Foie Gras Ban/the Ethics of Foie Gras

[Carrot Top]

would you want to eat meat from an animal that had been largely fed quarter pounders??? 

←

Eh.

They'd probably need a lot of massaging or something, first - don't cha think?

[slkinsey]

Not to get all etymylogical, but a scan of on-line definitions confirms my thought that anthropomorphism exists largely metaphorically, rhetorically and, of course, theologically (think of all those river gods).  The "personality" part of your definition.  Thus my ascribing of human-like pain to an animal, based as it is on (however flawed) observation or logic, is not the result of a Will To Anthropomorphize.

What the heck, let's get a little etymological. A nice article on Wikipedia has this to say:

<blockquote>Anthropomorphism, a form of personification (applying human or animal qualities to inanimate objects) and similar to prosopopoeia (adopting the persona of another person), is the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects, or natural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, and unseen or unknown authors of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphosis.</blockquote>

I would say that the key part of this is "the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings" -- which is what I think we are talking about here. In particular, "the attribution to the duck of a human being's reactions with respect to being raised for foie gras." This is along the lines of assertions such as "it causes ducks tremendous stress to be fed by gavage and is therefore cruel" or "it hurts the ducks to have a tube put in their throats" which are based on our thoughts about what it would be like to experience those things ourselves as human beings with human psychology and human physiology. But again, as long as we know what we're talking about, I guess it doesn't matter what we call it.

You say that pain is not a neurological phenomenon, and then go on to talk about neurons.  Odd, that.  You also discuss the similarities of human beings and ducks without noting any differences which might account for different perceptions of pain -- or shall we call it "pain."  It appears that the stimili how can stimuli not be physiological) reach both the human brain and the duck brain through very similar paths, where do they diverge and how do we know?

You are the one who first made the point that you suspect the question as to whether geese feel pain and whether they feel it during foie gras production is a question of "biology, not literature." It is a question of psychology as to whether and how they experience pain, because the perception of pain has to do with how various neurological signals are processed by the brain. For example, take the lobster: we know that lobsters will react to some stimuli that would be processed as "painful" by humans. However, it happens to be the case that a lobster's neurological makeup is simply not complex enough to create the psychological condition we know as "pain." A lobster who has his claw torn off experiences something... but it is not pain.

Now, I am not suggesting that duck neurophysiology and psychology are so simple or different that ducks do not experience pain (although I do think it is different from the way humans experience pain). What I am suggesting is that we need to consider the vast differences between ducks and humans before making judgments as to what ducks might feel in certain circumstances, and that includes pain and psychological distress. I would suggest that there are things that are perceived as painful and psychologically disturbing for humans that are perceived and processed very differently by lower animals with less complex psychology and different physiology.

But perhaps more important than the psychology is the physiology. As has been brought up a zillion times in previous discussions on gavage, the physiology of a goose or duck esophagus is radically different from the esophagus of a human -- it is hard and calcified and adapted to far different materials. This is partly because ducks and geese do not have teeth and often pass hard, sharp and relatively large objects down their esophagi. Indeed, ducks and geese are known to swallow things that would be damaging and dare I say painful to a human esophagus. Given the sort of things that ducks and geese pass down their esophagi without a second's hesitation, one is led to the conclusion that they are drastically different from humans with respect to situations that will cause them to perceive pain associated with the esophagus. This is due to a mixture of physiology (the composition of the esophagus), neurophysiology (a duck esophagus is not innervated the way a human esophagus is) and psychology (ducks are comfortable having things in their esophagi that human beings are not).

To proceed from the assumption that ducks and geese are fundamentally similar to humans in this way is a failure to account for these wide differences.

I'm open to suggestion, but I'm very skeptical of people who have never talked to a duck, making too many comments about what ducks do and do not feel. There's a certain "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes," quality to that type of argument. 

