Chicago's foie gras list.

[ronnie_suburban]

From the Chicago Sun-Times article linked above by Alex:

Next week, the Illinois Restaurant Association, an ad-hoc group known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice" and the major foie gras producers that make up the newly formed Artisan Farmers Association will join forces to challenge a foie gras ban poised to take effect next Wednesday.

"The argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines," said a source familiar with the lawsuit.

Suit cries foul over foie gras ban by Fran Spielman and Janet Rausa Fuller.

=R=

[allenkelson]

As of today, there are at least 46 restaurants in Chicago that serve foie gras as the main ingredient in a dish. Some places serve two or three (Kiki's Bistro is the winner here) different dishes of this rich delicacy. Following is just a short list of restaurants that have foie on their menu (via Chicago Menu Pages).

Alinea

-Foie Gras (hibiscus, licorice, blueberry soda)

Aria

-Foie Gras "two Styles" (seared with brasied rhubarb, strawberry-lavender saucetorchon and sourdough croutons)

-Seared Sea Scallops with Lemon and Gray Salt (layered with foie gras, cauliflower puree and apple jus)

Avenues

-Candycane Crusted Foie Gras (salted ceramel corn, gingerbread powder,eggnog ice cream)

-Foie (popcorn, spice,eggnog)

Blackbird

-Seared Hudson Valley Foie Gras (with pain perdu, huckelberries, and bartlett pears)

Custom House

-Foie Gras (walnut & cranberry pesto, warm pumpkin bread)

Japonais

-Foie Gras Torchon (house made with caramelized granny smith apple, walnut salad and vanilla-tapioca sauce)

-Madako Kimo (monkfish foie gras wrapped with octopus in a house ponzu sauce)

Kiki's Bistro

-Päté De Foie De Canard (Duck liver päté with Toasted Brioche)

-Terrine De Foie Gras (with Fris?e - Walnut Dressing)

-Foie De Veau (Sautéed Calf's Liver with Pearl Onions and Red Cabbage served with a Wine Vinegar Sauce)

Les Nomades

-Sautéed Foie Gras, Caramelized Pineapple, Marcona Almonds, Sauternes Gelée, and Vanilla Clementine Sauce

-Poached Beef Tournedos Rossini, Seared Foie Gras Medallion, Potato Purée and Sauce Périgueux

Naha

-Hudson Valley Foie Gras and Rhubarb-strawberry "tarte Tatin", Organic Crimson Raisins and Minus 8 Ice Vinegar

-Whole Roasted Ranch Squab and Foie Gras (with Black Mission Figs and Thompson Grapes, Cipollini Onions and Green Peppercorns)

NoMI

-Creme Brulee of Hudson Valley Foie Gras (crisp hazelnuts and poppy seeds, toasted brioche)

-Milk-Fed Veal Tenderloin (crispy sweetbreads, hudson valley foie gras, glazed zitoni pasta, parmesan cappuccino)

Spring

-Foie Gras Mousseline (pineapple quice, chamomile & toasted brioche)

Sweets & Savories

-Seared Hudson Valley Foie Gras (Roasted Pineapple, Savory Chocolate Glaze)

-Hamburger (Strube Ranch American Kobe Beef with Foie Gras Pate and Truffled Mayonnaise, Toasted Brioche Roll)

TRU

-Seared Hudson Valley Foie Gras (Summer Corn Blini, Salad of Roasted Corn, Mäche, Fried Shallots)

-Roasted Atlantic Striped Bass (Sautéed Hudson Valley Foie Gras, English Pea Spaetzle, Foie Gras Consommé)

Vintage

-Foie Gras (pan seared canadian foie gras served over caramelized sweet potato with truffled marshmallow)

-Duck, Duck, Goose (a playful mixed grilling of three different preparations, seared breast sliced medium rare, crispy leg confit potstickers and quickly seared foie gras, finished with baby bok choy and a hot and sour duck broth)

Volo

-Cured Foie Gras (pineapple, Thai chilis)

←

←

That's an impressive list--and good digging on your part--but I suspect it's just the tip of the lobe. Lots--if not most--of the places serving foie gras have it on their specials lists. (For one thing, it helps to hide the high price. It also aids in clearing out a perishable.) If we knew of them all--or the menu pages included the "marginal" places that often sell f.g.--it might start looking like a staple. (But probably under 10% of those city council members have knowingly tasted it.) Carlos', in Highland Park, probably has it daily, for example.

