Chicago is the first city to ban foie gras

[Bobby 2 Shakes]

On the plus side, forbidden liver tastes a lot better than just plain old guilty liver.

[MarketStEl]

If the old adage, "Tell them they can't have it and they'll want it even more," applies, look for sales of foie gras to skyrocket at restaurants in suburban Cook County. Shortages may develop at fine food purveyors in Evanston. And you won't be able to find a seat at any restaurant in Oak Park that serves it. The papers will be full of stories about shootouts in Cicero as Mob families battle for control of the black market in foie in Chicago proper.

If you ask me, this is an exciting time to be a Chicagoan.

[scordelia]

Well when this proposal was announced months ago there was a way to express opinons with our Alderman.  I was on the phone immediately. My Alderman Tom Allen thought the whole ban was insane. This is so embarrassing.  Wonder what happenend with the lovely foie gras at Fox and Obel?  I have a duck in my fridge. 

Save the liver!!!

←

We did that too. Last year, when this nonsense began, I posted the e-mails of every alderman and encouraged city folks and suburbanites alike to write, because let's face it, we eat all over Chicago, not just in our wards, and people like ronnie_suburban travel into the city and spend their money on fine dining which means taxe$.

Alderman List

I also posted that list on other food and wine forums and websites. I forwarded the list to everyone I know including some wine brokers and restaurant people. I got some feedback from people so I know the list was getting around and people were writing.

The problem is PETA had a really organized campaign. If you googled "chicago foie gras", the first site was a PETA site. Sadly, us omnivores do not have a quasi-militant group of wackos to help us out.

[scordelia]

I'm sorry to say that in many ways, this all comes back to Charlie Trotter. He lent a lot of credibility to the "anti" crowd's ridiculous arguments about foie gras and I believe that if it were not for him, we wouldn't be facing this news today.

Trotter Boycott anyone ?

←

Not sure this is Charlie Trotter's fault - he has said repeatedly that his decision to not serve Foie Gras is a personal choice, and he doesn't believe it should be banned or restricted in any way. He doesn't believe politics should enter the debate, period. He had a personal choice on the matter that got widespread press - he would be the last person to claim himself an advocate on the issue.

←

Sorry, I think we can put the blame squarely on Mr. Trotter. Chucky is actually cited in the ordinance--twice--first for pointing out the "evils" of foie gras and second as Chicago's most eminent chef !

Foie Gras Ordinance

If Chucky had stayed in the closet on this one, this ordinance would have never occured to any of those boobs on the city council. Now, I am not sure if Chucky intended to get foie gras banned, but I am sure he intended to get some much needed publicity. His food has slipped and he is now a follower, not a leader in American cuisine, and the James Beard Foundation no longer lists Chucky as a chef but as a TV host.

PS Thanks to ChristyMarie for tracking down that ordinance.

Edited April 28, 2006 by scordelia (log)

[FoodMan]

The problem is PETA had a really organized campaign. If you googled "chicago foie gras", the first site was a PETA site. Sadly, us omnivores do not have a quasi-militant group of wackos to help us out. 

maybe because we have a life?

[JohnL]

Can anyone recall the last time in American history that politics were driven by a social, moralist agenda?

Hmmm? Thinking hard?

I'll give a hint--you could have enjoyed foie gras, but not the Sauterne to go with it!

Yes, it was the Roaring Twenties! What do the Roaring Twenties have in common with our current political climate? First, the gap between rich and poor is the largest it has been since the Twenties. Real Estate prices are the highest since the Twenties (really, no kidding--the average price of an apartment in 1500 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago's most exclusive co-op is $3 million. The last time 1500 had prices that high was 1929). The US elected conservative Republican administrations. Also, there are great similarities in the moral climate. The Twenties saw really quite naughty and promiscuous behavior from a certain segment of society and a huge increase in the evangelical movement in another segment. Sound familiar? Except now, we also have to contend with sanctimonious vegans as well as bible thumpers. So, the Twenties banned liquor and we are banning cigarettes and foie gras.

The Depression put an end to all that moralistic claptrap. People stopped caring about what others drank and whom they screwed and whether or not in a state of grace when they had no money. Periods of "moral" legislation tend to come about in prosperous times. Victorian England is a prime example.

If the economy sinks like a stone (which it will eventually), we'll get our foie gras back, and abortion, gay marriage, unintelligent design (take your pick) will cease to be important campaign issues.

←

Whenever one is driven by one's ideology this is the result.

Muddled thinking and strained analogies.

In the end one actually nullifies any substantive points they are attempting to make.

