DY wrote:

cerca 1986: "You from Chicago? Al Capone! Rat-a-tat-tat!
cerca 2006+ (?): "You from Chicago? Foie-gras-free zone, yes?"

Looks like things have come full circle. I look forward to the foie gras speakeasy reviews.

we can call them "quackeasies"

Chicago Tribune wrote:Also, you may recall, Charlie Trotter accused fellow Chicago 4-star chef Rick Tramonto (of Tru) of being “not the smartest guy on the block” – and suggested that Tramonto’s liver be served up as “a little treat” – after Tramonto called Trotter’s restaurant ban of foie gras “a little hypocritical” because Trotter continued to serve veal, game and other members of the formerly living club.

Oh Oh, four star food fight (la guerre du aliment)! Quick, separate the children before they start throwing white truffle chiffon at each other again.

Actually, foie gras is chock full of monounsaturated fats. Yes, it gets 85% of its calories from fat, but so does butter. And, of course, butter's fats are mostly saturated.

Oh, and Anthony Bourdain went to a foie gras farm in Quebec on one of the recent episodes of No Reservations. It was actually quite impressive how much better those ducks were treated than, say, the average egg hen in the US.

But here's my sure-to-be-controversial point:

We're raising the animals in order to kill them and eat them. When did it become OK to murder animals but not OK to torture them? (this should not be construed to mean that I believe force-feeding ducks/geese for foie gras is torture, I'm just using their language).

There are two ducks sitting on a road. One of them will be fattened up by force feeding and then slaughtered, plucked, broken down, and cooked for our pleasure. The other will be slaughtered, plucked, broken down, and cooked for our pleasure. I see very little difference.

Why not mandate vegetarianism?

Looks like I need to get to Chicago and Little Three Happiness before they do away with my favorite dishes. Stir fried foie gras with black bean sauce, dry stir fried foie gras, foie gras with sour greens, crispy skin foie gras, and of course chow fun noodles with foie gras and vegetables. Chicago has now become the laughing stock of the country. Thanks you ignorant aldermen.

ronnie_suburban wrote:The most interesting (or telling) aspect of the entire thread is that not one single comment supports the action taken by the city council. Unbelievable.

Here's my two cents on the matter: I don't like the government acting like a mother hen, so to speak. I don't need to be told what to do on certain matters. That's not to say I don't disagree with anti-murder laws, and things of that nature.

However, I do take offense at the government telling us we can't CHOOSE whether or not to eat foie gras. The smoking issue is similar in my mind, though I realize that non-smokers can't choose *not* to inhale the secondhand smoke. Nonetheless, why can't the city offer bars and restaurants an option to buy a smoking permit? Why does the government feel the need to tell us they know what's good for us?

Some of you might think it's time for me to break out the tin foil hat, but honestly - it's only a matter of time before EVERYTHING is regulated. They'll be restricting veal & lamb sales; they'll make restaurants start buying meat from "friendly-to-animals" suppliers; they'll drive the prices of eating out way up and make everyone reluctant to go out, thus, bringing down the revenues the city brings in and hurting the bottom line overall.

The city council make think this is a small issue, but it's the accumulation of many small issues over time that create ultimate government control. That is what bothers me.

My stomach wouldn't suffer if I never had foie gras again, but my principles sure will. It's a bunch of crap.

Why not mandate vegetarianism?

Do you doubt that there are people who are thinking exactly that?

GreenFish, while I don't disagree with what you've mentioned in regards to principles, the connection to smoking is unfounded. Tobacco is the cause of millions of deaths around the world, and is the largest cause of preventable cancers (second-hand smoke). Regardless of where the message comes from, including the government, the more the better. The meaning is the message in this case. I do think the city should be focusing their resources and energy on quality education, gas prices, crime, children being killed by gangs, etc. and stay out personal choices, which unlike smoking, is not hurting anyone else.

Mike G wrote:

Why not mandate vegetarianism?

Do you doubt that there are people who are thinking exactly that?

Not for a second

Hopefully, someone will have the time, energy and money to challenge this idiocy in Court. Whether or not foie gras is unhealthy, no one seems to be challenging foie gras based on health issues. It's certainly no more unhealthy than bacon or fried dough or a whole host of other unhealthy foods that are routinely served in our city, which was once respected as a world class restaurant city. Now, of course, we're subject to deserved ridicule, and it's based solely on Moore's personal sense that the delicacy results from animal cruelty.

The city's power to regulate restaurants is based on concepts such as zoning, health and safety. They can't infringe on someone's right to engage in the restaurant business, so long as that business complies with all of the city's safety and health regulations. This inane waste of time on Moore's part is no different in concept that if some other bored alderman with too much time on his hands decided that everyone should be a vegetarian, and had the other alderman-lemmings ban all beef, fowl and fish. This is truly thug-like on Moore's part, and someone has got to challenge it.

