Foie gras bill introduced in Philly

[glepore]

This Kelly is a grade A ignoramous, isn't he. I love the "Let them grow corn or SOMETHING" comment. He's obviously thought this through.

←

Unfortunately, he's sort of a relative by marriage (wife's cousin) so I'll not comment.

As to the comment that the "visit Delmarva" remark in my first post was the "wrong argument" I happen to know that Councilman Kelly is not a vegetarian. My point was/is that no rational political body could even begin to discuss a chicken, pork or beef ban. To suggest that foie be banned is innane given the way that modern food is produced. Something about glass houses...

Edited May 18, 2006 by glepore (log)

[Vadouvan]

If laws like that are found to be unconstitutional, I'll eat my hat. There is no more of a protected "right" to eat foie gras than there is to smoke marijuana. Not every stupid or even offensive law is unconstitutional. Not even every very stupid or even offensive law.

This is as absurd as the councilman's argument that uses smoking as an example of government intrusion.

Eating foie gras or any animal part of alleged questionable production isnt against the law in America.

Smoking Marijuana which is an Illegal substance is.

Breaking the law isnt "protected " by the constitution...

You dont need to be Alan Dershowitz to figure that out.

It continues to confound me why these patently ridiculous analogies continue to pop up.

[aaronwcpa]

I heard a reoport on WHYY, I think. about tourism in Philadelphia, the need to encourage more visitors.

Something stupid as this is not encouraging to any potential tourist. It makes the city look foolish.

[Vadouvan]

It makes the city look foolish.

I love Philly but not only does it make the city look foolish, it makes it look like a foolish second rate city that copies everything new york and other cities do.......even the stupid stuff.

pathetic.

[Holly Moore]

For now at least, we're talking about one minor councilman looking for some ink, not the City of Philadelphia. If this dies in committee or doesn't pass if voted upon, the city will look just fine.

[Sneakeater]

If laws like that are found to be unconstitutional, I'll eat my hat. There is no more of a protected "right" to eat foie gras than there is to smoke marijuana. Not every stupid or even offensive law is unconstitutional. Not even every very stupid or even offensive law.

This is as absurd as the councilman's argument that uses smoking as an example of government intrusion.

Eating foie gras or any animal part of alleged questionable production isnt against the law in America.

Smoking Marijuana which is an Illegal substance is.

Breaking the law isnt "protected " by the constitution...

You dont need to be Alan Dershowitz to figure that out.

It continues to confound me why these patently ridiculous analogies continue to pop up.

←

I'm not gonna get into a protracted constitutional law argument (especially with a layperson), but as soon as that regulation is passed, eating (or rather serving) foie gras becomes illegal. I'm sorry. You're just wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives you a right to sell things that are produced legally. It's just not in there. Unless you've actually studied constitutional law, don't call these arguments "patently ridiculous". (I'm sorry if that sounds snobby, but I "continue" to be "confounded" by half-baked constitutional arguements made by people who haven't studied the field.) (I'm sorry if that sounds argumentative, but same caveat.)

Edited May 18, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[matthewj]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

That This city of Philadelphia is actually considering this crap. I am sorry, but it is. There are sooo many thing wrong with city council, that a distended liver should be the last on their list. City council seems to bury it's head in the sand when other cities are positively changing. ( smoking, alcohol, pay to play, unions) but looks to another city for a stupid ruling in that city. (Chicago). They should focus in on the fact of how hard it is to do business in Philadelphia, and how high a liquor licence can be for an owner. Or why they kept Mayor street in office.

Geese, ducks, Chickens, cows, pigeons, ect ect. are raised as food. Food. When are these crazy zealots going to stop. They only reason foiegras farming is under attack is it is not a big business compared to chicken farming. It is a lot easierto go to war with sonoma Foie gras, than to battle it out with Perdue.

Guys, good luck.. I am glad i moved more and more everyday.

Hey V what is going on up there.

excuse me whilst I eat my hemp, and scrounge for my holistic way of life

[Vadouvan]

I'm sorry. You're just wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives you a right to sell things that are produced legally. It's just not in there. Unless you've actually studied constitutional law, don't call these arguments "patently ridiculous". (I'm sorry if that sounds snobby, but I "continue" to be "confounded" by half-baked constitutional arguements made by people who haven't studied the field.) (I'm sorry if that sounds argumentative, but same caveat.)

No offense, i wasnt soliciting your approval.....

Edited May 18, 2006 by Vadouvan (log)

[KOK]

If Foie gras is outlawed, only outlaws will have Foie gras .

I agree with the poster upthread that one difference between eating Foie gras and second hand smoke is that eating Foie gras is FAR less likely to annoy the senses of those around you (except perhaps on an airplane).

I think, as others have said, it will likely die in committee.

This thread seems to be getting a bit sanctamoneous .

