Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

janeer

Farewell to Foie Gras

Recommended Posts

But let's run with the idea a bit. How would you feel if some new group sprung up, claiming "rice is murder." And trying to ban the cultivation, sale and consumption of rice -- worldwide. Sure, the whole idea is silly in the extreme. But imagine "rice is murder" on billboards worldwide. People pouring buckets of rice milk on paddy workers.

EDIT -- And then they have to get on every internet forum on planet Earth, and remind us that "rice is murder" every time we post a recipe for pilaf.

But that's the point of the omnivore. Who do these people think they are? Telling us we can't eat fish, or game, or cheese? Why do they feel the need to impress their views upon us? On a shockingly regular basis?

I don't have to trot out the tired arguments FOR eating meat. We've all heard them. Probably hundreds of times. Frankly, I don't care what other people eat. It's not my business. Why do so many people seem to feel they have the moral and ethical authority to tell me what is or is not acceptable on my plate at mealtime?


Edited by ScoopKW (log)

Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's run with the idea a bit. How would you feel if some new group sprung up, claiming "rice is murder." And trying to ban the cultivation, sale and consumption of rice -- worldwide. Sure, the whole idea is silly in the extreme. But imagine "rice is murder" on billboards worldwide. People pouring buckets of rice milk on paddy workers.

I think this is a bit of a silly example to bring up. Not sure what to think of this very unlikely hypothetical situation.

But that's the point of the omnivore. Who do these people think they are? Telling us we can't eat fish, or game, or cheese? Why do they feel the need to impress their views upon us? On a shockingly regular basis?

I guess I just haven't come across this particular problem in my personal life - though I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I have had people do the opposite to me, so they poke their nose in my business because it's strange or unhealthy or somehow rude (even when I'm not imposing) that I don't eat meat. People have told me how they feel I should eat and been very bossy and belittling about it, so I know exactly what you mean when you ask why people feel the need to force their views on you, and I'm sorry that you've experienced it. It happens outside of food subjects too of course - I've had people knock on my door to tell me rather forcibly about god and so on. And I've had to listen to various highly offensive views on race, gender, sexuality, lifestyle, etc. that come out the mouths of some people who just feel the need to "enlighten" the world. Such is life. I try not to let it colour my view of people unrelated to such groups.

I don't have to trot out the tired arguments FOR eating meat. We've all heard them. Probably hundreds of times. Frankly, I don't care what other people eat. It's not my business. Why do so many people seem to feel they have the moral and ethical authority to tell me what is or is not acceptable on my plate at mealtime?

Excellent stuff, we agree here completely. Let's have everyone make up their own personal mind and leave it at that. but on top of that, I just don't think it's helpful to keep trotting out tired old "he said she said" scrapping about what different groups have said and using that to paint an image of every single person who eats meat or who doesn't eat meat. Especially since it appears that in this case, and I suspect in other similar situations, we are basically agreeing - each to their own and no need for anyone to go around telling people what they "should" be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quoting is becoming tiresome:

1) The reason for the silly hypothetical situation is this: What if a driven, single-issue group decided that something that constitutes more than 10% of your diet was immoral, unethical, and needed to be banned TODAY. What if they reminded you of that every chance they got?

2) The reason you don't come across this "particular problem" is that from their perspective, you're one of them. You're not part of the problem. My side isn't trying to ban your food. Your side is trying to ban mine. And yes, I eat foie. I eat it in California, when I go to Napa and San Francisco on vacation. So this directly affects me. Not to any great extent. But the "dark side" has just told me I can't have any pâté to go along with my wine. I don't tell them what they can eat. I don't ban the food they like.

But they do. And this is what it's all about for me.


Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to point 1, I guess I would think about it for a bit. Then if I disagreed I would simply ignore.

For point 2 actually I literally mean that I have not personally come across any "meat is murder", anti-fur, etc. rallys or adverts or whatever, though I have heard about them second hand. I don't watch TV, I don't read magazines, I visit quite specific places on the internet, etc. so maybe I am not exposing myself to the right sources. I also do not know anything about what America is like, so maybe things are different there.

And by the way "my side" is not trying to do anything. I am not on anyone's side. Notice that I have not grouped you with the people who have gone on and on about my eating habits.