I actually don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that this kind of moronic power play could hurt tourist and convention business. Not, obviously, because people would boycott us over the banning of foie gras (though I wish they would), but because it really does affect our general reputation as a serious culinary destination, and makes our city the butt of jokes that will surely be told around the world. I hope Moore is specifically identified in each and every one of those jokes.

gleam wrote:

Mike G wrote:

Why not mandate vegetarianism?

Do you doubt that there are people who are thinking exactly that?

Not for a second

Check out this Tribune blogger: Chicken are bad too!
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2006/04/we_force_feed_c.html

marydon2 wrote:I actually don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that this kind of moronic power play could hurt tourist and convention business. Not, obviously, because people would boycott us over the banning of foie gras (though I wish they would), but because it really does affect our general reputation as a serious culinary destination, and makes our city the butt of jokes that will surely be told around the world. I hope Moore is specifically identified in each and every one of those jokes.

Someone posted at eG that the National Restaurant Association might, in protest, no longer hold their annual show in Chicago because of this. I don't know if that's truly under consideration but if so, that'd be a very big piece of business for the city to lose over this and it would go a long way to refuting alderman Moore's questionable claim that this legislation won't cost the city a nickel.

=R=

It has now been proposed -- in an article that appeared in several publications, including the Washington Post -- that all our calories need to be carefully watched. Banning foie gras could simpy be the first step in controlling what we eat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01393.html

Would this also jeopardize Chicago's chances of keeping the Fancy Food Show next spring?

To the mods: I'm sorry for restarting this thread But, even if it's about a touchy topic (or at least one that can cause flame wars), it's certainly important Chicago food news.

I'll definitely be looking for purveyors of foie gras at the Fancy Food Show. It would be nice to have it as a threat -- but I'd sure hate to have them move the show. It's one of the highlights of my spring.

Has anyone found the actual wording of the law anywhere? I'd love to read it for myself and make up my own mind, but links are nowhere to be found in the Trib, Sun-Times, or cityofchicago.org.

I'm still wondering about Mike G's question about whether or not anyone has read the actual ordinance. The articles say that there will be a $500 fine for serving foie gras and that it will be enforced through public complaint.

Is that $500 per dish or $500 per verified complaint or some other measure? It seems to me that that's a pretty meager fine (unless it's per dish, which they have no way of verifying). I'd guess that there might be a few restaurants in town that might be willing to take the risk of a fine.

Finally, who does this ordinance appoint to verify the public complaint? Or are they just going to take someone's word for it and levy a fine?

On the surface, this reads pretty toothless, but I'd like to know more.

Best,
Michael

I just got off the phone with Manny Flores (my alderman, 1st ward). I don't think it's appropriate to relay the details of that conversation here, but I'll post later on my website if anybody is curious... probably very late tonight.

Suffice it to say that after a good 15-20 minutes of discussion, I ended the conversation by telling him that I don't mean it as a personal attack, but that I'm angry with him, I'm angry that he supported this ban, and that anything else I had to say on the subject wouldn't be constructive, so I thanked him for his time.

eatchicago wrote:I'm still wondering about Mike G's question about whether or not anyone has read the actual ordinance. The articles say that there will be a $500 fine for serving foie gras and that it will be enforced through public complaint.

Is that $500 per dish or $500 per verified complaint or some other measure? It seems to me that that's a pretty meager fine (unless it's per dish, which they have no way of verifying). I'd guess that there might be a few restaurants in town that might be willing to take the risk of a fine.

Finally, who does this ordinance appoint to verify the public complaint? Or are they just going to take someone's word for it and levy a fine?

On the surface, this reads pretty toothless, but I'd like to know more.

Best,
Michael

That's what I'm thinking. It's also important to see whether, and if so how, they defined "foie gras." It doesn't take a big change to make something a whole lot like foie gras, but gosh no it isn't that at all, it's puree specialitee de la maison or something.

I believe I finally found the ordinance. Not sure why it is so hidden.

http://www.stopforcefeeding.com/pdf/ChicagoFoieGrasOrdinance.pdf


Sounds like it is $250-500 for every day the establishment is serving foie gras.

I love how Charlie Trotter is mentioned and that it states that 80% of Americans (when educated) approve of the ban.

So, uh, they don't actually define foie gras.

It should be noted that this doesn't ban the sale of foie gras, it merely bans the sale of foie gras in restaurants. Fox and Obel can still sell it to you.

What would happen if a restaurant offered a free foie gras amuse bouche?

gleam wrote:It should be noted that this doesn't ban the sale of foie gras, it merely bans the sale of foie gras in restaurants. Fox and Obel can still sell it to you.

