Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Cool, Crafy, Community Event: Unique LA's Holiday Show
7 Reasons to Love L.A.
Intrepid L.A. Foodies Tackle 11-in-11 Nocturnal Challenge
Who eats foie gras? Not West Hollywood restaurant-goers, at least not anymore. Despite the recent failure of Chicago's City Council to ban foie gras in that city, West Hollywood is charging ahead with a new city ordinance to prevent the sale of foie gras in restaurants.
However, I can't help but point out the short-sighted and ultimately unsatisfactory nature of this ruling. First of all, many West Hollywood restaurants are driven by a monied, sophisticated clientèle who are knowledgeable about food and expect quality ingredients. WeHo is a destination for foodies, and its restaurants shouldn't be punished for the tastes of their consumers. WeHo hosts a wonderful enclave of fine French and modern Californian restaurants -- Sona? Comme Ca? The Hall at Palihouse? Hatfield's? All are destinations, all serve fois gras. And will this trend spread? Will our finest restaurants, like La Cachette, become outdated relics of a more tolerant time?
Secondly, foie gras foes who decry the cruelty of the production method (force-feeding geese and ducks until their livers become fatty and engorged -- reminds me of college for some reason, except with alcohol) are overlooking -- or purposely ignoring -- the every day horrors of the food industry.
Why can't the City Councils of the world focus on eliminating salmonella in vegetables? Cramped and painful conditions for pigs, cows, and chickens all over California? Horrors are inflicted upon many, many animals -- to simply make an example of foie gras seems to miss the forest for the trees. Why can't they ordain that all restaurants must buy locally and organic, from cruelty-free producers?
Furthermore, the real damage done to the animals is still a matter of fierce contention: while websites like Ban Foie Gras call for immediate action against a "cruel" and "barbaric process", a recent investigative article in the Village Voice -- titled "Is Foie Gras Torture?" paints a very different picture.
The notion that foie gras is diseased liver is often cited by opponents of the food. Cheever's e-mail to me described how, in the later stages of force-feeding, "air sac and lung volumes are compromised, and they begin to show metabolic illness from liver function impairment."But Dr. Jaime Ruiz, director of Cornell's duck-research laboratory (and who was at pains to note that he did not support or oppose foie gras production) told me, "The farmers that I know here in New York and France handle the birds carefully, not feeding them above the physiological limits of the birds." He also said that he did not think that force-feeding, done correctly, would cause pain and that he does not consider an enlarged liver to be diseased.
Finally, as the lifting of the ban in Chicago shows, this ban probably won't work. Hot Doug's got away with serving foie gras on their signature dogs, with only a slap on the wrist and a nominal fine. As a consumer, it's your choice whether or not to order foie, according to your personal values. There's no reason why these things need to be legislated.
I rarely order foie gras in a restaurant -- perhaps once a year -- but it's an indulgence I value and I am ready to own up to any cruelty that might be involved. Anybody who's eaten a McDonald's meal in the past year must do the same. I mean, come on guys -- What Would Anthony Bourdain do? Sorry, veg-heads, but you know the answer.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
also lean toward talking about the misconceptions of fois gras. Those farmers love their freaking ducks and geese and make sure they're happy. The feeding process is only a few seconds, and ducks don't have a gag reflex. They've evolved to gorge themselves before they fly off for the winter anyway, the expansion of their liver is a natural result.
It can be done without gavage... not that the ducks would care: http://blogs.kqed.org/bayareabites/2009/02/01/foie-gras-duck-duck-goose/
An unhappy duck's liver does not expand as much or as healthily (read: better tasting) as is necessary to produce fois gras. The fact that this is a "controversial animal abuse" issue in the United States has always amused me to a certain degree. Then it turns into annoyance at ignorance.
I think it's cruel, but I also think the whole animal mass produced as food product industry is cruel, which is why I don't eat meat. The missing the forest for the trees suggestion is very true, which is why I can never understand someone who say protests fur, but has a big mac with no cognitive dissonance.
Yeah, I know a lot of people who say they won't eat veal, or duck, or any "cute" animals. I'm like, "You know that calf grows up to be a cow and then you'll just eat it anyway, right?" I have no idea when I became so militant in my vegetarianism. I tried not to be, I swear.
I only eat ugly animals...with the exception of squid and octopi. I don't eat intelligent animals.
Now cows, pigs, and fish. They aren't so pretty. Bunnies and hamsters. I don't eat those.
Seriously though. I've seen the gorging process. The ducks just do not seem to mind one bit. And they are going to be slaughtered anyway. So...what the duck?!?!?
"restaurants shouldn't be punished for the tastes of their consumers."
