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

Sign in to follow this  
Osnav

Trotter and Tramonto square off over Foie Gras

Recommended Posts

The gossip I have heard is that Mayor Daley did indeed engineer the delay. Hizzonor is very well traveled and is very knowledgable about food and wine and enjoys his foie gras!

I read back through all the foie gras posts, back to Charlie Trotter's original statement. Has anyone heard one word from Charlie - as opposed to the city of Chicago - since the Molotov cocktails started being thrown?

Also, something about the Jewish/Muslim pork-handling analogy bothers me. While my husband, an EXTREMELY secular Jew (hey, he eats ham and is married to shiksa - that should tell you something) would gladly wrassle a wild boar if the opportunity arose, most observant Jews I know WOULD NOT TOUCH a piece of pork if they are of the persuasion that it is unclean. Under any circumstances. I don't know of any Jewish person who, if he subscribes totally to the dictum of pork being unclean, would sell it, handle it, cook it or even transport a piece over to a friend's house from another friend. My husband's sister's mother-in-law, while producing an equally pork-loving son, is herself Orthodox, which means none of the family cooks can include any non-kosher ingredient (pork or shellfish) in any recipe for any dinner at which she is a guest. So . . . just as an aside . . . does anyone actually know of a case in which an observant Jew is regularly handling pork (or shellfish) as part of his food service industry job? Because all the ones I know would never take such a job in the first place. Or quit, if they suddenly got confronted with a lobster.

Inquiring Shiksas Wanna Know :hmmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirming what at least a few of us suspected in the first place, Alderman Joe Moore reveals his true agenda in a piece which was published yesterday at Bloomberg.com:

``One chef told me he sells it to less than 10 percent of his customers,'' Moore says. ``It's a luxury for the wealthy.''

Foie Gras Debate Splits Chicago as Chef, Mayor Duel Over Ducks

=R=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no surprises there. It is quite a typical, yet hidden, agenda.

I will say one thing: all this ridiculousness (thank you Martha for that wonderful phrase) has only compelled me to celebrate and promote the consumption of foie gras as much as humanly possible. Perhaps I'll make t-shirts.

I also can't help but feel shock that the article mentions -- in passing -- that restaurants are being vandalized. Should this not be a significant news item in and of itself? Why is THAT not being condemned? We can harm property, and humans, but lay off the ducks!!

:hmmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also can't help but feel shock that the article mentions -- in passing -- that restaurants are being vandalized. Should this not be a significant news item in and of itself? Why is THAT not being condemned? We can harm property, and humans, but lay off the ducks!!

Jennifer, surely you understand that for some folks, how humans treat animals is far more important than how they treat other humans.

=R=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also can't help but feel shock that the article mentions -- in passing -- that restaurants are being vandalized. Should this not be a significant news item in and of itself? Why is THAT not being condemned? We can harm property, and humans, but lay off the ducks!!

Jennifer, surely you understand that for some folks, how humans treat animals is far more important than how they treat other humans.

=R=

You sure said a mouthful there Ronnie. Unfortunate but true.

How about t-shirts that say "Got foie?" or "foie gras, parles vous mmmmmmm?" (OK, I don't know any French, so feel free to correct my spelling!) or "I :wub: foie gras"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jennifer, surely you understand that for some folks, how humans treat animals is far more important than how they treat other humans.

=R=

We would all like to think of ourselves as non-advocates of violence, suffering, death or destruction of people, animals or the world in general.

The reality, however, is that if you make use of any modern convenience, drive a car, walk on concrete. buy food from a grocery store, wear shoes, get a package delivered, turn a doorknob, use a fork or flush a toilet – you are both directly and indirectly linked to all of the processes that bring these things into being and by proxy all of the processes that support the processes, that support the processes.

You can drive a hybrid vehicle, but every time you get a package delivered or buy something that was shipped from anywhere, you support the pollution of the air. You can not eat meat, but every time you buy something from a store that sells meat, you support the deaths of those animals, every time you use a machine you support the machines it took to make those machines, all of the people it took to make the tools to make those machines and everything they spend their paycheck on, all of the land that was stripped to mine the metal to make the machines and on and on and on. We are all inescapable cogs inside wheels inside wheels of support of a destructive machine and we are all guilty – every single one of us.

