Foie Gras Ban/the Ethics of Foie Gras

[munchymom]

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.

[DianaB]

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 October 18, 2011 by DianaB (log)

[technogypsy]

And yet another reason on my list of why I turn down jobs in California.

[Florida]

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.

[sheepish]

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.

[ScoopKW]

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.

[ScoopKW]

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.

[Broken English]

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.

[Bruce Earls]

I am a meat eater and oppose any laws that restrict my freedoms to eat meat, animal products, etc., unless such laws address a documented case of abuse, neglect or other malfeasance. That said, the people that disagree with me, unless they are employing weapons that harm people, are not "terrorists". They may be liars, propagandists, deceivers, etc., but unless they are actually harming another person, causing physical damage, or threatening the same, they are not terrorists. I believe it is important to be careful of our words and strategies. If we are alarmist, calling our opponents names they don't deserve, then our message is lessened. If we are the reasonable ones, then our message is strengthened. Instead of calling someone a terrorist, identify the silly parts of their argument (in this case, show video of the animals running to be fed, not the behavior of a tortured animal), and let the viewer see who is the extremist.

[DianaB]

For those interested in learning more about foie gras production in order to inform opinion the following link is to an academic paper published in 2004 when the Council of Europe was reviewing the industry.

http://www.lefoiegras.fr/content/download/173/1441/file/doc_inra.pdf

The focus here is on industrial production rather than the small artisanal units like I visited. While the paper focuses on French production, the vast majority of foie gras originating there, it is written in English.

[Broken English]

I am a meat eater and oppose any laws that restrict my freedoms to eat meat, animal products, etc., unless such laws address a documented case of abuse, neglect or other malfeasance. That said, the people that disagree with me, unless they are employing weapons that harm people, are not "terrorists". They may be liars, propagandists, deceivers, etc., but unless they are actually harming another person, causing physical damage, or threatening the same, they are not terrorists. I believe it is important to be careful of our words and strategies. If we are alarmist, calling our opponents names they don't deserve, then our message is lessened. If we are the reasonable ones, then our message is strengthened. Instead of calling someone a terrorist, identify the silly parts of their argument (in this case, show video of the animals running to be fed, not the behavior of a tortured animal), and let the viewer see who is the extremist.

Read the Bourdain article, where he describes a friend who had his business vandalized, his car doused with acid, and had video of his wife and children at home (along with a threatening message) sent to him, then tell me that they're not terrorists.

[Mjx]

I am a meat eater and oppose any laws that restrict my freedoms to eat meat, animal products, etc., unless such laws address a documented case of abuse, neglect or other malfeasance. That said, the people that disagree with me, unless they are employing weapons that harm people, are not "terrorists". They may be liars, propagandists, deceivers, etc., . . . .

I eat meat, if that even matters, and I too have rights, but I believe that any given right is bound to a responsibility: The right to eat animals seems bound to the responsibility to treat them humanely up to and including when they're slaughtered.

It is by no means clear that the prevailing process of producing foie gras is not abusive, so I don't see that those who disagree with you (i.e. question or oppose the production of foie gras) can be fairly dismissed as 'liars, propagandists, deceivers, etc.' (but thanks for giving the sceptics among us a pass on being terrorists ). Wondering whether force-feeding to an extent that causes the occasional gastric rupture is needlessly abusive is neither dishonest nor extreme, but is the central question in this discussion; all reasonable participants will want to fully examine it, regardless of their position.

[Bruce Earls]

To Broken English, I specifically said "unless they are actually harming another person, causing physical damage, or threatening the same, they are not terrorists". You discuss "business vandalized", "car doused with acid", and "had video of his wife and children at home (along with a threatening message) sent to him". That is causing physical damage x2 and threatening the same x1, all terrorism per my definition. Those are all cases of unacceptable behavior, people that should be locked away for the rest of their natural lives, and overall detriments to society.

Someone proposing the outlawing of a food product is not a terrorist, someone damaging property or threatening violence towards families is. It is important to maintain the distinction, we can find common ground with people of principle that we disagree with, but those that threaten families have no place anywhere in decent society.

