Humane Society seeks foie gras ban in NY State

[johnsmith45678]

Animal rights groups on Wednesday sought to ban foie gras production in New York, one of the leading U.S. producing states, arguing that overfeeding birds to fatten their livers makes the animals sick.

The Humane Society of the United States filed a formal action with the New York U.S. State

Department of Agriculture and Markets to stop the practice under a state law that makes it illegal to produce food from diseased animals.

Link

[Grub]

Aw jezz, not this shit again...

One point that interests me here, is that they're not using the same old argument about this actually being cruel to the animals. They're actually arguing that the process causes the animals to become sick, and selling food from diseased animals is illegal -- basically, a complete technicality, or a straw-man argument.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why they are taking this route in this case? Is this a normal argument?

I know this is wishfull thinking -- but could this be because they know that the accusation of cruelty has no chance of sticking? That would at least give me some hope...

[Megan Blocker]

I know this is wishfull thinking -- but could this be because they know that the accusation of cruelty has no chance of sticking? That would at least give me some hope...

←

Well, it stuck in Chicago.

Oh, my oh my. I cannot believe this. Seriously - like we don't have real problems to deal with? We have serious issues feeding a good number of the humans in this world - how about people focus on the inhumanity of that, rather than on how we feed ducks and geese?

Edited July 7, 2006 by Megan Blocker (log)

[Jean Blanchard]

Hopefully, your city council won't be as nutty as ours here in Chicago. Last I heard, there was a proposal here to ban trans fats also. I'm surprised that most of these guys even know what trans fats are. Once they figure out that their french fries are cooked in them, that'll be the end to that thought.

No, Megan. We have no problems feeding people in this part of the country. That's why we can concentrate on these issues.

[menton1]

Aw jezz, not this shit again...

One point that interests me here, is that they're not using the same old argument about this actually being cruel to the animals. They're actually arguing that the process causes the animals to become sick, and selling food from diseased animals is illegal -- basically, a complete technicality, or a straw-man argument.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why they are taking this route in this case? Is this a normal argument?

I know this is wishfull thinking -- but could this be because they know that the accusation of cruelty has no chance of sticking? That would at least give me some hope...

←

Hasn't foie gras been banned in California, the nation's largest state, since 2004? Led by an unlikely hero, Arnold Schwarzenegger?

I think the main issue to some is that they don't give a hoot whether it's cruel or not; it tastes good, and "dammit, I want to eat it!"

[barritz]

Menton1, it's not banned yet. From Wikipedia: "On September 29, 2004, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that will ban the production or sale of foie gras from force fed birds in the state by 2012."

[menton1]

Menton1, it's not banned yet.  From Wikipedia: "On September 29, 2004, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that will ban the production or sale of foie gras from force fed birds in the state by 2012."

←

That's ture, that was a political consideration, otherwise the bill would not have been passed. But 2012 will be here eventually, and it will be banned.

My point was that most of these folks claiming that it is not cruel couldn't give 2 gavages whether it is or not. They just want to eat the stuff.

[Nathan]

bastards.

[Adrian3891]

It seems to me that the issue may not be the treatment of the animals on either side of the debate. While I agree that many foie gras defenders do not care about the health of the animals, what makes foie an easy target has nothing to do with its supposed cruelty. How else do we explain the comparative lack of legislative action taken against practices that are almost certainly crueller than force-feeding? Factory poultry farming is not only cruel but may even be a public health concern. Also, few people doubt the cruelty of veal farming. However, no political ban against cheap, factory produced chicken would have public support. But, due to the perceived decadence of foie gras, it is a political winner. Instead of playing to classes and interest groups, what we need is an honest debate about the moral, health, and environmental consequences of our food production. Sadly, I doubt that we're going to get that any time soon.