But still there are levels of guilt - there is a huge difference between damaging property and hurting a human or an animal. There is a huge difference between verbal abuse and rape. There is a huge difference between stepping on bugs unknowingly in the grass and stomping an anthill on purpose..

It is not so much that ducks are killed, that is not the issue, the issue is suffering and the level of suffering.

Obviously anything that is killed or raised for slaughter is going to suffer to some degree and killing in and of itself may never be able to fit within the definition of “humane” – it is simply a fact of life that humans kill animals and eat them, animals kill animals and eat them, the most advanced of societies kills animals and eats them and the most isolated of tribes kills animals and eats them.

That will most likely never change.

All I can say is if I was going to be killed, I would like to suffer as little as possible before hand and even within that there are levels of suffering I am willing to accept in return for immunity from others – put me in a cage and limit my movement but for the love of God don’t shove a rod down my throat everyday to feed me and fatten me up before I’m killed.

I've eaten Foie Gras in America and in France - so even in the words I just spoke there is hypocrisy.

Animal rights activists on the whole aren’t advocating the hurting of humans nor the hurting of humans before animals – on the whole the message is – don’t hurt any living thing and unfortunately since humans are generally treated better than animals to begin with – their tactics can seems as if to say animals are more important.

I don’t see that, but trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to stop a fire with gasoline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
put me in a cage and limit my movement but for the love of God don’t shove a rod down my throat everyday to feed me and fatten me up before I’m killed.

But your throat is nothing like a waterfowl's throat, and your physiological response to overeating is nothing like a migratory waterfowl's physiological response to overeating. And what happens to the factory farmed chickens and pigs that America consumes everyday is much, much, much worse than just having their movement limited.

How about t-shirts that say "Got foie?" or "foie gras, parles vous mmmmmmm?" (OK, I don't know any French, so feel free to correct my spelling!) or "I :wub: foie gras"

T-Shirts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your throat is nothing like a waterfowl's throat, and your physiological response to overeating is nothing like a migratory waterfowl's physiological response to overeating.  And what happens to the factory farmed chickens and pigs that America consumes everyday is much, much, much worse than just having their movement limited.

I'm sorry - you're right - ducks have parts and physiology that are exploitable for this purpose and it probably doesn't physically hurt them as much as it would me.

So let me rephrase it. I'm obviously not a woman, but in a comparable vein:

"Put me in a cage and limit my movement - but for the love of God don't rape me everyday."

I never said that what happens to factory farmed animals is as simple as limiting their movement.

My personal preference would be to live my normal life as a wild animal and then be killed quickly, or in absence of that, live on a farm roaming free and eating on my own natural schedule in my own natural way and then be killed quickly - above that the choices become much more difficult to make - do you want to burn to death or be boiled alive .... hmmm - that's a real toughy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about t-shirts that say "Got foie?"  or "foie gras, parles vous mmmmmmm?" (OK, I don't know any French, so feel free to correct my spelling!) or "I  :wub:  foie gras"

In an equally ridiculous extreme how about this shirt?

Foie Gras = Duck Rape

Eat whatever you wish, but at least have some respect for the lives that are taken in order to sustain your own. Foie Gras may only be fractionally worse (or better) than other things, cutting cows throats and letting them bleed to death or killing things in the most painful way possible in order to produce "adrenaline rich meat" as an aphrodisiac comes to mind.

Turning it into a joke is to disrespect the sacrifice that has been made and the souls that have been taken - at least have some respect for the animals if we cannot or will not choose to let them be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of growing animal products in a lab. Perfect cuts of meat, low cholesterol and no thumbless victims. Oh yeah.....its also in season on the polar caps!


Edited by inventolux (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also can't help but feel shock that the article mentions -- in passing -- that restaurants are being vandalized. Should this not be a significant news item in and of itself? Why is THAT not being condemned? We can harm property, and humans, but lay off the ducks!!

Jennifer, surely you understand that for some folks, how humans treat animals is far more important than how they treat other humans.

=R=

Yes, Ronnie, and therein lies their...irrational philosophy. I was going to use the word "insanity," but they know exactly what they are doing, whether they choose to acknowledge those motivations or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about t-shirts that say "Got foie?"  or "foie gras, parles vous mmmmmmm?" (OK, I don't know any French, so feel free to correct my spelling!) or "I  :wub:  foie gras"

In an equally ridiculous extreme how about this shirt?

