HI,

On Tuesday, they devoted an hour to discussion on the foie gras ban on WLS radio. What surprised me was when interviewer Eileen Byrne was irritated at the Chicago city council for this redundant debate. Redundant? She reported the state of Illinois is already coming close to a state-wide ban. Has anybody else heard of this potential ban via the legislature in Springfield?

I know it was a surprise to me.

Regards,

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.

I have respect for anyone who believes that the geese/ducks involved in foie gras production are mistreated and refuses to eat foie gras (or supports the ban of foie gras) as a result. I know such people -- but the people I know who take such a position do not limit their efforts to foie gras. If you are a "true believer," shouldn't you also (at least personally) avoid items such as leather briefcases and shoes for example (just my belief). However, and forgive me for being cynical, but I believe this is simply the case of a politician trying to get his name in the press, as opposed to a truly concerned individual trying to effect change and do the "right thing." If he is truly concerned about the mistreatment of animals, then I maintain that it is very bizarre to focus all of your efforts on a particular food item that more than 99% of the public will never even eat.

BR wrote:If he is truly concerned about the mistreatment of animals, then I maintain that it is very bizarre to focus all of your efforts on a particular food item that more than 99% of the public will never even eat.

Why would a politician choose battles that would be have to fought as an actual war, as opposed to a short-lived battle that can be easily won? Many people I know just say "Why would you even want to eat that, regardless of how it's made?" when you mention foie gras - the average person simply doesn't care.

I truly see it as a cheap grab for political capital that isn't necessarily founded on logic, beliefs, or concern for anything but the Alderman's own hide.

Cathy2 wrote:HI,

On Tuesday, they devoted an hour to discussion on the foie gras ban on WLS radio. What surprised me was when interviewer Eileen Byrne was irritated at the Chicago city council for this redundant debate. Redundant? She reported the state of Illinois is already coming close to a state-wide ban. Has anybody else heard of this potential ban via the legislature in Springfield?

I know it was a surprise to me.

Regards,

Your msg was the first I'd heard of such a measure. I found some more info:

SB0413 Engrossed

AN ACT concerning animals.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Force
Fed Birds Act.

Section 5. Prohibition; penalties.
(a) In this Section:
(1) A "bird" includes, but is not limited to, a duck
or goose.
(2) "Force feeding a bird" means a process that causes
the bird to consume more food than a typical bird of the
same species would consume voluntarily. Force feeding
methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed
through a tube or other device inserted into the bird's
esophagus.
(b) A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of
enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size or hire another
person to do so.
(c) A person who knowingly violates this Section is guilty
of a petty offense and shall be fined $1,000. Each day that a
violation occurs is a separate offense.

Apparently, the State Senate unanimously passed the bill in April and is to go under consideration by the IL House of Reps. There was a provision to ban foie gras produced outside of IL, but that was struck from the Senate-passed bill.

I'm pretty amazed how much time and energy has gone into all of this. What's the average intake of fatty liver per capita, per annum?

Zee

Ryanj wrote: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.

As I understand it, under current law in Illinois it is already illegal to sell horsemeat for human consumption. The law that's been proposed would make it illegal to slaughter horses within the state for purposes of human consumption elsewhere. Illinois has one horse abbatoir, which exports meat overseas.

Binko wrote: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.

In the U.S., only ducks get this treatment. It's not every day of their existence. At most, it's two weeks. Reports on how miserable it makes them are extremely varied and largely partisan.

Cathy2 wrote:She reported the state of Illinois is already coming close to a state-wide ban. Has anybody else heard of this potential ban via the legislature in Springfield?

The proposal would ban the production of foie gras in Illinois, but not its sale. No one currently produces foie gras in this state. Only two producers exist in this country, one in New York, which is also considering such a ban, and one in California, which has already passed a ban that's yet to take effect.

I note that the bans are heavily championed by sophisticated and well-funded vigilante vegetarian groups. I expect other meat products, such as veal, to be next if their efforts succeed.

Here are two columns, published in April 2005, covering the subject and the proposed legislation:

What's next course after bird-brained foie gras feud?

The great foie gras debate flaps its way into City Council

Zeeshan wrote:Apparently, the State Senate unanimously passed the bill in April and is to go under consideration by the IL House of Reps. There was a provision to ban foie gras produced outside of IL, but that was struck from the Senate-passed bill.

Let's see ... a law that makes illegal something nobody was doing in the first place ... yeah, I can get behind that, Senator! Not exactly a "Portraits in Courage" moment, and no wonder they got unanimous approval -- that is, once they took out the part about making illegal something people actually DO (i.e., importing foie gras from outside Illinois). Your tax dollars at work!