That's actually not so clear. What the new ordinance bans is the sale of foie gras by "Food dispensing establishments," as defined in Section 4-8-010 of the Chicago Municipal Code. That definition reads as follows:

"Food dispensing establishment" means any fixed location where food or drink is routinely prepared and served or provided for the public for consumption on or off the premises with or without charge. Such establishments include, but are not limited to, restaurants, coffee shops, cafeterias, short order cafes, luncheonettes, grills, tearooms, sandwich shops, soda fountains, taverns, bars, cocktail lounges, nightclubs, industrial feeding establishments, take-out establishments, private institutions or organizations routinely serving food, catering kitchens, commissaries or any other eating or drinking establishment or operation.

Fox & Obel sells prepared foods "for consumption on or off the premises," so I'd have to say they would be subject to the ban. You are correct, though, that a true grocery store is not subject to the ban. In the same section of the Code, grocery stores fall under the rubric "food purveyor establishment." You can check it out for yourself RIGHT HERE .

Yeah, I actually noticed that (since I figured I'd look up "food dispensing establishment) after I posted. Are the two licensed differently? That is, does F&O have a license both as a food dispenser and as a food purveyor?

Maybe Aldi will start selling foie gras.

What would happen if a restaurant offered a free foie gras amuse bouche?

The real question is, what would happen if I dressed up like a duck and passed out samples of foie gras in front of City Hall?

Mike G wrote:

What would happen if a restaurant offered a free foie gras amuse bouche?

The real question is, what would happen if I dressed up like a duck and passed out samples of foie gras in front of City Hall?

I could tell you one thing that would happen for sure: I'd be there.

gleam wrote:Yeah, I actually noticed that (since I figured I'd look up "food dispensing establishment) after I posted. Are the two licensed differently? That is, does F&O have a license both as a food dispenser and as a food purveyor?

Maybe Aldi will start selling foie gras.

I don't know if they are licensed differently, but I'll bet F&O could get around this by establishing two separate entities, one called "F&O Food Dispensing Establishment, LLC" and another called "F&O Food Purveyor Establishment, LLC," keep the books and management separate, and keep selling foie gras at the grocery ("food purveyor") business. They could still share the same roof. Kroger grocery stores in Indiana do something similar by setting up independent liquor stores, under the same roof as the grocery store.

Mike G wrote:The real question is, what would happen if I dressed up like a duck and passed out samples of foie gras in front of City Hall?

Anyone have a good source for duck bill masks? I bet you could get a dozen people to help you out.

eatchicago wrote:

Mike G wrote:

What would happen if a restaurant offered a free foie gras amuse bouche?

The real question is, what would happen if I dressed up like a duck and passed out samples of foie gras in front of City Hall?

I could tell you one thing that would happen for sure: I'd be there.

We're getting very lawyerly here. Let's face it -- 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).

But if a restaurant were to offer foie gras as an amuse bouche, and if someone really wanted to enforce it, the argument would be that the restaurant is selling foie gras by offering it as part of a comprehensive dinner that is being sold -- kind of like the concept that "there's no such thing as a free lunch."

But ultimately, I think Joe Moore accomplished what he wanted to do: get his name spoken and become a macho celebrity for a few days (luckily for him, most people didn't get to hear him pronounce it "foy grass"). He probably doesn't care if it gets enforced or not. He can tell voters that he proposed a piece of legislation that got enacted.

BR wrote:But ultimately, I think Joe Moore accomplished what he wanted to do: get his name spoken and become a macho celebrity for a few days (luckily for him, most people didn't get to hear him pronounce it "foy grass"). He probably doesn't care if it gets enforced or not. He can tell voters that he proposed a piece of legislation that got enacted.

There isn't a word about this big accomplishment of Moore's on his Web site. I didn't check every page, but I did look at Accomplishments, Legislation, Links, and News and also used the site search for foie, gras, and foie gras (why take chances on how things might be indexed). I wonder if he's already embarrassed?

The site does include a name and phone number for his staffer in charge of city council matters, including legislation. I won't be able to call tomorrow, though; maybe if any questions linger, I'll see if time permits to call on Monday.

from a restaurant employee point of view, it seems that a great many of our local chefs are up in arms as well. I know that we have been calling on comrades for the last couple of days trying to find someone with a cogent method of fighting the law. i dont think that any of the people who i have talked to care what charlie thinks.

Foie gras is part of our culture, part of our history...there is no arguement to support banning foie that does not coincide with an arguement to ban the farming of animals as well...whats next? no more beef? I'll give someone the "farm raising is inhumane" arguement, but to be perfectly honest, farm animals arent "human" to begin with and therefor shouldnt be held to the same standards. bah, now i'm all mad again.

Erik.

If anybody's curious, I finally got around to posting the details of my conversation with Manny Flores.