Anyhow, their ordinance will probably be found unconstitutional, but another nail will be in the foie gras coffin. The outcome we all should hope for, of course, is that a more acceptable way of creating the stuff will be developed because it's too profitable for the producers and too irresistable for the consumers.

I'd rather see them do something about chickens and eggs, but that probably hits too close to home for council members--if they knew of the issues--to be motivated.

[ronnie_suburban]

Steve Dolinsky has a related story at ABC-Chicago's web site. He lists a few places in the city which are planning farewell celebrations as well as places in the suburbs where foie gras can be found.

By definition, foie gras is created when ducks are force-fed grain and corn until their livers expand to the size of an enlarged softball. Animal rights' activists have long deplored the procedure and the city council weighed in with its ban, which takes effect August 22.

Many chefs are fighting it, hoping to overturn the ban soon. In the meantime, demand for the silky, rich liver has never been better.

In less than a week, the sight of fattened duck liver in Chicago's top kitchens will be a thing of the past. At places like MK, where foie has always held a place on the menu, the last few weeks have been good for business.

Foie Gras only in the suburbs

=R=

[scordelia]

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.

←

Really well said!

[docsconz]

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.

←

Really well said!

←

I strongly disagree that the fg issue is the same as the other questions of what you consider "encroachment of individual liberties". There is a huge difference between the fg issue and the others mentioned. FG is strictly an encroachment on an individual's liberty as is criminalizing any other foodstuff such as transfats etc. The only potential human victims of these items are the ones who would willingly choose to ingest them. If they are aware of the risks and issues associated with them, IMO they should be allowed to ingest them. This is different from smoking bans, public drunkenness, DWI and nutritional disclosure issues whichever side one chooses to stand on with those issues. With them, the question is one of a balance of competing individual liberties. This is not the site to debate most of these issues and I do not intend to do so other than to point out this essential difference. The decision to serve or eat foie gras is an individual one without any direct repercussions on other human beings. Smoking, for example, potentially has direct repercussions on others around the one who chooses to smoke even if they choose not to. That is a fact. The issues of legality stem from that fact. Where that balance justly lies is outside the scope of this discussion.

[dinerminer]

Doc, I don't think the Council passed the fg ban to protect humans from caloric excesses. The "victims" in this case are the fowl. Somehow, the Council determined that the life/value/sprituality of a bird was of such an importance that it needed to protected from the "inhumane" menuing by chefs/restauranteurs and subsequent consumption by diners.

[docsconz]

Doc, I don't think the Council passed the fg ban to protect humans from caloric excesses. The "victims" in this case are the fowl. Somehow, the Council determined that the life/value/sprituality of a bird was of such an importance that it needed to protected from the "inhumane" menuing by chefs/restauranteurs and subsequent consumption by diners.

←

I understand that. My point is that the basis for arguments with the FG debate are vastly different than the other issues mentioned in that most of the other issues have the potential to have direct consequences to other humans. The trans fat debate, also in Chicago, doesn't even offer the philosophical issue of the welfare of other species. For humans, therefore, the FG issue, more closely resemble the trans-fat issue than it does , say smoking bans. That the welfare of non-human creatures is part of the debate, and perhaps an essential one, still makes it different than most of the other "personal liberty" issues mentioned along-side it above. One can still be on either side of the FG issue and have differing opinions on the others without being inconsistent or hypocritical. I simply think that it is wrong to equate them with each other, although that doesn't mean that there may not still be an encroachment on general civil liberties in the US. That is another question entirely and beyond the scope or policies of eGullet to discuss.

[dividend]

The wording of the ordinance is disgraceful.

Whereas... the City of Chicago my exercise any power and perform any function relating to its government affairs including protecting the health, safety and welfare of its citizens;

What? Someone explain how this ordinance protects any of those things?

