Foie Gras Ban/the Ethics of Foie Gras

[LuckyGirl]

Banning battery-type operations, whether it be from foie gras or for eggs, is a far step removed from the cessation of meat-eating. I certainly would not want to reject what I consider a perfectly valid argument (that that specific type of production is needlessly cruel) for no other reason than the fact that I disagree with their overall agenda. That locks us into a ideaological battle, which I find profoundly distasteful.

If you are willing to condone factory farming, then that's a separate discussion. If you don't, then you simply must accept that criticizing the production of foie gras in factory farms is perfectly legitimate. Criticism can be used to improve a system. After all, if all foie gras was produced in idyllic little family farms, with free range geese/poultry rushing to the gaveur for their feed, we would hardly be having this discussion.

Well said and I very much agree.

[daves]

This sounds to me like a gentle way to express cultural relativism ... a version of the arguements that have been used (and continue to be used) to morally justify phenomena like apartheid, oppression of women, ivory trafficking, whaling for endangered species, child prostitution ...

We're not talking about people's moral rights to behaviors that don't affect anyone else. This isn't about what consenting couples do behind closed doors. It's about something has a concrete impact on someone / something besides ourselves, so an argument based on moral relativism strikes me as a deeply specious one. It's akin to saying, "well, if you don't believe in torturing, don't do it, but don't tell me what to do."

I'm not using this as an argument for or against foie ... it's a meta-argument for the notion that issues like cruelty to animals are a perfectly reasonable candidate for top-down legislation, rather than being left to personal choice.

Even if your evaluation was correct (which it isn't), your parochial understanding of cultural relativism and the historical outcomes are flawed. I could also blame your list of ills on provincialism, and I would be able to associate your position with apartheid et al, but ultimately it would be as fundamentally wrong as your statement.

But I think it is far more interesting that your arguments redirect from PETA's public and stated goals in this foie gras campaign and in their overall campaign to move everyone to a vegan diet. From PETA's own statements, this is not about changing to less cruel animal husbandry practices as your posts characterize. It is about removing the product from our plates -- no matter how it was raised.

While less cruel approaches certainly have merit, it is a huge leap that we can support PETA's bans, improve approaches, and avoid moving toward PETA's total ban on meat and animal products.

I'm curious: Given the stated support for at least some of PETA's goals on this thread, and in some cases praise -- is anyone a member of PETA?

[paulraphael]

Even if your evaluation was correct (which it isn't), your parochial understanding of cultural relativism and the historical outcomes are flawed.

My argument didn't address historical outcomes; it simply noted that "to each his own" moral arguments (ones based on trusting the individual's moral compass on issues that have impact behond the individual) have been used to protest amost every kind of reform. I believe such arguments, in contexts like the current one and the historical ones I mentioned, are logically indefensible.

But I think it is far more interesting that your arguments redirect from PETA's public and stated goals in this foie gras campaign and in their overall campaign to move everyone to a vegan diet. From PETA's own statements, this is not about changing to less cruel animal husbandry practices as your posts characterize. It is about removing the product from our plates -- no matter how it was raised.

Maybe you should reread my posts? I support PETA only in the most general sense (I believe we need stronger rules against animal cruelty). But I'm sharply critical of their actual positions and tactics (both political and rhetorical) on this and most other issues. If my earlier posts didn't make it clear, I'm against banning foie gras. If there are in fact cruel farming practices used in foie production (a question I can't answer with certainty) then I support banning those practices. But there's nothing unique about foie gras informing this sentiment, and I've never suggested that this is PETA's position. Rather, it's one that I'd like to see adopted by an advocacy group.

[Florida]

I think most of us can agree PETA are a bunch of fanatics with an insane cause and the slebs who support them are naive muppets at best.

That said, we can't dismiss the foie gras thing on just those grounds. That would be an ad hominem argument.

Yes .. althogh peta acually stands for a good cause (anti-cruelty). Unfortunately their approach to advocacy is fanatical, and therefore entirely self-defeating. They make enemies with people who could be their friends; they alienate majorities in order to embrace likeminded minorities; they take extreme and unwinable positions rather than reasonable ones that could succeed.

It's too bad. I wish there was an animal rights group that stood for animal husbandry and humane raising of livestock, and that based its positions on reason rather than hysteria.

Personally, I don’t feel PETA is “a bunch of fanatics with an insane cause.” They have a message and they play the media to stretch their limited funds. If anyone is to blame for PETA outrageousness it is our own society. As a society we reward this behavior, but since we also tend to think of ourselves as perpetual victims, we’ll never admit we’re the real reason they act like they do. Madonna, Glenn Beck, Lady Gaga, virtually every douchebag on an MTV program are all, to a certain extent, encouraged to act in their particularly excessive ways. So when PETA does something particularly outrageous (and I don’t think a statement from Kate Winslet is anything even approaching outrageous) we give them attention (and also over-react), while The Human Society, which is also anti-foie gras, gets virtually none.