I note that the bans are heavily championed by sophisticated and well-funded vigilante vegetarian groups. I expect other meat products, such as veal, to be next if their efforts succeed.

First they came for the foie gras, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a gourmand...

The idea of banning foie gras in chicago is insanely stupid... What's next, banning meat after PETA pickets outside of city hall? Banning McDonald's from selling chicken nuggets? Give me a f'in break.. There is so much crap food served in this town, the least of the problem is foie gras.

GET A F$*(@(IN LIFE DALEY/CHARLIE TROTTER)

FWIW, Daley came out against a ban on Foie Gras.

Update on the ban:

Panel doesn't have stomach for foie gras

This is really ridiculous. They're basing their decisions solely on the testimony of a few slanted activists and not taking care to actually research the issue or view it firsthand.

When I met David Rosengarten at a Spice House event last year and asked him his views on the topic, he said that all he knows is that when he visited a foie gras farm and the farmer went out to feed the ducks, they all came running and willingly opened their mouths to be fed.

I wonder if there's a way we consumers (and voters) can help set the record straight with the City Council since obviously Ald. Moore isn't listening?

Janet C. wrote:This is really ridiculous. They're basing their decisions solely on the testimony of a few slanted activists and not taking care to actually research the issue or view it firsthand.

I'll grant you the aldermen probably did little or no actual research, nor is it likely any of them went to a duck farm in New York or elsewhere to view the process firsthand. But in fairness, both sides did have witnesses:

The Trib wrote:But Didier Durand, chef and owner at Cyrano's Bistrot, 546 N. Wells St., insisted that "there is no torture" in the production of the delicacy. And he told the skeptical aldermen that it is healthy to eat. Durand attributed low cholesterol levels and a low incidence of heart attacks in his native region of France to consumption of foie gras, which he said he sells to about 30 customers a week.

Maybe M. Durand should've brought samples!

LAZ wrote:

Binko wrote: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.

In the U.S., only ducks get this treatment. It's not every day of their existence. At most, it's two weeks. Reports on how miserable it makes them are extremely varied and largely partisan.

I suppose I was exaggerating, but I do think a reasonable person would agree that putting a tube down a duck's throat and stuffing its stomach full of feed for two weeks doesn't exactly qualify as humane treatment. I'm just saying, let's be honest here. Foie gras production isn't a pretty business.

BUT, neither is a lot, if not most, of the meat industry. If you're going to legislate this, you should legislate the overcrowded chicken farms, or mass-production veal farms, etc. I think there are a lot bigger fish to fry if you're going to play the morality card. This foie gras ban is just pointless political posturing.


Oh, and nr706 - Sorry for the quote misattribution. Screwed up the coding of the nested quotes.

The fark.com discussion on this topic is worth a read, along with a laugh or two.

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1730245

I do think a reasonable person would agree that putting a tube down a duck's throat and stuffing its stomach full of feed for two weeks doesn't exactly qualify as humane treatment.

Okay, we're getting a little circular here. Let's try to make new points. (And notice existing ones like the fact that not all foie gras is made that way.)

My new point is, right at the moment when world attention is focused on Chicago, both as a culinary destination and, I believe I heard somewhere, due to the performance of one of its sports teams, let's make sure the world knows we're censorious hicks who don't want no fancy pants chefs makin' nothin' that normal folks don't eat every day. Steak and a martini was good enough for Mayor Daley I, and it didn't do him no harm until he dropped dead in his office. Let's extend our foie gras ban to banning freezing food in liquid nitrogen, printing onto edible paper, putting small food onto big plates and other such scams perpetrated on the unwary public by sleazy so-called "chefs"....

eating monkey brains from a monkey that is just killed at the table is a delicacy in some f-upped country like Indonesia. I dont know if this practiced now, but I saw it maybe 10 years ago in some documentary. Should we be allowed to eat endangered animals because there lower on the food chain?

See as peoples perception changes and societial mores come abound the majority rule always wins. So the opinions of the majority should allways over ride the opinions of a minority for societies to move forward in a civilized lawfull manor. A majority of people believe that foie gras production is cruel and inhumane. The minority the wealthy upperclass food conesuers and the high priced restaurant tours disagree.

/polster

The tempest in City Hall over this "unimportant" issue may or may not be ridiculous, but the notion of whining, over-indulgent eaters that can't bear the thought of driving to Northwest Indiana in order to eat a piece of diseased liver is truly ridiculous. In addition, taking a progressive stance on a controversial issue has never marked someone as a "hick" in my estimation.


