NYC Area Foie Gras Ban

[markk]

I actually think that this thread has come up with a brilliant, and practical, feasible solution to this issue. Somebody above should get the credit, but I can't figure out who. But here's what I see as the solution:

Our legislators in all of the states currently involved with this (NJ, NY, IL, etc.) should be asked to ban the items 'in question' across the board. Foie Gras, foods with trans fats, and foods whose saturated fat and sodium content exceeds the RDA.

Then, when the "rich" people can't get foie gras, and the "not rich" people can't get fast food (as it has been put by so many), we'll explain that the lawmakers have decided what they can and cannot eat.

Maybe then we'll have go to the voting booths and decide the question, "Can the govermment legislate what you can and cannot eat?" And the question would be releant to everybody in the country.

[bleachboy]

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

←

A medical case could be made that trans-fats are not just unhealthy, but actually poisonous. Such a case could likely not be made about foie gras.

I cannot say that I would oppose a ban on trans-fats in processed food. I would oppose a ban on products like Crisco, though -- like you said, it makes a perfect pie crust and unless you're eating pie every single day, a little bit of trans-fat isn't going to hurt you.

[robyn]

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

←

A medical case could be made that trans-fats are not just unhealthy, but actually poisonous. Such a case could likely not be made about foie gras.

I cannot say that I would oppose a ban on trans-fats in processed food. I would oppose a ban on products like Crisco, though -- like you said, it makes a perfect pie crust and unless you're eating pie every single day, a little bit of trans-fat isn't going to hurt you.

←

Poisonous? Really - GMAFB.

It is perhaps more accurate to say that a little of almost anything never killed anyone.

And it is also accurate to say that I am sick of the food police. Are there lots of people in the US who "eat stupid" - yup. Should I suffer because of it - no. Robyn

[markk]

I cannot say that I would oppose a ban on trans-fats in processed food.  I would oppose a ban on products like Crisco, though -- like you said, it makes a perfect pie crust and unless you're eating pie every single day, a little bit of trans-fat isn't going to hurt you.

←

_________________________

CRISCO Nutrition Facts

Serving Size 1 Tablespoon

Calories 110

Calories from Fat 110

Amount Per Serving

Total Fat 12g

Saturated Fat 3g

Trans Fat 0g

Polyunsaturated Fat 6g

Monounsaturated Fat3g

Cholesterol 0mg

Sodium 0mg

Total Carbohydrate 0g

Protein 0g

Ingredients

SOYBEAN OIL, SUNFLOWER OIL, FULLY HYDROGENATED PALM OIL, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID (ANTIOXIDANTS).

______________________

source: http://www.crisco.com/about/prod_info.asp?...63&FlavorId=344

[zoe b]

I still haven't heard from Marcia Karrow, yet --will call her again Monday--called Panter's office on Fri and the woman I spoke to said the calls were mixed, fairly even in terms of pro or con--so the e-gulleters and others of that ilk are rallying, apparently.

Was driving on Saturday and heard Jim Coleman's radio show on NPR from WHYY--the subject was France and foie gras was mentioned--a big lightbulb went off in my head--

if you haven't listened to this show, Coleman is a chef based in Philly area--he seems like a nice guy, and I think his show has a pretty big audience--

so message for Anthony Bourdain----if you read this--you and Ariane Daguin should go on the show--I'm in NW Jersey and i get it--I think WHYY is heard all over NJ--and you have a food loving, aware audience--it would be a super forum for the whole issue

Zoe

Edited October 8, 2006 by zoe b (log)

[edsel]

I've been holding my tongue a bit in this thread, perhaps because so much of this has been hashed over again and again. I'd like to weigh in with a few thoughts.

I've been buying foie gras and other products from Ariane Daguin's d'Artagnan since before they even had a web presence. I first learned of d'Artagnan's provisons from Ariane's father's cook book "Foie Gras, Magret, and Other Good food from Gascony". (published in 1988).

I'm just a small-scale consumer - I don't buy food products on anywhere near the scale that commercial enterprises do. I'm careful about the sources for my food. I try to avoid any suppliers that engage in questionable practices. And yes, that means that I pay more for my food (especially meat and eggs), and I'm OK with that.

So here's the thing that really pisses me off. There is just so much disinformation surrounding the production of foie gras. Here's a video on the Humane Society's web site that is absolutely disgraceful. Behold the disinformation. There is absolutely no evidence that any North American producer has *EVER* engaged in these practices. Oh, here's the thing that pins the bullshit-meter: The video ends with the proclamation "There is no humane way to produce foie gras". Oh really?? So if we catch ducks or geese gorging themselves, should we turn them in to the food police? Paul Shapiro should hang his head in shame. This video is utterly irresponsible.

