Proposed Ban on NJ "Force-Feeding"

[=Mark]

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) Farmers would be prohibited from force-feeding poultry under legislation being introduced in New Jersey that would alter production of the duck and goose liver delicacy known as foie gras.

Assemblywoman Joan Voss says she crafted the measure, which would ban using a feeding tube to force the birds to eat, because it harms the animals. Such practices have been decried by animal welfare activists.

I don't get it. Chopping their heads off, skinning and eating them does them no "harm?"

[markk]

I just wrote to her and told her it's crueler and more harmful to lull them into a false sense of security by raising them gingerly and treating them well, and then one day killing them, wrapping them in suffocating cryovac, and sending them to supermarkets so people can take them home and put them in a hot oven.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/voss.asp

[menton1]

This issue is gaining some traction. Aside from being passed in California, it is pending in New York, Oregon, Massachusetts and Illinois. It has to do with suffering of the animals while still alive, not the slaughtering (humanely) of the animals.

The campaign is fraught with objectors who are actually not out to prove the humaneness of force feeding the ducks and geese (a ruse) but are actually worried about the availability of their delicious foie gras. These folks would probably eat the stuff regardless of how much cruelty is involved.

Kudos for Schwarzenegger!!

[tommy]

geese can feel lulled into a sense of security?

[Simon_S]

It has to do with suffering of the animals while still alive. 

←

How do you know that they suffer?

Si

[jwjojo]

Your right, animals suffering is funny stuff. It is always funny to see animals suffer for our entertainment or gluttony. Watching calves in cages so small they can't move...funny stuff. Force feeding animals, always a laugh. How do you know they are suffering...gee, I don't know. Only humans really suffer pain I guess. The rest of the animal world have no feelings or ability to feel pain.

[Simon_S]

How do you know they are suffering...gee, I don't know.  Only humans really suffer pain I guess.  The rest of the animal world have no feelings or ability to feel pain.

←

I ask again, how do you know that ducks are suffering when being force-fed? I'm not doubting for one instant that humans would suffer if force-fed grain through a tube, but ducks aren't humans. I would suffer extreme discomfort if forced to eat food without chewing it, but that's what ducks do since they don't have teeth. A night sitting out on a cold marsh with no clothes on would probably kill me, but ducks manage quite nicely. I stress, I'm not trying to be flippant here, but from what I've read, there isn't much evidence that ducks are suffering all that much when force-fed. There was a link here recently to an article that detailed this fact by looking at behaviour, stress hormone levels and even brain activity in ducks during the gavage stage of force-feeding.

Leaving aside the obvious tendency to anthropomorphise, I'm still not convinced that ducks find gavage all that unpleasant.

Si

[menton1]

It would be nice if folks here "came clean" about their real feelings. It's not about suffering of sentient creatures; it's about getting a foie gras fix. Let nothing stand in the way. Few here care about animal suffering. This is a white elephant. They are only worried about foie gras becoming less available.

[melkor]

It would be nice if folks here "came clean" about their real feelings.  It's not about suffering of sentient creatures; it's about getting a foie gras fix.  Let nothing stand in the way.  Few here care about animal suffering. This is a white elephant. They are only worried about foie gras becoming less available.

←

I don't think that's true at all. I think if there were some proof that producing foie gras caused animal suffering that many people would stop eating it. The research doesn't support that, so a ban seems premature.

[jwjojo]

Menton speaks the truth. Proof that the animal is suffering? My goodness what blinders we humans can put on when we want something that invariably hurts others. Do we need proof that a calf is suffering in a cage unable to move until it is slaughtered? Does the animal have to write a letter explaining their pain? Geese naturally graze, they do not force feed themselves. Scientific proof? Just watch the process and the proof is pretty obvious. Amazing!

[melkor]

Menton speaks the truth.  Proof that the animal is suffering?  My goodness what blinders we humans can put on when we want something that invariably hurts others.  Do we need proof that a calf is suffering in a cage unable to move until it is slaughtered?  Does the animal have to write a letter explaining their pain?  Geese naturally graze, they do not force feed themselves.  Scientific proof?  Just watch the process and the proof is pretty obvious.  Amazing!

←

Watching a goat eat a tin can is pretty unpleasant, chickens eat stones, fish never stop swimming. I'm no fan of sticking veal in a pen, I don't buy eggs from chickens that live in cages, but to say that the foie gras ducks are suffering is unsubstaniated conjecture on your part. Sure neither of us wouldn't like eating through a tube, but I suspect neither of us can fly either.

[tommy]

Do we need proof that a calf is suffering in a cage unable to move until it is slaughtered?

should the government ban veal, then?

i'm for a ban on foie gras about as much as i'm for a ban on veal, chickens, beef, pigs, and just about every other animal raised for slaughter. it amazes me that people eat food without really giving much thought to the the animal's well-being during its life, yet they'll get all up in arms over foie gras. people, these cows and chickens aren't exactly running through the fields tripping over daisies.

personally i don't eat veal very often out of some sort of silly principle, but i'd be a little afraid if the government decided that i can't eat or buy it.

Edited August 31, 2006 by tommy (log)

[Andrew Fenton]

Personally, I'd like to see the NJ legislature pass a law to end the suffering caused by watching this same argument recycle again... and again... and again...

oops, sorry. Carry on!

