Yeah, yeah, I’m going outside of the my current rules for the site, and I’m talking about food politics.  The Foie Gras wars have heated up again, with California banning the liver, and various food-types up in arms about it. I am against the ban, for many reasons, but it’s better to inform than complain, a motto I forgot on Tuesday, when I tweeted an overtly political sentiment, one whose nuances could not be explained in less than 140 characters. Hence, this post/re-post.

For those new to the debate, I offer up a bit of a primer, one that I published back in 2010 when Seattle was knee deep in this mud. My point here is to give those unfamiliar with the debate a starting point, and then they can come to their own conclusion.

That being said, if you want to know more of my opinion, the search function is a perfect place to start. If not, read the primer below.

Foie Gras Primer

What is Foie Gras? Foie Gras is a food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened. Source.

Specially Fattened? What does that mean? It means that the ducks and geese are feed extensively, sometimes through the use of a process called gavage. Gavage, in foie gras production, is the process in which corn is force-fed to farm-raised ducks through a funnel down their throats. Source.

Force-fed? That sounds horrible! Well, if you’re a human, it would be. But ducks and geese have a different anatomy than humans. Source.

Different? How? Well for one, they can store up to half their body weight in a diverticulum of their esophagus. This is a common trait to all birds.Source

But a tube is stuck down their throat! Not really. According the Hudson Valley, a maker of foie gras, the tube is put immediately in front of the duck or goose’s esophagus, but not into it. Source.

What about the enlarged liver? Doesn’t that cause suffering? Undeniably. It causes hepatic steatosis, which, if left untended, causes suffering in the duck and will force it to collapse. Source.

So the animal rights folks have a point? Yes and no. To produced good foie gras, a duck or goose should be killed before stress influences the taste of the liver. So the question becomes “at what point should the birds be killed”. As the source reports, there is a threshold that the bird would feel stress from the enlarged liver. If the bird is killed before that threshold is met, there is no suffering. Source.

Additionally, one has to take into account that all animal livestock ultimately endures at least one measure of violence – the slaughter of said animal. Cows, pigs, chickens all go through this in order to enter the food chain. So in essence there is at least one correlation between foie gras and your average every day daily meat source.

So if every animal meets a cruel end, why do the animal rights folks attack foie gras? Good question, and all I can give is my opinion. I suppose if you ask an animal rights activist, they’ll say that all cruelty needs to be fought, regardless of how popular or unpopular the food product.

But there are several aspects that make foie gras especially vulnerable to the activists protestations. 1) Production techniques are easily available to the public. Unlike chicken or pig farms, which agri-business severely restricts access to, foie gras’ gavage process can be readily found on the internet. For people unfamiliar with animal farming, the process can be a bit of a shock. However, for people familiar with the techniques used in beef, pig, or chicken farms, the way the ducks and geese are treated seem quite tame.

2) Foie gras is not a mainstream food dish. People who don’t go to upscale restaurants on a regular basis, rarely, if ever, eat foie gras. Thus it’s hard for the regular omnivore to get too worked up about a food that they never eat.

3) Foie gras is seen as a food of the wealthy. And who wouldn’t like to stick it to the wealthy, especially in today’s economic environment?

So foie gras farmers are wealthy? Heh. No. Not really. In the recent case of the National Advertising Division against D’Artagnan, D’Artagnan has publically stated that they won’t fight the ruling only because they can’t afford to. Foie Gras farmers (and there are only three of them in the United States) and wholesalers are typically small businesses that lack a strong legal network that can defend them from highly motivated activist groups with strong legal council Source.

Okay, so why should I care about a meat I never eat? I can’t tell you how to think, or what to care about. But consider this, what is the next food that could be determined to be created in a cruel manner? Veal? Chicken? Pigs? What a defeat of foie gras production means is that precedent will be set that a term with a broad definition (“Cruelty”, which as it currently stands is open for interpretation as there is no precise legal definition when it comes to food production) can be applied to other food products.

In other words, people who know little about animal physiology can have the legal means to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot eat, based on their own morality, rather than the greater public’s.

So we shouldn’t listen to animal rights activists? No, I think we should, with a caveat. Jonathan Golob of The Stranger has it right. We should also be listening to scientists, farmers, philosophers, and anyone else who presents a rational argument to the debate. I would posit that a belief that runs contrary to public demands and concerns requires due diligence before we make decisions based off of that belief. Forcing change through misinformation, half-truths, and propaganda runs contrary to that, and one could argue is counter-productive for the long term.

Do you have any advice to Animal Rights Activists? Several, the first of which is that they have to recognize that meat eating will be around for quite some time. A reduction of meat eating is a good idea. A worldwide cessation of meat eating is both nonviable and unlikely. If one is to use that as a basic premise to the animal cruelty debate, then one must acknowledge that some cruelty is simply unavoidable.