First--I suggest revisiting the history of prohibition--the subject is much more complex as to lead one to the simplistic conclusions reached here. Your comparisons regarding the moral and economic climates are pretty strained.

Second--Attempting to assign some sort of political responsibility for the current fois gras ban is likewise--not well served by the facts either.

Let me help you along:

The Chicago City Council is dominated by Democrats who voted overwhelmingly for the legislative ban.

The mayor is a Democrat.

Fois gras was banned in California

The bill was signed by a Republican Governor

The bill was introduced by a Democrat state legislator

and voted on by both democrats and Republicans.

There is a movement in Washington State to ban fois gras

led by Democrat politicians.

I suggest that the current Zogby poll that indicates that 80% of Americans

(and 79% of your fellow Illini---I am sure some of them are liberals)

Favor a ban on fois gras--has a little something to do with these legislative efforts.

I would also suggest that PETA and other animal rights groups (hardly bastions of conservative thinking) have mounted a highly motivated and well funded efforts. The story behind the polls.

Given that most people have not eaten fois gras and given our love of cute farm animals ("mother" was a goose after all) fois gras is an easy target. (let's not forget ducks either).

I am also gonna suggest something a lot of folks may have a hard time with.

We all sat around when the government went after tobacco. (you mentioned this in your post).

This prohibition stuff is a slippery slope.

Now its fois gras.

Alcohol and Fatty foods are targets.

Let's face it--we are lazy--better the government steps in and solves all our problems.

Fat kids? No willpower?--hey big brother will just take the offending foods away.

This isn't about one political party or another it isn't about conservative or liberal it is about people and public opinion.

When we bring in ideology-- good cohesive arguments fizzle out--what we need here is clear thinking and realistic assessments--there is a compelling argument for fois gras.

It needs to be made.

[Lady T]

If the old adage, "Tell them they can't have it and they'll want it even more," applies, look for sales of foie gras to skyrocket at restaurants in suburban Cook County.  Shortages may develop at fine food purveyors in Evanston.  And you won't be able to find a seat at any restaurant in Oak Park that serves it.  The papers will be full of stories about shootouts in Cicero as Mob families battle for control of the black market in foie in Chicago proper.

If you ask me, this is an exciting time to be a Chicagoan.

←

Doubt it, actually: the Boys from the West Side probably will be too busy cornering the regional markets in fine champagne, cognac, and good unsalted butter -- to be ready for the Foodiban's next probable campaigns.

(Edited to add free range organic chicken and veal.)

Edited April 28, 2006 by Lady T (log)

[nick.kokonas]

Young ducks these days are not what they used to be. Just a few generations ago, ducks were ethical, hard working animals, commuting from Canada each fall via the various North American Flyways. Now they have become lazy, unappreciative, and insolent.

The horrible thing is, nearly 15% of the adolescent duck population is now obese. Even free range ducks are exhibiting this problem, reflecting a lack of education about the dangers of eating too much while exercising too little. More often than not, these young ducks grow into obese full grown ducks. And the viscious cycle of morbid obesity extends to their own off-spring.

These naturally fat ducks may easily be seen amongst the crowd of their thin counterparts. Farmers have begun to cull these animals from the flock to ensure a healthier, fitter duck for America's future.

[Sneakeater]

Since somebody has to state the obvious, I think you're going to have a real hard time finding a basis for a constitutional challenge to this law.

[MarketStEl]

Young ducks these days are not what they used to be.  Just a few generations ago, ducks were ethical, hard working animals, commuting from Canada each fall via the various North American Flyways.  Now they have become lazy, unappreciative, and insolent.

The horrible thing is, nearly 15% of the adolescent duck population is now obese.  Even free range ducks are exhibiting this problem, reflecting a lack of education about the dangers of eating too much while exercising too little.  More often than not, these young ducks grow into obese full grown ducks.  And the viscious cycle of morbid obesity extends to their own off-spring.

Perhaps they should emulate their brethren geese, who opened their own chain of convenience stores?

These naturally fat ducks may easily be seen amongst the crowd of their thin counterparts.  Farmers have begun to cull these animals from the flock to ensure a healthier, fitter duck for America's future.

←

And what happens when the Fat Police keep us from eating these?

Guess that grease fire in Wisconsin will go national.

[Megan Blocker]

Fat kids? No willpower?--hey big brother will just take the offending foods away.

This isn't about one political party or another it isn't about conservative or liberal it is about people and public opinion.

←

And, as usual, the government is right on target as to what our problem is. It's definitely foie gras that's making our children obese. Absolutely. I know I see kids everywhere chowing down on it like it's...soda.

