Foie Gras Ban/the Ethics of Foie Gras

[Jenni]

The un-pastuerized milk for example.

Slightly off topic perhaps but can you explain what you mean by this? Who has said or done what about pasteurized milk? Because I thought this was a safety issue and whilst I personally have drunk and enjoyed raw milk I understand why there is some hesitation in this area.

I don't want to get into an argument about all this btw. I'm vegetarian but I am not interested in telling other people what to eat. Not all of my family are vegetarian, and I also ate meat when I was younger. I have no problem with other people eating meat but I personally feel pleased when non-veggies talk about how they care where there meat comes from and how the animals are treated. I think it's good for people to be in touch with what meat is and be respectful by not wasting and wherever possible giving the animals dignity during their lives.

What really concerns me is the bad feeling, much of which feels over-hyped, that gets generated between vegetarians and non-vegetarians over topics like this. *Certain* vegetarians get all nasty about it, *certain* meat eaters get all nasty about it and everyone ends up looking like bigoted idiots. We don't need to get like this over every single discussion about meat.

Now if it was only vegetarians who objected to foie then perhaps it would make sense to be talking like this (though I hope that people would be polite and reasonable abut it), but it's not. There are omnivores who have issues with foie gras production. I'm not going to make any big statements on whether it's morally bad or morally ok (for a start I don't know enough about the subject) but I will point out that it's not just a case of "blame the vegetarians".

Edited October 17, 2011 by Jenni (log)

[Mjx]

Mjx,

They will be next in-line because the HSUS, PETA, et al, want it Meat Free. Ask any one of them. They won't lie to you. That it their ultimate goal. A beef tenderloin is the same to them as a monkey's brain. It does not matter, they are both meat, and they want it all Meat Free. They want all the meat companies to go down and want America and the world to be meat free. And they will do whatever it takes to make this happen. That is their mission statement. You can ask a member and they won't be shy to tell you this fact.

Thanks.

I'm familiar with the various groups' agendas, and frankly, they can wish for the moon and a gold hat, too: They're as likely to get one as the other. They are both outnumbered and out-funded by the the various meat industry lobbies. Foie gras was easy because the number of US producers is relatively small, the number of Americans who consume it is also relatively small, the mode of production is not what anyone accurate would describe as humane, and there is no way to make it so. The bill is unlikely to stick for very long either; it certainly didn't last long in Chicago.

I don't see any rational reason to believe that this bill represents anything like the thin end of a wedge.

ETA: Frankly, I find extremism of any stripe tedious, and whenever people start with the equivalent of shrieking 'The sky is falling, the sky I falling!!!' I'm bored. Possibly disturbed, too, but mostly bored. The whole discussion about 'rights', regardless of whether it is in reference to one's appetites or another species is valid and worthy of serious discussion, but degenerates so quickly into squealing and foot-stamping, that it becomes impossible to take anyone seriously.

[Obese-Wan Kenobi]

Jenni,

No prob. I was referring to annabelle's post above mine as an example. Not blaming the vegetarians at all It's the extremist groups that fund lobbyists and so happen to be militant vegetarians, like PETA, HSUS. It could be extremist beef eaters too. It's the extreme ideology I'm worried about. I'm all for freedom of choice

Thank you.

Mjx,

That's good to to know that they are a few and far between. But they got that bill in Chigago an CA passed. That says a lot about their resources though...

Anyway, my point in all of this is to just watch out for these groups. They won't stop, and will find every nook and cranny they can get to; and we just have to be aware of their existence and make sure they don't impose their will on us.

Best regards!

Edited October 17, 2011 by Obese-Wan Kenobi (log)

[Jenni]

Jenni,

No prob. I was referring to annabelle's post above mine as an example. Not blaming the vegetarians at all It's the extremist groups that fund lobbyists and so happen to be militant vegetarians, like PETA, HSUS. It could be extremist beef eaters too. It's the extreme ideology I'm worried about. I'm all for freedom of choice

I agree, extremism of any kind is good for no-one. I would like to say freedom of choice to all, but sadly some people's appetites (not just for food, but for other things too) mean that guidelines and laws are sometimes useful. I'm not necessarily saying it applies in this particular case, but there are cases where this applies, such as with endangered animals which are considered a delicacy or of special medicinal worth by some people. If we left it to "freedom of choice" then these species may totally disappear.