Whereas, arguably our City's most renowned chef, Charlie Trotter, has stopped serving the delicacy, foie gras, in his restaurants;

He's obviously not doing a good job supporting his own stance that it shouldn't be regulated by the government if his name is in the legislation itself!

Whereas, according to a recent Zogby poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans, when educated about foie gras, support a ban on the force feeding of birds;

What kind of "education" did those polled receive about foie gras, you may ask? Looking at a breakdown of the poll, 48% of those polled had never eaten it, and 34% of those polled had never even heard of it. So what's the follow up question, the question that generated the "nearly 80 percent" statistic in the ordinance?

Foie gras is an expensive item served in some upscale restaurants.  It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks large quantities of food, causing the animals' livers to swell up to ten times their normal size.  A long metal pipe is inserted into the animals' esophagus several times a day.  The process can cause the animals' internal organs to rupture.  Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed the practice as cruel.  Do you agree or disagree that force-feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned in New York State?

There's an unbiased poll question for the ages. Especially when 82% of those polled had never eaten it, or never heard of it.

The rest of the ordinance points are about production of foie gras being unethical, protecting fine dining in Chicago, and other states enacting bans. There is seriously not a single point in this ordinance that stands up to even the most casual of logical scrutiny. It's a shame. I was really looking forward to that burger at Sweets and Savories over labor day weekend. I'll have to console myself with chain smoking in a bar somewhere - oh wait. Can't do that either.

Edited August 17, 2006 by dividend (log)

[Alex]

Whereas, according to a recent Zogby poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans, when educated about foie gras, support a ban on the force feeding of birds;

What kind of "education" did those polled receive about foie gras, you may ask? Looking at a breakdown of the poll, 48% of those polled had never eaten it, and 34% of those polled had never even heard of it. So what's the follow up question, the question that generated the "nearly 80 percent" statistic in the ordinance?

Foie gras is an expensive item served in some upscale restaurants.  It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks large quantities of food, causing the animals' livers to swell up to ten times their normal size.  A long metal pipe is inserted into the animals' esophagus several times a day.  The process can cause the animals' internal organs to rupture.  Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed the practice as cruel.  Do you agree or disagree that force-feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned in New York State?

There's an unbiased poll question for the ages. Especially when 82% of those polled had never eaten it, or never heard of it.

←

dividend, do you have a web page(s) reference for the Zogby poll and, especially, for the wording you quoted? That would be a great example for my Intro Psych classes.

[dividend]

Source for my quotes from the Zogby poll:

http://www.nofoiegras.org/Zogby_NY5-06.pdf

[edsel]

The wording of the ordinance is disgraceful.

...

Whereas, according to a recent Zogby poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans, when educated about foie gras, support a ban on the force feeding of birds;

What kind of "education" did those polled receive about foie gras, you may ask? Looking at a breakdown of the poll, 48% of those polled had never eaten it, and 34% of those polled had never even heard of it. So what's the follow up question, the question that generated the "nearly 80 percent" statistic in the ordinance?

Foie gras is an expensive item served in some upscale restaurants.  It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks large quantities of food, causing the animals' livers to swell up to ten times their normal size.  A long metal pipe is inserted into the animals' esophagus several times a day.  The process can cause the animals' internal organs to rupture.  Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed the practice as cruel.  Do you agree or disagree that force-feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned in New York State?

There's an unbiased poll question for the ages. Especially when 82% of those polled had never eaten it, or never heard of it.

←

"an expensive item served in some upscale restaurants"

Yeah, this is a classic example of push-polling. "when did you stop beating your wife?" Shame on Zogby for even representing this as a legitimate poll. This is transparently biased from the git-go.

The Chicago City Council has represented this as some sort of "animal welfare" concern. Bullshit. Docsconz is right that the real comparison should be to the producers of commercial poultry and eggs, rather than the human health issues such as exposure to second-hand smoke. But that's not what this is really about, now, is it? The politicians have spotted something that looks like a cheap-and-easy issue to posture around.