Well, I'll tell you what I'm skeptical of. I'm skeptical of the logical argument that goes like this: "1. If someone put a tube down my throat and decanted extra food into my stomach every day, I bet it would really hurt and I bet it would cause me a lot of psychological distress. 2. I conclude from 1 that it must be the same for ducks and geese. 3. Due to 1 and 2 above, I conclude that this practice is causing pain and psychological distress to ducks and geese. 4. This practice is horribly inhumane and must be stopped!" The problem is right there in number 2 above. Not only do we have no reason, other than what I will call anthropomorphization, to make the conclusion reached in number 2, but we have many reasons to make a very different conclusion.

Whether or not gavage is particulalry painful is a different argument. I've heard a lot assertions on either side, I just haven't seen much proof.  I'd be curious to find the results of the duck stress test (or volunteer to evaluate one).

What I have read is that stress leads to increased production of epinephrine, which in turn leads to veiny, lower quality foie gras.

It is quite clear to me that there are parts of the foie gras process that can be cruel and inhumane. I'm simply not convinced that it necessarily has to be that way -- and I think a reasonable line may be drawn by those who do not oppose all domestication and slaughter of animals for human consumption. When I see that a place like Hudson Valley Foie Gras uses the most modern techniques, has low mortality and produces a high percentage of A grade foie gras, and when I read reports (several of them posted in these forums) from unbiased visitors to the effect that the ducks there didn't "seem stressed," it makes it hard to believe that the ducks there are being tortured on a daily basis.

[FoodMan]

So, shouldn't we really draw a distinction between the process of producing Foie Gras istelf (ie force feeding) and the "cruel" domestication of animals in general? If the geese or ducks live a good life, with low mortalitly rates and in spacious coops and produce a fine piece of liver why would someone attack their production as opposed to a piece of $0.99/lb of Tyson chicken?

What I am trying to say is, foie gras in itself is not the problem here. It's the way the animal is raised, whether it is a goose for foie, a chicken for chicken fingers or a pig for bacon. The only reason as far as I could tell Foie Gras is under attack has already been pointed out. They are small producers, catering to a small part of the market, with not enough resources for their own defense like a chicken producing conglomerate would have.

[docsconz]

slkinsey, I agree with everything you have said, except when you said

you make a mistake in assuming that pain is a physiological or neurological phenomenon, which it is not. It is a psychological phenomenon.

This statement is grossly untrue. Pain is very difinately physiological and neurological even as there is also a psychological component to it. In my job I eliminate pain using approaches that have very specific effects on people's neurologic physiology. Whenever I do a nerve block, I eliminate the sensation of pain (though not necessarily the stimulus) by interrupting the neurophysiologic pathway of the stimulus. Just because the ultimate processing of the sensation of pain occurs in the CNS doesn't mean that the process is purely psychological.

That being said, I agree that the anatomy and physiology of ducks and geese are sufficiently different than that of humans and the reasons you pointed out that the perception of careful gavage to these animals as painful is a conclusion based on anthropomorphism and not on logic.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

What I am trying to say is, foie gras in itself is not the problem here. It's the way the animal is raised, whether it is a goose for foie, a chicken for chicken fingers or a pig for bacon.  The only reason as far as I could tell Foie Gras is under attack has already been pointed out. They are small producers, catering to a small part of the market, with not enough resources for their own defense like a chicken producing conglomerate would have.

←

Exactly. (You said it better than I, and better than the article.) The writer also makes the point that some say the larger agenda is veganism for all. You know, because it's better for us physically and morally. Or so they say. Whoever the hell they are!

[docsconz]

The article in question actually showed a fairly balanced approach to the question. That the ultimate conclusion of the author was indecisive was, however, IMO a copout. This was probably because the magazine wished not to offend either camp.