Also, as MJX says, it would be wonderful to be able to discuss these interesting issues without it all descending into name calling and shrieking!

[Simon_S]

Obese-Wan, I completely agree with you. I've said in the past that I think eating meat will be widely socially unacceptable within my lifetime, much like smoking is now. That may sound ridiculous, but I can see it happening. So many people seem to have developed a vague acceptance that meat is somehow morally wrong, even if they continue to eat it and love it, that I think we're only a couple of generations away from vegetarianism being "the norm" in the first world.

Very few people actually think critically about this, very few really examine their own views, and PETA and their ilk know that constantly hammering away with the "meat is murder" mantra gets in on people after a while.

Anyway, I have yet to be even convinced that foie gras production is actually cruel, so you can imagine where I fall on this. Oh, and I truly believe that animals should be treated properly and humanely, I'm not an unthinking carnivore.

[Obese-Wan Kenobi]

Was I shrieking? Sorry...

Yes, it's a good discussion.

Cheers guys!

[annabelle]

I think it was Charlie Trotter (Maggie? Is that right?) who was the driver behind the Chicago ban. It was a celeb chef, anyway.

I'm with Jenni and Mjx about not making these topics into, well, a food fight everytime they come up. I'm a meat-eater, but I also enjoy vegetarian food. What I really don't like is being lectured to by either side. Animals are dumb animals in that they cannot speak and it is our responsibility to treat them humanely. Humanely does not mean putting them on an equal footing with human beings. PETA is a PITA. They are entitled to their views, of course, just as I am entitled to mine. If I want to take my children to the circus, for instnce, I don't want some 20-something in a tiger costume giving my 6 YO a pamphlet telling them lies about how badly the animals are treated.

My family is mainly comprised of farmers and ranchers, so perhaps my views are jaded.

[Jenni]

I've said in the past that I think eating meat will be widely socially unacceptable within my lifetime, much like smoking is now. That may sound ridiculous, but I can see it happening. So many people seem to have developed a vague acceptance that meat is somehow morally wrong, even if they continue to eat it and love it, that I think we're only a couple of generations away from vegetarianism being "the norm" in the first world.

Really?! My we must be running in different circles!

I feel pretty confident in saying that meat/fish eating is a part of every original traditional culture in the whole world. As far as I know there are no areas where humans were vegetarian in the very beginning. And the whole world over even today, meat and fish eating are deeply ingrained into the culture. I don't think most people will give this up. It's true that outside of the West many people eat less meat, but that's mostly for economical reasons as well perhaps as traditional beliefs about how much meat is easily digested by the body.

I know too many people for whom meat eating, whether occasional or often, is an important part of their life to seriously consider that the world might turn vegetarian one day!

[Obese-Wan Kenobi]

annabelle,

My family too are farmers, ranchers and fishermen.

What I cannot understand is how these groups, whose leaders have never milked a cow, handled a rooster, hatched an egg, or caught a fish on a hook, can say we are "the bad guys."

[dcarch]

In nature, left alone, all animals die in extremely painful and horrifying ways. After being chased relentlessly, then eaten alive a little bite at a time, in front of your friends and family.

Animals raised, slaughtered and consumed by humans are the very lucky ones.

dcarch

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/myhrvold_lions07/images/lions%20bringing%20down%20buffalo.jpg

Edited October 17, 2011 by dcarch (log)

[Simon_S]

I know this is off-topic, but just to be clear, I don't think we'll get to the point where meat is outlawed or anything of the sort, but I think a gradual process is already well underway.

For example, I see a huge swing towards the idea that meat shouldn't be consumed every day. I think there is a huge swing towards the idea that eating meat isn't that healthy. I think there is a growing sense that eating huge amounts of meat isn't good for the environment. In short, I think that in a few short years, certain parts of society are already moving away from meat for a variety of reasons. Now, this effect isn't really across all social classes yet, and maybe it never will be, but I personally know lots of people who are moving gradually towards vegetarianism.

Lest we need any further proof at how such ideas take hold, we only need to look to our very own Fat Guy.

Of course, this kind of thinking will probably never permeate the entire world, but I think it's growing. Of course, I have no problem with anyone choosing vegetarianism, but I certainly see the slippery slope for societal norms.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Simon_S (log)

[annabelle]

Obese-Wan, it is because they are know-it-alls and, frankly, bigots. It's easy to make proclaimations for on high. I'd like to see them up to their elbows in a cow trying to turn a calf at three in the morning in the middle of a snowy field before they start telling me my business.

