NYC Area Foie Gras Ban

[markk]

This may be a dumb Q, but how much effect will letter-writing from people who are not only not even these people's constituents, but from completely different states have?

I have an entire wall in my office dedicated to the numerous letters I've received back from my representative (Kucinich) in response to my numerous letters to him, and I think that makes a difference, but he knows my vote affects him, as does my word of mouth to my friends and neighbors, who are also his constituents.  I don't know whether or not my contacting someone from NJ would have any effect since why should he care, I don't vote him into or (hopefully) out of office.

If anyone can shed light that indicates it would help, I will be more than happy to write.  Between this and the bill introduced in NY regarding trans-fats, I can't believe all the effort these people are wasting going after the wrong people/organizations, when there are so many that are actually worthy of their scrutiny and legislation which would actually help U.S. consumers.

←

Of course, if you're in a different state, he'll know that you don't personally have the power to vote him out of office, but he'll know from (hopefully) a lot of people around the region or the country that for one, we don't want government legislating what we can and cannot eat, and second, that we want them to collect their salaries to work on what are actually pressing problems that need legislative attention. I sent my letter to people all over the NJ state government (where of course I live) and, on a related view, even if some of them are not directly entitled to vote on this bill, they'll get the idea that I (or we) think it's a waste of time and taxpayer money.

[jsmeeker]

Tony,

Do you have a link to that poll?

←

http://www.nofoiegras.org/FGzogby.htm

←

Gracias.

←

Your country is rather confusing: 'Panter To Chair Solid Waste?'

Please confirm.

←

huh??

[Dianne_VA]

Updated AP Story:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FOI...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Laurie Woolever]

To all who intend to but have not yet contacted Panter to make your opinion known, I just spoke to his press rep who said that they have received close to 300 emails in favor of the ban, and just 22 opposed to the ban.

!!

[Robert A. Moran, M.D.]

This sucks. I wonder if they would care what a guy who was born in New Jersey, but now lives in Texas, thinks about all this?

Are there any other suppliers that approach what  D'Artagnan provides?

ps.  Speaking of New Jersey and your show, do you know if Travel Channel will re-air it?  It's one epsidoe of No Reservations I have yet to see.  (TiVo isn't always perfect)

←

Hudson Valley Foie Gras is excellent. They ship directly to the home cook and it has been wonderful. Their website is www.hudsonvalleyfoiegras.com.

[markk]

Hudson Valley Foie Gras exists because Ariane Daguin (founder of D'Artagnan) gave them their start originally, helped and encouraged them, because she wanted a domestic source of duck and foie gras to distribute.

As they are now a major producer, and as they have "foie gras" in their name, rest assured that they will be the next place put out of business by our ridiculous legislators if they are not stopped in their tracks.

As I've said, I've written a stern letter to Panter, and 16 other NJ legislators, and I hope everyone else will as well. And as it's been said by many, including Bourdain, the restaurant industry in America wouldn't be what it is today if Ariane hadn't started D'Artagnan, and especially if she hadn't encouraged and supported so many small producers in America to raise all the various high-quality items that they do.

This sucks. I wonder if they would care what a guy who was born in New Jersey, but now lives in Texas, thinks about all this?

Are there any other suppliers that approach what  D'Artagnan provides?

ps.  Speaking of New Jersey and your show, do you know if Travel Channel will re-air it?  It's one epsidoe of No Reservations I have yet to see.  (TiVo isn't always perfect)

←

Hudson Valley Foie Gras is excellent. They ship directly to the home cook and it has been wonderful. Their website is www.hudsonvalleyfoiegras.com.

←

[larrylee]

As I've said, I've written a stern letter to Panter, and 16 other NJ legislators, and I hope everyone else will as well.  And as it's been said by many, including Bourdain, the restaurant industry in America wouldn't be what it is today if Ariane hadn't started D'Artagnan, and especially if she hadn't encouraged and supported so many small producers in America to raise all the various high-quality items that they do.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...PINION/60530007

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/4/06

Assemblyman Michael J. Panter, D-Monmouth – E-mail AsmPanter@njleg.org

Office: 167 Avenue of the Common, Suite 7, Shrewsbury, NJ 07702

Phone: 732-544-2116 Fax: 732-544-4016

[Maliaty]

Story by Tony Bourdain as interviewed by Michael Ruhlman on Salon

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/10/0..._bourdain_foie/

cheers

Maliaty

[MissAmy]

Good article, but I fear foie gras is doomed. Sad, but true. The PETA people are to chicken to go after the REAL cruelty offenders (ie, factory farmed chicken, beef, etc) so they go for the easy target. "Regular" folks get behind it 'cause they don't know they whole story, and don't care if they can eat foie gras because they never have, and there we go, it's gone. And then once one food gets banned, we just open the door for more and more foods to get banned. If we keep going this way, in fifty years the only food avaliable will be the nutrient gruel from the Matrix.