To Mjx, I didn't mean that those that disagree with me are liars, etc, but that using those terms was within the bounds of reasonable argument, albeit on the extreme. I meant to make my agrument in the abstract but see that it could easily be understood to be specific. I mean this to be a discussion about how to disagree, not specifically about foie gras.

If I truely believe someone is telling a falsehood, I believe it is ok to call them a liar, say they are a propagandist, etc. However, in the absence of them causing or threatening violence, I do not have the right to call them a terrorist. This was my point. Not that those that disagree with me are such people, but that that is the upper limit of what I can accuse them of.

[Ptipois]

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.

Entirely agreed.

The problem, as is often the case, is the drastic difference between industrial foie gras production (which is cruel and can be harmful to animals; besides it yields a lower-quality product) and traditional-style artisan production, in which I see no trace of cruelty except in the fact that ducks and geese, like all animals raised for food since the beginning of agriculture, are eventually killed.

It really eludes me why anti-foie-gras activists never mention or take in account the biological facts about palmipedes, which are not speculation but reality.

It puzzles me even more to see whole states banning foie gras, period, regardless of the conditions of production which are the real issue. It is simply not true that foie gras production is, per se, cruel to animals. Industrial, large-scale force-feeding is.

Ducks and geese have no "throats", they have crops, i.e. direct connection from the mouth to the digestive system. The upper part of their digestive tube can expand dramatically to swallow large items. A feature that these birds have in common with reptiles and enables waterfowl to swallow whole fish before digesting them.

One of the effects of this anatomical disposition is that ducks and geese have no gag reflex. Their throat is not lined with cartilaginous rings and is very extensible. All that allows that tube-feeding, done in normal, non-intensive conditions, is not traumatic to the animal.

I will only briefly go back into the natural ability of ducks and geese to store energy in their livers in the form of fat before migration, a reflex farmed birds have kept from the time when their ancestors were actually migrating, for everybody normally should know those facts before debating about the supposed cruelty and unnaturalness of foie gras. They can be found in scientific studies and reports on the subject. In the same way, everybody should know that fattened liver in palmipedes is not a "diseased organ". Diseased organs have to be cured or they lead to death. Fattened liver, after migration (or after a period of force-feeding if the bird is not killed), returns to normal, with no trace of extra fat, in a period of about four weeks.

Now for personal experience. I had never seen duck force-feeding until last week when I visited a small artisan duck farm in the Pays basque. The farmer produces foies gras and other duck products of the highest quality, at the end of a carefully thought process that involves the soil the birds are bred on, the food they eat at various stages of their lives, the feeding methods, etc. Aside from the modern-style feeding machine and a home-devised solar-powered corn drying plant, all details of the process are traditional.

Ducks spend the first two weeks of their life in a warm room, on a litter of finely crushed corn cobs (soft, elastic and very absorbent). Then they are left to roam freely in an apple orchard, feeding on grass and insects and fertilizing the ground all the while. In order to prevent attacks from other animals (birds of prey, mustelidae, foxes), they are accompanied by a couple of geese which are the best (and noisiest) protection against predators. The apple trees also protect them from the sun (ducks don't like heat). They are also allowed into a field where they eat young sprouts of various cereals and plants sown by the farmer.

When they have grown larger, they live on a 10-hectare surface of corn fields bordered by a small stream until it is time for the final force-feeding period.

One important point is the breed of ducks. This farmer breeds criaxera ducks, a cross of wild mallard duck and muscovy duck which used to be the traditional local breed. Fifty years ago they could be found at every duck farm in the Pays basque. Now only a few, including this farmer, have decided to revive that beautiful, hardy breed.