Foie Gras = Duck Rape

Eat whatever you wish, but at least have some respect for the lives that are taken in order to sustain your own. Foie Gras may only be fractionally worse (or better) than other things, cutting cows throats and letting them bleed to death or killing things in the most painful way possible in order to produce "adrenaline rich meat" as an aphrodisiac comes to mind.

Turning it into a joke is to disrespect the sacrifice that has been made and the souls that have been taken - at least have some respect for the animals if we cannot or will not choose to let them be.

Equally ricidulous? Sorry, I find nothing ridiculous at all in the statement "I love foie gras" or similar statements. On the other hand equating foie gras or the processes involved in producing foie gras to rape is not only ridiculous but offensive. If offends my sense of logic and reason and it should offend rape victims. We know that geese on a free range goose farm will come running to the feeder with the tube in his or her hand. It's consentual, at least in some circumstances as reported by trustworthy sources such as Ed Behr in the Fall 1998 issue of the Art of Eating. I will note that I've been told that ducks do not run to the feeder as eagerly.

We can surely get into the issue of battery fowl and the caging of chickens as well as ducks, but it's a separate issue. To approach the issue intelligently without prejudice, you need to understand that whether or not ducks raised for foie gras in the US are, or are not, caged, It's not inherent to the production of foie gras to raise them in cages. If millions of chickens are battery raised to be sold in supermarkets, why are you ranting about the relatively small number of ducks that may also be battery raised?

It's not that gavage doesn't hurt a duck less than it would hurt a human being, it's, as Dave H tried to explain, that ducks are very different and have very different physiologies. In fact he may have shortchanged himself by saying they had different reactions. They are simply constructed differently from human beings. The esophagus of a duck is lined with fibrous protein cells that resemble bristles and does not bear comparison to that of a human. Moreover ducks swallow grit and small stones when they feed in nature. That would hurt a human being and we have no reason to assume gavage hurts a duck at all. The anthropomorphism implied in your statement is unjustified and the analogy to rape is unjustified even if there was a similar indignity to have food fed to you by tube.

Understand that the average foe gras duck lives a far better life than the average chicken raised for sale as food. The foie gras farmer, chef and consumer is an irrational target of emotional argument made without understanding or investigation. The most convincing argument against foie gras might be that it's unethical to eat meat at all. If we're to consider the quality of life of the animal up until death, then ducks rasied for foie gras might be among the last to be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read back a page and Derrick Schneider, who probably knows more about foie gras, or at least has investigated the raising of water fowl for the production of foie gras to a greater degree than anyone else posting in this thread, say that none of the major producers in North America use battery cages. He said it here. This further solidifies my impression that the arguments against foie gras are based on ignorance, faulty information and prejuduces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that geese on a free range goose farm will come running to the feeder with the tube in his or her hand. It's consentual, at least in some circumstances as reported by trustworthy sources such as Ed Behr in the Fall 1998 issue of the Art of Eating. I will note that I've been told that ducks do not run to the feeder as eagerly.

I’m aware of all that Bux, I found nothing ridiculous in the statement “I love Foie Gras”, what I found ridiculous was the notion of making T-Shirts to “celebrate and promote the consumption of foie gras as much as humanly possible”.

I’m not anti-foie gras, nor am I an animal rights activist, a vegetarian or anything else of the sort.

On the other hand I am not “pro-foie gras” nor do I have any problem with peaceful animal rights activists or vegetarians.

Also, if you’ll look back and read my posts my friend, I point out many other things that could be seen as atrocities far beyond foie gras production including points about how other animals are treated and killed.

My “duck rape” statement was meant to offend you, I’m glad to know that it did it’s job – as it is a ridiculous extreme – as is “celebrating the consumption of foie gras as much as humanly possible.”

People seem so worried about their rights as human beings that it seems that sometimes they don’t even look upon animals as living feeling things – or at least since they are not human – how they feel is of no consequence.

I once watched a chef “steep” a lobster to death and when asked if there was any benefit to taking a knife between his eyes so that he might die quickly (a question I already know the answer to), his response was, “I don’t know – I’m not a lobster”.