I'd love to see them take on the likes of Perdue, Tyson, or ConAgra/Armour. Ain't gonna happen. The politicians single out a "marginal" group (in this case, foodies who enjoy foie gras), and score cheap points with a constituency that the polls tell them outnumbers the target group. If the citizens of Chicago start looking at this whole sad episode with a jaundiced eye, the pols are in deep shit. Sadly, I doubt that many people even care about it.

[beandork]

I wonder what the response to the zogby poll would have been in the question was phrased thus:

Foie gras is a food item served worldwide. It was first served in ancient Rome, when noticed that duck and geese livers swelled as they gorged themselves before migrating. This gorging process is now reproduced on farms for commercial purposes. Foie gras is banned in several states and countries, but so are raw milk products. Do you agree or disagree that force-feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned in New York State?

And do you think that should translate as a blanket ban for all foie gras products in the New York State?

[docsconz]

I wonder what the response to the zogby poll would have been in the question was phrased thus:

Foie gras is a food item served worldwide. It was first served in ancient Rome, when noticed that duck and geese livers swelled as they gorged themselves before migrating. This gorging process is now reproduced on farms for commercial purposes. Foie gras is banned in several states and countries, but so are raw milk products. Do you agree or disagree that force-feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned in New York State?

And do you think that should translate as a blanket ban for all foie gras products in the New York State?

←

That is certainly phrased better and with less bias than the original question, although it still contains some pro-foie bias. Perhaps the fairest question would be

"Do you agree or disagree that force-feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned in New York State? and , if yes,

And do you think that should translate as a blanket ban for all foie gras products in the New York State?"

Simply asking this question though without any background would still likely raise red flags for someone otherwise ignorant about foie gras and gavage and thereby make them more likely, IMO, to say yes. After all, if there wasn't some issue with it, why would the question be asked at all? In other words, I believe it is impossible to ask this question without significant bias. It may be equally difficult to answer it without bias.

[beandork]

That is certainly phrased better and with less bias than the original question, although it still contains some pro-foie bias.

←

Trust me when I say that pro-foie bias is very intentional

If I was doing the polling it would take all my self control not to start the question with "Foie is a foodstuff essential to everything good and worthwhile about mankind and the universe..."

[docsconz]

That is certainly phrased better and with less bias than the original question, although it still contains some pro-foie bias.

←

Trust me when I say that pro-foie bias is very intentional

If I was doing the polling it would take all my self control not to start the question with "Foie is a foodstuff essential to everything good and worthwhile about mankind and the universe..."

←

That is my bias as well and I would certainly prefer to have seen the question asked that way. My point though is that I think it is nearly impossible to ask this in an unbiased way. That the politicians did what they did in the face of such clear bias exposes their own bias that has nothing to do with foie gras as food.

[jesteinf]

Foie gras pizza anyone?

And so, for one day only, diners will be able to order foie gras and beef tournedos Vesuvio style at Harry Caray's, soul-food-style foie gras at BJ's Market and Bakery and deep-dish foie-gras pizza at Connie's Pizza (but only at the pizza chain's Archer Avenue location).

Fight the power!

[ronnie_suburban]

I like Didier Durand's (Cyrano's Bistro) take on this . . .

Chef Didier Durand of Cyrano’s will defy the ban by serving foie gras for free, then charge for the wine and garnish accompanying it.

Owner Plans To Sue Over Foie Gras Ban

=R=

[ronnie_suburban]

Foie gras pizza anyone?

And so, for one day only, diners will be able to order foie gras and beef tournedos Vesuvio style at Harry Caray's, soul-food-style foie gras at BJ's Market and Bakery and deep-dish foie-gras pizza at Connie's Pizza (but only at the pizza chain's Archer Avenue location).

Fight the power!

←

LOL! On D-Day, it's nice to hear da' Mayor still quacking about this . . .

Daley, meanwhile, lambasted aldermen.

"Why would they pick this and not anything else?" Daley asked. "How about veal? How about chicken? How about steak? Beef? How about fish? How about anything they can question? So where do you begin? Where do you end? People say veal is basically cruelty to animals. You could go on and on."

With laws such as the foie gras ban, Daley said, "all of a sudden, you can question any type, basically, anything that can be served in a restaurant. The poor snails and the mussels and the shrimp. I could go on and on. The lobsters."