BTW, there are many groups out there that support animal rights in a more civilized fashion. To a certain degree, even Slow Food’s philosophy addresses these issues:

“Slow Food is good, clean and fair food. We believe that the food we eat should taste good; that it should be produced in a clean way that does not harm the environment, animal welfare or our health; and that food producers should receive fair compensation for their work.”

And I agree with that statement 100%.

[CureCraftKing]

You can't shit on hundreds of years of tradition, not to mention a method of survival at one time. Foie Gras is heavenly and frankly, I think I would rather be a foie gras duck sometimes than a working class grunt that slaves over hot stoves all day to make somebody else rich and barely be able to support my family. I work hard every day of my life just so I can occasionally reward myself with sweet pleasures such as foie gras, sausage, & beer. No bodys taking that away from me !!!!!

[CureCraftKing]

I agree with florida, I think groups like peta just need to be ignored a little more often. We need not let them ruffle our feathers the way i so anxiously want to ruffle the feathers of a nice plump foie bird right now.

[Porthos]

I have never personally afforded foie gras myself but as I have watched this thread I have had some very specific thoughts.

To a large extent it comes down to world views/religious beliefs. PETA members hold a world view that animals are not meant to be eaten. I hold a world view that animals are available for food - BUT - they should be raised and slaughtered humanely. If someone chooses to be vegan for whatever reason I don't feel the need to try and make them eat meat. I want my right to consume meat to be tolerated as well. I do believe it is a right since in the US religious beliefs are not to be regulated by the government.

[paulraphael]

You can't shit on hundreds of years of tradition...

Sure you can. Slavery and ritual sacrifice have been deep-seated traditions in many cultures, often dating back centuries. And predictably, historical entrenchment / tradition has routinely been used as an argument against reform.

I'm NOT trying to draw a parallel between foie gras and slavery ... just rejecting the notion that Tradition can somehow exempt a practice from ethical examination.

[janeer]

Article in today's NYT and the celebrations leading up to the banArticle

[annabelle]

I read this article this morning. It'll just go "underground" the way it did in Chicago when they tried this. People need to learn that Prohibition is the road to Black Markets.

[janeer]

Agree. Will it become even more expensive? Or do you foresee foie gras speakeasys?

[annabelle]

Speakeasys. "Jacques sent me."

[maggiethecat]

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.

[Mjx]

Mixed feelings about this: On the one hand, a ban does seem like an exercise in futility, but on the other hand, a process that causes extensive physical trauma to an animal during feeding is on the disturbing side (e.g. The Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare's Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese), so I can understand people regarding this as inhumane. I'll be honest, though: My views might be different, if I didn't have an 'I can take it or leave it' reaction to foie gras, simply as a food.

[ScoopKW]

I wonder how many Californians who have never tried foie are now going to seek it out now that it's illegal? This may actually increase consumption, as most prohibitions end up doing.

And to quote Tony, "We see worse things committed against human beings on late night pay-per-view."

[Obese-Wan Kenobi]

These Animal Rights Activists/Extremists need to be stopped. They have a dangerous agenda akin to terrorist tendencies. Their end goal is "no meat."

They are now attacking farmers and producers of food. Then they will use these victories in court as precedents to attacking consumers.

If they are allowed to continue under their pretense of "being kind to animals" (which is false because they kill most of the animals they "save"), pretty soon it will be a felony to eat chicken and any meat.

The majority of us omnivores and non-militant vegetarians must stop these extremists before they get too far into the fabric of society and impose their will on us.

Thank you.

[Jenni]

^^

To be fair, I know plenty of non-vegetarians who won't eat foie gras. Many of these are also passionate about free range chicken, "kinder" dairy, etc. It's possible to eat meat and other animal products and still care about the animals having some dignity and comfort.

[Obese-Wan Kenobi]

Jenni,

Yes, of course, I'm all for compassionate care and slaughter as well. As I am sure, many farmers are too. But, compassionate care and slaughter is not enough for these ARA. They want absolute Zero animal use. They don't want us to have a choice. They want to make the choice for us. And to them, it's No Meat.

They are hitting foie gras because it's an easy target. It's easy to paint the foie gras producers as "the bad guys" because of their methods. But that's the only way to make foie gras. They will use that in the future and say "If foie gras is banned, why not cattle, chicken, lamb?, it's all the same"

It's the idealogy of these guys that is dangerous.

Thanks!

[Mjx]

These Animal Rights Activists/Extremists need to be stopped. They have a dangerous agenda akin to terrorist tendencies. Their end goal is "no meat."

They are now attacking farmers and producers of food. Then they will use these victories in court as precedents to attacking consumers.