←

Maybe, maybe not. I'm inclined to believe that the author looked at the issue carefully, and just couldn't come down on one side or another. Michael Saunders is similarly undecided in his account of foie gras production in From Here You Can't See Paris. And people have complained to me that they wish my foie gras piece had ended on a decisive note. I held off on the last paragraph because I knew people would expect some sort of decision. Finally, I couldn't make one and said so. While you can buy cows that have been raised humanely, etc., you can't buy foie gras made without force feeding the birds, so it is, in that respect, different enough to stay gray for me.

So I don't think of it as a cop-out. But the assumption that a neutral stance equates to waffling is a common one.

←

It is certainly not inconceivable that theauthor of this piece truly is unable to draw a decisive conclusion. I believe, however, that given the strong feelings that this subject arouses, that even if he had a conclusion on either side of the argument, the magazine likely would have tempered it to the degree published anyway simply to avoid the possibility of alienating parts of its constituency.

[slkinsey]

I think we're maybe not understanding each other, doc. I think it goes like this:

1. Nerves send signal to brain

2. Brain interprets these signals and assigns quality "pain."

You don't usually have 2 without 1, of course. This is what you do when you interrupt the neurophysiologic pathway of the stimulus. But would you not agree that it is possible to have 1 without 2 -- to have a stimulus that might produce the sensation of pain but to not have the actual pain? Various meditation techniques, I think, demonstrate that this is true.

I didn't make up this assertion, of course. The idea that pain takes place in the brain is the whole premise behind gate control.

[docsconz]

I think we're maybe not understanding each other, doc.  I think it goes like this:

1. Nerves send signal to brain

2. Brain interprets these signals and assigns quality "pain."

You can't have 2 without 1, of course.  This is what you do when you interrupt the neurophysiologic pathway of the stimulus.  But would you not agree that it is possible to have 1 without 2 -- to have a stimulus that might produce the sensation of pain but to not have the actual pain?  Various meditation techniques, I think, demonstrate that this is true.

I didn't make up this assertion, of course.  The idea that pain takes place in the brain is the whole premise behind gate control.

←

The only point I am arguing is your use of the word "psychological" and the denial of physiological and neurological. While in either case "it might all be in one's head", so to speak, the distinction is an important one. That there are situations in which the response to pain is unusually well controlled using "psychological" techniques is certainly true. That there isn't an underlying physiologic explanation is another question entirely. That the physiology may not be very well understood at this time does not mean that it is not present.

[slkinsey]

Well, yes. I suppose I should say that the perception "this is pain" is a psychological interpretation of (usually) neurological signals, which in turn are (usually) generated by physiological stimuli. And, of course, there is the fact that psychology and consciousness are artifacts of neurological activity.

I was more speaking to the point that a given stimulus leading to a given neurological signal does not necessarily equal the same interpretation (of, in this case, pain) in all organisms. As previously explained, I don't think one could describe a lobster as experiencing pain.

[Bill Miller]

No, personally I can not think of one.

But on the other hand, I think it is just as cruel and hurtful (inhumane?) to see those human beings that inhabit McDonaldland (hmmm. . .Old McDonald had a farm ee ii eii o) shovelling huge double burgers jumbo fries and supersize sodas down their gullets apparently in search of the goal of their own bodies becoming every bit as engorged as any lovely piece of foie gras.

What a waste. After all, nobody bothers to make a fine meal out of them.

←

You forget Hanable. Fava beans.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Bill Miller (log)

[glossyp]

Exactly.  (You said it better than I, and better than the article.)  The writer also makes the point that some say the larger agenda is veganism for all.  You know, because it's better for us physically and morally. Or so they say. Whoever the hell they are!

←

Well, at least one of the whoever is Farm Sanctuary. I was doing some research about Farm Sanctuary, whose local respresentative has convinced state representative, Chris Halford of Maui, to introduce legislation banning the production of foie gras in Hawaii. Not surprisingly, there is no one producing foie gras here nor is there anyone planning to do so; the real goal is to ban the sell of foie gras. I spoke with Farm Sanctuary's national campaign director, Meghan Beeby, from her office in their headquarters in upstate New York. I asked her if they promoted a vegetarian lifestyle and she answered, "We promote a vegan lifestyle." So it would appear that converting one and all to veganism is the goal of at least this group.