[Dianne_VA]

Story by Tony Bourdain as interviewed by Michael Ruhlman on Salon

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/10/0..._bourdain_foie/

cheers

Maliaty

←

Can read additional comments from Ruhlman as well on his new blog

http://ruhlman.typepad.com/

[robyn]

[...]I don't put much stock in the "I rarely eat foie gras so I don't care" attitude. People should care. A lot of people only have sex, read a book or take a vacation once a year -- or less. Doesn't mean that banning those things would be okay. Nor is public policy supposed to be determined by self-interest. I'm sure my quality of life wouldn't be diminished in any noticeable way by banning foie gras -- I'd just eat more veal and caviar to compensate -- but I'm still opposed to the regulation because it's wrong. Likewise, I'm sure the fine dining industry would be hurt very little by a ban -- D'Artagnan would take a big hit but surely survive, restaurants would make small menu adjustments and all would be well -- but that doesn't make the ban okay. It's still an unacceptable, misguided and opportunistic political power play that should scare the heck out of anybody who believes people should be able to choose what they put in their bodies.

←

Well, I agree with all of that, but yelling "Doomsday" is still excessive.

←

Yup - particularly when it's about the only food ban people who I would consider liberal are up in arms about. Ban Chilean seabass - fine. Swordfish - ditto. Transfats (all those delicious Crisco pie crusts) - out of here. Not to mention the tons of people who are squeamish about the way veal is raised. Or the reaction to people who actually own guns and shoot animals to eat them. Etc.

You lie down with dogs - you get fleas. I'm surprised that the foie gras fighters are this late coming to the liberal "we shouldn't eat it so let's ban it" party.

FWIW - I think that D'Artagnan can move somewhere in the southeast and do just fine if they're shut down in New Jersey. Robyn

[menon1971]

[...]I don't put much stock in the "I rarely eat foie gras so I don't care" attitude. People should care. A lot of people only have sex, read a book or take a vacation once a year -- or less. Doesn't mean that banning those things would be okay. Nor is public policy supposed to be determined by self-interest. I'm sure my quality of life wouldn't be diminished in any noticeable way by banning foie gras -- I'd just eat more veal and caviar to compensate -- but I'm still opposed to the regulation because it's wrong. Likewise, I'm sure the fine dining industry would be hurt very little by a ban -- D'Artagnan would take a big hit but surely survive, restaurants would make small menu adjustments and all would be well -- but that doesn't make the ban okay. It's still an unacceptable, misguided and opportunistic political power play that should scare the heck out of anybody who believes people should be able to choose what they put in their bodies.

←

Well, I agree with all of that, but yelling "Doomsday" is still excessive.

←

Yup - particularly when it's about the only food ban people who I would consider liberal are up in arms about. Ban Chilean seabass - fine. Swordfish - ditto. Transfats (all those delicious Crisco pie crusts) - out of here. Not to mention the tons of people who are squeamish about the way veal is raised. Or the reaction to people who actually own guns and shoot animals to eat them. Etc.

You lie down with dogs - you get fleas. I'm surprised that the foie gras fighters are this late coming to the liberal "we shouldn't eat it so let's ban it" party.

FWIW - I think that D'Artagnan can move somewhere in the southeast and do just fine if they're shut down in New Jersey. Robyn

←

First off, I would welcome D'Artagnan to move to AL.

(Don’t they get most of their foie from NY, and if so why are NY restaurants not buying it from the source – just asking?)

Second, this may be a "liberal" issue of sorts, but this really does not fall within the political parameters of classic liberal issues like, say, poverty, racism, sexism, and equity issues of various stripes. This is sadly a topic that should, in governmental discourse, pale in comparison to the former, and thus be a secondary concern to human oppression. The real question regards broad standards of how animals should be treated in a decent free democracy. To anthropomorphize ducks is simply faulty logic, for ducks do not possess the same choices in life as humans or the same emotional capabilities. If we were beating them with sticks for amusement that would be one thing. However, if they come when called to eat the fatted gruel, this bespeaks to something less than abusive. I think the way much veal is raised would be a better example of agribusiness treating animals poorly, but this would have less appeal for more people want to eat huge portions of scallopini over pasta at Olive Garden than fatty liver.