Edited April 28, 2006 by Megan Blocker (log)

[JohnL]

Fat kids? No willpower?--hey big brother will just take the offending foods away.

This isn't about one political party or another it isn't about conservative or liberal it is about people and public opinion.

←

And, as usual, the government is right on target as to what our problem is. It's definitely foie gras that's making our children obese. Absolutely. I know I see kids everywhere chowing down on it like it's...soda.

←

Ihear MacDonald's is thinkin of offering a "Big Quack"

1/4 pound of fattened duck liver on a sesame seed bun....or maybe in a "PETA" bread.

seriously--

the real culprits are PETA and the other special interest groups.

They have managed to sway public opinion in their favor on this one--easy enough because most folks don't eat fois gras (or even know what it is) so they really don't care. It can also be easily labelled a "rich man's treat."

The cute gooseys and duckies win out here.

The politicians are following public opinion.

As I see it--the only way to win this is to make the argument that rights of people are being sacrificed and that yesterday it was tobacco --today fois gras--furs are next and then...

eventually something "you" like to indulge in

Also this "rights" idiocy has gone way too far.

Everytime someone wants something they couch it as a "right."

What we forget is that every right gained someone loses a "right."

To take a responsibility to respect animals within reason to giving animals rights is a path to a place I do not want to live in.

and don't think it will stop at animal rights either--there is actually some thinking (as insane as it is) that plants should have "rights" too.

yeeeeesh

Edited April 28, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[Daniel]

Can anyone recall the last time in American history that politics were driven by a social, moralist agenda?

Hmmm? Thinking hard?

I'll give a hint--you could have enjoyed foie gras, but not the Sauterne to go with it!

Yes, it was the Roaring Twenties! What do the Roaring Twenties have in common with our current political climate? First, the gap between rich and poor is the largest it has been since the Twenties. Real Estate prices are the highest since the Twenties (really, no kidding--the average price of an apartment in 1500 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago's most exclusive co-op is $3 million. The last time 1500 had prices that high was 1929). The US elected conservative Republican administrations. Also, there are great similarities in the moral climate. The Twenties saw really quite naughty and promiscuous behavior from a certain segment of society and a huge increase in the evangelical movement in another segment. Sound familiar? Except now, we also have to contend with sanctimonious vegans as well as bible thumpers. So, the Twenties banned liquor and we are banning cigarettes and foie gras.

The Depression put an end to all that moralistic claptrap. People stopped caring about what others drank and whom they screwed and whether or not in a state of grace when they had no money. Periods of "moral" legislation tend to come about in prosperous times. Victorian England is a prime example.

If the economy sinks like a stone (which it will eventually), we'll get our foie gras back, and abortion, gay marriage, unintelligent design (take your pick) will cease to be important campaign issues.

←

Whenever one is driven by one's ideology this is the result.

Muddled thinking and strained analogies.

In the end one actually nullifies any substantive points they are attempting to make.

First--I suggest revisiting the history of prohibition--the subject is much more complex as to lead one to the simplistic conclusions reached here. Your comparisons regarding the moral and economic climates are pretty strained.

Second--Attempting to assign some sort of political responsibility for the current fois gras ban is likewise--not well served by the facts either.

Let me help you along:

The Chicago City Council is dominated by Democrats who voted overwhelmingly for the legislative ban.

The mayor is a Democrat.

Fois gras was banned in California

The bill was signed by a Republican Governor

The bill was introduced by a Democrat state legislator

and voted on by both democrats and Republicans.

There is a movement in Washington State to ban fois gras

led by Democrat politicians.

I suggest that the current Zogby poll that indicates that 80% of Americans

(and 79% of your fellow Illini---I am sure some of them are liberals)

Favor a ban on fois gras--has a little something to do with these legislative efforts.

I would also suggest that PETA and other animal rights groups (hardly bastions of conservative thinking) have mounted a highly motivated and well funded efforts. The story behind the polls.

Given that most people have not eaten fois gras and given our love of cute farm animals ("mother" was a goose after all) fois gras is an easy target. (let's not forget ducks either).

I am also gonna suggest something a lot of folks may have a hard time with.

We all sat around when the government went after tobacco. (you mentioned this in your post).

This prohibition stuff is a slippery slope.

Now its fois gras.

Alcohol and Fatty foods are targets.

Let's face it--we are lazy--better the government steps in and solves all our problems.

Fat kids? No willpower?--hey big brother will just take the offending foods away.

This isn't about one political party or another it isn't about conservative or liberal it is about people and public opinion.