"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men." ~St. Francis of Assisi

polster wrote:A majority of people believe that foie gras production is cruel and inhumane.

I'm curious where you get your stats on this. My guess is that worldwide, or even nationwide polling, if it were done, would register "don't know/don't care/no opinion" as the top choice. I could be wrong, but could you kindly point me to the objective source of your claim?

polster wrote: A majority of people believe that foie gras production is cruel and inhumane. The minority the wealthy upperclass food conesuers and the high priced restaurant tours disagree.

/polster

Prove it.

Show me a non-partisan (not paid for by PETA or the national restaurant association or their ilk) poll using a representative sample that says a majority of people believe foie gras production is cruel and inhumane.

A majority of people don't have any clue, whatsoever, what foie gras IS, let alone how it's produced. Once you start having to describe it to them you let your own biases into the picture.

Geese naturally fatten themselves up before migrating. Their livers naturally get to be very, very fat as they gorge themselves. Foie gras can, and is sometimes, produced by just letting the geese eat as they normally do.

I certainly think foie gras production is probably less cruel than giving cattle antibiotics and growth hormones and feeding them a corn and chicken meal diet to fatten them up before slaughter.


Edit:

Oh, and don't try to trot out the Zogby poll. Here's the relevant question. You can try to figure out how objectively worded it is:

19. Foie gras is an expensive food item served in some upscale restaurants. It is produced by
force-feeding geese and ducks large quantities of food, causing the animals’ livers to swell up to
ten times their normal size. A long metal pipe is inserted into the animal’s esophagus several times
a day. Often, this process causes the animals’ internal organs to rupture. Several European
countries and the state of California have outlawed this practice as cruel. Do you agree or
disagree that force feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned by law in New
York?

Agree 78%
Disagree 15
Not sure 7

In the same poll, 91% of respondants had never tasted foie gras, and 51% had never even heard ot it.

nr706 wrote:

polster wrote:A majority of people believe that foie gras production is cruel and inhumane.

I'm curious where you get your stats on this. My guess is that worldwide, or even nationwide polling, if it were done, would register "don't know/don't care/no opinion" as the top choice. I could be wrong, but could you kindly point me to the objective source of your claim?

I cant qoute a study of the top of my head that shows what % of people believe foie gras production as cruel. What I can tell you is in American society we elect our leaders (politicians) that speak for the rest of society by creating laws. So in turn our politicians who vote for bans on foie gras are the majority rule.

If you dont like that policy then try to elect someone who has the same views as you. Just like right wing conservatives elect individuals that would like to abolish abortion or gay rights.

polster wrote:I cant qoute a study of the top of my head that shows what % of people believe foie gras production as cruel. What I can tell you is in American society we elect our leaders (politicians) that speak for the rest of society by creating laws. So in turn our politicians who vote for bans on foie gras are the majority rule.

If you dont like that policy then try to elect someone who has the same views as you. Just like right wing conservatives elect individuals that would like to abolish abortion or gay rights.

I have to admit, I'm enjoying this in a strange way. I've never before seen people who want to have the option of consuming foie gras equated with those who would like to abolish abortion or gay rights.

polster wrote:eating monkey brains from a monkey that is just killed at the table is a delicacy in some f-upped country like Indonesia. I dont know if this practiced now, but I saw it maybe 10 years ago in some documentary. Should we be allowed to eat endangered animals because there lower on the food chain?

But are Ducks and Geese endangered? I don't think so, but I could be wrong...

I'm sure some people would take issue with the statement that Indonesia is "some f-upped country" as well...f-upped compared to what?

My father lives in SW France, where Foie is pretty much an everyday snack for all walks of life. He finds this whole thing bizarre. But then again, France is no doubt a pretty "f-upped country" too, eh?

LionRock wrote:

polster wrote:eating monkey brains from a monkey that is just killed at the table is a delicacy in some f-upped country like Indonesia. I dont know if this practiced now, but I saw it maybe 10 years ago in some documentary. Should we be allowed to eat endangered animals because there lower on the food chain?

But are Ducks and Geese endangered? I don't think so, but I could be wrong...

I'm sure some people would take issue with the statement that Indonesia is "some f-upped country" as well...f-upped compared to what?

My father lives in SW France, where Foie is pretty much an everyday snack for all walks of life. He finds this whole thing bizzaree. But then again, France is no doubt a pretty "f-upped country" too, eh?