I can live without eating foie gras. Honestly, the foie I've been served in restaurants has been hit-or-miss. Some of the best foie I've ever experienced was at the Heartland Gathering (All of Fat Guy's protestations to the contrary). But if foie gras disappeared from menus tomorrow, I wouldn't necessarily mourn from a culinary standpoint. But that's not the point, now is it?

Ultimately the only answer to the anti-foie forces is transparency. As far as I know, all of the North American foie producers are operating in an entirely ethical manner. When people start yelling about the "poor little duckies", point out that the ducks are never handled roughly, that their gullets are lined with cartilage, that ducks are not people.

I can certainly understand why the foie producers are a bit gun-shy when it comes to opening up there operations to outside scrutiny. It's do-or-die: the producers in New York, California, and Quebec need to show the world that they are not engaging in cruel practices.

p.s. to Markk - your "transfat" link is to a *new* "green label" Crisco product introduced a couple of years ago. P&G invented the whole trans-fat hydrogenation process more than a century ago. See Nina Plank's book "Real Food" for a history of the trans-fat industry.

[robyn]

I cannot say that I would oppose a ban on trans-fats in processed food.  I would oppose a ban on products like Crisco, though -- like you said, it makes a perfect pie crust and unless you're eating pie every single day, a little bit of trans-fat isn't going to hurt you.

←

_________________________

CRISCO Nutrition Facts

Serving Size 1 Tablespoon

Calories 110

Calories from Fat 110

Amount Per Serving

Total Fat 12g

Saturated Fat 3g

Trans Fat 0g

Polyunsaturated Fat 6g

Monounsaturated Fat3g

Cholesterol 0mg

Sodium 0mg

Total Carbohydrate 0g

Protein 0g

Ingredients

SOYBEAN OIL, SUNFLOWER OIL, FULLY HYDROGENATED PALM OIL, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID (ANTIOXIDANTS).

______________________

source: http://www.crisco.com/about/prod_info.asp?...63&FlavorId=344

←

I think that's the "new" Crisco (without transfats) - the company that makes Crisco is still making the "old original" (with transfats) too.

Also - with regard to Edsel's post - from my point of view - the production of animals for human consumption (which always involves killing them) varies. But I don't care whether the animals are force-fed - or live in cages - or are treated like Roman emperors. In the long run - we're just going to kill them and eat them. Would it matter to any of you if the murderer in the Silence of the Lambs had kept his next victim in the Ritz Carlton instead of in a hole in the ground? I eat meat - and fowl - and I think once you get on the slope that it's ok to eat some animals because we raise them this - that - or the other way - but not ok to eat them if they're raised another way - that slope is very slippery. Robyn

[edsel]

I would have to say that I do care about how animals are treated. I just don't see how the ducks and geese used for producing foie are particularly abused. If anything, they are treated far better than many of the animals that ultimately wind up on our dinner plates.

In my youth I spent over ten years as a vegetarian. Not so much in the "poor little moo-cows, poor little duckies" sense. More in response to the industrial food production machine. Actually, it was precisely due to the ethics of the food production industry. Blame Francis Moore Lappé.

I eat beef, lamb, duck, goat, bison, and yes foie gras. I do my best to buy from reputable sources - the closer to the farm the better. I'm not going to get all high-and-mighty about my food ethics. Nor am I going to try to force my positions on anyone who disagrees.

[Kim WB]

Having worked with the Animal Rights organizations within my involvement in NJ campaigns, the thing to recognize is that they are organized and well funded. they have PACS, and lots of grass roots support. An elected official wants two things: votes, and money. A well funded organization can deliver both. And if that organization has an agenda that fits nicely into the legislator's platform, then its nirvana. the same groups advocating the foie ban were also very involved int he Bear hunt issue during the 2005 gubenatorial race...once corzine stated his position against the bear hunt during the debates, the Animal Rights people came out of the woodwork to help him..while I don't agree on their platform, I admire their ability to organize, have a cohesive voice, and follow through.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Kim WB (log)

[robyn]

I would have to say that I do care about how animals are treated. I just don't see how the ducks and geese used for producing foie are particularly abused. If anything, they are treated far better than many of the animals that ultimately wind up on our dinner plates.

In my youth I spent over ten years as a vegetarian. Not so much in the "poor little moo-cows, poor little duckies" sense. More in response to the industrial food production machine. Actually, it was precisely due to the ethics of the food production industry. Blame Francis Moore Lappé.

