Chicago's foie gras list.

[destroit]

Ludicrous. People do realize that animals are dead when you eat them? Right? This whole thing is making me hungry for foie, I'll put it on the menu tomorrow for all you ann arborites.

[Jason Perlow]

NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER SURRENDER! VIVE LE FOIE GRAS!

[KendallCollege]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Coonce, but those things do happen and they haven't been banned.

The essay was written with a slightly persuasive attitude and so I used cognitive dissonance as a means to make the writing "stick" and "upset".

::TW::

-Kendall College-

Edited June 7, 2006 by KendallCollege (log)

[Elrushbo]

While I don't support the Foie Gras ban, I do think it's dangerous to take the most extreme examples of animal mismanagement (chickens having thier beaks removed and nailed to the floor) and use those as the norm by which all other animal products should be measured. Obviously, there are many, many chefs who would argue that free-range, natural chickens are the best to cook. Even Bourdain makes this argument in his "Les Halles" cookbook.

It is, I believe, counter-productive to use this if=then argument. In other words, I don't think it does any of us any good to argue that Foie Gras is okay to sell because lots of other animals are tortured and treated badly on their way to the table. I think we have to have a position that is purely applicable to Foie Gras, and doesn't rely on the terrible treatment of other food animals to support its case. Because us Foie Gras advocates will lose out completely if we try to compare FG as okay in the same way that nailing chicken to the floor is okay. We have to find a different angle than that used by Moore, et. al.

←

I think that if a chef doesn't like using foie gras for ethical reasons, then they should do what they feel they should, and people who agree with that philosophy can choose to patronize that restaurant. If a chef doesn't feel that way, then they should use foie gras and people will patronize accordingly.

This whole ban has NOTHING to do with foie gras, imho. It's about politicians testing the waters-get this ban thru, and it opens the door for more far reaching legislation. Soon you'll see foie bans in NY and LA, leading to the 'fat' tax, etc.

[KendallCollege]

For what its worth...Although Charlie Trotter has been a "side-line foie'nemy" for a number of years, he has still publicly stated that Foie Gras issues should be left to each cities' restaurant community and NOT to local governments.

If that claim is true, he's made quite a valid point.

[ronnie_suburban]

For what its worth...Although Charlie Trotter has been a "side-line foie'nemy" for a number of years, he has still publicly stated that Foie Gras issues should be left to each cities' restaurant community and NOT to local governments.

If that claim is true, he's made quite a valid point.

←

. . . and if he'd only kept his mouth shut from the outset, the foie gras ban probably never would have even seen the light of day.

=R=

[david coonce]

For what its worth...Although Charlie Trotter has been a "side-line foie'nemy" for a number of years, he has still publicly stated that Foie Gras issues should be left to each cities' restaurant community and NOT to local governments.

If that claim is true, he's made quite a valid point.

←

. . . and if he'd only kept his mouth shut from the outset, the foie gras ban probably never would have even seen the light of day.

=R=

←

To be fair, Ronnie, he never asked to be an advocate. On this he has been very very clear. He has said numerous times that he does not believe this should be a political issue, nor does he believe FG should be banned. He made a personal decision, and a newspaper reporter asked him about it. Should he have lied? I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to lie simply to accomodate the whims of other chefs. And I don't believe Mr. Trotter has any desire to see a FG ban. I think that newspaper writers are paid to write a story, and that among the simpleminded, the idea that Charlie Trotter doesn't serve FG = FG is bad. and that's disingenuous. At my restaurant I won't serve Tyson Chicken or stuff loaded with chemicals/pesticides, etc. Does that make me an advocate? Or simply someone who chooses not to deal with products I find inferior?

[ronnie_suburban]

For what its worth...Although Charlie Trotter has been a "side-line foie'nemy" for a number of years, he has still publicly stated that Foie Gras issues should be left to each cities' restaurant community and NOT to local governments.

If that claim is true, he's made quite a valid point.

←

. . . and if he'd only kept his mouth shut from the outset, the foie gras ban probably never would have even seen the light of day.

=R=

←

To be fair, Ronnie, he never asked to be an advocate. On this he has been very very clear. He has said numerous times that he does not believe this should be a political issue, nor does he believe FG should be banned. He made a personal decision, and a newspaper reporter asked him about it. Should he have lied? I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to lie simply to accomodate the whims of other chefs. And I don't believe Mr. Trotter has any desire to see a FG ban. I think that newspaper writers are paid to write a story, and that among the simpleminded, the idea that Charlie Trotter doesn't serve FG = FG is bad. and that's disingenuous. At my restaurant I won't serve Tyson Chicken or stuff loaded with chemicals/pesticides, etc. Does that make me an advocate? Or simply someone who chooses not to deal with products I find inferior?