But the ducks that are being tortured for these "sophisticated clientele" should be punished? What you are saying and sticking up for is so beyond ridiculous. I can promise you that the city of West Hollywood isn't going to fall to ruin because a few rich assholes can't get their fill of diseased duck liver within city limits.
You can go on and keep valuing your indulgences over any amount of cruelty and horror they might force upon other living beings, and I will keep on being disgusted by just how selfish, blind and barbaric some people really are. Just because one guy at Cornell and the foie gras industry put out propaganda about how this isn't really cruel doesn't make it so.
It's sad what people will convince themselves is true and acceptable despite all the evidence to the contrary in order to justify the awful things they do.
www.banfoiegras.org
"Cramped and painful conditions for pigs, cows, and chickens all over California?"
We did that. It's called Prop 2.
There's no reason why these things need to be legislated.
Tell that to the majority of Californians who voted Yes on 2.
"And will this trend spread? Will our finest restaurants, like La Cachette, become outdated relics of a more tolerant time?"
Yes.
Good for WeHo for taking a stand on this. Foie gras production is undeniably barbaric and I would suggest anyone who denies that go take a look at some geese being fattened up before slaughter. And honestly, I would not count the statements of some farmers who "raise" the animals as evidence that their geese are happy as can be and well cared for. These animals are money-making machines to them and their well-being will ALWAYS come second to their worth in dollars. And the notion of a happy goose's liver "expanding" more...these geese have livers that are expanding because there is a tube shoved down their esophogus that is force-feeding them, not because they are "happy."
I myself am a vegan so do not feel the need "own up to any cruelty that might be involved" when I eat an indulgent meal. (And there are plenty of wonderfully indulgent vegan meals!) But I also don't think that it's an all or nothing endeavor...in other words, you don't have to be a "veg-head" to see torture as torture.
Thanks WeHo!!
You are completely right that foie gras is just one tree in a forest of animal cruelty; however, it is still an issue and it still needs to be addressed. The facts spell it out very clearly. The pre-slaughter mortality rate on foie gras farms is up to 10 time higher than on other duck and goose factory farms. The foie gras industry has always claimed that their feeding methods are humane, yet multiple investigations have proven otherwise. These ducks suffer during the forced feeding process and are fed to a point where many of them have trouble even holding themselves up. As much as the producers may claim that they care about the animals, the truth is that their greatest concern for them is how much money they can make from each of their overstuffed livers; their well-being will always be secondary to that. I encourage you to watch some of the investigation footage to get more acquainted with the conditions inside these farms. You can see video clips at http://www.gourmetcruelty.com/videos.php.
Last November, California, in an overwhelming sign of support for farm animals, voted yes on proposition 2. Slowly, these greater issues will be addressed as the truth about factory farming makes its way to the public. But we shouldn't criticize smaller communities from taking steps to go even further, setting a precedent for the rest of the country to follow. The United States is far behind other countries in acknowledging that foie gras is inherently cruel. Germany, Israel, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Poland, South Africa; it is a growing list of countries that have banned the production of foie gras. I commend West Hollywood and any other community that takes the initiative to say that this treatment of animals is not acceptable.
I appreciate this article. I am not a vegan/vegetarian and probably never will be, but I have avoided fois gras for the reason everyone has pointed out (somehow the image of some little goose having a tube jammed down his throat would put a hinder on me enjoying it). And honestly, I don't really care about whether I ever eat it, in West Hollywood or anyplace. But the point made here is a good one. Fois gras shouldn't be singled out as the axis of all culinary evils. The majority of meat based products probably come with some degree of animal cruelty. Remember veal? Wasn't that the big taboo in the 80s? And yet I still see it on a lot of menus.
I don't know. I don't think this is an appropriate action taken by a city. Let those who find it offensive ban it and express their dissaproval to the restaurants. But the city shouldn't ban it.
as a long time vegetarian (and softened extremist) who now sells foie gras, i have to say that this article highlights a lot of the problems with PETA/other anti foie gras organizations. yeah foie is decadent and it involves the manipulation of an animal for the sake of its consumption, but there are many many other areas of food production that deserve the strict scrutiny and protest of the animal rights movement.
furthermore the lack of CURRENT documentation of foie farms really makes the PETA people look more and more like the wily nilly space cadets that most of america thinks that they are. they need to research the foie farms that are actually producing what is on the LA market. (Hudson Valley in NYC and Rougie in France.)
also, as a previous commenter noted, there is a pretty reducible equation with all killed animal edibles: if the quality of the product is high (re: it tastes good) than the animal was most likely not tortured. with foie production this is really important: if the animal is put under too much stress, the end result a.) will not hold its form (i.e. you couldnt serve a slice of it if you tried), and b.) would literally taste like piss.