[menton1]

It seems to me that the issue may not be the treatment of the animals on either side of the debate. While I agree that many foie gras defenders do not care about the health of the animals, what makes foie an easy target has nothing to do with its supposed cruelty. How else do we explain the comparative lack of legislative action taken against practices that are almost certainly crueller than force-feeding? Factory poultry farming is not only cruel but may even be a public health concern. Also, few people doubt the cruelty of veal farming. However, no political ban against cheap, factory produced chicken would have public support. But, due to the perceived decadence of foie gras, it is a political winner. Instead of playing to classes and interest groups, what we need is an honest debate about the moral, health, and environmental consequences of our food production. Sadly, I doubt that we're going to get that any time soon.

←

Excellent points. PETA wholeheartedly agrees with this, they have discussed things like this at great length. However, PETA is profoundly unpopular among the Egullet members, which is no surprise.

[Jason Perlow]

My point was that most of these folks claiming that it is not cruel couldn't give 2 gavages whether it is or not. They just want to eat the stuff.

I think it's debatable as to whether or not gavage is "cruel". If you've seen any of the videos of how its actually done at artisinal foe gras producers, the Ducks/Geese actually run up to the person get fed that way. They aren't "forced". They are physiologically adapted to that form of feeding.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Jason Perlow (log)

[johnsmith45678]

Wasn't there an episode of No Reservations on a foie gras farm where the ducks sort of ran away from the feeder (about which Tony and the proprietor made remarks)? Other than that, it looked like a pleasant place for the ducks (I think Tony made a remark about it being like Club Med).

[barritz]

I like something that slkinsey wrote in another thread.

I've said before that if I had to choose between living as a duck faised for foie gras or living as a Tyson chicken, I'd choose to be the duck in a heartbeat. Does this mean that some of the foie gras criticisms don't have merit? Of course not. But it does say to me that many of the anri foie crusaders have their priorities mixed up. You want to crusade to improve the lives of animals raised for slaughter and consumption? good for you. Where do you think you'll affect the greater number of animal lives -- working against foie gras production or working for better conditions in chicken factory farms? I'd say it's around one million to one in favor of the latter, if not more.

I read that, on average, Hudson Valley produces roughly 250,000 ducks a year. Compare this to Tyson which now produces more than 2 billion chickens a year, and if you are shopping in a typical American supermarket, close to a quarter of the chickens you see on the shelves will have been produced by Tyson.

[Jason Perlow]

I like something that slkinsey wrote in another thread.

I've said before that if I had to choose between living as a duck faised for foie gras or living as a Tyson chicken, I'd choose to be the duck in a heartbeat. Does this mean that some of the foie gras criticisms don't have merit? Of course not. But it does say to me that many of the anri foie crusaders have their priorities mixed up. You want to crusade to improve the lives of animals raised for slaughter and consumption? good for you. Where do you think you'll affect the greater number of animal lives -- working against foie gras production or working for better conditions in chicken factory farms? I'd say it's around one million to one in favor of the latter, if not more.

I read that, on average, Hudson Valley produces roughly 250,000 ducks a year. Compare this to Tyson which now produces more than 2 billion chickens a year, and if you are shopping in a typical American supermarket, close to a quarter of the chickens you see on the shelves will have been produced by Tyson.

←

Yeah but how many of these 250,000 ducks are actually slated for foie gras? Surely not the majority of them. So the numbers are even smaller.

[johnder]

The New York Sun is reporting that the suit to try and ban Foie production in NY has been filed yesterday.

You can read the full story for details, but an interesting passage was:

Whether a judge will decide if the ducks should be considered diseased remains to be seen. A judge could decide that the Legislature intended for the law to only "concern itself with animals whose diseased state could then cause diseases in humans," a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, Tamie Bryant, who specializes in animals and the law, said.

The suit is filed upon the basis that the ducks are overfed to the point they are diseased.

John

[srhcb]

"Yesterday's suit, filed in state Supreme Court in Albany, represents an unusual turn to the courts by opponents of the foie gras industry....

....

The plaintiffs, who include the state and national humane societies, claim that foie gras should be considered an "adulterated" food product because the ducks grow so unnaturally fat and ill that they qualify as diseased under state agriculture law, according to the complaint."

....