←

I know, I know . . . but his comments really gave the "anti" foie gras camp a lot of momentum and what has turned out to be some well-leveraged credibility, too.

=R=

[jesteinf]

First foie gras, now french fries?

Article here

Pressed on how the ordinance might be worded, Burke said, "I know there's been an ongoing debate about the use of oils for frying french fries. They continue to try to find a way that can be employed that will reduce the high level of fat consumed by people buying those products. I don't think it's ever been tried in any jurisdiction. But, I don't see any legal barrier to doing it here . . . for frying products. I don't think it would be french fries specifically."

Apparently diapers for horses are also on the Council's agenda

Edited June 8, 2006 by jesteinf (log)

[david coonce]

For what its worth...Although Charlie Trotter has been a "side-line foie'nemy" for a number of years, he has still publicly stated that Foie Gras issues should be left to each cities' restaurant community and NOT to local governments.

If that claim is true, he's made quite a valid point.

←

. . . and if he'd only kept his mouth shut from the outset, the foie gras ban probably never would have even seen the light of day.

=R=

←

To be fair, Ronnie, he never asked to be an advocate. On this he has been very very clear. He has said numerous times that he does not believe this should be a political issue, nor does he believe FG should be banned. He made a personal decision, and a newspaper reporter asked him about it. Should he have lied? I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to lie simply to accomodate the whims of other chefs. And I don't believe Mr. Trotter has any desire to see a FG ban. I think that newspaper writers are paid to write a story, and that among the simpleminded, the idea that Charlie Trotter doesn't serve FG = FG is bad. and that's disingenuous. At my restaurant I won't serve Tyson Chicken or stuff loaded with chemicals/pesticides, etc. Does that make me an advocate? Or simply someone who chooses not to deal with products I find inferior?

←

I know, I know . . . but his comments really gave the "anti" foie gras camp a lot of momentum and what has turned out to be some well-leveraged credibility, too.

=R=

←

But that's not his fault, is it? People have their comments taken out of context all the time. And people who are very adamant on either side of an issue will exploit whatever they can to win points. It's not as if Trotter has continually been out there flying the flag against FG. It was just that one newspaper article, in which he explicitly said he didn't believe in a ban or in politicizing his personal choice. Like I posted above, the simpleminded anti-FG people use Trotter as a crutch, but we can't resort to simplemindedness (I.E, "Trotter sucks") to oppose them. We're the ones who are right on this issue, and we need to come up with a more thoughtful and sophisticated approach to let people know why we are right.

Edited June 8, 2006 by david coonce (log)

[elfin]

Without Trotter FG would never have become a front page story in Chicago. Period. IMHO, Trotter needed the publicity.

[david coonce]

Without Trotter  FG would never have become a front page story in Chicago.  Period. IMHO, Trotter needed the publicity.

←

Again, he didn't write the article, did he? A newspaper doesn't usually work that way. A reporter found out about Trotters personal opposition to FG, asked him about it, and he told the truth. He had nothing to do with it being on the front page, and if you read the article, he stressed that he didn't think FG should be banned nor did he think it should be a political issue at all. He even denigrated the anti-FG side of the debate, saying he had "no use for them at all."

And I really don't believe Trotter, or his restaurant, which has been considered one of the 20 best restaurants in the world for the last decade or so, needs any "publicity."

[KendallCollege]

you're right, mr.coonce.

::TW::

-Kendall College-

[david coonce]

you're right, mr.coonce.

::TW::

-Kendall College-

←

Well, thanks, but we're all right about this, and we need to come up with a creative and smart way to oppose and eventually overturn this ban that doesn't bash chefs or play into the opposition's argument. I mean, this alderman, Moore, who pushed this legislation is so clueless it doesn't seem it would be hard to find a way to organize a credible and thoughtful opposition to his ignorance. Or as they say, Truth will out!

[LAZ]

First foie gras, now french fries?

Article here

←

A slippery slope, indeed!

[ronnie_suburban]

The resistance is gearing up. In case anyone is interested, our own chefperkey (Chef Chris Perkey of the Sierra Room in Grand Rapids, MI) and several other well-known chefs, including Beard award winners Paul Kahan and Shawn McClain, are holding a Freedom of Choice Foie Gras fundraiser in Chicago on July 11.

Details can be found here, on the eGS Calendar.

=R=

[cbarre02]

do we have any first time "offenders" yet, any fines due?

[ulterior epicure]

I thought the ordinance doesn't take effect until August 22 or 24??

