the final days of the bird's life were probably somewhat (admittedly a vague term) uncomfortable. That doesn't cross over the torture line for me.

As to my fishing reference there are a number of people (maybe you know them?) that would say that playing a fish for hours IS torture. I disagree but I offer it as an illustration that there is a wide spectrum of thought among otherwise well-intentioned people as to what is or isn't acceptable behavior with regard to the treatment of animals. That's why I prefer not to go with the subjective but instead look for objective, scientific, research that can provide the type of information one can use to form an opinion. So I ask you again - where is it?

"But it does move!"

I don't really want to get into the great debate on whether eating animals is ethical or not ... or whether I need to pay $4 for a dozen eggs to feel good about myself ... I will leave that up to the philosophers.

I am glad that the aldermen have so much time on their hands. Maybe after they get through with this issue, they will have time to address some of the latest scandals at city hall. Or maybe they can address how Chicago Public Schools can graduate high school students that cannot complete a job application.

Maybe Hecky Powell needs a new cause. He was willing to stick his neck out with the "mutt special," so perhaps he can help Evanston can step up its foie gras game. Suggested slogan for Hecky's window: "Keep the Foi(e), Baby!"

jlawrence01 wrote:I don't really want to get into the great debate on whether eating animals is ethical or not ... or whether I need to pay $4 for a dozen eggs to feel good about myself ... I will leave that up to the philosophers.

Thanks! Glad to take over. Anyway, not to get too picky or "philosophical," nobody's talking about whether it is ethical to eat animals. Let's just assume it's fine to eat animals. It's really a matter of what they go through before you eat them. The question is (1) whether foie gras production or (my own addition to the topic) factory farming methods are cruel and (2) whether either one ought to be outlawed. I say "No" on outlawing either. I believe that factory farming is, in many if not most instances, cruel to the animals (i.e., it is obviously unpleasant, they suffer more than they might under ideal circumstances, extraordinary measures like debeaking must be taken to prevent the caged hens from pecking each other to death, etc.). The cruelty of force-feeding ducks is open to debate (and there is plenty of evidence it is NOT cruel; maybe more of an annoying disturbance). In any case, the decision whether or not to support either of these food producing activities lies with the individual -- and that individual's conscience and moral tolerance -- as it should. That said, an uneducated decision is not really a decision at all, so while I generally have no problem with the cruelty factor when it comes to raising food animals, I am aware of it and have consciously made sure I am aware of it. (Egregious cruelty and/or cruelty to non-food animals is another matter; I'm all for legislating against that.) And yes, I do try to mitigate the effects of cruelty, even to food animals, when I can do so easily and without disturbing my normal patterns of living -- thus the $4.00 eggs. And if it weren't extremely convenient for me to buy the cruelty-free eggs ... trust me, I wouldn't go out of my way to find them and would be snapping up the $0.80 "cruel Jewel" eggs regularly. I may or may not have any reason "to feel good about myself." Certainly my egg-purchasing decisions have little or nothing to do with that. On the other hand, it's probably wrong for you to suggest that I should feel worse about myself because I did make the decision to go for the $4.00 eggs, or reduce the basis for my self esteem to my egg-purchasing decisions. Your "leave that to the philosophers" statement was a neat bit of rhetoric (it would fit nicely in a Daley speech, or one of the Caesars or even Cicero), but ultimately rhetorical tricks are not really an argument one way or another on the issue. So, while ultimately I basically agree with your conclusions on the matter (as demonstrated by my own choices regarding the foods I eat, $4.00 eggs excepted), we both have to recognize that you've punted on making any real argument regarding the issue. Either you've chosen not to make an argument supporting your position or not to take the trouble to expatiate on that argument here.

jlawrence1 wrote:I am glad that the aldermen have so much time on their hands. Maybe after they get through with this issue, they will have time to address some of the latest scandals at city hall. Or maybe they can address how Chicago Public Schools can graduate high school students that cannot complete a job application.

Agreed. 100%.

(Finally, please note that my new signature block is a reference to the radio science show, "Mr. Science," in which he disengenuosly ends every show, no matter what esoteric science topic was covered, with the declaration of his qualifications: "I have a Master's degree ... In Science!". It's funny. And while I DO have a Master's Degree in Philsophy (Indiana University 1991), I was merely attempting to coopt some of that humor for myself, not portray myself as a "philosopher." Best laid plans, etc.)

Although personally I think the foie gras ban is ridiculous, and has everything to do with letting aldermen puff themselves up on a non-issue affecting almost nobody, and nothing to do with any business they ought to be taking care of (I could name another issue they've wasted time on like that, but I won't, and besides Lincoln freed 'em already)--

--but, as someone who takes his kids to school in Rogers Park, and has TRIED to use the public beaches up there, I will say that ANYTHING that slows down Alderman Moore's efforts to permit-zone every scrap of street parking in his frickin' ward so that no one can visit Rogers Park, do business in Rogers Park, eat lunch in Rogers Park or park within 900 yards of a beach in Rogers Park (his apparent ambition) is a public benefit for that reason if no other.

In the meantime, if the ban goes into effect, I'm ordering 50 lbs. from Hudson Valley and anyone who wants to cook some up and share it with others is welcome. No chicken (beakless or otherwise) will, however, be served. That's just cruel.