Simon_S, I agree. I say, "more for us!" As to your point about smoking, I work in health care and nearly all of the ER doctors and nurses smoke. None of us is going to make it out of here alive, after all.

Edited October 17, 2011 by annabelle (log)

[Jenni]

^^

Well, as I said, many people outside of the West cannot afford to eat meat everyday. Others can only afford to eat very small portions every day. Considering the enormous number of people who live on this earth and our growing awareness of each other and of our effect on the planet, I suppose it makes sense that this low-meat diet may spread. Not necessarily for personal health reasons though.

Talking of, there are lots of ideas about food and health that are popular these days that I don't think will ever find whole-world acceptance. Some examples of this are raw foodism, low or no carb diets and also vegetarianism. It's very hard to get people to shift away from their traditional practices. Even if for some incredible reason it does happen, I predict that in years to come there will be a reverse where people re-discover the "old ways". That happens even now!

Think of the passionate meat and fish appreciating people on egullet. There will always be such people.

ETA: Must add that in the UK I know more people who smoke than who don't. Also, I think the health issues around smoking are very different than those around meat and fish consumption. Personally I think the healthiest diet for the human body is one that includes small amounts of animal products of some kind. But smoking I say is no good for anyone, in any amount.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Jenni (log)

[Mjx]

In nature, left alone, all animals die in extremely painful and horrifying ways. After being chased relentlessly, then eaten alive a little bite at a time, in front of your friends and family.

Animals raised, slaughtered and consumed by humans are the very lucky ones.

dcarch

Sorry, but apart from being an inaccurate generalization, it's an argument in the category of, 'Well, you lost only one finger in the sink disposal, it could've been two or more!'; yeah, but the existing situation isn't great, either.

I know this is off-topic, but just to be clear, I don't think we'll get to the point where meat is outlawed or anything of the sort, but I think a gradual process is already well underway.

For example, I see a huge swing towards the idea that meat shouldn't be consumed every day. I think there is a huge swing towards the idea that eating meat isn't that healthy. I think there is a growing sense that eating huge amounts of meat isn't good for the environment. In short, I think that in a few short years, certain parts of society are already moving away from meat for a variety of reasons. Now, this effect isn't really across all social classes yet, and maybe it never will be, but I personally know lots of people who are moving gradually towards vegetarianism.

Lest we need any further proof at how such ideas take hold, we only need to look to our very own Fat Guy.

Of course, this kind of thinking will probably never permeate the entire world, but I think it's growing. Of course, I have no problem with anyone choosing vegetarianism, but I certainly see the slippery slope for societal norms.

There isn't any good reason to consume meat every day. For most people, it's completely fine, but there's no point in suggesting that not eating meat on a daily basis is some sort of screwball idea. Eating the amount of meat (or any protein) we currently average isn't necessary, to say the least; we eat too much of everything, and meat is no exception (I can, and have, happily eaten a 0.75kg bistecca fiorentina on my own, but there is no way I would make that an everyday, or even every month occurrence, my body wouldn't stand it).

There isn't anything daft about eating less meat than most people do, and it's hardly a shift towards vegetarianism to cut back a bit!

Obese-Wan, it is because they are know-it-alls and, frankly, bigots. It's easy to make proclaimations for on high. I'd like to see them up to their elbows in a cow trying to turn a calf at three in the morning in the middle of a snowy field before they start telling me my business. . . .

Erm... right. So, you've never met a large animal vet who's vegetarian?!

[Florida]

If the people of California want to ban foie, than so be it. Such is the way democracy works.

[Simon_S]

there's no point in suggesting that not eating meat on a daily basis is some sort of screwball idea.

Which, for the record, I certainly wasn't suggesting. I'm merely making the point that attitudes to meat are changing, and changing rapidly. It's my opinion that when you put a few of these changing attitudes together, a wider push towards vegetarianism is a not unlikely outcome.

[Jenni]

Obese-Wan, it is because they are know-it-alls and, frankly, bigots. It's easy to make proclaimations for on high. I'd like to see them up to their elbows in a cow trying to turn a calf at three in the morning in the middle of a snowy field before they start telling me my business. . . .

Erm... right. So, you've never met a large animal vet who's vegetarian?!