Edited July 23, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[dinerminer]

I know that many of you may disagree with what I am about to say, but I have followed this and other related issues very intently over the years and have come to the conclusion that the foie gras ban is merely an extension of the dangerous trend (which largely seems to be focused on the restaurant industry) of encroaching government regulation on personal liberties and business owners rights.

While it may seem like a quantum leap in associating these two issues, I feel the foie gras ban is more closely related to smoking bans than animal rights. The quitessential similarity being that both movements seek to protect "the innocent" from the (perfectly legal) actions of the "perpetrators". Or, more succinctly, replacing societies abdication of personal responsibility with that of corporate (business owners) responsibilty.

Extrapolating on this premise, there are two other movements in gestation which seek to limit personal freedoms, business owners rights and, ultimately, threaten the livelihood of many establishments (especially independent operators). These are 1.) nutritional disclosure, and 2.) further restrictions on alcohol consumption. Presently, there are a number of constituencies across the country that seek to mandate increased regulation of both of these issues. Nutritional disclosure has long been sought as a reaction to the pervasive excesses of the fast food industry.

Likewise, the recent Orwellian crackdown on "public drunkeness" in Texas is a frightening scenario of a fledgling prohibitionist movement.

I would urge all readers/posters to not be mistaken; while you may have differing opinions on these issues they are, in my estimation mutually inclusive. When personal liberties are at stake it is imprudent and, in fact dangerous, to pick and choose on this slippery slope.

[cbarre02]

sorry i thought that the ordinance was already in place

[LAZ]

I know that many of you may disagree with what I am about to say, but I have followed this and other related issues very intently over the years and have come to the conclusion that the foie gras ban is merely an extension of the dangerous trend (which largely seems to be focused on the restaurant industry) of encroaching government regulation on personal liberties and business owners rights.

←

I must say the restaurant industry seems remarkably complacent about government meddling in their business. As mentioned here, the National Restaurant Association just extended its contract to bring its annual trade show to Chicago without bringing up either the foie gras ban or the possible trans-fats ban.

[dinerminer]

Excellent point LAZ. While the industry is remarkably effective in lobbying at the federal level they have proven to be poorly organized and unprepared in addressing local and state issues. As a former chairman of my state restaurant association, I can say with absolute certainty that a majority of operators and industry representatives are (were) reluctant to oppose smoking bans for fear of negative public image associated with "supporting" the "evil tobacco cartel". In retrospect, this was a huge mistake as it has opened up the doors to all types of legislation regulating behavior, personal liberties and business owners rights.

As I mentioned in my previous post, nutritional standards (disclosure) and further tightening of alcoholic beverage laws are next on the agenda. There are already a number states that are considering to propose further lowering the BAC (blood alcohol content) intoxication level from .08 to .04. In almost every state, there are presently laws on the book (largely unenforced, though with significant penalties for operators including loss of licensure) that prohibit an establishment from serving alcohol to those who exceed the level of legal intoxication. Depending on body mass, .04 BAC is roughly equivalent to less than two drinks (glass of wine/beer) in a two hour period. In todays climate of dram shop laws and frivolous litigation, it will all but require establishments to administer breathalyzer tests for the service of alcoholic beverages.

Edited July 24, 2006 by dinerminer (log)

[Daniel]

I know that many of you may disagree with what I am about to say, but I have followed this and other related issues very intently over the years and have come to the conclusion that the foie gras ban is merely an extension of the dangerous trend (which largely seems to be focused on the restaurant industry) of encroaching government regulation on personal liberties and business owners rights.

←

I agree.. Now Chicago council is trying to ban the use of certain oils used in cooking.. And today The City Council passed a law that forces not only Wal-Mart, but Target, Costco and any other "big-box" merchant in the city, to pay employees $10 an hour.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[JohnL]

I know that many of you may disagree with what I am about to say, but I have followed this and other related issues very intently over the years and have come to the conclusion that the foie gras ban is merely an extension of the dangerous trend (which largely seems to be focused on the restaurant industry) of encroaching government regulation on personal liberties and business owners rights.

←

I agree.. Now Chicago council is trying to ban the use of certain oils used in cooking.. And today The City Council passed a law that forces not only Wal-Mart, but Target, Costco and any other "big-box" merchant in the city, to pay employees $10 an hour.

←

Here Here (and HERE!!!!).

This is not just about the "restaurant industry."

It is about government and its role in our lives period!

There are a lot of zealots out there who want us to all live our lives their way. They want to save us from ourselves.

We are lazy--too lazy to take responsibility for ourselves and our families so we prefer to let the government handle things for us.

This is a sad state of affairs indeed!

[Alex]

Lawsuit!!