It's funny because we agree on the basics of this issue. But you won't let it drop that somehow I am doing something to you by virtue of being vegetarian, and that vegetarians are oppressing the world, etc. I guess maybe they are in your part of the world. Who knows.

Anyhoo is basically 1 am here and I have class in the morning. Wish you the best and hope that you don't feel less of me simply for my eating habits. For the record, if you ever come to Allahabad I'll happily take you somewhere where you can eat delicious meats and I can eat delicious veggies. That's what I'll be doing with my brother when he comes to visit, and there's never any moral issue about it.


Edited by Jenni (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to point 1, I guess I would think about it for a bit. Then if I disagreed I would simply ignore.

For point 2 actually I literally mean that I have not personally come across any "meat is murder", anti-fur, etc. rallys or adverts or whatever, though I have heard about them second hand. I don't watch TV, I don't read magazines, I visit quite specific places on the internet, etc. so maybe I am not exposing myself to the right sources. I also do not know anything about what America is like, so maybe things are different there.

And by the way "my side" is not trying to do anything. I am not on anyone's side. Notice that I have not grouped you with the people who have gone on and on about my eating habits.

But you can't simply ignore it if they successfully ban and criminalize the food you eat, can you?

And yes, you're on a side. You're not trying to force your ideals on anyone else. But there are a lot of vegetarians who ARE. They are actively trying to ban my food. They want to make it a criminal act to have sausage and eggs for breakfast. Your gentle "mentioning" humane animal treatment is just more polite than the hard-core vegetarians who want to outright ban and criminalize my breakfast.


Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to point 1, I guess I would think about it for a bit. Then if I disagreed I would simply ignore.

For point 2 actually I literally mean that I have not personally come across any "meat is murder", anti-fur, etc. rallys or adverts or whatever, though I have heard about them second hand. I don't watch TV, I don't read magazines, I visit quite specific places on the internet, etc. so maybe I am not exposing myself to the right sources. I also do not know anything about what America is like, so maybe things are different there.

And by the way "my side" is not trying to do anything. I am not on anyone's side. Notice that I have not grouped you with the people who have gone on and on about my eating habits.

But you can't simply ignore it if they successfully ban and criminalize the food you eat, can you?

And yes, you're on a side. You're not trying to force your ideals on anyone else. But there are a lot of vegetarians who ARE. They are actively trying to ban my food. They want to make it a criminal act to have sausage and eggs for breakfast. Your gentle "mentioning" humane animal treatment is just more polite than the hard-core vegetarians who want to outright ban and criminalize my breakfast.

You're argument is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy. Your meat will never be banned, no matter what you, or some vegetarian says. You will be able to eat suasage and eggs for breakfast until the day you die.

And Jenni is not on a "side" just becuase she is a vegetarian. Just because there are some vegetarians attempting to ban some foods doesn't make all vegetarians responsible for the acts of a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any issues with vegetarians until they start to have issues with me and that is exactly what this foie gras ban is trying to do when I visit California to see my parents and to visit the wineries. Your option to "ignore" the ban is not possible if the item, the foie, is banned!

Thankfully, the people of the state of Oklahoma don't get to dictate to the people of California how they choose to govern their state any more than the people of California get to dictate how the people of Oklahoma choose to govern their state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! Isn't that representative government thingy great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a vegetarian for several years, but came to the conclusion that I am happy to eat, and kill an animal provided it had a decent life and had a pain and stress free death.

I believe if your not prepared to kill it, then you should not eat it so if you can't kill it don't eat it.

I also am a huge advocate of British (or pink veal), I used to think veal was cruel and yes milk fed in a crate is, but now male calfs are just discarded often not humanely as the cost to humanely slaughter something worth nothing prevents, far better to raise humanely, kill humanely and sufering reduced and we benefit.

Foie is at it's worst extremely cruel, at it's best (flavour wise as well http://www.gansoiberico.com/ ) cruel free, driving underground will (in the same way as drugs) can only increase cruelty, improved regulation I am in favour of but how could the foie from www.gansoiberico.com be illegal when the same place can serve a battery chicken!


Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think animal rights groups are mostly pragmatic, and I don't think even the most fervent AR group thinks that they'll be able to outlaw meat consumption entirely. And while many of the groups may have a stated goal of everyone being vegetarian, not only do they understand that this is unlikely to happen in the near future. But, as pragmatists, of course they do focus on practices that are both cruel and seen as elitist (fur, foie gras being two obvious examples). Yes, on an absolute level, there are other practices that may be as cruel or more cruel, but these ones are easy targets because they're seen as things which are enjoyed by a very small percentage of the population. At the same time, these groups usually spend quite a bit of time advocating for smaller changes to the standard of living for larger numbers of industrially "farmed" animals (and it's worth keeping in mind that California also recently passed Prop 2, so I think there is interest by voters in the welfare of other types of animals). PETA is purposely extreme to provoke reactions, and that's part of their strategy; while I'm not a card-carrying member, I really don't think they deserve all the ire directed at them, and they have done quite a bit to improve the lot of animals in the US and worldwide.

I really enjoyed Mark Caro's The Foie Gras Wars -- while I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I think he does do his best to portray both sides of a very contentious issue fairly. I think it's worth a read, regardless of your stance on this particular issue. I definitely agree with him that an egg-laying hen in a modern industrial factory farm is probably subjected to more cruelty (over the course of its lifetime) than ducks subject to gavage.

I do think it's quite different for a state to ban production and sale of foie gras vs. a city -- there is at least slightly more control of food products traveling interstate, and it's a lot farther for most of us to drive to a neighboring state - as someone said above, CA has several states bordering it, but it is also a huge state -- I don't think many folks are going to be driving to Vegas or Arizona just to get their foie fix.


Edited by Will (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

driving underground will (in the same way as drugs) can only increase cruelty

That I'm not so sure about -- there are very few producers of foie gras in the US already (mostly in upstate NY, if memory serves). While I am sure that foie will be brought from out of state into California in defiance of the ban, I'm less worried that you'd see unlicensed producers of foie operating within the state. California is already an expensive place to do business - it would be easier for such an operator to start a new operation in a different state.

Now the operation in another state might be more cruel than the operations which currently exist in California, but that wouldn't be due to being driven underground, since the operation would be legal in another state.


Edited by Will (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was quite a kerfuffle in Philadelphia several years ago regarding a group known as Hugs for Puppies. They were, in fact, violent and terroristic. I know a young lady who was a manager at one of the restaurants being picketed. She was addressed by name over a bullhorn from across the street, with the ominous threat of "we know where you live". That is not acceptable under any circumstances and there's no reason this young lady who was merely performing the duties of her job as manager of a restaurant that happened to have foie gras on the menu should fear walking the few blocks to her home at night, or fear living in the privacy of her home because of some fringe lunatics. I don't believe that most vegetarians have an agenda, but as Obese-Wan pointed out, some certainly do. This group is an example of the sort of extremism he mentioned. They do exist.

I'm a big believer in live and let live. Don't tell me what to eat, and I won't tell you. If you are a guest in my home I will accommodate your dietary restrictions to the best of my ability. And that goes for choices like vegetarianism or keeping kosher, to cooking gluten free for you if need be. It's what we do for our friends, right?


Katie M. Loeb
Booze Muse, Spiritual Advisor

Author: Shake, Stir, Pour:Fresh Homegrown Cocktails

Cheers!
Bartendrix,Intoxicologist, Beverage Consultant, Philadelphia, PA
Captain Liberty of the Good Varietals, Aphrodite of Alcohol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big believer in live and let live. Don't tell me what to eat, and I won't tell you. If you are a guest in my home I will accommodate your dietary restrictions to the best of my ability. And that goes for choices like vegetarianism or keeping kosher, to cooking gluten free for you if need be. It's what we do for our friends, right?

The "don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you" compact doesn't apply if one side isn't OK with the premise. And one side obviously isn't.

I'm quite OK with the slippery slope argument, because that's exactly what it is in this case. First foie. What next? Cuy? They're cuddly. Ban the consumption of cuy next. Keep chipping away at the menu until meat is off limits. Don't kid yourself, there is a large, well-funded, single-issue, single-mindset group of fanatics who will work tirelessly to see the day when sausages, milk and braised short ribs are ancient history.