But more specifically, I would say that they should talk with foie gras producers in order to understand the entire picture, rather than looking at some video’s on Youtube to get their education. Foie gras producers are generally quite transparent in their techniques, and would likely welcome a respectful debate about the issues. Using intimidation, either through protests or via legal means, will likely force a more defensive and aggressive posture by those who have economic interests in the industry. But that’s more of a guess on my part.

If there’s a list of ways on how way to turn people away from your political cause, I’m thinking that attacking small, independently-run businesses because they serve a product you don’t like is probably in the top five.

(h/t to Todd)

I know I’ve railed against foie gras bans before, but I have absolutely no problem with Wolfgang Puck removing foie gras from his menu. It’s his menu, and he can do with it as he pleases.

Those of you sending me e-mails regarding this story, let me remind you that it’s governmental bans of foie gras that cause me gastric concern, not a business owner arriving at a conclusion all on his own and altering his business plans accordingly. The two are vastly different issues.

Whoa…wait a minute. Let me read this site for a second or so…

Okay, so maybe he didn’t come to his decision completely on his own, but he’s an adult, and if he wants to be influenced by more militant animal advocates, more power to him.

What is interesting is his equating the production of foie gras as equally cruel as the practices surrounding crated pork and veal, as well as eggs from caged hens. I think that’s a bit of a stretch, but one person’s animal cruelty is another person’s lunch.

I bring you the perfect response to the silly Chicago liver ban:

CHICAGO (STNG) — Chicago health inspectors paid a surprise visit to a previously warned River North restaurant last week to catch it in the act of selling foie gras — only to find that the banned liver delicacy was being given away.

Bin 36, 333 N. Dearborn, managed to avoid a $250 ticket by offering foie gras “as a complimentary sidebar to another dish on the menu

Technorati Tags: Foie Gras

Here I am in the midst of my annual December vacation, high amongst the mountains of Whistler, British Columbia. It is beautiful and relaxing, far removed from the stresses and strains of my regular life. My hope was that I could sneak away, hoping that no silliness would go on in the food world.

Enter Alan Gerson, a New York City Councilman who is planning on introducing yet another “anti Foie Gras” bill.

Like Michael Ruhlman, I feel as if this topic is tiresome, for a whole bevy of reasons. But this is how political movements operate – keep working the issue until you either convert or subvert the electorate.

While there are many ways to refute the claims of ‘cruelty’ to the ducks and geese who are being watched out for, there is a larger issue here. A group of individuals are trying to have governments tell me what I can and cannot eat, something which I (and others) have stated time and time again.

Let’s boil this down to the core issue – These types of bills aren’t about foie gras as much as they are about animal cruelty. The questions that arise from this are as follows:

1. What standards are we going to use to define what constitutes animal cruelty when it comes to food production?
2. Will these standards be applied to every food product that has animal ingredients, or will it apply to only a subset of these food products? If it’s only to a subset, how are we to differentiate one from another?
3. Will these standards apply to every food producer? Or will allowances be made between larger food producers and artisinal production?

One of the many problems with the anti-foie gras advocates is that none of the above questions are being addressed. Instead we get a handful of people saying that “gavage is bad” based off of their response to videotapes made out of context and a carefully selected group of veterinarians.

I, for one, would like to see the above questions addressed, because they would require us to actually consider how we get our food as well as force us to recognize what being an omnivore entails.

Sadly, I believe that’s not going to happen.

UPDATE: As Tana noted in the comments, Councilman Gerson has agreed to table his talk of the foie gras ban…for now.

Telling people what they should and shouldn’t eat is cultural imperialism — and deeply disturbing. That a group of people could say, “You know, how you eat and how you’ve been eating for hundreds, if not thousands, of years — traditional Jewish cuisine, Western European food since Roman times — that is wrong and should not be allowed.” I find that offensive. Ethnically insensitive, jingoistic, xenophobic, anti-human and disrespectful of the diversity of cultures on this planet, and for human history. But that’s just the kind of law that has passed — in Chicago, our second city, no less. It’s a win for the forces of darkness, willful ignorance and intolerance.

I’ve not much more to add to that. Read the entire article on Salon for a full accounting.

Via Megnut

Technorati Tags: Foie Gras

Assemblyman Panter gets his day in the sun:

Assemblyman Michael Panter said he plans to introduce the bill next week because the production of foie gras is a “barbaric practice that has no place in any civilized society.” The legislation also would prohibit the distribution of the fattened fowl livers from New Jersey or into the state.

“Barbaric practice that has no place in civilized society”? Apparently Mr. Panter has been taking hyperbole lessons.

Technorati Tags: Foie+Gras