Thanks,

Kevin

[Jason Perlow]

As for the "foie gras is a heart attack on a plate" argument: So is a Quarter Pounder with Cheese and a side of fries. Gonna ban those too, Councilman Kelly?

Cheesesteak BAN!

[KatieLoeb]

I'm borrowing a computer at work just to reply to this.

What can I say. We have some truly colossal idiots on our City Council. I didn't vote for this guy, but I'm embarrassed to live in a City where he was elected.

The "why don't they grow corn or something" comment pretty much solidifies my opinion on his intellectual prowess.

I've sent him a scathing note. I doubt I'll get a response.

[shacke]

It's easy and popular to bring up this issue since most people don't like foie gras and its a folly of the well to do by and large.

I figure zapping an electric charge on a duck's head with a stun bolt and flipping it upside down as you slit it's throat is a much more cogent argument against cruelty in general but that's what they do to get the "steak" part of your cheesesteak. Try banning that. You think getting overfed a lot of grain through a tube is beyond the pale? Ever read about steer feedlots? Want a link?

Anyway, I am developing a secret knock. If you want to sip a secret sauternes shipped in from out of state and a slab of foie gras in my basement - you better know it and not let the cops follow you, man.

[cdh]

Hmmm... where in the 'burbs could Joel Assouline move his foie gras distribution operation to? Luckily city council only speaks for the city proper. Maybe he should partner with Moore Bros over across the river. That way we could pick up fine wine and foie all under one roof... and they certainly have room for a refrigeration unit over there.

[MarketStEl]

My own district councilman is Frank DiCicco.

He has struck me as one of the more thoughtful and intelligent members of Council.

Perhaps in addition to sending nastygrams to Councilman Kelly, we should send notes to our own district Councilpeople or any of the four currently seated at-large members (I don't think Councilman Cohen's seat has been filled yet) suggesting that if Kelly's proposed ordinance sees the light of day, they dispatch it to the bottom of the Delaware quickly.

[herbacidal]

we should send notes to our own district Councilpeople or any of the four currently seated at-large members (I don't think Councilman Cohen's seat has been filled yet) suggesting that if Kelly's proposed ordinance sees the light of day, they dispatch it to the bottom of the Delaware quickly.

←

Shouldn't that be 5? There's seven normally, minus Cohen and minus Kelly, although it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to overwhelm Kelly as well.

[Mummer]

Four letters to the editor in today's Inky - 5/22 - page b2. I didn't see them on the web edition. Here's the conclusion of each:

Erin Smith - Collegeville: "Let's ban foie gras in Philadelphia!"

Joyce Weiss - Wynnewood: "Who elects these people?"

Judy Wicks - Philadelphia: "These practices are not natural; they are barbaric."

Laurence Steinberg - Philadelphia: "With people like Kelly in charge, it's little wonder that Philadelphia is in such a sorry state.

The paper qualifies one submission with: "Wicks owns the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia."

[Linda Terry]

As we know now, the bill has been tabled because of all the murders...

hugsforpuppies.com has taken over with their extreme animal rights protests under the guise of "foie gras". The leader is Nick Cooney and he has gotten lots of media attention, front page even. Scary.

This is no joke. They are trying to terrorize and extort restaurants, their guests and employees by picketing with bullhorns, banners and large photos of caged bloody geese with metal tubes sticking out of them.

They have been to my restaurant 5 times and have gotten people to engage by screaming "duck rapists", "terrorists", "scumbags" and "assholes", leading to several incident reports against customers and employees. Civil Affairs is in charge and since the Stu Bykofsky article the "9th" district isn't able to respond to our civil rights and are also being baited by these kids.

Of course we know there is no reason to engage, we are adults, etc etc.

Basically, we are sitting ducks, no pun intended.

S Starr gave them power by taking it off all his restaurant's menus, after 1 visit to his home. Including his 13, there are up to 35 restaurants who have removed foie gras from their menus.

Are we going to be told what to eat now??? Everyone-this is serious stuff!

Any lawyers out there want to file an injunction for us? Can we jump on any existing injunctions? I don't have the 20,000.00 it'll end up costing!

FIGHT the FIGHT against FOIE GRAS!

Terry McNally

co-owner London Grill

Philadelphia

Wouldn't it be ironic if they can't pass a smoking ban but protect the ducks?

The folks that sponsor these bills should go down to Delmarva to a factory farm for chickens or to NC to a pork farm-that'd open their eyes.

←

[matthewj]

I am very sorry this is happening to you. If I was in Philadelphia I would be right with you in the fight. Stu 's article was not only gross, but it was full of inacuracy's that was taken from the hugs for puppies pamphlet. This is wrong people. This is not just a political issues it deals with peoples choices and lack there of.

Edited June 10, 2007 by matthewj (log)

[Alcibiades]

If Hugs for Puppies is the institutional force behind the enactment of a foie gras ban then we have a serious problem in this City's government. As I mentioned on another thread (and as Linda Terry mentions here) the tactics and informational substance employed by this group are harrassing and misleading, respectively, and amount to substanceless rubbish.