There are plenty of things I don't eat -- Patagonian toothfish, for instance. Any billfish. Any animal raised in the horrific squalor of industrial ranching. If, at the stroke of a dictator's pen, I could ban the consumption of endangered animals, and animals raised in the most inhumane of conditions I would be tempted.

Tempted is the operative word. I do not want, nor would I accept that kind of power. I do my part quietly, by not purchasing things that I find ethically questionable. I don't like something, so I don't buy it. Why can't "the other side" simply do the same?


Edited by ScoopKW (log)

Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, though I feel you don't hear me, why do you have to make it this side and that side? As if only two sides exist in this world? As if it was vegetarians versus meat eaters? It's a very sad and negative way of thinking, as well as drastically oversimplifying the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you" compact doesn't apply if one side isn't OK with the premise. And one side obviously isn't.

I'm quite OK with the slippery slope argument, because that's exactly what it is in this case. First foie. What next? Cuy? They're cuddly. Ban the consumption of cuy next. Keep chipping away at the menu until meat is off limits. Don't kid yourself, there is a large, well-funded, single-issue, single-mindset group of fanatics who will work tirelessly to see the day when sausages, milk and braised short ribs are ancient history.

There are plenty of things I don't eat -- Patagonian toothfish, for instance. Any billfish. Any animal raised in the horrific squalor of industrial ranching. If, at the stroke of a dictator's pen, I could ban the consumption of endangered animals, and animals raised in the most inhumane of conditions I would be tempted.

Tempted is the operative word. I do not want, nor would I accept that kind of power. I do my part quietly, by not purchasing things that I find ethically questionable. I don't like something, so I don't buy it. Why can't "the other side" simply do the same?

I don't expect to convince anyone whose view of this matter is fundamentally different from mine (i.e. 'Yes, I have the right to eat what I please, but if my choice is responsible for unnecessary suffering or loss, then I'll pass'), and I don't trot out my views unless I'm directly asked, or there is an open discussion on the matter.

However, in an open discussion, I don't see why someone questioning or opposing the production of foie gras is 'telling someone what to', whereas someone supporting its production is simply 'defending their rights'.

Nor do I get the 'sides' thing: This isn't a simple, two-sided debate between peaceful, tolerant meat eaters and violent, intolerant vegetarians (seriously, re-read the topic, and tell me which perspective is expressed most vehemently and uncompromisingly). An array of perspectives has been presented, most of which are not extreme.

I really don't see the slippery slope thing, even though various 'sides' seem to fear (or hope) that this is the start of one.

Stripped of squishy anthropomorphising and sanctimonious dribble (which hasn't been present in the current discussion), the argument against the production of foie gras is that there is apparently no humane way of producing it.

The same doesn't hold true for producing other meat products.

Cuteness? This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the foie gras issue, unless I've missed something (and given Americans' loss of enthusiasm for rabbit, it seems pretty clear that you don't need an animal rights group to change a population's tastes; sentimentality can do that on its own).

To produce foie gras, ducks and geese must be force-fed; force-feeding is accomplished by inserting a tube in the the birds' throats, to deliver the food.

These the objective points, not speculation.

Since there is no direct way to understand what the experience may be like for the birds raised for foie gras, one can only rely on observation, research, and morbidity/mortality data to hypothesize.

Such observation, even when carried out by groups such as the European Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, suggest that the process of force-feeding, at least as it is currently carried out, is somewhere between moderately and severely distressing to the ducks and geese (e.g. the report I mentioned previously, Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese).

Conclusions based on observation and research do not extend past reasonable speculation.

From this point on, however, any discussion moves into pure speculation ('How distressing is it for a bird to have a tube inserted into its throat and be routinely fed an amount that is capable of causing intestinal rupture?') and the philosophical ('Should I care whether or not a bird is feeling distressed?'; 'What are the relative values of my right [as a human] to eat what I want and a food species' right to have a reasonably un-distressing existence, if I have any voice in this matter?', etc.)

The speculative questions are probably not answerable, and the philosophical ones are personal. Evidently, at this time, enough Californians are uncomfortable enough with their understanding of foie gras production to wish to oppose it. As someone pointed out upthread, that's democracy.