"It sounds creative," a professor at Michigan State College of Law who closely follows animal rights litigation, David Favre, said. "This is a new approach."" - Joseph Goldstein, New York Sun

It seems that in order to be considered "diseased" the bird's liver would have to be malfunctioning. Does anyone know it this is the case?

SB (would use stronger language than "creative" to describe the "approach")

[Peter Green]

bastards.

←

I echo Nathan's response.

What is this human trait that arises like something from the grave, that needs to suck the joy, life, and colour from this world, and won't rest until everyone is as grey and lifeless as they are?

[JohnL]

It seems to me that the issue may not be the treatment of the animals on either side of the debate. While I agree that many foie gras defenders do not care about the health of the animals, what makes foie an easy target has nothing to do with its supposed cruelty. How else do we explain the comparative lack of legislative action taken against practices that are almost certainly crueller than force-feeding? Factory poultry farming is not only cruel but may even be a public health concern. Also, few people doubt the cruelty of veal farming. However, no political ban against cheap, factory produced chicken would have public support. But, due to the perceived decadence of foie gras, it is a political winner. Instead of playing to classes and interest groups, what we need is an honest debate about the moral, health, and environmental consequences of our food production. Sadly, I doubt that we're going to get that any time soon.

←

An "honest debate"??

You must be kidding.

Would you actually even listen to the chicken industry or the veal industry?

seems you (and others) have already decided the case.

The debate should start with a perception of animals as equivalent to humans.

(with "rights").

For example, is keeping a fish confined to a tank for one's viewing pleasure a criminal act?

Resolve that debate first then one can go on to food production.

[Kent Wang]

Edit.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Kent Wang (log)

[Grub]

...

The debate should start with a perception of animals as equivalent to humans.

(with "rights").

For example, is keeping a fish confined to a tank for one's viewing pleasure a criminal act?

←

That doesn't sound like a good idea at all, to me. Animals and humans aren't equivalent.

If you were to put a human, and a fish, and a duck, in a comfy chair, or a fish tank, or throw them off the roof of a building, it would be perfectly fine for one of them, and really devastating for the other two. Animals aren't humans. That's not to say that they don't have emotions, or that they can't feel pain, sorrow or happiness.

Keeping a fish in a tank, for one's viewing pleasure isn't criminal, or bad. If you feed it, and keep the tank clean, it's cool. If you pour vodka into it, or introduce a piranha or an angry, sociopathic Bolivian Fighting Fish into it, it ain't. Quit antropomorphizing the animals already!

[srhcb]

If you were to put a human, and a fish, and a duck, in a comfy chair, or a fish tank, or throw them off the roof of a building, it would be perfectly fine for one of them, and really devastating for the other two.

Keeping a fish in a tank, for one's viewing pleasure isn't criminal, or bad. If you feed it, and keep the tank clean, it's cool. If you pour vodka into it, or introduce a piranha or an angry, sociopathic Bolivian Fighting Fish into it, it ain't. Quit antropomorphizing the animals already!

←

But what if you threw a Humane Society attorney off the roof, or put one in a tank full of piranha?

Or, for that matter, sat one in a comfy chair and poured vodka into them?

SB (it might loosen them up a little? )

[Dave H]

It seems that in order to be considered "diseased" the bird's liver would have to be malfunctioning.  Does anyone know it this is the case?

←

It is not. If, instead of being slaughtered, a foie gras bird is put back on a normal diet after the full two weeks of gavage, its liver will shrink back to normal and it will be none the worse for wear. There is no detectable permanent liver damage. Which makes sense as the livers of wild ducks and geese become engorged every year (albeit not to the extent seen in foie gras production) when they overfeed in preparation for migration, and of course return to normal as the excess fat is burned in flight.

If you read all the animal rights propaganda claiming that foie gras is a diseased condition (which is pretty much all of it these days, as they have seized upon the "disease" framing eagerly now that they've realized the "stuck-up Frenchy" framing has started to lose its cachet), you will typically see the putative disease identified as hepatic lipidosis. Hepatic means "of the liver," while lipidosis is abnormal fat accumulation. That is, hepatic lipidosis is just the dictionary definition of foie gras, a literal translation of foie gras from French into medicalized Latin. It is also the dictionary definition of "begging the question." Anyone claiming this term proves foie gras livers are diseased should be made a laughingstock.