When we bring in ideology-- good cohesive arguments fizzle out--what we need here is clear thinking and realistic assessments--there is a compelling argument for fois gras.

It needs to be made.

←

I would also like to add that a Constitutional Ammendment can not be passed by a party.. It takes 2/3 majority.. It looks like everyone agreed at the time..

[JohnL]

good point Chef.

actually the prohibition (18th) ammendment was passed/ratified by two thirds of the state legislatures.

this is the other way to enact or repeal a constitutional ammendment.

anyway--the analogy is strained at best.

though I would agree that special interest groups banded together to change public opinion on alcohol just as they have done with fois gras.

politicians respond to public opinion most of the time--there's where the votes are.

I would bet that the Chcago City Council individually had little interest in this until polls (suspect some driven by PETA et al) began to show this as a no brainer vote.

[Daniel]

good point Chef.

actually the prohibition (18th) ammendment was passed/ratified by two thirds of the state legislatures.

this is the other way to enact or repeal a constitutional ammendment.

anyway--the analogy is strained at best.

though I would agree that special interest groups banded together to change public opinion on alcohol just as they have done with fois gras.

politicians respond to public opinion most of the time--there's where the votes are.

I would bet that the Chcago City Council individually had little interest in this until polls (suspect some driven by PETA et al) began to show this as a no brainer vote.

←

Right right.. Actually, I was confused because something like 30 states (actually google says 33) had already passed laws banning alcohol before the Volstead Act was passed.. Either way, it was not something that you can put on a party then or even try to decipher what side those players would be on now..

[MarketStEl]

good point Chef.

actually the prohibition (18th) ammendment was passed/ratified by two thirds of the state legislatures.

this is the other way to enact or repeal a constitutional ammendment.

anyway--the analogy is strained at best.

though I would agree that special interest groups banded together to change public opinion on alcohol just as they have done with fois gras.

politicians respond to public opinion most of the time--there's where the votes are.

I would bet that the Chcago City Council individually had little interest in this until polls (suspect some driven by PETA et al) began to show this as a no brainer vote.

←

Actually, each of you have a piece of the process.

Amendments to the United States Constitution must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. (Edited to add: The other way to amend the Constitution is for legislatures in two-thirds of the states to call for a convention for the purpose of considering amendments; any amendments approved by the convention must still be ratified by legislatures or by state conventions in three-fourths of the states--Congress has the power to specify which method will be used. The convention route is considered the "nuclear option" by most in the political class--after all, it was a convention called for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation that then scrapped the document entirely and replaced it with the Constitution we have now.)

IOW, the moralistic sentiment against alcohol consumption was not just strong in the US in the first decades of this century (the 18th Amendment was implemented with the passage of the Volstead Act in 1919), it was overwhelming.

Public disgust with displays of excess on the part of the rich isn't that high right now; besides, between the ongoing Enron trial and the stratospheric price of gas, the public has better targets for its anger over greed than a bunch of stuffed geese. But I agree with the person who drew the parallel to the Roaring Twenties: all this could get ugly if a few things go sour.

And where the alcohol analogy breaks down here is in this:

Most Americans either drank or knew someone who did. The widespread flouting of the law triggered by Prohibition eventually convinced most of those Americans that an outright ban was not the way to address the problems caused by alcohol consumption.

Most Americans know very little about foie gras except that it's a delicacy and it's awfully expensive. Now, thanks to PETA, they know that it's made by rapidly and --yes--unnaturally porking up geese and ducks. Combine these two facts with the third fact that many Americans know nobody who's eaten any, and it's far easier to convince them that this practice ought to be stopped. The widespread flouting of the law triggered by the Chicago foie gras ban will likely be treated somewhat comically by unconcerned observers, like the approach reflected in the Chicago Tribune's headline on its story about the ban.

Edited April 28, 2006 by MarketStEl (log)

[Busboy]

Actually, there's a fundamental difference between, banning cigs, big macs, Lebanese blonde hash and so on, and banning foie gras.

In the former cases, the government is forcing you what's good for you -- inherently suspect, even though, like your mom, they are often right.

In the latter case, the government is acting to protect the weaker entity from being arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness by the stronger entity. Not inherently suspect -- in fact, a fundamental job of government -- though, perhaps, not applicable to ducks, who have no legal standing.

