Foie Gras ban lifted

  • News
  • Thread starter Barfolumu
  • Start date
  • #1
Barfolumu
68
0
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0sGgbVEkkxS_rUARPGN11dUe3zw" [Broken]

AFP said:
Chicago lifts ban on foie gras

1 hour ago

CHICAGO (AFP) — The city of Chicago on Wednesday lifted a two-year ban on the sale of the French delicacy foie gras.

Fans of the fatty duck liver dish were delighted.

"It's fabulous," said chef Didier Durand, who has been running a "duckeasy" where foie gras was served for free in his restaurant Cyrano's Bistro since the ban was imposed.

"Break out the champagne!"

Mayor Richard Daley has repeatedly called the ban "silly" and said it made Chicago "the laughingstock of the nation" but was, until now, unable to convince council members to repeal the ban.

Local restaurants also failed to have the ban overturned in the courts, and several were fined for serving the dish that has been granted cultural heritage status by the French parliament.

The repeal passed Wednesday over the shouted objections of the ordinance's original sponsor by a vote of 37 to six after a council member forced it out of committee.

"To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in our society - animals raised for food," said Julie Janovsky, director of campaigns for animal rights group Farm Sanctuary.

Chicago's ban followed a bill introduced in California in 2004 that bans the sale and production of foie gras by 2012.

Chicago -- which garnered the nickname Hogtown because of its sprawling slaughter houses -- imposed the ban in 2006.

Force-feeding birds has been banned in 15 countries, including Germany, Italy, Israel and Britain, according to Farm Sanctuary which runs the nofoiegras.org website.

Any thoughts on this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,712
704
Probably a secret back door deal to lift the ban if the EPA would declare the polar bear and endangered species. Simply quid pro quo.
 
  • #3
I'm still hoping that the California ban will be repealed before it goes into effect. If it does go into effect, expect Nevada's foie gras production and sales to go way up.
 
  • #4
I'd have thought if consumers knew how it was produced (forced feeding) there would be little demand for it anyway.
 
  • #5
Evo
Mentor
23,925
3,264
People that go to fine dining restaurants don't give a hairy rats a$$ about what the animal suffered just as long as it is trendy and over priced.
 
  • #6
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,828
53
It was a ridiculous ban in the first place. Glad they finally came to their senses! People demand their right to be overfed every day, and then complain when it's done to a goose. Yeesh.
 
  • #7
Cyrus
3,150
16
The bird is going to be eaten. So, I am not sure what the big deal is.
 
  • #8
K.J.Healey
622
0
If it was just regular ol' liver there probably wouldn't be a problem. I think its due to the method of feeding and some people arguing that its inhumane.

Its a pretty petty disagreement and barely newsworthy imho. Much bigger things going on in the world...
 
  • #9
Cyrus
3,150
16
If it was just regular ol' liver there probably wouldn't be a problem. I think its due to the method of feeding and some people arguing that its inhumane.

Its a pretty petty disagreement and barely newsworthy imho. Much bigger things going on in the world...

I don't think eating the duck is good for its health either! :biggrin:
 
  • #10
Jimmy Snyder
1,095
20
After all the trouble my mother went through to get me to eat liver, you would think I would stay away from this stuff. But my interest was piqued so I tried some. It tastes very much like polar bear liver.
 
  • #11
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,611
36
Foie gras is disgusting. It looks like cat food.
 
  • #12
I'd have thought if consumers knew how it was produced (forced feeding) there would be little demand for it anyway.

Right, just look at veal. Oh, wait...
 
  • #13
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,391
1,630
this is a slippery slope. have you ever seen how chickens are raised? or cows? or pigs? or snails?
 
  • #14
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,387
4,841
The bird is going to be eaten. So, I am not sure what the big deal is.
But it will be killed humanely, i.e. no suffering.

Don't know why I said that, I had fois gras http://davesbrain.livejournal.com/267695.html" [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Cyrus
3,150
16
I mean, sure you want to minimize the amount of suffering as much as possible. But at the same time, the bird is going to be eating. These PETA nuts want to make sure these animals are given a four star meal, fresh oats, a nice bath and bedtime story, bla bla bla.

Is it going to make a difference at the end of the day when the bird is dead and in your tummy anyways?
 
  • #16
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,387
4,841
Is it going to make a difference at the end of the day when the bird is dead and in your tummy anyways?
You're going to die too. Does it make a difference how you spend the rest of your life?
 
  • #17
Cyrus
3,150
16
You're going to die too. Does it make a difference how you spend the rest of your life?

Im not being raised for food. The duck is. I don't care if the duck is pampered or not, why should I? Its purpose is to get fat, die, and feed someone, and be tasty in the process! :biggrin:

Your analogy makes no sense to me. Are you going to seriously compare a persons life to that of livestock?
 
Last edited:
  • #18
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,387
4,841
Im not being raised for food. The duck is. I don't care if the duck is pampered or not, why should I? Its purpose is to get fat, die, and feed someone, and be tasty in the process! :biggrin:

The logic is no different than why you don't torture kitties for fun. (I assume you don't.)