I eat beef, lamb, duck, goat, bison, and yes foie gras. I do my best to buy from reputable sources - the closer to the farm the better. I'm not going to get all high-and-mighty about my food ethics. Nor am I going to try to force my positions on anyone who disagrees.

←

What is "the industrial food production machine"?

I don't have many farms close to where I live - and the ones that are here mostly raise cabbage and potatoes. Should I buy a lot of "How to Cook 19th Century Peasant Russian Food" cookbooks ?

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher. And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

So I guess I'm not PC when it comes to food.

BTW - where do you get bison that comes from "close to home". Most of what's sold here in restaurants and food stores comes from Ted Turner's acreage out west (and it's reasonably good stuff)? Robyn

[markk]

What is "the industrial food production machine"?

Perdue?

Tyson?

You might want to read "Fast Food Nation", and then you wouldn't have to ask that question.

One of the few ways to stop this nonsense over how the ducks are treated would be to compare them to how the above mentioned companies raise their chickens, honestly.

[markk]

I cannot say that I would oppose a ban on trans-fats in processed food.  I would oppose a ban on products like Crisco, though -- like you said, it makes a perfect pie crust and unless you're eating pie every single day, a little bit of trans-fat isn't going to hurt you.

←

_________________________

CRISCO Nutrition Facts

Serving Size 1 Tablespoon

Calories 110

Calories from Fat 110

Amount Per Serving

Total Fat 12g

Saturated Fat 3g

Trans Fat 0g

Polyunsaturated Fat 6g

Monounsaturated Fat3g

Cholesterol 0mg

Sodium 0mg

Total Carbohydrate 0g

Protein 0g

Ingredients

SOYBEAN OIL, SUNFLOWER OIL, FULLY HYDROGENATED PALM OIL, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID (ANTIOXIDANTS).

I think that's the "new" Crisco (without transfats) - the company that makes Crisco is still making the "old original" (with transfats) too.

I thought that too, but their site lists only this Crisco. Still, what I meant by posting that is that whether or not they've removed the trans fats, there's still a lot of saturated fat, and of course the answer is that you have to read the nutritional labels; then you can make an informed decision based on your own dietary needs. The key word being "choice", the very thing that Panter wants to take away from us.

[Mikeb19]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

[Hawthorne]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

←

The problem for HSUS and PETA and their allies is not really animal cruelty, despite the fact that they have coopted the term 'animal welfare', the problem for them is any human use of animals period - for meat, milk, eggs, butter, leather, wool, fur, companionship, service ... you get the picture.

They are perfectly happy to pretend to be interested in animal welfare to progressively redefine the term 'cruelty' and 'abuse' to mean 'raising animals for human use', including meat and even for pets.

They are whittling away at our rights not only to raise animals for meat, but to raise animals period, and one of their stategies is to pit one group of animal users against another, using each group's ignorance of another to misrepresent whatever practise they are currently targeting.

There are so few people any more who know anything about animal husbandry that they can tell any lies they care to about hunting practises, raising ducks for foie gras, livetock management, dog and cat breeding practises, or any other group you care to mention.

If they can put show dog raisers out of business by wringing their hands about puppy mills, they'll do that - individuals are much more vulnerable than corporations. They are working on small farmers, hobby and niche producers the same way. They put pork raisers in Florida out of business by successfully granting constitutional rights to sows. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29542

I'm sorry to say this is not a joke.

Worse, the feds are pimping agribiz interests, and if the NAIS program goes through, you will see a huge reduction in the availability of locally produced meat, poultry, eggs, game ... organic and range fed meat and poultry and eggs will go away ...

Too long to go into here in any detail, but see http://www.nonais.org for info, links to the USDA, your reps, and everything else you'd rather not know about this misconceived program.

Apart from this, though, don't blow off the AR zealots; they have money and power, and because their goals are ludicrous doesn't mean we won't get stuck with them if we don't recognize the seriousness of their agenda and fight them actively.

HSUS has pages which show which legislation they support and oppose, both federal and state - but they write much of the current animal law, right down to local ordinance level, and are finding that buying politicians and legislation is much more effective than funding animal terrorism.

Enough ... if you want to discuss this aspect of your diet and cooking habits, I'm at the.limit@comcast.net

Lynn

[menon1971]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

←

The practice in my home state (VA) is to first stun hogs (I know, not a Kosher analogy, but a similar process is used with steers I am told) via electrocution then wake the animal by sticking (not slashing as in Kosher butchering) the jugular vein. The animals state of shock causes the heart to beat at a faster rate and thus the animal more efficiently drains itself of blood. I am not sure this is more humane than a clean deep cut accross the throat.