My two cents: let us try to raise animals more humanely, eat better meat (foie included), and eat smaller portions.

[robyn]

First off, I would welcome D'Artagnan to move to AL.

(Don’t they get most of their foie from NY, and if so why are NY restaurants not buying it from the source – just asking?)

Second, this may be a "liberal" issue of sorts, but this really does not fall within the political parameters of classic liberal issues like, say, poverty, racism, sexism, and equity issues of various stripes. This is sadly a topic that should, in governmental discourse, pale in comparison to the former, and thus be a secondary concern to human oppression. The real question regards broad standards of how animals should be treated in a decent free democracy. To anthropomorphize ducks is simply faulty logic, for ducks do not possess the same choices in life as humans or the same emotional capabilities. If we were beating them with sticks for amusement that would be one thing. However, if they come when called to eat the fatted gruel, this bespeaks to something less than abusive. I think the way much veal is raised would be a better example of agribusiness treating animals poorly, but this would have less appeal for more people want to eat huge portions of scallopini over pasta at Olive Garden than fatty liver.

My two cents: let us try to raise animals more humanely, eat better meat (foie included), and eat smaller portions.

←

I disagree with you in some respects. Let people eat whatever they want to eat - and let restaurants serve whatever they want to serve if it's legal. And if states want to ban or restrict or regulate the killing of certain species of animals for reasons like possible extinction - that is up to the states - but restaurants should be free to serve what's available.

Shouldn't have beans to do with whether the stuff is mass market - or for the "upper classes" either.

And I reckon if a state decrees that a particular way of raising an animal is cruel and unusual punishment - well it's up to the states to decide that. I don't know - which is worse - a calf kept in a veal cage or a force fed duck (if indeed - either is "bad")? What about kosher methods of slaughter? Or how chickens are raised for the most part? On my part - I don't eat much of this stuff these days - mostly because I'm an older lady now - and it's not great for me. But I'm not religious about it. And I don't have that - anything most people eat is bad - but what we serve in high end restaurants is ok - attitude. I'm quite sure that a big meal at a 3 star restaurant is every bit as bad - if not worse - for me - than a meal at the proverbial Olive Garden.

Anyway - I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)? Like transfats? And how does state regulation of foie gras production differ in any way from state regulation of transfats - or how you can turn baby cows into veal? Robyn

[Pan]

[...]Anyway - I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)?  Like transfats?  And how does state regulation of foie gras production differ in any way from state regulation of transfats - or how you can turn baby cows into veal?  Robyn

←

(1) Transfats are often a "stealth" ingredient ("partially hydrogenated vegetable oil"); foie gras is very unlikely to ever be a stealth ingredient!

(2) Very few people are wealthy enough to eat foie gras often enough for it to severely damage their health, I daresay. The same is very unlikely to be true of transfats.

[Gustatorian]

I want my foie gras! (requires site pass)

I can't believe nobody else has linked this yet... Fascinating article, with an (almost) balanced discussion of banning fat liver.

[menon1971]

First off, I would welcome D'Artagnan to move to AL.

(Don’t they get most of their foie from NY, and if so why are NY restaurants not buying it from the source – just asking?)

Second, this may be a "liberal" issue of sorts, but this really does not fall within the political parameters of classic liberal issues like, say, poverty, racism, sexism, and equity issues of various stripes. This is sadly a topic that should, in governmental discourse, pale in comparison to the former, and thus be a secondary concern to human oppression. The real question regards broad standards of how animals should be treated in a decent free democracy. To anthropomorphize ducks is simply faulty logic, for ducks do not possess the same choices in life as humans or the same emotional capabilities. If we were beating them with sticks for amusement that would be one thing. However, if they come when called to eat the fatted gruel, this bespeaks to something less than abusive. I think the way much veal is raised would be a better example of agribusiness treating animals poorly, but this would have less appeal for more people want to eat huge portions of scallopini over pasta at Olive Garden than fatty liver.

My two cents: let us try to raise animals more humanely, eat better meat (foie included), and eat smaller portions.

←

I disagree with you in some respects. Let people eat whatever they want to eat - and let restaurants serve whatever they want to serve if it's legal. And if states want to ban or restrict or regulate the killing of certain species of animals for reasons like possible extinction - that is up to the states - but restaurants should be free to serve what's available.