There is no need to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on a living creature. We acknowledge that we are meat-eaters, and we do kill and eat creatures. But their suffering does not serve that interest.

Are you going to seriously compare a persons life to that of livestock?
It is a matter of scale. Of course I am not considering them equitable.
 
  • #19
Cyrus
3,150
16
The logic is no different than why you don't torture kitties for fun. (I assume you don't.)

Um, yes it is. Killing kitties for fun serves no point other than torture. Killing these ducks is for food. Again, this comparison makes no sense.

There is no need to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on a living creature. We acknowledge that we are meat-eaters, and we do kill and eat creatures. But their suffering does not serve that interest.

Its not unnecessary though. The point is to make them fatter for more food.
 
  • #20
Don't you guys feel sorry for that lobster in the tank just before dinner? Of all the ways to go... boiling to death! And so I can eat your flesh!

If there is a cause to fight it should be boiling, not overeating!
 
  • #21
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,387
4,841
Um, yes it is. Killing kitties for fun serves no point other than torture. Killing these ducks is for food. Again, this comparison makes no sense.
You've confused two things in the above argument. The claim of "unnecessary" wasn't about killing them it was about whether their time while alive was miserable. (though upon review I'm seeing that there was a lot of vagueness in the thread.)



Besides, you agree:
I mean, sure you want to minimize the amount of suffering as much as possible.
That's all I was saying. No more.
 
  • #22
Cyrus
3,150
16
You've confused two things in the above argument. The claim of "unnecessary" wasn't about killing them it was about whether their time while alive was miserable. (though upon review I'm seeing that there was a lot of vagueness in the thread.)



Besides, you agree:

That's all I was saying. No more.

Sure, I agree with you there. All I am saying is that fattening them up is a necessary evil; therefore, its not explicit torture.
 
  • #23
Cyrus
3,150
16
Don't you guys feel sorry for that lobster in the tank just before dinner? Of all the ways to go... boiling to death! And so I can eat your flesh!

If there is a cause to fight it should be boiling, not overeating!

No, they take a sharp knife and crack the lobsters head in half and then dump it into the pot. But sometimes they cut off its claws and boil it alive. Hahaha, what a way to go. Its going to be eaten anyways. So, meh. <shrug> its tasty!
 
  • #24
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,611
36
Sure, I agree with you there. All I am saying is that fattening them up is a necessary evil; therefore, its not explicit torture.

Have you seen how they feed them? It's pretty horrifying.
 
  • #25
Cyrus
3,150
16
Have you seen how they feed them? It's pretty horrifying.

Pretty much all forms of meat are horrifying though. I admit, its not that nice. But there also not pets.
 
  • #26
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,611
36
Pretty much all forms of meat are horrifying though. I admit, its not that nice. But there also not pets.

Agreed. It's a slippery slope argument. But with some species, like lobsters, the nervous systems are so primitive, it's hard to say if they feel anything like what we categorize as "pain". With ducks and geese it gets a bit iffier.
 
  • #27
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,035
623
Sure, I agree with you there. All I am saying is that fattening them up is a necessary evil; therefore, its not explicit torture.

Just because an animal has been breed for food doesn't make it immune to suffering. (And I'm a meat-eater!)
 
  • #28
Cyrus
3,150
16
Just because an animal has been breed for food doesn't make it immune to suffering. (And I'm a meat-eater!)

I know, and I am saying it should be as minimal as is reasonable. How long do these ducks live before they kill them?

I still don't see this as 'torture' to the point where it should be banned.

The entire point is to get a higher yield of meat from them. Thats a good thing.
 
  • #29
MeJennifer
2,007
6
Any thoughts on this?
It find it pretty sad that some people want to resort to banning this, I would have hoped that people are compassionate enough to resist eating this as its production is a form of cruelty to animals.

I am a vegetarian by the way. :)
 
Last edited:
  • #30
I know, and I am saying it should be as minimal as is reasonable. How long do these ducks live before they kill them?

The fattening process lasts about 2 weeks. It's unclear whether the force-feeding actually causes significant discomfort to the animals (at least if done properly): geese naturally overeat to the point of fattening their livers every winter ahead of migration. This is presumably where people got the idea of feeding them a ton to fatten their livers in the first place, and there are niche "humane" foie gras producers that rely on this natural method.
 
  • #31
Barfolumu
68
0
Throwin' my two pennies in...

I'm all for the ban being lifted. Even if you disagree with Foie Gras, the ban doesn't attack the problem.

I do wonder if this is a necessary evil, though. You get a larger liver, but Foie Gras isn't exactly what you'd call a staple. Since it is a luxury item, couldn't we rely upon them fattening themselves up? Some of those pictures are pretty nasty (though, they're also probably cherry picked).

chemisttree: Is that just speculation, or... what? Seemed like an interesting tid-bit, just wondering if you had more to go off of.
 

Suggested for: Foie Gras ban lifted

Replies
13
Views
580
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
350
Replies
5
Views
390
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
578
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
772
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
382
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
531
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top