The fattening period takes 15 to 18 days. It is done on large elevated cages in which the ducks have plenty of room for moving around. Fans are turned on to keep them cool. I have seen the feeding, which happens twice a day. The feeding machine is strictly calibrated to dispense a precise amount of boiled corn kernels (organic and grown on the farm) to each duck. The farmer recalibrates the quantity every day according to the season, the outside temperature, and the ducks' appetite. He has to be very precise: a little too much and the duck gets sick, not enough and the liver does not grow. We're rather far from stomach-ripping quantities.

Just before the feeding, the ducks looked stiff, attentive, a little tense. Some were panting (from a little excess heat on that day - yes indeed, ducks breathe through their tongue). As the farmer and machine approached, they got a little more lively, but by no means frightened or alarmed. Lowering the tube closer to each duck's head, the farmer gently seizes the head, opens the beak with one finger and plunges the tube into the neck. Each feeding lasts no more than three seconds. Tube is removed and he goes to the next duck. When the tube is removed, the duck looks quite peaceful.

When the feeding is over, the ducks, formerly rather quiet, seem to come alive. They cackle gently, move around, clean their feathers and spread their large wings. The farmer told me that spreading wings is a sign of duck satisfaction.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Ptipois (log)

[Broken English]

I get what you mean, and I agree, those opposing foie are not terrorists, it's those that go further. It just seemed as though you were defending them, but upon re-reading your post I see that I just misinterpreted. I blame my iPhone's small screen, either that or I should just stop getting distracted with my modernist cuisine books I'm browsing while reading the forum. *red face*

[Simon_S]

Thank you Ptipois. I don't doubt that some foie gras producers treat their ducks horrifically, but as you pointed out, that doesn't mean foie gras production is cruel per se. I don't know for sure that the production *isn't* cruel, but I'm confident that the reasons such bans go through is because that vast majority of people don't know anything about duck and goose physiology. As mentioned above, lots of people have never eaten foie gras and know very little about it, so it's easy to tag it as an expensive, cruel food (with snooty French associations) that only rich assholes eat. I'm not surprised that popular opinion favours a ban without questioning what's going on.

If foie gras is banned because production is proved to cause the intense suffering that some believe it does, then that's one thing. If foie gras is banned because of sheer ignorance coupled with a sense of reverse snobbishness, that's something else entirely.

I must admit, the first time I plucked and drew a wild mallard and came face-to-face with a full crop, it was a bit of a revelation.

[Jenni]

This will be my final take on the issue as I do not wish to continuing arguing the same points.

Here is my take on the issue:

*It is not simply a case of vegetarians vs meat eaters. Some meat eaters do not agree with foie gras and certain other animal products either. There are vegetarians and vegans who really don't give a crap what other people eat. There are also people who really don't know where they stand on the issue but probably don't care too much either way.

*There are bigoted idiots amongst vegetarians and meat eaters. Both are very annoying and I do not agree with either.

*As mentioned, some vegetarians, such as myself, may not personally agree with foie gras production but do not really feel comfortable with a ban. It's easy to see why foie gras is considered particularly cruel, but then so is the practice of keeping battery chickens, etc. Personally I would rather that there was a focus on improving the welfare of all animals reared for consumption and an increase in awareness of where food comes from rather than banning of a few products here and there. Also, I do not think the ban will necessarily be particularly effective.

*A large number of people clearly felt strongly against foie gras and that is why the law has been passed. It's a shame that it leaves some people unhappy but that's how it works. Perhaps the law will be overturned at some point; it seems moderately likely to me.

To summarise, there's no need to be all "them and us" about the issue. Democracy is a funny old thing and sometimes laws get passed that we don't all agree with.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Jenni (log)

[Mjx]

. . . . 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. . . .

Ducks don't breathe with their tongues (see any reliable source regarding avian respiration, e.g. , S. Girling 2003 Veterinary nursing of exotic pets p. 11), but since the tube isn't inserted into the trachea (which would be pointless, since the food would go into the lungs, killing them instantly the first time round), this isn't relevant. I deliberately used 'inserted' rather than 'shoved', by the way, since I have no idea of how much force is used in the proces, and was trying to stick with neutral terms.

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.