Shouldn't have beans to do with whether the stuff is mass market - or for the "upper classes" either.

And I reckon if a state decrees that a particular way of raising an animal is cruel and unusual punishment - well it's up to the states to decide that. I don't know - which is worse - a calf kept in a veal cage or a force fed duck (if indeed - either is "bad")? What about kosher methods of slaughter? Or how chickens are raised for the most part? On my part - I don't eat much of this stuff these days - mostly because I'm an older lady now - and it's not great for me. But I'm not religious about it. And I don't have that - anything most people eat is bad - but what we serve in high end restaurants is ok - attitude. I'm quite sure that a big meal at a 3 star restaurant is every bit as bad - if not worse - for me - than a meal at the proverbial Olive Garden.

Anyway - I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)? Like transfats? And how does state regulation of foie gras production differ in any way from state regulation of transfats - or how you can turn baby cows into veal? Robyn

←

The point I was trying to make is that it is easier for politicians to vilify foods that are less familiar to the general population than it would be to propose a ban on something ubiquitous. I think back to when the FDA had raw milk cheese in its sights. Let’s face it, most Americans would support a ban on Livarots before industrial chicken.

I agree that if it is legal then it should be offered to whomever is willing to pay for it.

[markk]

I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)?  Like transfats?

Let's not preach from ignorance on eGullet - please!

As discovered by French medical researcher Serge Renaud and reported on the front page of the New York Times on November 17, 1991 ("Can Foie Gras Aid the Heart? A French Scientist Says Yes"), duck and goose fat are mono-unsaturated, like olive oil, and are beneficial to a heart-healthy diet, especially the concentrations found in foie gras. Natives of the region of Gascony, where the basic cooking lipid is duck and goose fat (as opposed to Provence where it's olive oil, and Normandy, where it's butter) were found to live well into their 90's and hundreds, all the while spreading congealed duck fat on the bread that they accompany the foie gras with, which is what led to the investigation of the composition of the fats themselves.

The next time you take your Omega-3 capsules, you should eat a slice of foie gras or a duck leg confit as well.

So let's end the comments that foie gras is bad for you, and talk about making it mandatory in school lunches instead.

[bleachboy]

So let's end the comments that foie gras is bad for you, and talk about making it mandatory in school lunches instead.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[robyn]

I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)?  Like transfats?

Let's not preach from ignorance on eGullet - please!

As discovered by French medical researcher Serge Renaud and reported on the front page of the New York Times on November 17, 1991 ("Can Foie Gras Aid the Heart? A French Scientist Says Yes"), duck and goose fat are mono-unsaturated, like olive oil, and are beneficial to a heart-healthy diet, especially the concentrations found in foie gras. Natives of the region of Gascony, where the basic cooking lipid is duck and goose fat (as opposed to Provence where it's olive oil, and Normandy, where it's butter) were found to live well into their 90's and hundreds, all the while spreading congealed duck fat on the bread that they accompany the foie gras with, which is what led to the investigation of the composition of the fats themselves.

The next time you take your Omega-3 capsules, you should eat a slice of foie gras or a duck leg confit as well.

So let's end the comments that foie gras is bad for you, and talk about making it mandatory in school lunches instead.

←

You can argue this on a variety of levels - but you can't tell me that a product whose nutritional values look like this is good for you. What you wrote seems to come straight from the industry defense of foie gras - which seems as unbalanced as the PETA opposition. The only nutritional claim I've seen that makes any sense - and it was tongue in cheek - is that the product is good for people on low carb diets.

I'd be a lot more interested in your answer if it started - "yes it's bad for you but...". Robyn

[markk]

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?srch...srcht=a&srchr=n

You can find the article there; it may require a subscription as you say.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

←

[markk]

I'd be a lot more interested in your answer if it started - "yes it's bad for you but...".  Robyn

←

I can't say that, because it's actually proven to be good for you, but...

If you favor emotion over science, then you won't see that. I knew a woman once who was anti-fat to the extreme, and so she ate egg yolks and threw away the whites; she was convinced that "white=fat", and nothing would change her mind.

[robyn]

[...]Anyway - I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)?  Like transfats?  And how does state regulation of foie gras production differ in any way from state regulation of transfats - or how you can turn baby cows into veal?  Robyn

←

(1) Transfats are often a "stealth" ingredient ("partially hydrogenated vegetable oil"); foie gras is very unlikely to ever be a stealth ingredient!