Or you know, a vegetariain who grew up on a farm? I can name a few personal acquaintances who meet that requirement and would happily help you out. Plus a significant number of South Asians (not as many Indians as most westerners think are vegetarian, but there are plenty) who grew up/live in a rural environment.

Anyway, this discussion is moving way off foie and is going in the usual direction, though this time at least I suppose we are only referring to "certain extremist groups". Sadly this gets translated so often as "all vegetarians".

[annabelle]

I am not referring to all vegetarians, I am referring to those who wish to impose bans on others who do not share the same beliefs. In my case, that would be that my views and PETAs are diametrically opposed. To them I say, "When my mother dies, I'll give you the job." I'm sorry if I was not clear.

[ScoopKW]

Well, yes and no. First they came for unpasturized milk and I said nothing, because I don't drink milk...

You said nothing??? Then WELCOME to my ignore list.

God I miss unpasteurized milk.

To those of you outside the United States. You're aware of what PETA is and what they believe? You know they want to ban housepets, right? No zoos, no aquariums, no meat of any kind on the menu, no dairy, no cheese.

I wonder if they'll let us resort to cannibalism when one third of the planet begins to starve without access to seafood.

[ScottyBoy]

ooOOoooOohhh boy.

I read the name of the topic and knew it would turn into a back and forth about the treatment of animals.

I'll be buying a large deep-freezer and buying foie in bulk wholesale. Feeding it to the clients I like and making them feel special

ScoopKW - Plenty of raw milk here in California.

[PassionateChefsDie]

For me this has descended into non-debate people keep mentioning PETA(Animal Rights) for those against the ban and HSUS(Animal Welfare) for those for the ban. They're are two different issues animal welfare doesn't equal animal rights.

The 2 wiki pages make it clearer PETA vs HSUS

[annabelle]

Charge them double, Scotty. That way they'll feel extra special.

Scoop: I said plenty and a fat lot of good it did.

[Jenni]

So are PETA completly responsible for the ban then? No meat eaters in the entire world think foie gras might not be such a great thing?

I just don't know why we have to go on and on about PETA. They don't represent all vegetarians/vegans. They also don't represent all people who don't feel comfortable with foie gras production.

[EatNopales]

Well, Chicago isn't as truly madly deeply involved with food ethics as California is, but we passed the foie gras ban first. In two years it was history, because the chefs and diners here laughed at it, and lobbied against it. I suspect that California, which is soooo much more politically correct, will take much longer to overturn the law.

So, well, come eat in Chicago.

In what planet can taking a moral / ethical stand be confused with political correctness?

Political Correctness is using diplomatic euphemisms in describing something that is deemed less than by the group doing the judging. For example,

Political Correctness: American tourists are very exuberant & insightful.

Translation: Geez these Americans are loud, obnoxious & opinionated.

If someone decides torturing a Goose to obtain an easily substituted cut of meat is not something they want to take part in (and yes I like Foie but have abstained for years... btw people blood sausage is a great substitute)... that is taking a morale or ethical stand.

Would you tell someone of Judeo Christian faith that their 10 Commandments are "Political Correctness"... oh those politically correct nuts in the middle east always wanting to ban things like people murder & stealing.

What I agree with other people is whether a legal ban is effective. Cultural Norms are far more effective than Laws & Punishment... you rarely see Americans going to Haiti and flaunting our riches and our big bellies to starving kids... no laws against it... just cultural norms.

Yes, in California we have a greater share of people who tend to see humans as part of the planet and not as its masters... and by extension we are more likely to be on the tree hugger side of things.

And no banning Foie is not a slippery slope towards enforced Veganism... the suggesting is ridiculous.

[annabelle]

Jenni, I don't know how pervasive PETA is in India or if they have a presence there at all. Here in the US, they are ubiquitous. Starlets pose in the nude on huge billboards claiming they'd go naked before they'd wear fur. Well, okay. You could say that with your clothes on, sweetheart. They have compared the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust of the Jews and declared them morally equivelant. My point is, they are provocoteurs.

If they don't like foie, don't eat it or go to establishements that serve it. It's like anything else that makes one uncomfortable. I dislike sacriligious art galleries. I don't view them. On the topic of food, there are a number of ethnic delicacies that I won't eat. Balouts come to mind. Do I want them banned? Only if I am eating next to the person enjoying them.