Asked if aldermen should repeal the law, Daley said, "Well, I think they should come together and figure out what they've done. And realize that it's a silly law."

=R=

[Bobby 2 Shakes]

I'd love to see them take on the likes of Perdue, Tyson, or ConAgra/Armour. Ain't gonna happen. The politicians single out a "marginal" group (in this case, foodies who enjoy foie gras), and score cheap points with a constituency that the polls tell them outnumbers the target group. If the citizens of Chicago start looking at this whole sad episode with a jaundiced eye, the pols are in deep shit. Sadly, I doubt that many people even care about it.

←

These folks see themselves as George Washington's troops and Foie Gras supporters as the Hessians (unpopular, snuck up on, easier to defeat). They no doubt think that this will somehow empower them to take on the equivalent of the British Army of colonial times.

I just don't see God & the French taking their side this time, though. Ironically, they're alienating the very people who could help them launch a PR campaign to get them to treat animals less cruelly.

[scordelia]

It's official! Foie gras has been illegal for 24 hours, and more restaurants than ever are serving the delicacy--including Connie's pizza. The Health Dept has said that they are not going to enforce it because they lack the resources.

Chicago Tribune Article

[ronnie_suburban]

From the article linked above by scordelia:

Rhetoric and pate abounded on the first day of the City Council's ban, as restaurateurs and gourmands openly flouted the prohibition--cultured, giddy, goose-liver-fueled acts of defiance.

On Tuesday morning the Illinois Restaurant Association filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to overturn the ban, accusing the City Council of overstepping its authority.

At the same time, many diners tried the dish for the first time, drawn to the outlaw pate out of curiosity or desire to chomp on the wild side.

Some profusely thanked the restaurateurs who served it. Others laughed as they nibbled away, rolling their eyes at Chicago's avant-garde concern for poultry.

The city Department of Public Health delayed enforcement, and even Mayor Richard Daley raised his hands in bewilderment.

Chicago's wild foie gras chase

=R=

[Alex]

And a New York Times article about the subject. (The article may be available w/o a subscription for only a limited time.)

“The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we’ll see what happens,” said Joe Moore, the alderman who proposed the ban, adding that the method by which foie gras is produced — force feeding ducks and geese through a pipe inserted into their throats — is clearly animal cruelty.

Even after Tuesday, though, the possibility of foie gras raids appears remote. City officials will respond to citizen complaints, Mr. Hadac said, first sending a warning letter to restaurants, then demanding a fine — from $250 to $500 — for second offenses.

Hmm. How long do you think it'll be before well-meaning or Moore-prompted citizens (or PETA) start in with the complaint-filing?

[docsconz]

And a New York Times article about the subject. (The article may be available w/o a subscription for only a limited time.)

“The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we’ll see what happens,” said Joe Moore, the alderman who proposed the ban, adding that the method by which foie gras is produced — force feeding ducks and geese through a pipe inserted into their throats — is clearly animal cruelty.

Even after Tuesday, though, the possibility of foie gras raids appears remote. City officials will respond to citizen complaints, Mr. Hadac said, first sending a warning letter to restaurants, then demanding a fine — from $250 to $500 — for second offenses.

Hmm. How long do you think it'll be before well-meaning or Moore-prompted citizens (or PETA) start in with the complaint-filing?

←

I'd be surprised if they haven't already. This will be a good test to see how powerful Moore really is in Chicago. It should be an interesting next few weeks.

[scordelia]

Well, Hot Doug's is still serving three specials with foie gras on them. I should know--I just had them for lunch (I had help). I particularly recommend the cognac duck sausage with foie gras and figs

[ronnie_suburban]

Well, someone will have to file a complaint first. After that, I assume that the City will need to actually investigate before sending the warning letter to an establishment, since it wouldn't exactly be legit to send one based on heresay alone.

After that, an investigator will need to confirm that the restaurant in question actually sold the foie gras in question and didn't merely serve it as a courtesy or accomodation.

I think enforcement on this issue is going to be very difficult. It seems that the biggest risk which those who continue to serve foie will endure is not citation by the City but instead, the possibility of protestors gathering outside their restaurants.

=R=