Given the scale, resources and impact of the of the various meat and poultry lobbies, I just can't find it in me to start sobbing about the impact of animal rights groups, which have been pushing for all sorts of changes (from the perfectly reasonable to the bewilderingly idiotic), and have had relatively little effect.

We both agreed that banning foie gras was easy, for various reasons.

No satisfactory conclusion will ever be reached, unless the objective aspect is kept in sight.

And there is at least one remaining objective question: If the current process of force-feeding is distressing to the birds, is it possible to develop an approach that give the same results, but is not distressing, or at least only very mildly so?

Has this been seriously investigated? It seems worth the trouble of looking into, and I find it difficult to imagine that even the greatest appreciator of foie gras would object to its being produced under humane conditions!


Michaela, aka "Mjx"
Manager, eG Forums
mscioscia@egstaff.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there is at least one remaining objective question: If the current process of force-feeding is distressing to the birds, is it possible to develop an approach that give the same results, but is not distressing, or at least only very mildly so?

Yes

http://www.lapateria.eu/company.html


Perfection cant be reached, but it can be strived for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will .. I have to agree with you as to the treatment of hens in egg battery farms being much more mistreated than foie gras farming.

There are other animal husbandry practices in beef and pig farming that are more stressfull as well I think.. in both they castrate without anesthetic, docking of tails and clipping of teeth in piglets is also done without. Hens in batteries can often have their beaks clipped.

Geese and ducks are force fed for about 2 to 3 weeks... the more advanced farms use a process that takes no more than 2-3 seconds per feeding. So even geese that go for 3 weeks have maybe a minute of accumulated force feeding. Add to that , the fact I have seen on two different programs geese and ducks rushing to the feeding station for their turn . For the farms that do traditional feeding, it can take significantly longer, but one of those programs I mentioned was a farm that feed this way. The geese and ducks still rushed to the guy feeding them, tt makes me wonder where the lines of what constitute mistreatment really should be drawn.

I don't eat foie gras btw, No moral qualms, just not something I enjoy. I still eat pork, beef and eggs though, but I know what it takes to get it too me . I don't delude myself that meat just appears on little plastic wrapped styrofoam trays.


"Why is the rum always gone?"

Captain Jack Sparrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't kid yourself, there is a large, well-funded, single-issue, single-mindset group of fanatics who will work tirelessly to see the day when sausages, milk and braised short ribs are ancient history.

The day that animal rights activists have even a hundredth of a percent of the power and influence that the livestock, meat-packing, and fast-food industries have is the day that you will see pigs flying over the ice rinks of hell. Yes, there are single-issue, single-minded fanatics out there - but large and well-funded? Not so much.


"There is nothing like a good tomato sandwich now and then."

-Harriet M. Welsch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading this thread with interest, having lived and worked for some years in France where foie gras is a central part of the end of year feasting (Sometimes Christmas, at others New Year) when it is found in many variants in every epicerie or supermarket. I came back to England in 2007 and in the same year a council local to where I now live considered banning foie gras from sale in shops and restaurants. As I recall the debate was much the same as you are now engaged in. There was also mention of a more ethical production method, I thought in England but the only reference I could find today concerns a Spanish Producer. Here is a link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6301715.stm

As to the traditional method, some years ago I was invited to a farm in Perigord where I watched the geese jostling for their turn for feeding. In isolation the equipment looks horrific but this was a working farm not a tourist attraction and the geese were absolutely free to roam around. Of course I have no idea if the Producer is typical, much of the commercial foie gras on sale in France is duck rather than goose and I'm aware that ducks are often raised in far from ideal intensive units for meat, let alone foie gras.

It seems to me that there is no right or wrong that can be broadly applied on this topic, rather it is for each of us to make a personal decision. History indicates that prohibitions are less than effective, criminalising some and causing parallel markets where there can be no controls in respect of welfare issues. In order that we can each make an informed decision it would perhaps be good to have more objective information available, narrowing the gap between food production and consumption which seems ever more vast as many rely increasingly on processed 'ready to eat' nutrition - perhaps this doesn't apply to readers of these forums but it certainly seems to be increasingly the case for many.