[robyn]

I cannot say that I would oppose a ban on trans-fats in processed food.  I would oppose a ban on products like Crisco, though -- like you said, it makes a perfect pie crust and unless you're eating pie every single day, a little bit of trans-fat isn't going to hurt you.

←

_________________________

CRISCO Nutrition Facts

Serving Size 1 Tablespoon

Calories 110

Calories from Fat 110

Amount Per Serving

Total Fat 12g

Saturated Fat 3g

Trans Fat 0g

Polyunsaturated Fat 6g

Monounsaturated Fat3g

Cholesterol 0mg

Sodium 0mg

Total Carbohydrate 0g

Protein 0g

Ingredients

SOYBEAN OIL, SUNFLOWER OIL, FULLY HYDROGENATED PALM OIL, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID (ANTIOXIDANTS).

I think that's the "new" Crisco (without transfats) - the company that makes Crisco is still making the "old original" (with transfats) too.

I thought that too, but their site lists only this Crisco. Still, what I meant by posting that is that whether or not they've removed the trans fats, there's still a lot of saturated fat, and of course the answer is that you have to read the nutritional labels; then you can make an informed decision based on your own dietary needs. The key word being "choice", the very thing that Panter wants to take away from us.

←

Here are the different Crisco formulations. Robyn

[robyn]

What is "the industrial food production machine"?

Perdue?

Tyson?

You might want to read "Fast Food Nation", and then you wouldn't have to ask that question.

One of the few ways to stop this nonsense over how the ducks are treated would be to compare them to how the above mentioned companies raise their chickens, honestly.

←

Perdue? Tyson? You mean anything that's a big company?

I've seen chickens raised in upstate New York for smaller companies (from hatchlings to egg producers) - and it wasn't exactly a scene out of Old McDonald's farm. Have you or anyone else here ever seen chickens raised? What do you think is the ideal way to raise them? Like Martha Stewart raises hers? Robyn

[robyn]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

←

The problem for HSUS and PETA and their allies is not really animal cruelty, despite the fact that they have coopted the term 'animal welfare', the problem for them is any human use of animals period - for meat, milk, eggs, butter, leather, wool, fur, companionship, service ... you get the picture.

They are perfectly happy to pretend to be interested in animal welfare to progressively redefine the term 'cruelty' and 'abuse' to mean 'raising animals for human use', including meat and even for pets.

They are whittling away at our rights not only to raise animals for meat, but to raise animals period, and one of their stategies is to pit one group of animal users against another, using each group's ignorance of another to misrepresent whatever practise they are currently targeting.

There are so few people any more who know anything about animal husbandry that they can tell any lies they care to about hunting practises, raising ducks for foie gras, livetock management, dog and cat breeding practises, or any other group you care to mention.

If they can put show dog raisers out of business by wringing their hands about puppy mills, they'll do that - individuals are much more vulnerable than corporations. They are working on small farmers, hobby and niche producers the same way. They put pork raisers in Florida out of business by successfully granting constitutional rights to sows. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29542

I'm sorry to say this is not a joke.

Worse, the feds are pimping agribiz interests, and if the NAIS program goes through, you will see a huge reduction in the availability of locally produced meat, poultry, eggs, game ... organic and range fed meat and poultry and eggs will go away ...

Too long to go into here in any detail, but see http://www.nonais.org for info, links to the USDA, your reps, and everything else you'd rather not know about this misconceived program.

Apart from this, though, don't blow off the AR zealots; they have money and power, and because their goals are ludicrous doesn't mean we won't get stuck with them if we don't recognize the seriousness of their agenda and fight them actively.

HSUS has pages which show which legislation they support and oppose, both federal and state - but they write much of the current animal law, right down to local ordinance level, and are finding that buying politicians and legislation is much more effective than funding animal terrorism.

Enough ... if you want to discuss this aspect of your diet and cooking habits, I'm at the.limit@comcast.net

Lynn

←

Agreed. And the only joke about our pig constitutional amendment (I live in Florida) is that we have/had almost no pork production here. I don't care how you look at it - but when the primary goal of the producer is to raise and kill animals - someone is going to be offended by something. I for one eat animals - and apart from gross acts of cruelty (which one is unlikely to see for the most part) - I don't see any problems with the food production process. Robyn

[menon1971]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

←

The problem for HSUS and PETA and their allies is not really animal cruelty, despite the fact that they have coopted the term 'animal welfare', the problem for them is any human use of animals period - for meat, milk, eggs, butter, leather, wool, fur, companionship, service ... you get the picture.