The issue of legislating against foie gras sale doesn't seem to pass legal or sensical muster at this point. As far as I know, the prevailing opinion of the American Veterinary Medical Association does not come down on the side of foie-gras-as-torture. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture doesn't deem foie gras to be a menace to public health (thereby voiding the argument that "diseased" livers--whether that's true--pose a threat to humans who ingest them). Save for the FDA (possibly) I cannot think of another agency whose statutory disapproval of a food item would cause its sale and distribution to be banned. Therefore, what business do the elected respresentatives of the people of Philadelphia have in banning foie gras? Is there a City agency that exists that has scientific priority over the appropriate regulatory agencies of the federal government?

Why the City Council would take this issue up in legislative matters is beyond me. The accepted science and corresponding laws of the appropriate regulatory agencies side with the continued production, sale, distribution and consumption of foie gras. Until this changes, banning foie gras does seem to be a violation of consumers' rights.

Edit: I don't mean to imply that the AVMA is a Federal agency, merely that it would be the leading authority on the biological aspects of animal cultivation.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Alcibiades (log)

[matthewj]

These facts are correct, but in a public forum the pressure from these groups have forced the hands of CA, NY, and Chicagos government of regulating what can be eaten and what can not. With or without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is those who scream the loudest who seem to get heard. This has done nothing but hurt the food industry. The will effect independant farmers in the long run. It is easier for the protestors to go after the little guy than to go after the larger corporation hat have a lot of money and lobbiest in Washington.

I just hope his will not pass.

[Linda Terry]

I am personally feeling better hearing from sane like-minded people. Today I am literally sitting in my house, next door to my restaurant, waiting for these freaks to show up! My staff is on edge, my local district is driving by, some of my customers are looking for the show!...(and ordering all the foie gras specials-the chef's are searing, curing, moussing...)

I have survellience cameras being put up next week; am meeting with D'Artagnan to discuss their support; calling Michael Klein again and retaining a lawyer.

These facts are correct, but in a public forum the pressure from these groups have forced the hands of CA, NY, and Chicagos government of regulating what can be eaten and what can not.  With or without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  It is those who scream the loudest who seem to get heard.  This has done nothing but hurt the food industry.  The will effect independant farmers  in the long run.  It is easier for the protestors to go after the little guy than to go after the larger corporation hat have a lot of money and lobbiest in Washington. 

I just hope his will not pass.

←

[Alcibiades]

The hope is that in its proper manifestation government responds to the will of its constituency and sound science with an eye towards sensible public policy. As the facts stand now banning foie gras would be a move in the opposite direction, especially if the impetus for such a ban would come from a group of fanatics who are mobilized because they lack proper socialization.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Alcibiades (log)

[brucedelta]

I think we should picket farm raised chicken at Starr restaurants particularly. If you want to show how stupid this argument and it's logical conclusion is why don't we just jump to "hugs for puppies" endgame. Surely ducks can not be the only animal they care about. Steven Starr and others have proven susceptible to this pressure. So I suspect the correct play is to jump to the endgame and protest chicken and I believe since Starr has proven sensitive to protests that should be the starting point.

If you fight bullets with bullets and missiles with missiles, then stupidity is obviously the proper weapon here.

[Linda Terry]

Since articles like MKlein's recent one in the Inquirer and Rick Nichol's interview on Radio Times/NPR last week, where he outed Nick Cooney as a criminal and followed up with a piece in the Inquirer, I have some hope that hugsforpuppies and their foie gras campaign will hinder an upcoming ban proposal!? Their tactics are unsavory to say the least. I have yet to encounter any customer or neighbor who isn't outraged AT THEM, plus we are selling more foie gras than ever, so we now believe their mission goes beyond "foie gras".Let's hope they trip up somewhere soon. The problem is they know the law and are trained to walk the line while trying to get us to cross over it.

I  think we should picket farm raised chicken at Starr restaurants particularly.  If you want to show how stupid this argument and it's logical conclusion is why don't we just jump to "hugs for puppies" endgame.  Surely ducks can not be the only animal they care about.  Steven Starr and others have proven susceptible to this pressure.  So I suspect the correct play is to jump to the endgame and protest chicken and I believe since Starr has proven sensitive to protests that should be the starting point.

If you fight bullets with bullets and missiles with missiles, then stupidity is obviously the proper weapon here.

←

[philadining]

I think we might need a group like "Rolled-Up Newspapers for Puppies" to help the protesters with their social skills. Any time any of them steps over the line, screaming something shrill or misleading, someone can smack a rolled-up newspaper in their hand (don't hit the puppies, one just wants to make a startling noise) and say "NO!" firmly but calmly. Praise them and give them treats for being good. Gotta be cheaper than lawyers.