Edited by DianaB (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite OK with the slippery slope argument, because that's exactly what it is in this case. First foie. What next? Cuy? They're cuddly. Ban the consumption of cuy next. Keep chipping away at the menu until meat is off limits. Don't kid yourself, there is a large, well-funded, single-issue, single-mindset group of fanatics who will work tirelessly to see the day when sausages, milk and braised short ribs are ancient history.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. It is logical argument that is simply incorrect.

There are "large, well-funded, single-issue, single-mindset" groups for everything. Pro/anti nuclear power, pro/anti gay marriage, pro/anti gambling. You name it and there is likely a group for it and a group against it. The very existence of a groups is neither unreasonable nor something to be feared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this background is relevant, but I'll throw it out there. I was vegan between the age of 19 and 33. I now farm sheep and pigs. I can slaughter an animal although I'm not thrilled about it. I take great pride and satisfaction is butchery. Foie gras, I like, but it's 40 quid a liver in the UK, and outside London very, very hard to find. As opposed to just very hard in London.

To me it's an easy target. I don't know many people who have eaten it. The majority of people won't miss it. There's enough apathy for an argument to be won.

If we really cared about animal welfare we'd stop raising pigs in intensive units. I keep a few pigs, they are the lovliest, friendliest, intelligent creatures. To think about them stood on a slatted floor in a crate really does turn my stomach. We'd also stop rearing chickens in cages. I never eat pork or chicken I'm not certain of the provenance of. Battery eggs stop in the EU in the next couple of years. I don't think there is legislation yet to suggest battery hens for meat are to go. Too many people eat cheap chicken. Much harder to win hearts and minds on that one.

The what will they ban next argument was used in the UK when fox hunting with packs of dogs was legislated against. I was told by several neighbours, they'll ban fishing next. Or at least game shooting. Well, no one has. In fact hunting with dogs turns out to be tricky to legislate against and goes on still anyway. We just pretend it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To produce foie gras, ducks and geese must be force-fed; force-feeding is accomplished by inserting a tube in the the birds' throats, to deliver the food.

These the objective points, not speculation.

Have you read the reporting of what goes on in Foie farms in the Hudson River Valley? It's on another food site, so I don't know if I'm allowed to link it. Just Google it.

The farmers allowed a team of reporters and bloggers to tour their facility, top to bottom. No locked doors. I learned some things. First of all, ducks breathe through their tongues. So shoving a tube down their throat -- while not pleasant -- isn't painful. And while they don't line up for thier gavage, they don't run away, either.

The ducks are very well cared for, because that's how the farmers get class-A foie. Stressed out, abused ducks aren't going to produce class-A, and therefore all that effort and money yields a lower return.

And while I'm sure there are industrial foie farms that savagely abuse animals, just like CAFOs and battery eggs, I don't buy from those places.

And YES, for the umpteenth time, there are TWO SIDES (or more) to this. There is the side that wants to ban food because they find it ethically questionable, and there is the side that doesn't. I'm on the latter side. If any vegetarians want to join us in the struggle to keep the food we like from being criminalized, all the better. But I don't see a mad rush of vegans demanding that foie remain legal. I would LOVE to be proven wrong on this point.


Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there is no right or wrong that can be broadly applied on this topic, rather it is for each of us to make a personal decision. History indicates that prohibitions are less than effective, criminalising some and causing parallel markets where there can be no controls in respect of welfare issues. In order that we can each make an informed decision it would perhaps be good to have more objective information available, narrowing the gap between food production and consumption which seems ever more vast as many rely increasingly on processed 'ready to eat' nutrition - perhaps this doesn't apply to readers of these forums but it certainly seems to be increasingly the case for many.

Well, that personal decision is being made for us by people who think they know better.


Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Anthony Bourdain article entitled Food Terrorists pretty well sums up the militant vegan morons who terrorize innocent civilians. The ban is ridiculous, but will probably stand in California given (what seems to me to be) the ultra liberal overriding theme. They already won with Wolfgang, it's not a huge stretch to see them creating enough noise to see the ban stand.

It's a sad day when hysteria and misinformation pass for fact.


James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...