Perhaps you should put yourself in the place of the animals you eat and consider that, if you were them – how would you like to live and die given that you know you will be killed and eaten.

Some may think that ridiculous – and that’s fine for them to think – nor will it mean that everything you eat will have die in a humane way – but it makes it so possibly you think of what it must be like for them – even if just for a second.

As for foie gras, you cannot deny that it is (and I’m not saying other things aren’t) – an exploitation of something that was not meant for the purpose which it is being exploited for – and also that the deliberate fattening of a fowls liver to 10 times it’s normal size ( a size it would never reach in nature) – would fit within the text book definition of “perversion”.

I’m not telling you not to eat it my friend – nor am I saying that I wouldn’t – I’m asking you to call a spade a spade and acknowledge what it is in truth and stop dancing around trying to justify it through means of technical explanation and assumptions about the well being of the exploited.

Can you not say that any animal would not be better off left of it’s own accord before dying for your meal – and is it not reasonable to go a step above that and say that a duck on a farm would be better off left without being force fed by a tube until it nearly explodes?

Geese run to the tube because they have been conditioned from birth, - not because that is their natural inclination, I'll gladly pay you to allow me to watch you catch a wild goose or duck and attempt to put anything down it's throat. :smile:

I hope you remember the words “duck rape” for the rest of your life, if for no other reason than to thank the bird under your breath before you dip your knife into it’s liver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've probably made offensive statements, but I recognize that convincing statements win arguments and influence people to agree with me. Offensive statements simply offend people and convince them to trun away from the discussion at hand. Statements that are purposely offensive and unconvincing are counterproductive.

The argument that something shouldn't be because it doesn't exist in nature is also not a convincing one in our present society. If man was meant to fly he'd have wings is that kind of statement. It's not even a call to return to the horse and buggy era, as wheels are an unatural invention of man. We do a lot that's unnatural. Simply being unnatural is not a reason to condemn what we do. Modern medicine is not a particularly natural practice, nor are stud farms. The mule is not a natural animal, but its existence doesn't offend me.

The lobster argument was also done to death in another thread with fascinating posts about the ability/inability of a lobster to feel pain. At any rate, what seems to be natural is for some animals to eat humans and for humans to eat animals. What's less natural may be for for humans to raise crops. Ethical and natural don't seem to be terms that exist on the same plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've probably made offensive statements, but I recognize that convincing statements win arguments and influence people to agree with me. Offensive statements simply offend people and convince them to trun away from the discussion at hand. Statements that are purposely offensive and unconvincing are counterproductive.

The argument that something shouldn't be because it doesn't exist in nature is also not a convincing one in our present society. If man was meant to fly he'd have wings is that kind of statement. It's not even a call to return to the horse and buggy era, as wheels are an unatural invention of man. We do a lot that's unnatural. Simply being unnatural is not a reason to condemn what we do. Modern medicine is not a particularly natural practice, nor are stud farms. The mule is not a natural animal, but its existence doesn't offend me.

I’m not here to win any arguments… only to speak my mind.

Whether or not I win or bring people to my side is of no consequence - as either way my opinion will remain and my statements will stand until such time as I disagree with them myself.

I have respect for you as one of the more intelligent posters on this board in my opinion.

I never said something shouldn’t be because it doesn’t exist in nature, that would be a blanket statement to cover all circumstances and you will rarely see me make such a statement in any seriousness – as there are innumerable things to take into account within the existence of anything One that I will make is that everything that is good contains elements of and potential for bad and everything that is bad contains elements of and potential for good – even if those things are not obvious to us.

Wheels kill things everyday, as do planes – going back to my second post in this thread, I do not deny nor am I ignorant of my own connection to destruction and the ways in which I support it everyday – it is something I think about often – if not everyday, and it is something that measures my actions. I eat animals everyday and everyday I am thankful for what they have given, whether I speak it aloud or not and everyday I am aware of my own hypocrisy in knowing I would not want to switch places with them.

Your statement about it being natural for animals to eat humans and humans to eat animals I agree with and said as much a few posts up.