(2) Very few people are wealthy enough to eat foie gras often enough for it to severely damage their health, I daresay. The same is very unlikely to be true of transfats.

←

What if food is labeled to show transfat content? Why should someone be deprived of his ability to make a pie crust with original Crisco a few times a year - like someone might want to eat foie gras a few times a year?

The wealth argument doesn't cut it. What you're saying is government regulation is ok when it comes to poor people - but not rich people. McDonald's has to post the nutritional content of its food - but Per Se doesn't. "Let them eat foie gras" as it were.

Frankly - I personally do not believe there is any difference at all between banning transfats and banning foie gras. I am against both. However I can see how people would be in favor of both. But I think that people who in favor of the former - and not the latter - ought to review their positions - because I think they're inconsistent. Robyn

[JohnL]

Good article, but I fear foie gras is doomed. Sad, but true. The PETA people are to chicken to go after the REAL cruelty offenders (ie, factory farmed chicken, beef, etc) so they go for the easy target. "Regular" folks get behind it 'cause they don't know they whole story, and don't care if they can eat foie gras because they never have, and there we go, it's gone. And then once one food gets banned, we just open the door for more and more foods to get banned. If we keep going this way, in fifty years the only food avaliable will be the nutrient gruel from the Matrix.

←

Well you are correct to see the end game here.

This is not about cruelty.

It is about placing animals on the same level as human beings

which ultimately results--if brought to the logical (illogical) conclusion--

no animals used in any manner for any purpose.

Gruel from the matrix it will be!!!

If improving conditions at these so called "factory" operations was

a goal--then fine.

And I for one would like to hear the debate.

But this is a war with extremists and debate is futile.

By the way--there is actually a "plants rights" philosophy out there right now--today foie gras, tomorrow Purdue chicken and then.................

[menon1971]

I'm curious - what would people say if NJ or any other state banned foie gras on the basis that it was simply lousy for people to eat (which it is)?  Like transfats?

Let's not preach from ignorance on eGullet - please!

As discovered by French medical researcher Serge Renaud and reported on the front page of the New York Times on November 17, 1991 ("Can Foie Gras Aid the Heart? A French Scientist Says Yes"), duck and goose fat are mono-unsaturated, like olive oil, and are beneficial to a heart-healthy diet, especially the concentrations found in foie gras. Natives of the region of Gascony, where the basic cooking lipid is duck and goose fat (as opposed to Provence where it's olive oil, and Normandy, where it's butter) were found to live well into their 90's and hundreds, all the while spreading congealed duck fat on the bread that they accompany the foie gras with, which is what led to the investigation of the composition of the fats themselves.

The next time you take your Omega-3 capsules, you should eat a slice of foie gras or a duck leg confit as well.

So let's end the comments that foie gras is bad for you, and talk about making it mandatory in school lunches instead.

←

Just for the record:

Goose and duck have 57% and 49% Mono-unsaturated fat, 11% and 13% Poly-unsaturated fat, and 28% and 33% Saturated, respectively. They both have 22 mgs. of cholesterol per ounce.

Olive oil has 74% Mono-unsaturated fat, 9%, Poly-unsaturated fat, 14% Saturated, and no cholesterol.

I would also like to see the data concerning the average mortality rate being above 90 years of age in Gascony.

[menon1971]

Good article, but I fear foie gras is doomed. Sad, but true. The PETA people are to chicken to go after the REAL cruelty offenders (ie, factory farmed chicken, beef, etc) so they go for the easy target. "Regular" folks get behind it 'cause they don't know they whole story, and don't care if they can eat foie gras because they never have, and there we go, it's gone. And then once one food gets banned, we just open the door for more and more foods to get banned. If we keep going this way, in fifty years the only food avaliable will be the nutrient gruel from the Matrix.

←

Well you are correct to see the end game here.

This is not about cruelty.

It is about placing animals on the same level as human beings

which ultimately results--if brought to the logical (illogical) conclusion--

no animals used in any manner for any purpose.

Gruel from the matrix it will be!!!

If improving conditions at these so called "factory" operations was

a goal--then fine.

And I for one would like to hear the debate.

But this is a war with extremists and debate is futile.

By the way--there is actually a "plants rights" philosophy out there right now--today foie gras, tomorrow Purdue chicken and then.................

←

I hate to hear the broccoli scream when it hits the saute pan. The horror.