[jwjojo]

should the government ban veal, then

Yes. They should. They should ban cruelty to any animal for the sake of glutteny or entertainment. For the record it is not silly to have convictions for the prevention of cruelty to animals. I never speak out about any of this as this is a site about food. It is indeed the elephant in the room. This thread and some of the comments are so insensitive to animals that I am saddened.

[melkor]

should the government ban veal, then

Yes.  They should.  They should ban cruelty to any animal for the sake of glutteny or entertainment.  For the record it is not silly to have convictions for the prevention of cruelty to animals.  I never speak out about any of this as this is a site about food.  It is indeed the elephant in the room.  This thread and some of the comments are so insensitive to animals that I am saddened.

←

Veal is a byproduct of the dairy industry. Only half the cows born can make milk, the other half have to go somewhere - I'd agree completely that its cruel to stuff them in cages in dark rooms, but I have no problem with them entering the food supply if they are raised responsibly. What do you suggest happen to the male calves?

[tommy]

should the government ban veal, then

Yes.  They should.  They should ban cruelty to any animal for the sake of glutteny or entertainment. 

←

chicken and eggs are probably right out, then. mass produced chickens live in deplorable conditions.

[jwjojo]

chicken and eggs are probably right out, then. mass produced chickens live in deplorable conditions.

←

Yes, Tommy, you are correct, they are in deplorable conditions. Animals could be raised in a more humane way. They Are being raised in more humane ways. That is why many stores are only buying from cageless farms. It is a good thing to promote cruelty free poultry etc. It is possible, and idealy, if one can afford to do so, we should all be more thoughtful in our purchases.

[tommy]

It is possible, and idealy, if one can afford to do so, we should all be more thoughtful in our purchases.

←

"we" should? honestly most people don't care. that's just the reality.

i have to ask: do you eat chicken at restaurants? if so, do you make sure they come from a farm that raises them humanely, by your standards?

your points are well taken, but probably not specific to a discussion on foie gras, but rather more general and germane to a discussion on factory farmed food. foie gras is just the tip of the iceberg, as you well know, if one is concerned about the treatment of the animals that so many of us eat every day, several times a day.

for my part, i do try to buy hormone-free animals that have lived what i can only assume is a decent enough life (from my non-chicken perspective), from local farms like Goffle Poultry in Hawthorne. I buy my turkeys there for thanksgiving as well, as i think they're tasty and fresh.

Just bought a pig from a farm down in central jersey last weekend as well. Got to pick it out and wait until they killed, shaved, and gutted it, i assume in that order (more humanely than factory farmed, i'm told). Tasty business, that. Most notable to me, was the treatment of that animal when we brought it to the party. A small child was very curious, and poked it with a "light saber" toy as we were chopping it up. The guy who basically orchestrated the whole gig reacted with a heartfelt "HEY, you have to *respect* the pig." After all, it died so we could eat. The kid's reaction was priceless, though: "But you're CUTTING IT UP!". I think most people think the way this 5 year old felt. Probably unfortunate. But reality.

Edited September 1, 2006 by tommy (log)

[hitmanoo]

I am always amazed by mankind's need to somehow separate himself from nature or make himself "superior" to all living things. The need to make the distinction b/w "man-made" and "natural."

Human beings are part of the natural order. Why is it not considered animal cruelty when a pack of lions hunt down their pray then feast with complete disregard to the fact that the hunted may not yet be dead? Or when an alligator chomps on its victim and rolls it around under the water, tenderizing it while it struggles for air?

I just see both sides of the coin, and find it puzzling how human beings can put into law and enforce punishment on each other for how we choose to feed and sustain.

[andiesenji]

Migrating fowl, geese, ducks, swans, puffins, and penguins ALL gorge prior to migration. The so-called "force" feeding simply exploits a natural tendency.

As far as I am concerned there are so many more important issues that should be addressed, i.e. children and elderly who do not have enough to eat and do not have even minimal health care, that this ridiculous legislation, costing a lot of money, is frivilous.

Any legislation that puts small farmers/producers out of business is a travesty when they do nothing about battery-raised and maintained chickens, turkeys and etc.

They go after the little guy who doesn't have the money to fight back. That is restraint of trade.

Note that the day the "Govenator" signed that ridiculous bill in California, the federal government relaxed the restrictions on IMPORTS of foie gras from France! Does that make sense? it is okay to import the stuff and wrong to raise it here. Most legislators are idiots.

[tommy]

Why is it not considered animal cruelty when a pack of lions hunt down their pray then feast with complete disregard to the fact that the hunted may not yet be dead?  Or when an alligator chomps on its victim and rolls it around under the water, tenderizing it while it struggles for air?

←

because that's nature's will. humans, however, use their superior intellect and science (hell, we practically make new types of animals that would have never existed otherwise) to create (bring to life) animals with the sole intention of making them live in an unnatural environment so we can kill them shortly after. i think there's a clear difference there, but i guess the point could be argued either way.

now, if the lions in the wild were forcing gazelles to breed, and then locking them in boxes, and then letting them out to try to run so they could pounce on them and rip them limb from limb while alive, well then i think we need to get a camera crew together, because that'd be one helluva National Geographic special.

Edited September 1, 2006 by tommy (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Folks, since this topic has nothing to do with NJ in particular and is rehashing arguments made extensively elswhere, we're closing it down. Thanks.