Banning foods .. what will be the next food to go?

[Gifted Gourmet]

"My biggest fear is what's next, " says Grant Achatz, chef at the cutting-edge restaurant Alinea. "Veal? Then rabbit? Squab? Let's face it, you can take apart just about any commercially grown animal and find some flaw in the raising process. It just depends on how far people want to push it."

article source

Your opinions on which foods might be banned next?

Is Achatz right in being anxious?

Agree with the statement: you can take apart just about any commercially grown animal and find some flaw in the raising process.?

[Kevin72]

I think that in all likelihood we'll probably unfortunately see a wave of foie gras bannings across the country next. Maybe some attention will then be turned to veal, but I'd like to think that there can be alterations made in the process (i.e., "free range"). Then again, the same could also be said of foie gras.

Still, these things have a way of petering out. In general, PETA isn't so well looked upon, so a well-funded countercampaign revealing them as the source of these movements would probably eventually put a stop to this.

[srhcb]

"My biggest fear is what's next, " says Grant Achatz, chef at the cutting-edge restaurant Alinea. "Veal? Then rabbit? Squab? Let's face it, you can take apart just about any commercially grown animal and find some flaw in the raising process. It just depends on how far people want to push it."

article source

Is Achatz right in being anxious?

←

Chef Achatz, and others, should rightly be alarmed rather than axious, although it will likely be to no avial.

This is an example of Mancur Olsen's "logic of collective action", an economic argument, which posits that a highly motivated minority will impose its view on a largely disinterested majority.

Our representative form of government exaggerates the effect, being susceptible to, even dependent upon, special interest groups. Mass media, desperate for ratings, seek out sensational stories and fan the flames.

Remember that gourmands, rightly indignant over not being able to enjoy foie gras, stood disinterestedly aside while the simple pleasues and minor rights of myriad other groups were trampled by a highly energized and vocal minority.

SB (It's just a matter of whose ox is being gored? )

[srhcb]

[

Agree with the statement: you can take apart just about any commercially grown animal and find some flaw in the raising process.?

←

Since the "process" ultimately ends in us killing the animal, it's hard to argue with the statement?

SB (so I try not to )

[FabulousFoodBabe]

I'd like to see these forces get some momentum against foods that are really bad for people -- like margarine. But that would be no fun because it wouldn't promote the vegan diet and lifestyle, that's really behind the foie gras ban. Plus, it would be more expensive.

My sons would like to see cooked vegetables banned. Husband would like to ban the sale of Brussels Sprouts wherever he shops. And even though I'm against banning things, Cool-Whip could change my attitude.

[docsconz]

One thing that might keep veal safe from encroachment is that it is a necessary offshoot of the dairy industry, which probably has a bit more political clout than the foie gras industry.

[docsconz]

Same true for agribusiness poultry and pork production. Can one really see the Chicago government for example taking on Armour? This is one reason why I find the whole situation so hypocritical.

[andiesenji]

In my opinion the fanatics that move PETA have virtually become economic terrorists in that they seek to destroy the livelihood of a great many people.

In Australia they promoted a boycott of wool, attempting to destroy an entire economy.

I do wish that someone with a media voice would stand up and get the message across that if PETA has its way, it will mean the extinction of hundreds, if not thousands, of species.

If farmers are not allowed to raise and sell animals, fowl, etc., for slaughter, for dairy, for eggs or whatever else they produce, who do they think is going to pay to maintain those animals. They aren't pets. You can't keep domestic cows without milking them, once they have been bred, they now produce far too much milk for a single calf. It is painful for them to be left with full udders.

The original purpose of PETA was to be a watchdog against truly cruel treatment of animals. However, in the years I served with the California Humane council, I never saw a PETA member accompany us when we raided places where dog fighting was done and I am pretty sure none every helped rescue fowl at one of the cock-fighting farms. Likewise, a friend who works at LAX says they could use volunteers for inspecting for smuggled birds, snakes, and any endangered species coming in from overseas but PETA is not interested. They could also help stop the horrible smuggling of very young and often sick puppies from Mexico.

Perhaps if a few headlines got the message across that PETA seems to be advocating the extinction of all domestic animals, they would have far less support, particularly with the Hollywood set who seem to be a bit dense when it comes to seeing through the smoke-screens PETA uses to obscure their real objectives.

[godito]

It takes a group like PETA to attack PETA. But then we create another monster.