Foie Gras takes something that was given by nature to migrating bird and exploits it to a perverted degree – that is a fact – and I would much rather see someone say,

“I know what it is, I understand that it is likely that the birds suffer for it’s creation especially in the last stages and I realize that it is completely unnecessary for it to exist – knowing that I choose to eat it anyway and I do not support it’s production being outlawed”.

Than to simply be blind and ignorant or in denial.

Whether or not lobsters feel pain, it might be a good idea to kill them quickly just in case, the meat will separate from the shell just as readily and they will taste just as good when cooked sous vide with butter. Whether or not a duck or goose can withstand a tube in it’s throat, being filled to the top with food, growing obese and having it’s liver balloon – it might be a good idea to assume that they suffer for it and be that much more appreciative when you dine on foie gras.

Some things exist for a very long time before anyone ever takes a look at it and says, “Hey… is this right?”

And sometimes they figure out that it isn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m not here to win any arguments… only to speak my mind.

Whether or not I win or bring people to my side is of no consequence - as either way my opinion will remain and my statements will stand until such time as I disagree with them myself.

. . . .

That's fine and without the anthropomorphism, your points are rational. I may still object to the focus on foie gras production in what at heart, is really an ethical objection to the raising of animals for human consumption, although I suspect hunting would also be seen as unethical. My objection to the focus on foie is based on the fact that I don't believe the suffering of the average duck raised for foie gras is anywhere near as great as that of the average chicken raised to be sold in supermarkets. Either we attack the eating of all meat, or we focus on the worst abuses.

I'm not sure a discussion relating to the the ethics of eating meat is germane to this topic, simply because the topic is about the singling out of foie gras and the cruelty involved relative to the raising of other live stock. Gavage becomes offensive when one describes it as if it was applied to humans. "He was humiliated by being made to walk naked on all fours down Main Street," reads far differently when "he" is a horse rather than a man.

Flesh as an unethical or immoral food, is really another topic, but let me for a moment wonder about a more ethical society where capital punishment is banned, or unnecessary because humans no long commit capital crimes. How will we treat those natural animals who live off prey? Will we treat them as criminals? Perhaps all I'm saying is that we shouldn't take this thread off topic by making the argument that it's okay to outlaw foie gras because all meat eating is unethical. That argument just opens a whole can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine and without the anthropomorphism, your points are rational. I may still object to the focus on foie gras production in what at heart, is really an ethical objection to the raising of animals for human consumption, although I suspect hunting would also be seen as unethical. My objection to the focus on foie is based on the fact that I don't believe the suffering of the average duck raised for foie gras is anywhere near as great as that of the average chicken raised to be sold in supermarkets. Either we attack the eating of all meat, or we focus on the worst abuses.

I'm not sure a discussion relating to the the ethics of eating meat is germane to this topic, simply because the topic is about the singling out of foie gras and the cruelty involved relative to the raising of other live stock. Gavage becomes offensive when one describes it as if it was applied to humans. "He was humiliated by being made to walk naked on all fours down Main Street," reads far differently when "he" is a horse rather than a man.

Flesh as an unethical or immoral food, is really another topic, but let me for a moment wonder about a more ethical society where capital punishment is banned, or unnecessary because humans no long commit capital crimes. How will we treat those natural animals who live off prey? Will we treat them as criminals? Perhaps all I'm saying is that we shouldn't take this thread off topic by making the argument that it's okay to outlaw foie gras because all meat eating is unethical. That argument just opens a whole can of worms.

Your points are noted.

Though your last paragraph addresses things that I never stated or implied.

Anthropomorphism is just like anything else - sometimes it applies and sometimes it doesn't.

In your example, obviously a horse is not ashamed of being naked.

Though:

"He was stabbed through the heart and lay bleeding to death."

Applies whether horse or man or duck.

We share many qualities with the things living around us and some of those things are universal.

With that, I leave you to your discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . .

We share many qualities with the things living around us and some of those things are universal.

With that, I leave you to your discussion.

The esophagus of a water fowl and that of a human are no more alike than their feet or noses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“I know what it is, I understand that it is likely that the birds suffer for it’s creation especially in the last stages and I realize that it is completely unnecessary for it to exist – knowing that I choose to eat it anyway and I do not support it’s production being outlawed"

Except, not to beat a dead duck/goose here, there's precious little evidence that they do suffer and a fair amount that they don't (assuming the most humane production methods). At least if you look at the research that's been done to date and agree with the definition of "suffer" being used as a benchmark (which, fair enough if you don't; it's obviously not something one can precisely define for all sorts of moral, physiological, social, etc. reasons).