Edited for clarity.

Edited February 16, 2006 by glossyp (log)

[Pan]

If the decision as to moral or ethical finalities comes down to a measurement of anthropomorphism as deductive reasoning, then probably one should bring in the discussion of plants, too.

There are several biology professors I know who can argue well and long that plants (even the ones we eat) feel pain.

Based on things like stress tests, you know.

Personally my own viewpoint turns more often to seeing people who resemble animals (whatever that word would be)  or alternately, plants - (people and cornstalks always seem a good comparison to me) in many ways, not in seeing animals who resemble people.

Seems a bit self-involved, this anthropomorphism idea.

←

I think anyone who's had mammals as pets perceives some similarities between their pets and human beings, including similarities is their reactions to hunger and pain. Pets can't tell us in words what they're thinking, but we can infer things from their behavior. Having raised some chickens, I also think it's pretty evident that they feel pain, so that, for example, I oppose unnecessary vivisection of chickens, if anyone were doing that.

But if we're going to anthropomorphise geese, we might as well face the fact that there are many human beings who voluntarily fatten themselves up to extreme degrees and some of them might find the process pleasurable...

[Carrot Top]

I guess my point in that rather sarcastic post that I made was to flip the thinking on things over (simply for the exercise of it) and also to attempt to extend the thought process to include some of the ways that we as humans, perhaps do things to ourselves that might be perceived as being hurtful as what we might do to geese. In this discussion, that focus was on the idea of stuffing food into a live thing as being hurtful (or not).

Of course, though, humans do have the choice of what they do and finally the geese do not.

It was the line that was being drawn that was defining humans as being somehow hurtful to animals in raising geese for food in this manner that disturbed me - my point was that humans have a way of doing whatever things they do to *themselves* as well as to other creatures.

Just trying to clear the name of the human race by showing its soft underbelly.

No idea why I wanted to do this, ( ) except that to me, when attempting to decide questions that have a moral or ethical part to them, I try to look at the question from each and every angle I can find before finally attempting to come up with an answer that I can live with more than not.

[Bux]

I have great respect for the concept that it's unethical to kill a living thing simply to eat. . .

←

You mean there is a way to feed yourself without killing living things?

←

It's impossible to live without killing bacteria, but if we limit this to visible creatures, it probably is possible to eat without killing any, if you restrict yourself to dairy, fruits and seeds (no plant killing), and you could throw in unfertilized eggs. You could also eat certain kinds of leaves without killing the plant. For example, I used to pick young leaves off cashew trees, and it didn't seem to do any damage to the trees, because there were plenty of older leaves and new leaves grew quickly.

←

Stone crabs grow new claws. I'm not sure they don't feel pain when a limb is ripped off, but it seems preferable to death, even for a fowl that's never been force fed.

[Bux]

No, personally I can not think of one.

But on the other hand, I think it is just as cruel and hurtful (inhumane?) to see those human beings that inhabit McDonaldland (hmmm. . .Old McDonald had a farm ee ii eii o) shovelling huge double burgers jumbo fries and supersize sodas down their gullets apparently in search of the goal of their own bodies becoming every bit as engorged as any lovely piece of foie gras.

What a waste. After all, nobody bothers to make a fine meal out of them.

←

would you want to eat meat from an animal that had been largely fed quarter pounders???

←

That's not a comforting thought. For one thing it means that when the URO's finally land, I may be considered one one of the more organically raised livestock earth has to offer. Grizzly bears, lions, tigers and certain mosquitoes remind me to be wary of claiming to be at the top of the food chain.

[Bux]

This is what happens when humans transfer their own feelings and experiences onto animals, mistakenly assuming them to be the same.

