# Foie Gras ban lifted

• News

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:

chemisttree
Homework Helper
Gold Member
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.

I'm still hoping that the California ban will be repealed before it goes into effect.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.

Art
I'd have thought if consumers knew how it was produced (forced feeding) there would be little demand for it anyway.

Evo
Mentor
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.

Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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.

The bird is going to be eaten. So, im not sure what the big deal is.

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...

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 dont think eating the duck is good for its health either!

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.

Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Foie gras is disgusting. It looks like cat food.

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...

mathwonk
Homework Helper
this is a slippery slope. have you ever seen how chickens are raised? or cows? or pigs? or snails?

DaveC426913
Gold Member
The bird is going to be eaten. So, im 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:
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?

DaveC426913
Gold Member
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?

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 dont 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!

Your analogy makes no sense to me. Are you going to seriously compare a persons life to that of livestock?

Last edited:
DaveC426913
Gold Member
Im not being raised for food. The duck is. I dont 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!

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.

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.

drankin
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!

DaveC426913
Gold Member
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.

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 Im saying is that fattening them up is a necessary evil; therefore, its not explicit torture.

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!

Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus