sundevilpeg wrote:True story: Sweets and Savories is still openly and blatantly serving foie gras. How do I know? I did a demo this afternoon at the Botanic Garden with Chef Richards and his jovial assistant/publicist/partner Mark, and they told me so - and also that they were terribly disappointed that they didn't get the first citation for breaking this law!

I think I have a date for a foieburger this week....

The only problem with having a protest meal there is that Vi Daley was one of two aldermen not to vote in favor of the ordinance. I believe that S&S is in Daley's ward.

Here's irony: Tru, which is strongly pro-foie, is in Natarus's ward (at least until February, 2007 when it will become Brendan Reilly's) and Natarus voted yes. Meanwhile, Charlie Trotter, well known anti-foie, is in the 43rd represented by Daley, who was not in favor of the ordinance.

Dunno if the the position of the ward's alderman really matters at this point, to be honest - it's illegal everywhere in the city now. That these nitwits have such power over things about which they know next to nothing is the issue. I have made it a point of discussion with the chefs I've worked with the BotGar since the "law" passed, and the level of anger is palpable - even with chefs outside of the city. It's made for an interesting summer, for sure.

YoYoPedro wrote:

griffin wrote:BTW: there's no empirical nor sound theoretical reason to think eating or repremanding children in the car have the same level of cognitive impact as a conversation with someone far away from the context in which one needs to attend.

You must have missed this link that an earlier poster posted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5262210.stm

No, I saw it. It's just that has nothing to do with taxing cognitive attentional resources, which as you pointed out was the main problem with cell phones, thus I was pointing out that eating a hot dog doesn't pose the same issue on attentional resources. That study is about physical constraints of doing something else with your hands, which actually would speak only to handheld cell phone use. If you take that study seriously it suggests that there would in fact be additional dangers of handhelds above and beyond the cogntive load of the conversation itself.
However, that eating study is extremely contrived. They forced participants to consume food right at the moment that they had a pedestrian step in front of their simulated car. Thus, at best the results apply only to rare circumstances where you are taking a bite just at the moment that you need to swerve and brake to avoid someone else doing something stupid. In contrast, cell phone use lowers your overall available mental resources for the entire time your on the phone and will impact every aspect of driving from running lights, cutting off other drivers, etc.

Griffin: Also, it is already illegal to pull over on the highway except for a serious emergency. So, if cells phones were banned, it would not increase merging accidents.

Yo Yo: I wasn't aware that it was illegal, and can't say that I believe it. Cellphone manufacturers have been saying for years that users should pull over to make calls.

Yes. They should pull over, but if they are on the highway that means pulling off the highway, not parking in the emergency lane.
It's called an "emergency lane" for a reason. Not only is it dangerous when trying to merge back into traffic and causes people in the slow lane to slow down and merge left, but it is the lane that emergency vehicles must use when their is heavy traffic. It's rather common knowledge that you should not stop on a highway or interstate for any reason other than a breakdown, and I am sure its actually a ticketable offense in many states (and would be immediately in all if people starting doing it to answer their phone).

But what does this have to do with foie gras?

Nothing. That's my point. You've raised it repeatedly. And others have raised other laws. None of which are valid analogies to the foie gras law.
My reponse is intended to point out that these false analogies detract from the real problem with the Foie gras law, and that based upon sensible and consistent principles (including libertarian ones) one could be in favor of cell phone and other laws being mentioned, while strongly oppossing the foie gras law.

The Sun Times is reporting that Copper Blue was falsely accused of violating the foie gras ban. As a side note, Copper Blue is another 42nd Ward resident. Alderman Natarus, running against Brendan Reilly, voted for the ban, and in doing so, harmed a large list of 42nd ward places such as Tru, Everest, Naha, Copper Blue, and others.

Accused chef: 'It's not foie gras'

According to the Sun-Times, "two restaurant patrons acting as Chicago's unofficial foie gras police called 311 on Tuesday to complain that foie gras was being sold illegally at Copper Blue, 530 E. Illinois."

Chef Tsonton responded: "I'm not selling foie gras. It's illegal. You can't sell it. I have duck liver terrine on my menu. But it's not foie gras. It says on my menu that 'It isn't foie gras any Moore. Somebody must be mistaken. Maybe some people aren't real smart. I buy organic duck liver from a farmer in Indiana. We make our terrine out of those. The ducks are so well-fed and taken care of, they're quite delicious. The way we cook it, it has a similar consistency. But it's not foie gras."

Tsonton is president of Chicago Chefs for Choice, the group that joined forces with the Illinois Restaurant Association to file a lawsuit against the ban.

Accused chef: It's not foie gras

I haven't read the ordinance, but I'm curious about how the city distinguishes between foie gras and other duck livers. Certainly, ducks are voracious creatures, and given enough food, their livers can grow to sizes similar to those of the force-fed ducks. Does the ordinance make a distinction, and if so how do they tell the difference between force-fed and not force-fed?

nr706 wrote:I haven't read the ordinance, but I'm curious about how the city distinguishes between foie gras and other duck livers.

Obviously, they can't tell the difference just by looking at the liver. I am sure they need to look at purchase orders and invoices to make the determination. Would they need a search warrant for that?

solution - instead of BYOB, then BYOFG and have the cook prepare it...

Mike G wrote:Riddlemay, I tend to agree with you about single issues per se, but I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of aldermen go down for a silly, lots-of-noise-little-real-impact piece of grandstanding like this, just to keep them from passing the next 50 encroachments on our lives that sound good and do next to nothing.

Next encroachment: TRANS FATS.

They are bad. for sure. but WHY PUNISH THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY? Why can a grocery store sell foie gras, but not a restaurant? this is just infuriating! as I've said before - ban the production at it's source. don't punish one industry. If a product is so bad for us - simply discontinue the making of said product, or focus on educating the public - let consumers choose what they want to purchase.

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/
(read "Invasive Procedures" story 1/2 way down page)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-transfats07.html

http://www.bantransfats.com/

FYI Leesh: In light of the link in your last post, and your tagline, you might want to know that in another piece, Steve Rhodes (the same guy who wrote the Beachwood Reporter piece you link to) actually defends the foie gras ban, rather terribly in my opinion.

"I'm going to go where I haven't seen any other commentator go: I'm going to stand up for the foie gras ban. I'm not a vegetarian, but unless you are into animal cruelty, you can't justify serving foie gras. How is it any different than torturing your dog or cat for enjoyment?"

I think there are intellectually honest and potentially interesting things to say in potential support of the foie gras ban (although personally, I oppose the ban). Unfortunately the Beachwood Reporter has yet to say one, that I know of anyway.

I would link to the piece but I don't want to increase their readership. Suffice it say Steve Rhodes either sincerely buys the PETA-view, hook, line and sinker (which shows a complete lack of genuine research), or he's just being a media contrarian for the sake of being a media contrarian (which I personally have no interest in), or he insists on relating any piece of news to bashing Daley (which isn't really about the ban and gets old after the first time, and I say this as no-great Daley fan).

Whatever the case, I'll personally be sticking to other news sources.

I was actually posting a link to where I read of the possible transfat ban (the beachwoodreporter) and subsequent links on where that original story led me. you can love or hate a news source - that's of no concern to me. my concern in this thread is more about aldermen imposing bans on legally produced food and ingredients utilized in the restaurant industry. if this becomes a trend - where will it lead? I mean, I'm not an eyeball taco fan (for example), and I'm not sure the means by which eyeballs are harvested for this dish (humanely or by a cruel slaughter of the animal), but i'm not hoping for a ban on vendors/restaurants from serving the stuff...

leesh wrote:my concern in this thread is more about aldermen imposing bans on legally produced food and ingredients utilized in the restaurant industry. if this becomes a trend - where will it lead?

I think once Daley puts his foot down and vetos the Big Box ordinance and Ald. Moore or someone else gets voted out of office, the aldermen will get the message and leave us alone.

Something tells me this wouldn't happen on a foie gras farm

Two aldermen said Monday they have introduced a measure to repeal Chicago's ban on foie gras. (Tribune link, should be readable to registered users through 9/18)

Edited to work around stupid phpBB smiley parser

I saw that. Natarus said he had "second thoughts."

Considering that Tru is in his ward, it seems like he never had first thoughts.

stevez wrote:I think once Daley puts his foot down and vetos the Big Box ordinance and Ald. Moore or someone else gets voted out of office, the aldermen will get the message and leave us alone.

Bob S. wrote:Two aldermen said Monday they have introduced a measure to repeal Chicago's ban on foie gras.

What did I tell you...and it didn't even take as long as I thought it would.

On Wednesday, we can do more to make sure that our city is rid of those alder-creatures who would tell us how to eat. There is a fundraiser for Brendan Reilly (Natarus's opponent) at Landmark on North Halsted.

At that time, I expect to ask the staffers to officially create the "Citizens Against Restricting Delectable Internal Organs." (CARDIO) Committee supporting Reilly.

For more info on Reilly (and I promise this is my last mention of that campaign here) see

http://skeetergsd.blogspot.com

and reference the link to Reilly for Alderman on the middle right.

An(other?) example of chefs outside Chicago reacting to the ban:

Since the Chicago Aldermen approved and Mayor Daley passed a ban forbidding restaurants in Chicago from selling Foie Gras. SORedux 549 Gillis Kansas City, Missouri 816.221.0664 has decided to protest the ban by making the month of September “Freedom Gras” month. We will be giving away free Foie Gras to any customer that request the “Freedom Gras” with their meal. In addition we will donate 100% of the monies we receive from sell of our normal supplement charge of $10 for the supplement course of Foie Gras to the group in Chicago called “Chicago Chefs for Choice”. Any question please contact Chef Pete Peterman SORedux 816.221.0664

From http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... forum.html

Aaron Deacon wrote:An(other?) example of chefs outside Chicago reacting to the ban:

Since the Chicago Aldermen approved and Mayor Daley passed a ban forbidding restaurants in Chicago from selling Foie Gras. SORedux 549 Gillis Kansas City, Missouri 816.221.0664 has decided to protest the ban by making the month of September “Freedom Gras” month. We will be giving away free Foie Gras to any customer that request the “Freedom Gras” with their meal. In addition we will donate 100% of the monies we receive from sell of our normal supplement charge of $10 for the supplement course of Foie Gras to the group in Chicago called “Chicago Chefs for Choice”. Any question please contact Chef Pete Peterman SORedux 816.221.0664

From http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... forum.html

I used to work for Mr. Pete Peterman! He's nuts! A really good cook, though.

bnowell724 wrote:I used to work for Mr. Pete Peterman! He's nuts! A really good cook, though.

Yeah, he posts on eGullet and seems a bit of a character. I'm looking forward to giving SORedux a shot.

Bumped to note that a Canadian Chef has pulled out of a cooking contest/demonstration (?) as he was told he could not use foie:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/foie-gras-flap-has-chef-martin-picard-ducking-out/