If they are allowed to continue under their pretense of "being kind to animals" (which is false because they kill most of the animals they "save"), pretty soon it will be a felony to eat chicken and any meat.

The majority of us omnivores and non-militant vegetarians must stop these extremists before they get too far into the fabric of society and impose their will on us.

Thank you.

I don't get the impression that extremist animal rights activists are numerous enough in California to have been able to get this bill passed, without plenty of others agreeing with them; a lot of people are simply disturbed by the process involved in the production of foie gras.

The difference between the production of foie gras and slaughtering animals is that there is no humane way to do the former. So, it comes down to 'Is my right to eat foie gras more important than the right of another species to have a reasonably comfortable existence until I eat it/portions of it?' Evidently, a lot of Californians think not, but I doubt that most had extremist views on this. Just consciences.

[Jenni]

^^^

I think there is a difference between the kind of "animal friendly" beef, chicken, lamb, etc. production that is possible versus foie gras. I don't know much (or anything) about what these animal rights activists you are speaking of are saying on the subject, but I think it's incorrect of you to imply that they are the only ones who are anti-foie.

It's not a black and white issue of meat against no-meat. It's a difficult subject about how animals raised for slaughter are treated.

[annabelle]

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

It's a slippery slope to start messing with people's food. Granted, most or us (me included) don't have foie gras on our shopping list as a staple, but I don't like the idea of someone telling me what to eat. I have a tendency to say "What business is it of yours?" The film I've seen of the ducks and geese (geese are nasty bite-y buggers, btw) raised for foie show them running to be fed. They are being raised for slaughter no matter how "kind" the conditions. Birds throats are quite different than ours and it doesn't hurt them to be force fed. It looks creepy, of course, but they eat gravel, for pete's sake.

[PassionateChefsDie]

I have to say I sort of agree with Obese-Wan Kenobi foie gras production is easy picking and there is far worse going on in the meat factories, teeth clipping, beak de-beaking, tail clipping just an example few and these things can't even be undone.

These practises are done because of bad farming practises and to increase their welfare work that one out! Seriously how many tons are we talking. Whilst I don't believe in the animal welfare rights people are the driving force it is political. Why don't they tackle the other bits of animal welfare how much production of foie gras are we talking vs say pork production.

Personally as a meat eater who has been bought up a vegetarian and is still surrounded by a few I think the real problem is educating the consumer that generally cheap meat means bad practises but in the financial climate of today, it is unlikely to happen.

Here is quite a good paper on the pain of animals and to be fair when I looked in comparison to some other practises and as something that can be undone, foie gras production doesn't even register in comparison. Good welfare makes good meat, bad welfare brings cheap meat and educating the consumer not to think with their wallet isn't going to happen.

Pain in animals(France)

Edit:Meant to be teeth clipping..

Edited October 17, 2011 by PassionateChefsDie (log)

[Obese-Wan Kenobi]

They are hitting foie gras because it's an easy target. It's easy to paint the foie gras producers as "the bad guys" because of their methods. But that's the only way to make foie gras. They will use that in the future and say "If foie gras is banned, why not cattle, chicken, lamb?, it's all the same"

This is an important quote in my argument. Think of the big picture. This is just a precedent because it's easy to get sympathy for this from what I mentioned above.

The un-pastuerized milk for example. They hit on the small things first for justification. Soon, it will be beef tenderloin, chicken tenders, fish eyes, pork trotters... then it will be impossible to stop until there is No Meat. They win.

Thanks.

PS. If you think they are not powerful politically, think again. That's where all their donations go to. To pay lobbyists to pass these laws. All these animal laws have and are being funded by them from tax-free donations by the general public.

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

[Mjx]

. . . . Soon, it will be beef tenderloin, chicken tenders, fish eyes, pork trotters... then it will be impossible to stop until there is No Meat. They win.

Hang on, care to elaborate on the reason you think those particular things ('beef tenderloin, chicken tenders, fish eyes, pork trotters') are particularly likely to be next in line? I'm not seeing this at all.

I have serious doubts that the animal rights lobbies exceed the magnitude of the beef and poultry industries' lobbies.

(Just to be clear, I'm not particularly extreme in my views, but have thought about this subject a lot, I've had to: I was raised a vegetarian, by parents who made this choice for ethical reasons.

I eat meat: I have no cogent argument to support my decision, and if you ask me whether I believe this to be justifiable on rational grounds, I have to say that I don't.

I've also assisted in the slaughter of chickens, which left me shaking for quite a while, and not just because I was a little concerned that my friend might hack off part of my hand, along with the chicken's head, with the not-exactly-super-sharp hatchet. Doing the job humanely would have been less dangerous, as well as kinder. And yes, I think they deserved a baseline of humane slaughter, even though they're gross cannibals, and generally ill-tempered)

[Obese-Wan Kenobi]

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 is 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. And their means justify their end.

Thanks.

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