They are perfectly happy to pretend to be interested in animal welfare to progressively redefine the term 'cruelty' and 'abuse' to mean 'raising animals for human use', including meat and even for pets.

They are whittling away at our rights not only to raise animals for meat, but to raise animals period, and one of their stategies is to pit one group of animal users against another, using each group's ignorance of another to misrepresent whatever practise they are currently targeting.

There are so few people any more who know anything about animal husbandry that they can tell any lies they care to about hunting practises, raising ducks for foie gras, livetock management, dog and cat breeding practises, or any other group you care to mention.

If they can put show dog raisers out of business by wringing their hands about puppy mills, they'll do that - individuals are much more vulnerable than corporations. They are working on small farmers, hobby and niche producers the same way. They put pork raisers in Florida out of business by successfully granting constitutional rights to sows. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29542

I'm sorry to say this is not a joke.

Worse, the feds are pimping agribiz interests, and if the NAIS program goes through, you will see a huge reduction in the availability of locally produced meat, poultry, eggs, game ... organic and range fed meat and poultry and eggs will go away ...

Too long to go into here in any detail, but see http://www.nonais.org for info, links to the USDA, your reps, and everything else you'd rather not know about this misconceived program.

Apart from this, though, don't blow off the AR zealots; they have money and power, and because their goals are ludicrous doesn't mean we won't get stuck with them if we don't recognize the seriousness of their agenda and fight them actively.

HSUS has pages which show which legislation they support and oppose, both federal and state - but they write much of the current animal law, right down to local ordinance level, and are finding that buying politicians and legislation is much more effective than funding animal terrorism.

Enough ... if you want to discuss this aspect of your diet and cooking habits, I'm at the.limit@comcast.net

Lynn

←

Agreed. And the only joke about our pig constitutional amendment (I live in Florida) is that we have/had almost no pork production here. I don't care how you look at it - but when the primary goal of the producer is to raise and kill animals - someone is going to be offended by something. I for one eat animals - and apart from gross acts of cruelty (which one is unlikely to see for the most part) - I don't see any problems with the food production process. Robyn

←

But we could treat the animals we eat more humanely and also eat healthier meat.

[Hawthorne]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

←

The problem for HSUS and PETA and their allies is not really animal cruelty, despite the fact that they have coopted the term 'animal welfare', the problem for them is any human use of animals period - for meat, milk, eggs, butter, leather, wool, fur, companionship, service ... you get the picture.

They are perfectly happy to pretend to be interested in animal welfare to progressively redefine the term 'cruelty' and 'abuse' to mean 'raising animals for human use', including meat and even for pets.

They are whittling away at our rights not only to raise animals for meat, but to raise animals period, and one of their stategies is to pit one group of animal users against another, using each group's ignorance of another to misrepresent whatever practise they are currently targeting.

There are so few people any more who know anything about animal husbandry that they can tell any lies they care to about hunting practises, raising ducks for foie gras, livetock management, dog and cat breeding practises, or any other group you care to mention.

If they can put show dog raisers out of business by wringing their hands about puppy mills, they'll do that - individuals are much more vulnerable than corporations. They are working on small farmers, hobby and niche producers the same way. They put pork raisers in Florida out of business by successfully granting constitutional rights to sows. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29542

I'm sorry to say this is not a joke.

Worse, the feds are pimping agribiz interests, and if the NAIS program goes through, you will see a huge reduction in the availability of locally produced meat, poultry, eggs, game ... organic and range fed meat and poultry and eggs will go away ...

Too long to go into here in any detail, but see http://www.nonais.org for info, links to the USDA, your reps, and everything else you'd rather not know about this misconceived program.

Apart from this, though, don't blow off the AR zealots; they have money and power, and because their goals are ludicrous doesn't mean we won't get stuck with them if we don't recognize the seriousness of their agenda and fight them actively.

HSUS has pages which show which legislation they support and oppose, both federal and state - but they write much of the current animal law, right down to local ordinance level, and are finding that buying politicians and legislation is much more effective than funding animal terrorism.

Enough ... if you want to discuss this aspect of your diet and cooking habits, I'm at the.limit@comcast.net

Lynn

←

Agreed. And the only joke about our pig constitutional amendment (I live in Florida) is that we have/had almost no pork production here. I don't care how you look at it - but when the primary goal of the producer is to raise and kill animals - someone is going to be offended by something. I for one eat animals - and apart from gross acts of cruelty (which one is unlikely to see for the most part) - I don't see any problems with the food production process. Robyn

←

But we could treat the animals we eat more humanely and also eat healthier meat.