Admittedly, the research is more limited than one would like. Still.

But you're correct that the liver is expanded almost to the breaking point, obviously to a state that it would never reach even if the bird were allowed to gorge itself of its own volition. And it's not a no-op for the bird. Certain liver functions shut down completely, others behave as normal, and still others actually perform better than normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least if you look at the research that's been done to date and agree with the definition of "suffer" being used as a benchmark (which, fair enough if you don't; it's obviously not something one can precisely define for all sorts of moral, physiological, social, etc. reasons).

I'll make one last post to offer this link which is one of the most comprehensive scientific documents I've ever seen on the subject - in ways it supports both sides and in ways it says there's not enough information to make determinations about certain things.

It's an interesting read either way.

Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese, Adopted 16 December 1998

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.html

If nothing else, it has no appearance of being biased one way or the other (though obviously that is not confirmable) and was produced in Europe.

{edit:}

Though I should note - before you read all 90 some pages that the 12 person panel of professors, scientists, veterinarians etc do reach a conclusion, which would come as no surprise:

8.2 Conclusion

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concludes

feeding, as currently practised, is detrimental to the welfare of the birds.

And one of them inserts a minority opinion statement:

8.4 Minority Opinion - Dr D.J. Alexander

Although he endorsed the Report as a well-balanced factual account of the animal welfare

aspects of the production of foie gras, Dr Alexander was unable to agree fully to the

Recommendations made. In his opinion, based on the animal health and welfare data presented

in the Report, the only recommendation that the Committee can properly make is that force

feeding of ducks and geese should stop and that this could best be achieved by the prohibition

of the production, importation, distribution and sale of foie gras. He agrees that should the

Commission decide that foie gras production should continue, for example due to the

socioeconomic impacts discussed in Chapter 6 of the Report, then the recommendations in section

8.3.4 a-g should be enforced.


Edited by sizzleteeth (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll make one last post to offer this link which is one of the most comprehensive scientific documents I've ever seen on the subject - in ways it supports both sides and in ways it says there's not enough information to make determinations about certain things.

It's an interesting read either way.

Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese, Adopted 16 December 1998

Having read the document twice all the way through and several sections innumerable times, I'd suggest that the person who wants to know about foie gras should read the source papers this document references.

The EU committee definitely had a bias, and it's evident in the language they use. The example that always comes to mind (though there are others that I found when I was much closer to the document) is their description of a study to determine if the birds come running to the feeder, as is often stated. (I think it's in section 5, though it's been a year since I've read it last) They explain the study, and tell you that the ducks did not voluntarily go to the gavage area even though they had been trained to think of it as the food place prior to the gavage. True enough. The ranch manager at Sonoma Foie Gras said essentially the same thing.

But the EU committee never mentions that in the original study, they included geese as well. The geese, almost to a bird, went to the gavage area with no apparent hesitation. Curious omission, I thought, given that's the point they were discussing. Other language the EU doc uses is subtly deceptive, and frankly it bothers me more that they've made themselves seem unbiased by not revealing their backgrounds.

Many (see edit notes) of the English members have connections to animal welfare groups. On the other hand, most of the French members are tied to the industry itself. Either side will tell you (though, alas, rarely on the record) that the other side hijacked the document at the last minute.

But even they acknowledge that the ducks don't have any measurable stress (and yes, I know they assert that pain hasn't been studied). They also seem to make their pathology claim somewhat arbitrarily.

So I agree that it's a good read, but it shouldn't be read as definitive.

(edited: changed Most to Many, as I can't remember now if the English members were predominantly animal-welfare-associated or merely significantly so. Weasel word, I know, but more accurate, perhaps).


Edited by derricks (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m aware of all that Bux, I found nothing ridiculous in the statement “I love Foie Gras”, what I found ridiculous was the notion of making T-Shirts to “celebrate and promote the consumption of foie gras as much as humanly possible”.

Nathan, I was being glib. It's called humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×