[cathrynapple]

i'm trying to understand things here.

apparently these people are ill-informed?

how many egulleteers here make sure their duck liver is not force fed? (out of curiosity)

[Daniel]

Most Americans know very little about foie gras except that it's a delicacy and it's awfully expensive.  Now, thanks to PETA, they know that it's made by rapidly and --yes--unnaturally porking up geese and ducks.  Combine these two facts with the third fact that many Americans know nobody who's eaten any, and it's far easier to convince them that this practice ought to be stopped.  The widespread flouting of the law triggered by the Chicago foie gras ban will likely be treated somewhat comically by unconcerned observers, like the approach reflected in the Chicago Tribune's headline on its story about the ban.

←

Well said...

Edited April 29, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[LAZ]

This topic leaves me wondering if the US has ever before banned a food on moral grounds - sure there was alcohol and see how far that got us. But that was more about its effect on its imbibers rather than how it was made, killed, prepared etc. For example, are these mythical delicacies from other countries like dog, chicken embryo, etc. not available here because the public would object or because of formal legislation?

←

The sale of horsemeat as a human food is banned, apparently for this reason, although it's OK to sell for pet food.

I'm not certain what the status of it is, but at the time the foie gras brouhaha first surfaced, Illinois, which bans sales of horsemeat for human consumption within the state, had pending legislation that would forbid its sole horse abbatoir from exporting horsemeat as human food, too.

We can buy balut here, though.

[Bobby 2 Shakes]

Sorry, I think we can put the blame squarely on Mr. Trotter. Chucky is actually cited in the ordinance--twice--first for pointing out the "evils" of foie gras and second as Chicago's most eminent chef !

Foie Gras Ordinance

←

If, after clicking on the link provided, you delete everything from pdf/ to the end of the URL, you can go to their website and see the arguments against foie gras.

If the evidence they give is true, I don't see any way we can let this practice continue without modification. Unfortunately, the legacy of the "eco" and "animal rights" terrorists and their "by any means necessary including deception" approach casts automatic doubt on anyone promoting legitimate animal cruelty awareness.

That being said, if it turns out after investigation that the allegations are true, the argument that it has been done since antiquity and is "culturally indicated" does not hold up any more than it does for allowing slavery.

The government representatives of those who produce foie would do well to provide help to make the process less unsavory if it is found to be objectionable. We then debate the most reasonable approach, taking care to maximize the opportunity for those whose livelihoods depend on this industry.

There are many ways to provide legitimate pleasure, and these workers can provide the infrastructure for a new or modified industry.

[MarketStEl]

This topic leaves me wondering if the US has ever before banned a food on moral grounds - sure there was alcohol and see how far that got us. But that was more about its effect on its imbibers rather than how it was made, killed, prepared etc. For example, are these mythical delicacies from other countries like dog, chicken embryo, etc. not available here because the public would object or because of formal legislation?

←

The sale of horsemeat as a human food is banned, apparently for this reason, although it's OK to sell for pet food.

←

I'm not certain that all 50 states ban horsemeat.

When I was an undergraduate at Harvard, there was a brief news item in The Harvard Independent (for which I wrote for a couple of years) on the fact that the Faculty Club still had horse steak on its menu. As I recall, it had been added during World War II in response to rationing of meat, and remained on the menu from that point on.

[cathrynapple]

woudln't the solution be to shut down individual suppliers and farms hwo mistreat the animals?

[JohnL]

woudln't the solution be to shut down individual suppliers and farms hwo mistreat the animals?

←

Fois gras is created by force feeding the fowl.

The debate is between those who say that the force feeding is not harmful to the birds and those who do.

Those who say the feeding is not harmful--or painful cite the fact that the geese or ducks actually come running to the feeder--if there was discomfort or pain involved the geese would run away.

I have seen no evidence to support the other side.

[JohnL]

Actually, there's a fundamental difference between, banning cigs, big macs, Lebanese blonde hash and so on, and banning foie gras.

In the former cases, the government is forcing you what's good for you -- inherently suspect, even though, like your mom, they are often right.

In the latter case, the government is acting to protect the weaker entity from being arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness by the stronger entity.  Not inherently suspect -- in fact, a fundamental job of government -- though, perhaps, not applicable to ducks, who have no legal standing.

←

Interesting!

That fundamental difference you cite is not so different or fundamental.

These bans are always propelled by the argument that a weaker group needs protection.

Hence the constant citing of a need to "protect the children...."

etc.

PETA is cleverly asserting that animals are a weaker group--with rights--just like people.

and we need to "protect them..."

I have never heard reasonable adults claim that they need government protection from themselves in support of a ban. (prohibition came close with "demon alcohol.") It is always some weaker group that needs protecting.

Also--addiction is oft cited--as the reason people just can't help themselves--"it's not my fault--the devil made me do it..."