←

We could - to do that we need to retain our right to raise and use animals (from pets to meat) as individuals.

Small producers = better quality of meat/eggs/milk

Small producers = better quality of life for the animals involved.

And small local packing plants (where they exist) produce a cleaner product too as a rule.

In real life, between HSUS (and the other AR zealots) and the USDA we are losing the right to choose what we eat.

Everybody needs to know how Florida lost its pork production - the more people who know, the harder it will be for them to do the same in the next state. Seems like no big deal to lose one meat animal in one state? How about 5 states? 30 states?

Everybody needs to know about NAIS, and if you want to keep your right to local meat sources, and organic beef and range eggs - oppose it.

So far as slaughter practises are concerned - dead is dead, and kosher slaughtering is no less humane than any other. A case can be made that it is more humane, and certainly kosher practises insure better hygiene than standard commercial standards. We could use more of that, too.

[Hawthorne]

What is "the industrial food production machine"?

Perdue?

Tyson?

You might want to read "Fast Food Nation", and then you wouldn't have to ask that question.

One of the few ways to stop this nonsense over how the ducks are treated would be to compare them to how the above mentioned companies raise their chickens, honestly.

←

Perdue? Tyson? You mean anything that's a big company?

I've seen chickens raised in upstate New York for smaller companies (from hatchlings to egg producers) - and it wasn't exactly a scene out of Old McDonald's farm. Have you or anyone else here ever seen chickens raised? What do you think is the ideal way to raise them? Like Martha Stewart raises hers? Robyn

←

I don't know how Martha Stewart raises hers, but free range produces much better eggs and meat. If you raise chickens in the orchard, you also have excellent pest control, though it wouldn't deal with the mildews and viruses that monoculture fosters.

I've kept chickens in the backyard, and would do it again in a heartbeat.

To raise them commercially this way would take more space, but would not be much more labour intensive. Could you raise millions of birds at one location?

No - but you could have many more local producers, which would decentralize the supply, and make fresher meat and eggs available to more people.

It would be healthier all across the board, for people and for poultry.

Tyson would suffer, of course.

[menon1971]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

←

The problem for HSUS and PETA and their allies is not really animal cruelty, despite the fact that they have coopted the term 'animal welfare', the problem for them is any human use of animals period - for meat, milk, eggs, butter, leather, wool, fur, companionship, service ... you get the picture.

They are perfectly happy to pretend to be interested in animal welfare to progressively redefine the term 'cruelty' and 'abuse' to mean 'raising animals for human use', including meat and even for pets.

They are whittling away at our rights not only to raise animals for meat, but to raise animals period, and one of their stategies is to pit one group of animal users against another, using each group's ignorance of another to misrepresent whatever practise they are currently targeting.

There are so few people any more who know anything about animal husbandry that they can tell any lies they care to about hunting practises, raising ducks for foie gras, livetock management, dog and cat breeding practises, or any other group you care to mention.

If they can put show dog raisers out of business by wringing their hands about puppy mills, they'll do that - individuals are much more vulnerable than corporations. They are working on small farmers, hobby and niche producers the same way. They put pork raisers in Florida out of business by successfully granting constitutional rights to sows. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29542

I'm sorry to say this is not a joke.

Worse, the feds are pimping agribiz interests, and if the NAIS program goes through, you will see a huge reduction in the availability of locally produced meat, poultry, eggs, game ... organic and range fed meat and poultry and eggs will go away ...

Too long to go into here in any detail, but see http://www.nonais.org for info, links to the USDA, your reps, and everything else you'd rather not know about this misconceived program.

Apart from this, though, don't blow off the AR zealots; they have money and power, and because their goals are ludicrous doesn't mean we won't get stuck with them if we don't recognize the seriousness of their agenda and fight them actively.

HSUS has pages which show which legislation they support and oppose, both federal and state - but they write much of the current animal law, right down to local ordinance level, and are finding that buying politicians and legislation is much more effective than funding animal terrorism.

Enough ... if you want to discuss this aspect of your diet and cooking habits, I'm at the.limit@comcast.net

Lynn

←

Agreed. And the only joke about our pig constitutional amendment (I live in Florida) is that we have/had almost no pork production here. I don't care how you look at it - but when the primary goal of the producer is to raise and kill animals - someone is going to be offended by something. I for one eat animals - and apart from gross acts of cruelty (which one is unlikely to see for the most part) - I don't see any problems with the food production process. Robyn

←

But we could treat the animals we eat more humanely and also eat healthier meat.

←

We could - to do that we need to retain our right to raise and use animals (from pets to meat) as individuals.