You know, I'm with Jenni, and I'm folding after this, too, for the simple reason that no matter what we say, those of us who are simply questioning the production foie gras, and suggesting that there might be grounds for concern, are being lumped with those who are demanding it be banned.

There aren't just two sides.

Between the extremes of 'I have the right to eat what I want, sod the consequences', and 'If you consume products derived from our precious fellow non-humans, you are exploitive, and must be stopped from so doing by any means necessary' there is a huge middle ground comprising plenty of reasonable people who find certain food production methods ethically questionable, but do not believe that bans are the way to go. Several have participated in this discussion, in fact.

But even raising the question of the ethics of foie gras production seems to be regarded as evidence, or at least support of animal-rights extremism.

It isn't possible to have a discussion, when one side is asking 'Shouldn't we be looking into the ethics of foie gras production?', while the other is responding with 'You're stripping me of my right eat foie gras, and will soon be taking my steak and ham, too'. This isn't even the same discussion.

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. . . .

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

I understood that this ban was put to a vote, correct me if I'm wrong. It's really unlikely that there are enough extremists in California to make for enough votes to carry this; most who voted were almost certainly opposed, but not extreme. They voted as much for what they believed right for them, as for anyone else. Same as any vote. And yeh, it's a fairly pointless bill, which anyone capable of looking ahead would have to seen is not going to improve foie gras production standards over the long term.

('Us'? I thought you live in Nevada.)

[Ashen]

I am not so confident in the electorate of California these days to make an informed decision after what happened with Prop 8. Kneejerk judgements based on inflamed propoganda about morals and ethics seems to be a recurring theme in my observation.

While I will conceed there may be maltreatment of geese or ducks on some foie gras farms. A ban bascially is a statement that there is no way to do it that is not mistreatment. I think they should have to prove this ,and that any way of farming foie gras is out of line with common practices in other animal husbandry industries. Any farms that don't follow proper procedures could be dealt with , without the need for a prohibition on all foie gras.

this process described in the report mjx linked to before seems to be very efficient and demonstrates care for welfare of the birds.

"In larger units, pneumatic devices are used. They allow the farm worker to deliver the same quantity of food in 2-3 seconds. Such a system is connected through a computer which helps to determine the amount of food to deliver to each bird on the basis of the body weight

and the amount of food which was delivered during the preceding meals"

Edited October 19, 2011 by Ashen (log)

[Florida]

California S.B. No. 1520 was introduced to the California Legislature by State Senator John Burton in 2004. It passed the legislature, but I do not believe it was ever put to a public vote. The law was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The law itself does not specifically ban foie gras, but rather the practice of force feeding birds and any products resulting from birds which have been force-fed. The law was given an 8-year grace period so that methods could be developed that would produce foie gras without the necessity of force-feeding.

Technically, foie gras will still be legal in California, provided it comes from a bird that has not "consume[d] more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily."

The law was supported by a number of groups including the Humane Society of the United States, Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Protection and Rescue League, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

If anyone wants to actually read the law: http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/hsc/25980-25984.html

I find it terribly ironic that the same people who criticize the ban feel it necessary to smear their opponents with terms of "terrorist" and entirely unrelated allegories from half way across the country. The HSUS and the ASPCA are both very well established organizations and neither organization could possibly be considered "a terrorist organization." I give credit to Bruce Earls for realizing this himself. I also find it ironic that many of the people criticizing the law haven't even read it and their criticizims are nothing more than unfounded conjecture.

I would further note that there are many, many laws on the books that certain people don't agree with. That's just the nature of laws. However, from everything that I can find, it does appear the majority of the population feels that the force feeding of animals should be banned.

I'd also like to know why none of the foie defenders are not up in arms concerning horse meat. It isn't legal anywhere in the US, yet not a peep.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Florida (log)

[annabelle]

For those interested in learning more about foie gras production in order to inform opinion the following link is to an academic paper published in 2004 when the Council of Europe was reviewing the industry.

http://www.lefoiegras.fr/content/download/173/1441/file/doc_inra.pdf

The focus here is on industrial production rather than the small artisanal units like I visited. While the paper focuses on French production, the vast majority of foie gras originating there, it is written in English.