During normal foie gras production, measurements of stress hormones show no change from baseline levels, and measurement of pain signals are low enough to be inconclusive. (To the extent they are raised, they are hypothesized to come from aggravation of the crop following two weeks of frequent feeding.) Total mortality rates, while higher in the final two weeks than in the pre-gavage part of life, are well below those prevailing on typical poultry farms despite over twice as long a lifespan.

In 2004 the American Veterinary Medical Association convened a committee to study the available research on foie gras production, including a visit to an American producer. In 2005, based on the committee's findings, both the original resolution condemning foie gras production and a watered-down version were overwhelmingly voted down by the full membership. This seems a rather unambiguous statement that America's veterinary community does not consider foie gras production to result in disease.

[TAPrice]

Thanks for the smart response (and it warmed my heart to see "begging the question" used correctly).

It sounds like you know the literature on the topic. Do you have any references for the studies you mention? I'd like to give them a read.

[Bricktop]

I will search for the link later, but I think I read somewhere on eGullet that the "Humane Society of the United States" (plaintiff) IS NOT the same group as your local Humane Society that you think of when adopting a pet. It is a fringe nut-job group that grabbed up a name which has a good place in you mind so you erroneously associate them with homeless puppies.

Activist Cash

A little Truth in Advertising is needed from such "ethical" people.

[Dave H]

Thanks for the smart response (and it warmed my heart to see "begging the question" used correctly).

It sounds like you know the literature on the topic. Do you have any references for the studies you mention? I'd like to give them a read.

←

Jeffrey Steingarten wrote a typically great column on the subject a few months ago for Men's Vogue. It was the starting point for many of my points, although I did google the terms in question to find out more and place them in context. (This was more out of curiosity than skepticism, as Steingarten's research is always thorough and scrupulous.) Of course most of the foie gras material you find at the top of a google search will be from farmsanctuary or PETA or other wackos, as that's what gets the most incoming links, but it is worth reading to confirm the facts that everyone agrees upon, to note the facts they ignore, and to see how they use misleading statements and anthropomorphism to make their arguments. With a little knowledge it becomes very easy to read between the lines.

As for citations on a few of the specific facts I gave: Michael Ginor of Hudson Valley Foie Gras gives his mortality rate as 3.5 percent, while this resource is one of several putting the mortality rate among factory farmed chickens at upwards of 10%. The fact that the birds' livers return to normal healthy function is something I've seen discussed numerous times in the past, and is confirmed in Steingarten's article. His discussion of the 2005 AVMA vote is confirmed by numerous anti-foie gras websites (they of course avoid calling the vote "overwhelming" and express outrage, attack the AVMA as a tool of agribusiness, etc.). The discussion of hepatic lipidosis is helped by its wikipedia page (it is indeed a medical condition--not a disease in itself--when it occurs unintentionally in people; there are also google references to hepatic lipidosis being a problem for some cats). And so forth. I should point out that I had misremembered the typical length of gavage as being two weeks (it is four), and that despite some references I saw putting the lifespan of a factory chicken at 6-7 weeks, the more common length seems to be 8-9 weeks, so the lifespan of a foie gras duck is twice that of a typical farmed chicken, not over twice as I claimed.

As Steingarten points out, good research on foie gras husbandry is scarce. The EU produced a major report some years ago; I didn't look it up last night, but I read it a year or two ago when I was considerably more ignorant and undecided on the question, and my main takeaways were 1) the lack of any concrete physiological evidence that gavage caused the birds distress, particularly the stress hormone research; and 2) the fact that the strongest criticisms they could come up with involved the incidentals of foie gras production (e.g. the restrictiveness, cleanliness, etc. of the cages at some farms during gavage). Of course these factors are far worse in typical factory farmed poultry, and from what I gather are considerably better at the few North American farms than at the worst of the many French farms.

The English language papers of the researcher Steingarten mentions on page 5 can be found here.