Small producers = better quality of meat/eggs/milk

Small producers = better quality of life for the animals involved.

And small local packing plants (where they exist) produce a cleaner product too as a rule.

In real life, between HSUS (and the other AR zealots) and the USDA we are losing the right to choose what we eat.

Everybody needs to know how Florida lost its pork production - the more people who know, the harder it will be for them to do the same in the next state. Seems like no big deal to lose one meat animal in one state? How about 5 states? 30 states?

Everybody needs to know about NAIS, and if you want to keep your right to local meat sources, and organic beef and range eggs - oppose it.

So far as slaughter practises are concerned - dead is dead, and kosher slaughtering is no less humane than any other. A case can be made that it is more humane, and certainly kosher practises insure better hygiene than standard commercial standards. We could use more of that, too.

←

Amen. By supporting small producers we promote three things: economic democracy, local accountability, and better quality. Recently I was given a dozen eggs by a vendor at a local farmer’s market because they were told when they entered the grounds that they could not sell the products without due inspection. There should be some standard, but if a farm is recognized as engaging in hygienic practices then I should be able to get my fresh eggs. The eggs were top shelf, by the way.

[robyn]

We here in Florida had very little pork production before the constitutional amendment - mostly because we weren't a low cost state. Read this for example.

We do however have a state constitution which is much too easy to amend. We're going to vote on whether to tighten the rules this November. Here's the story.

I don't know why everyone simply assumes that small = good and large = bad. There is so little food production close to where I live that I won't even get into the local = good and far-away = bad discussion.

Say you're raising beef cattle - why is small = good - and large = bad? I can tell you that Florida is a big beef state - but the animals usually only live here (and graze) for part of their lives. What about citrus - another huge agricultural concern here? Why would a small citrus grove be better than a large one? Robyn

[robyn]

I can't even defend supposedly humane animal slaughter practices - because I'm Jewish - and some of my friends are kosher.  And kosher butchering practices leave something to be desired when it comes to "humane".

←

Just curious, but which kosher butchering practices would you consider inhumane? Kosher (and Halal) slaughter involves a quick, deep slash across the throat of the animal to sever the arteries, thus killing the animal (and draining out blood). The knife used must be razor sharp to minimize pain. Typically the animal is unconscious within 2 seconds using this method apparently...

On the other hand, the most widely used method of slaughter is to stun the animal first with an electric shock, and then kill it. Seems like adding the extra step would actually cause more pain to the animal, prolonging its demise, as opposed to a quick slash to the neck without any prior trauma...

I'm not Jewish (or Muslim), and not defending the method based on religion, it just seems to be a better way for the animal to go...

←

I don't think it's particularly swell to slit an animal's throat when it's wide awake. On the other hand - dead is dead - which is how all these animals wind up. Robyn

[Hawthorne]

We here in Florida had very little pork production before the constitutional amendment - mostly because we weren't a low cost state.  Read this for example.

We do however have a state constitution which is much too easy to amend.  We're going to vote on whether to tighten the rules this November.  Here's the story.

I don't know why everyone simply assumes that small = good and large = bad.  There is so little food production close to where I live that I won't even get into the local = good and far-away = bad discussion.

Say you're raising beef cattle - why is small = good - and large = bad?  I can tell you that Florida is a big beef state - but the animals usually only live here (and graze) for part of their lives.  What about citrus - another huge agricultural concern here?  Why would a small citrus grove be better than a large one?  Robyn

←

Monoculture, whether of plants or animals is hard on the environment in various ways. It makes the crop, whether meat or produce, vulnerable to disease and parasites. Not only does this lead to much greater use of various chemicals and drugs, but there is a much greater risk of losing a huge percentage of a particular crop in any given year, whether beef or citrus, or any other monoculture crop.

Remember the recent British hoof and mouth disaster? Can you imagine the result if it happened here in a major packer feedlot?

Monoculture of plants depletes the land of the same nutrients over large areas, and monoculture of animals, particularly in feedlot or battery concentrations contaminates it, and often the watershed. This is the simplistic answer, but it doesn't make it less true or real. In both cases the environment suffers.

You are right that in many places the beef is raised on pasture or the range, shipped out and finished in a feedlot somewhere. But the fact that it is not happening on your doorstep doesn't make it irrelevant to your life or your food sources. As small producers have been squeezed out economically, so have the small packers and butchers, and control and accessibity shifts. You get fewer choices, not only of sources, but also of varieties. Quality suffers. Safety suffers. Now you can buy major packer meat and poultry ... or major packer meat and poultry. Their choice of cuts. And eggs. Milk with BGH ... dyed and waxed fruit, three varieties, pick any one. Different breeds of animals and poultry disappear. Different varieties of fruit and vegetables are no longer available.