Perhaps my example was in bad taste. I was trying to compare societal mores from one country to another. Whats acceptable there is not acceptable here. If France wants to eat duck liver then let them eat it. Our leaders that we as citizens elected have deemed that the production of foie gras is inumane. Again if you do not like this policy then you should vote for someone who agrees with you or travel to a state or country where foie gras is legal.

Now I'm supposed to find out what candidates' views are on...foie gras?

Why not extend the inquiry to appointees? Has Miers written a position piece on this pressing issue?

Who knows, maybe it'd make debates more interesting.

z

polster wrote: Our leaders that we as citizens elected have deemed that the production of foie gras is inumane.

I'm already way too into this, but once again I have to ask your source for this statement. Without hard information, I have to conclude that you're overstating a cause that you obviously feel passionate about. Your passion is a good thing, but throwing up broad, unsupportable statements undermines credibility. Sorry, I'm really not trying to make this into a personal attack (and if moderators deem it as such, they have my blessing to delete it ASAP), but I am trying to suggest that there are better tactics to defending your side in a debate.

As I see it, there are a few Chicago aldermen opposed to foie gras, a few in Springfield, a few in Sacramento, and maybe a couple in Albany. That leaves 47 states with elected officials who either don't care enough to try and get legislation passed, or support the option for citizens to be able to consume foie gras - not to mention a pretty good number in Illinois, California and New York, who, at least, don't care. If you want to expand this to a worldwide basis, there are only 10-12 countries with a ban, leaving approximately 200 countries whose elected official either support it or don't care.

Maybe Ald. Moore should limit the foie gras ban to his precinct?

edit: damn my bad spelling

CoolerbytheLake wrote:The tempest in City Hall over this "unimportant" issue may or may not be ridiculous, but the notion of whining, over-indulgent eaters that can't bear the thought of driving to Northwest Indiana in order to eat a piece of diseased liver is truly ridiculous.

Diseased liver? I don't think so. Hypertrophic, maybe. But it's not like they are force-feeding germs to the ducks; it's just great gobs of corn. And you know what, I don't think I would miss foie gras enough to drive anywhere out of my way for it. And I promise not to be whiny or over-indulgent about it if things come to that.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/food/cst-nws-foiegras26.html

Chicago would join the state of California and a host of countries that have already banned the pricey appetizer. They include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and Israel.

BREEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

LTHForum,
It is the decision of the moderators that this thread has not only become circular, but crossed into the political/religious realm of internet kudzu that we strive to avoid. While LTHForum.com is not laser-focused, and this thread did raise interesting points, we will only allow this to continue if it can be conducted uniformly in good faith and goodwill toward other posters, not to mention other cultures, and at room temperature.

That means no personal nastiness, and no generalized nastiness toward other countries' practices (if there's anything we stand for here, it's openness toward other food cultures!) And before you drag in extraneous political examples-- don't!

We will see if this can continue civilly. If not, it'll be locked and the slaughter of above posts will begin.

Please refer to the the posting guidelines and "A Note on Moderator Decisions"

Thank you,
Michael
for the Moderators

JimInLoganSquare wrote:
Diseased liver? I don't think so. Hypertrophic, maybe. But it's not like they are force-feeding germs to the ducks; it's just great gobs of corn. And you know what, I don't think I would miss foie gras enough to drive anywhere out of my way for it. And I promise not to be whiny or over-indulgent about it if things come to that.

Diseased liver, I do think so. There is a tremendous amount of medical literature on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in humans--a primary cause of which is obesity. I'm no doctor or vet, but I'll bet my magic beans that there is an approximate disease that affects geese.

CoolerbytheLake wrote:
Diseased liver, I do think so. There is a tremendous amount of medical literature on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in humans--a primary cause of which is obesity. I'm no doctor or vet, but I'll bet my magic beans that there is an approximate disease that affects geese.

Perhaps, but there are two things to note:

First, geese fatten their livers themselves naturally, to the sizes seen in commercial foie gras. This is not disease, but their physiology

Second, the livers aren't fattened commercially by inducing disease. They're fattenend the same way geese do it on their own: giving 'em tons of food.

For some reason I feel like people have tried to make that last point before in this thread. I can't imagine why.

I understand that the word "disease," broadly defined, includes any number of ailments and conditions that are not associated with germs or infections, etc. Maybe under that definition, a swollen liver is a disease for a goose (as it is for a human). I guess the point I was trying to make was that the phrase "diseased liver" is somewhat inflamatory (pun intended), and moreover makes it sound like eating foie gras could make you sick. That WOULD be a new argument, one that has not been raised earlier in this thread and maybe ought to be explored. So I was seeking some support for that argument.