I think the banning of foods is something to watch carefully in America. You don't see the french banning foie.

Banning anything is wrong in principle. If you don't agree with something, don't consume it. If you get enough people to not consume something, then they'll stop selling it. Why take away my freedom to choose?

And the bans are always funny. I remember during World Cup 2002 a few countries ralied to get Korea to stop selling dogs as food in the streets. Koreans replied that to them dogs are food. And they wondered why didn't France stop selling foie gras and veal during the previous World Cup (France 1998).

I say less banning, more accepting.

[JanMcBaker]

My sons would like to see cooked vegetables banned.  Husband would like to ban the sale of Brussels Sprouts wherever he shops.  And even though I'm against banning things, Cool-Whip could change my attitude.

←

Hmmm--- maybe banning Cool-Whip would help prevent an oil shortage?

[Pontormo]

Preamble, including disclaimers:

1) There are several other recent threads on this topic, including one that features Charlie Trotter and another even more recent thread on Chicago's ban.

2) I was a vegetarian for approximately three months in high school. I would include myself in the "pork dork" contingency here, except I don't like being called a "dork." Let's just say my favorite food in the world is prosciutto.

3) I wear leather shoes. My wallet's leather, just prefer my jeans made out of denim, please. I do not advocate throwing paint on people for wearing fur, breaking into labs to rescue animals or seizing lobsters from restaurant tanks and running...or snatching plates of foie gras from diners.

4) I have caught fish whose deaths were probably painful; the worms on the hooks were not wiggling with delight either. Skinned them, gutted them, fried them over a campfire. I have plunged live lobsters into water without the humane step that Julia Child is famous for demonstrating. Okay, that bothered me a little, but I quickly walked away and it didn't bother me too much. I have never slaughetered animals or seen them slaughtered, though I found the shots of cows and carcasses in the film Memories of Underdevelopment as disturbing as they were supposed to be. I accept the fact that the meat I eat several times a week comes from animals that were raised by humans to make pastry creams, steak or to deep-fry potatoes.

5) I enjoy healthy debate as much as the rest of you who are reading this thread, however, I am not posting this out of any masochistic desire to be berated.

* * *

I have not read long explanations about the way foie gras is produced. I just know what I've been told. It sounds dreadful, like prolonged torture. Am I the only one who is troubled by this?

I am not advocating a ban on foie gras. People who are not troubled by foie gras have the right to eat it. People who are not troubled by the wearing of madras plaid patchwork pants on the golf course have the right to wear them, too....not that they're at all comparable. I am just trying to be tolerant. Better analogy, perhaps: I would not ban conventually raised produce were organic farming proven to be vastly superior in imparting nutritional benefits and prolonging life.

Would someone with more knowledge about foie gras and its production please respond and tell me why it is just part of the chain of life and not any more gruesome than what goes on when pigs, poultry, cows or sheep are raised as food?

[Pontormo]

Actually, having just read the most recent posts on the thread concerning Chicago's ban, I see I am not the only one here who has voiced discomfort.

[dans]

Chicken! It is raised in the most inhumane of settings. When people find out how these birds are raised, the fight over Foie Gras will seem small.

Only kidding. No one really cares how thier colorless, tasteless, BSCB are raised...

Dan

[FabulousFoodBabe]

Only kidding. No one really cares how thier colorless, tasteless, BSCB are raised...

Dan

←

I'd laugh louder at that, but I think you're right.

***

And Andiesenjii, well said. Okay, you too, Pontormo, quitcher whining.

[srhcb]

In a logical world, all absolutist arguments would ultimately prove untenable.

Here, in this world, we all have the right to voice and argue them anyway.

However, relatively speaking, consider that the life of any domesticated animal is far better than that of its wild cousins, being at least assured of regular feeding and shelter from predators.

Then, draw the line where you will.

SB (not usually so agreeable?)

[Gifted Gourmet]

and we ought not be too complacent because coming up on what's gone awry for our fine animal friends there is Lobster Abuse!

ROME (Reuters) - An Italian restaurant was fined 688 euros ($855) for displaying live lobsters on ice to attract patrons, in an innovative application of an anti-cruelty law usually affecting to household pets.

A court in the northeastern city of Vicenza ruled the display was a form of abuse dooming the crustaceans to a slow death by suffocation ..."They said that the lobsters, laying on the ice, suffer... They compared them in court to other animals, like cats and dogs."