Remember when tomatoes tasted like tomatoes? I paid a ridiculous price a couple of weeks ago for some heirloom variety tomatoes .. I shouldn't have done it; I have no garden any more, and I'm still stuck with tomatoes bred for shipping. But they were great while they lasted!

Small producers, at whatever stage of the process are more accountable than large ones. Leaving aside the issue of the quality of life of the animals involved, small producers are more responsible in a general way.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the major function of the corporate structure is to limit liability.

If you have concerns, for example, about avian flu, you should be concerned not about the backyard birds, or the small producers who raise range meat and/or eggs, nor the wild birds, but the egg and fryer factories which are the vectors for the virus. This is where the disease first showed up, and this is where it is concentrated. Wildlife and the backyard flocks are victims, not vectors. That's not what the government wants you to think, but that's the fact.

Likewise ecoli and salmonella, both of which appear in places you wouldn't have thought likely. Some years ago a farmer's family suffered severe salmonella poisoning, and after weeks of trying to figure out what had caused it, they found it vectored in the veal calves they were raising - on milk replacers and antibiotics. Who'd have thought?

It seems that the recent ecoli contamination of spinach, and perhaps lettuce probably originated with the irrigation water. If you want minimum risk with your produce, either grow it yourself or buy local. Small producers have a greater stake in their reputation, and also are more careful with their production practises. If they are irrigating the chances are they are drinking the same water they use for irrigation, and they will discover any problems therein pretty quickly and get them fixed. If they miss the problem up front, they haven't contaminated the food source for half the country.

Small producers generally are living with their product - whether it's beef, chicken, produce or citrus. The control is with the Owners, either doing the work themselves, or personally supervising it. Yes, it is true that in poultry in particular, some enterprises are family businesses, but in my neighbourhood at least, a little poking around will show that they are contracted to Tyson or some other corporate entity. If you want high quality food, your local independent producer's meat, eggs, poultry and even milk are much more likely to be produced by traditional husbandry methods, which are cleaner and more humane than anything a corporate CEO would be willing to countenance. This guy is fairly easy to identify - his end product is available for independent sale; it's not contracted out in it's entirety to a corporate buyer. He produces locally, and he sells locally. And he's personally liable.

Corporate production is controlled by somebody sitting in an office somewhere who knows squat about his product; his expertise lies in squeezing the last penny out of the quarterly bottom line. If it's cheaper to produce chicken by feeding protein derived from urea (processed from chicken manure), then that's what he feeds, and he will make sure the government will approve a urea percentage which will keep his balance sheet in the black. If meat and milk production are more profitable when you feed cows back to cows, hey, he has no problem with that. This is how you get BSE; feeding cows to cows. In theory that practise has been outlawed in the US; in practise, nobody is watching, and I wouldn't count on it. The USDA recently scaled back 90% of the BSE testing it was doing, and all it was doing was 'spot checks' anyway. What you don't know won't hurt them or the corporate producer. The corporate producer raises produce and fruit with the idea that it must be shippable in mind, not that it should taste great. If it's cheaper to keep the bugs and mildew off by poisoning it, that works for him. Does it sell better dyed? No problemo ...

Size isn't the only factor ... but if you have to gamble on your food sources, and your choice is a national agribiz corporation or a local producer, go with the local guy. If you have some kind of problem with his product, at least you know who to complain to.

It is certainly possible these days to live where there isn't much local production. This is a side effect of big bidness monopolizing food production. In your place, I wouldn't be defending it because it was all I had, I would be vociferously objecting, and demanding better access to better quality food. I would be decrying the centralization of the food supply, with its inherent security risks and other vulnerabilities. I would be screaming for a real BSE testing program.

In fact, I am doing these things. I do have at least some access to local food, and I can buy range and organic if I don't mind bending the budget. Sometimes I do. But it is clear that unless I start making a racket, that happy situation is likely to change, and not for the better.

You are already seeing the effects of the policies I am objecting to - you have very limited choices. Though I am presently better off, it looks like that won't last, unless everybody finds the status objectionable.

This isn't a matter of being precious, or snobbish, or pro animal rights or some other idealogical position. It's a matter of survival - not for us, perhaps, but for our children. If I don't have the right to raise my own food, do I have any rights at all?

At the moment we are discussing relative quality here, but how much control are you really willing to give to corporate industry?

Sorry to be wordy - but this really is an issue which affects everybody. Please do go to http://www.nonais.org and poke around. And consider that they are talking similar controls on crops ...