My son (a doctoral candidate in microbiology) assures me that the digestive system of waterfowl is entirely different from our own. Due to the fibrous nature of their diets, they have evolved a much tougher and less sensitive tract (consider the texture of gizzards) making it highly unlikely that they truly feel any discomfort during the feeding process.

Just my two cents.

←

That's the most interesting argument I've heard yet and certainly the most likely to get someone to shut up about this topic...... Thanks for posting!!!!

←

At least once, and probably more often than that, I've quoted my web site in regard to the physiology of water fowl. In particular, I've noted that "Ducks naturally swallow grit and stones. The esophagus of a duck is lined with fibrous protein cells that resemble bristles and does not bear comparison to that of a human. The activists attempts at anthropomorphism are understandable when the intent is propaganda, not enlightenment."

Somewhere I read that the bristles are composed of a material much like finger nails. Now stick that in that in your throat for comfort. It really seems that simply have the condition of being a goose is inhumane.

[Bux]

I have great respect for the concept that it's unethical to kill a living thing simply to eat. . .

←

You mean there is a way to feed yourself without killing living things?

←

Not necessarily, but there's honor in sacrificing oneself, or taking the bullet so a comrade can live. hara-kiri, or seppuku, is an honored tradition. No, I'm not offering to commit hara-kiri, although perhaps if I had more respect for life, I might. All I'm saying is that I can respect a man who thinks an ant's life is as valuable as his own. At the moment, the only reason I wouldn't order foie gras might be that I trusted the restaurant to prepare something more interesting, or that I didn't trust the restaurant enough for them to prepare foie gras.

[Rebecca263]

...I believe one of the Fruitarian subgroups embraces that diet because the consume only food that would have naturally fallen from the tree without harming it.  There is, I believe, some controversy about grain, given the threshing thing.

FRUIT IS FREEDOM

Tord Åredal 1996...

Why not just become a BREATHARIAN? ( As in the book Survival Into The 21st Century by Viktor Kulviskas) or HERE>Just Breathe!

Personally, I've said it many times, I have seen our insides, and I've seen my own teeth. I believe that regardless of theology questions, we're omnivores. I live accordingly. You may make your own choice. For as long as it's legal to, that is. Soylent green may come to pass.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

...I believe one of the Fruitarian subgroups embraces that diet because the consume only food that would have naturally fallen from the tree without harming it.  There is, I believe, some controversy about grain, given the threshing thing.

FRUIT IS FREEDOM

Tord Åredal 1996...

Why not just become a BREATHARIAN? ( As in the book Survival Into The 21st Century by Viktor Kulviskas) or HERE>Just Breathe!

Personally, I've said it many times, I have seen our insides, and I've seen my own teeth. I believe that regardless of theology questions, we're omnivores. I live accordingly. You may make your own choice. For as long as it's legal to, that is. Soylent green may come to pass.

←

GREAT Charlton Heston, Rebecca! And really, is there anyone who didn't fall down laughing at the Fruitarian in "Notting Hill?" And this Breatharian thing is a joke, right? Please?

[Carrot Top]

Several thoughts about foie gras ran through my mind today.

The first is of its history. Where did it come from, and what was the original intent of the people who produced this product?

There is proof that the idea of force-feeding geese was known as long ago as Ancient Roman times - and even perhaps earlier.

It would seem to me, that then as today - the original intent of the producer was to practice good animal husbandry. It would be interesting to know of how it was "discovered" that a goose's liver was a most exquisite thing to dine upon when enlarged by force-feeding the goose. It would seem to me that as with most things "discovered" in long-ago days that this was not found to be so by lab tests but more likely by some gluttonous goose with a habit of overeating. Gus the Gluttonous Goose. (It has been known to happen.)

Farmers then, as today (unless they are a conglomerate) were not generally known to be among the wealthy. Careful husbandry (care - with an overlying hint of thrift attached to it) was the only way they might survive well - if they survived well at all.

To the farmer, a goose is a product.

Now the moral question must be raised as to whether an animal has the same rights to freedom as any human being, and that is something that each person must answer for themselves. . . but to my mind - well.