[barolo]

I have not read long explanations about the way foie gras is produced.  I just know what I've been told.  It sounds dreadful, like prolonged torture.  Am I the only one who is troubled by this?

←

The post by Jamie Maw (#349) in this thread would provides information about the production of foie gras in Canada (some is imported to the US). There is another post elsewhere about a California operation that I couldn't find in my quick search.

[Kevin72]

and we ought not be too complacent because coming up on what's gone awry for our fine animal friends there is  Lobster Abuse!

ROME (Reuters) - An Italian restaurant was fined 688 euros ($855) for displaying live lobsters on ice to attract patrons, in an innovative application of an anti-cruelty law usually affecting to household pets.

A court in the northeastern city of Vicenza ruled the display was a form of abuse dooming the crustaceans to a slow death by suffocation ..."They said that the lobsters, laying on the ice, suffer... They compared them in court to other animals, like cats and dogs."

←

Zwaaa? That makes no sense! What about the live crabs laying on their backs in the Rialto market? Or the live fish flopping around in bins? Don't tell me there's a movement to get rid of the fish markets next!

[Fai Jackson]

The clunkheads at PETA are looking to ban all meat and dairy products. So they started with an easy target--not many people even know what foie gras is, let alone eat it. If the chefs are upsest they should form a counter group and quite honestly they should start yesterday. I can see PETA going after the cruel and inhumane way lobster are plunged alive into boiling water, and of course veal is prime for attack. Although, I have been chastised for this opinion, I believe people like PETA and their supporters dance the dance of the well fed. For most of the people in this world ,it is a ridiculous concern. To them, food is food and how it is produced is just not a consideration. If however, it bothers you to think about the ducks, lobsters or calves, for sure don't eat it. Just allow me to eat myself into an early grave scarfing down foie gras.

Personally, I have a great deal of trouble with the way hens are treated as layers in the commercial farms. After visiting one (my uncle's actually) I have tried to stick to free range organic eggs. The added bonus being flavour. That being said , I would not stop anyone from purchasing and consuming these eggs, since the cost of the free range ova is a lot higher.

That my 2 cents worth.

[Bobby 2 Shakes]

  In general, PETA isn't so well looked upon, so a well-funded countercampaign revealing them as the source of these movements would probably eventually put a stop to this.

←

I'm sure the NRA would love to pony up a few bucks to stop these same people who would deny them their right to hunt.

[Pontormo]

I have not read long explanations about the way foie gras is produced.  I just know what I've been told.  It sounds dreadful, like prolonged torture.  Am I the only one who is troubled by this?

←

The post by Jamie Maw (#349) in this thread would provides information about the production of foie gras in Canada (some is imported to the US). There is another post elsewhere about a California operation that I couldn't find in my quick search.

←

Anne: Thank you for alerting me to this informative, well-written post. I urge others who have not read it to do so.

[Pan]

In my opinion the fanatics that move PETA have virtually become economic terrorists in that they seek to destroy the livelihood of a great many people.

In Australia they promoted a boycott of wool, attempting to destroy an entire economy.[...]

←

They presume that shearing is inhumane? Are they also against haircuts? I don't get it.

[TPO]

I am not typically for banning foods. I believe the key is education -- teach people how foie gras is made and let them decide for themselves. I know people who have become vegetarians after reading Fast Food Nation and people who read it and still thoroughly enjoy their hamburgers. Provide people with information, and let them decide what to do with it.

But as much as I dislike banning, I also dislike the typical "sky is falling" response that banning one thing will lead to a banning of everything. Sure, a few cities might follow Chicago. But then a few elected representatives of those cities might find themselves losing their reelection campaigns, being replaced by those who will overturn their bans. I don't think we're going to all end up starving in gutters because of a nationwide meat ban just because Chicago banned foie gras.

[silentryan]

Banning anything is wrong in principle. If you don't agree with something, don't consume it. If you get enough people to not consume something, then they'll stop selling it. Why take away my freedom to choose?

I say less banning, more accepting.

←

Yes, lets let market forces deal w/ child pornography and slavery too.

[andiesenji]

In my opinion the fanatics that move PETA have virtually become economic terrorists in that they seek to destroy the livelihood of a great many people.

In Australia they promoted a boycott of wool, attempting to destroy an entire economy.[...]

←

They presume that shearing is inhumane? Are they also against haircuts? I don't get it.

←

Here is a link to one article about the OZ problem.