Thank you for your perspective, DianaB, and especially for all of the information on French technique of foie gras production.

[ScoopKW]

Ducks don't breathe with their tongues (see any reliable source regarding avian respiration, e.g. , S. Girling 2003 Veterinary nursing of exotic pets p. 11), but since the tube isn't inserted into the trachea (which would be pointless, since the food would go into the lungs, killing them instantly the first time round), this isn't relevant. I deliberately used 'inserted' rather than 'shoved', by the way, since I have no idea of how much force is used in the proces, and was trying to stick with neutral terms.

('Us'? I thought you live in Nevada.)

From "The Foie Gras Wars" by Marc Caro:

"Imagine if somebody put a pipe down your throat and filled you up with food. You would be gagging, falling over. But ducks actually breathe through the center of their tongue."

As for where I live, you are correct. I live in Nevada. I regularly vacation in California. So the ban does affect me, just a little.

And as for the other recent posts (I really dislike the quoting feature here, it takes the wisdom of Solomon to multi-quote several embedded quotes):

1) I am all for the production and sale of horse meat. Horse tastes amazing.

2) I am also all for the production and sale of unpasteurized, non-homogenized milk.

I am against banning food, except in the case of threatened animals like abalone, chilean sea bass and conch. And even then, we can import these animals from places where they AREN'T threatened, if that's an option.

As for "reasonable discussion on the ethics, without being branded as terrorists" -- look up at the topic title. It says, "Farewell to Foie Gras" not "Let's question the ethics and morality of Foie."

I'm trying to discuss the BAN, not the practice. The vegetarians are falling over themselves trying to explain why they're against the practice. But not a word on the subject of banning food. Perhaps because banning food is akin to banning books.

My point is, was, and always will be -- If you don't like it, don't buy it. Show your distaste of foie by not purchasing it. But don't make the choice for me.

[ScoopKW]

The law was supported by a number of groups including the Humane Society of the United States, Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Protection and Rescue League, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

If anyone wants to actually read the law: http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/hsc/25980-25984.html

I find it terribly ironic that the same people who criticize the ban feel it necessary to smear their opponents with terms of "terrorist" and entirely unrelated allegories from half way across the country. The HSUS and the ASPCA are both very well established organizations and neither organization could possibly be considered "a terrorist organization." I give credit to Bruce Earls for realizing this himself. I also find it ironic that many of the people criticizing the law haven't even read it and their criticizims are nothing more than unfounded conjecture.

From the same interview with Marc Caro, author of "The Foie Gras Wars"

Do you think the ultimate goal of the anti-foie gras movement is to turn everyone vegetarian?

That's their dream. The people running the Humane Society and PETA are vegans and they don't believe in exploiting animals for human uses. Period. It's not like most of these people have illusions that we're about to become a vegan country. But they can make their little dents over time in a long-ranging battle. It's a bigger issue than just people fighting over duck livers.

[andiesenji]

I wrote the governor prior to his signing the bill, pointing out that he had recently enjoyed a meal that included foie gras and it was hypocritical of him to sign it and cause hardship to the producers in California when there was no ban on the importation of this product.

The ban, like many other ideal-driven campaigns by people who want to tell others how to live, is not going to stop people from buying and consuming foie gras. It is just going to impact the producers.

I've had several face-to-face confrontations with PETA members and have most often found them to be somewhat hysterical and never willing to listen to a coherent, reasonable counter to their claims. They shout down anyone who attempts to voice a dissenting opinion.

It's virtually impossible to deal with unreasonable people who refuse to listen to other opinions.

[Florida]

I'm trying to discuss the BAN, not the practice. The vegetarians are falling over themselves trying to explain why they're against the practice. But not a word on the subject of banning food. Perhaps because banning food is akin to banning books.

Read the law. The law bans the practice, not the foie gras itself. If you want to "discuss the BAN," none exists to discuss.