It used to be that when I thought of chickens my mind raced to The Little Red Hen. How cute! How sweet! A little hen, anthropomorphized into a quite sane and literate teller of How To Best Live Life. I loved chickens. Till I visited my first chicken farm.

It was there that I discovered that most chickens did not have the same innate and marvellous intelligence of the hen I loved - and indeed they stunk to high heavens and they tried to bite me.

Cows. Yes - there were always the beautiful cows out in the fields, decorating the landscape so nicely.

Visit one. It most likely will try to step on you, and will be quite difficult to get six hundred pounds of Daisy off your foot.

Lambs are adorable. But ask any farmer how much trouble a young male lamb can cause just because he is himself.

My final conclusion came to be that most animals (unless they are wily enough to pretend to want to be happy-go-lucky companions to the wonder that is the human race) are best raised to be eaten. For if they had their chance, I have no doubt at all that they would eat us.

But back to the idea of husbandry. The production of foie gras is the practice of good animal husbandry at its highest level. Here is a goose. This goose can provide a roast for dinner OR it can provide foie gras and perhaps later a nice braise. The notion of thrift, careful and thoughtful management of the natural resources that we as human beings consider ourselves to be the stewards of in this world, is drawn well in the example of foie gras production.

And thrift, itself, when practiced in this manner, is a classical virtue. It ties together a sense of care for what has been provided for us with a living reality of care shown through husbandry.

That foie gras is a luxury item perhaps causes some of the anger that is attached to it. It reeks of conspicuous consumption - there is a taint of lack of care given to the animal - there is a sense of a product being made for the wealthy while putting a poor animal at risk of pain in the process.

Yet there is no proof that the animal suffers and indeed there is evidence that these geese enjoy their feedings when properly done as any good working farmer should know how to - and as the production of foie gras is monitored by governmental agencies it probably behooves farmers to know how to do it in the right manner.

Foie gras, besides being something delicious to eat (to my mind) finally, exemplifies a virtue, not a sin. So I will thank the goose (in my mind) and be grateful to the farmers of all times past for being able stewards of many good things, and will sit down with grace intended to dine upon it.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carolyn Tillie]

Several thoughts about foie gras ran through my mind today.

The first is of its history. Where did it come from, and what was the original intent of the people who produced this product?

There is proof that the idea of force-feeding geese was known as long ago as Ancient Roman times - and even perhaps earlier.

←

Indeed, older... there Egyptian heiroglyphs depicting the force-feeding of geese that pre-date the Ancient Romans by several thousand years.

[hjshorter]

Whatever

Edited February 19, 2006 by hjshorter (log)

[Pan]

[...]Cows. Yes - there were always the beautiful cows out in the fields, decorating the landscape so nicely.

Visit one. It most likely will try to step on you, and will be quite difficult to get six hundred pounds of Daisy off your foot.[...]

←

A friend of mine in Malaysia has what I guess we could call a pet bull. She lives in a village where the bull can roam around and graze, and she feeds him starfruit (not expensive locally). He was friendly and let me pet and pat him, and he did not show any inclination to butt me or step on my feet. So I have to suggest that the way animals behave has a lot to do with how they are treated by their owners.

[Carrot Top]

Or it could just be me they didn't like.

You're from Manhattan.

I was from Brooklyn. Brooklyn Heights, to be exact - but what does a cow know?

[Rebecca263]

So we can all have a good laugh about "Fruitarians" but it's a real religious belief.

←

Um, being a FRUITARIAN is NOT a religious belief, it is a LIFESTYLE choiceWhat is Fruitarianism?, and it is completely separate from being a Jain. I have known both, and they are worlds apart. Jains are not fruitarian, they eat vegetables and grains, and many of them eat roots, too. I don't think that the Jain Dharmic way has anything to do with people laughing at Fruitarians. Let me reiterate, Fruitarianism is NOT a religion.