The footage and horrible photos are from unnamed farms and we have no idea when or where the pictures and photos were taken. Until PETA substantiates their claims they wont be taken seriously; and it is unfortunate that so many people go along with them without an iota of validated fact.
What's actually unfortunate is that you sell one of the most disgusting and cruel of all animal products yet have still managed to convince yourself that you are a vegetarian, while blowing off anyone else who's taking a stand against such cruelties as "willy nilly PETA space cadets"... no doubt because it will effect your bottom line when this ban goes into effect.
One does not have to be a supporter of PETA or even a vegetarian to clearly see that this horror needs to stop. Keep on telling yourself that just because you have no idea where those pictures were taken that it's all really ok, and yeah, those ducks just fucking love being treated this way. Keep telling yourself that despite the hours and hours of testimony, studies and actually footage that none of this has been validated if it makes you feel better for participating in these acts of cruelty while you discuss the quality and taste of this vile "product".
Thankfully most of the rest of the world has already woken up to what's going on and have done something about it, and thankfully rational and humane minds in this country are starting to get a clue as well. Those of you who actually go out of your way to defend and attempt to protect your "right" to have animals tortured in your name so that you can feast on their fat livers (and or make money off of selling them) are so beyond sick and backwards that it's like your are still stuck back in the dark ages. Thankfully you are in the minority and change is coming whether you want it to or not.
seriously though; its radical that you are so passionate about this, but like with any struggle or resistance you need to be properly informed.
i dont think you are, and i dont think PETA/whomever is doing all that it can to help you fully understand the matter.
that said, i still think its great that you're active against animal cruelty; i just wish that you're time and passion was bolstered by concrete reality. i applaud you making a stand, but doing so ignorantly is a little disingenuous. i think PETA is great, but i don't follow them blindly. it sorta sounds like you do.
but us bickering about it does little: i suggest you go to a farm and see for yourself (i have).
I'm quite informed about this issue, and no amount of calling me ignorant makes yours or anyone elses attempts at justifying this cruel practice any more acceptable. I am not a member of PETA nor do I represent them. The only people who have even mentioned PETA here are the ones trying to change the subject.
As for farms, I visit them regularly- the ones that rescue animals from cruelty, abuse & factory farms... not the ones that instead turn them into blobs of fat on a plate. If anyone else in the Los Angeles area wants to do so as well they can visit Animal Acres in Acton to get informed and see firsthand the horrors of what happens to animals in the real world in the name of food. No amount of your telling me that I am wrong or stupid will ever excuse what is being done to living creatures just so that people like you or the author of this post can enjoy the privilege of consuming foie gras once a year or whenever the fancy strikes you.
www.animalacres.org
Sorry, but it's impossible to make cruelty-free foie gras. You can't pretend that it's not. You don't know that a duck or geese ISN'T uncomfortable. It's perfectly reasonable to try to use organic, cruelty-free, sustainable, hormone and anti-biotic free pork, poultry, beef, even veal. (Personally, though, I don't think a happy existence justifies an early death, but it's better than nothing.) You just can't do the same with foie gras.
Several years ago Wolfgang Puck, the originator of foie gras on things like pizza, succumbed to pressure and banned it from all of his restaurants. He seems to be doing okay. I don't know why people like Thomas Keller haven't come under the same amount of pressure.
I LOVE fancy restaurants. I go out for really nice meals probably once every month or two. I'm a huge foodie, despite not eating meat, and if I find a place with a vegetarian tasting menu, I'm there. But seeing foie gras on the menu (next to really nice vegetarian dishes) still makes me cringe. Truffles. Truffles are expensive and cruelty-free. There's still a demand for haute cuisine without fatty liver.
Animal Acres is a beautiful place!! There are some geese up there, I would imagine they would prefer their existence there to one being raised for foie gras. Spend a little time with the creatures up there and you'll start seeing meat for what it is (dead body parts) and I guarantee you will fall in love!
i find it interesting that a procedure that dates back to around 2500 BC is now considered cruel to animals and should be banned.
By that logic, maybe we should also go back to keeping slaves, burning heretics at the stake and cutting the hands off of petty thieves.
A random historical fact taken from the Wikipedia doesn't make this procedure any less cruel, regardless of how long people have been doing it. People have also been whipping and beating their children since ancient times and called it 'discipline' but most of us in the modern age call it 'abuse', and laws have been put in place to stop it.
The ironic thing is that if this same topic was being discussed about cats or dogs, all of you who are defending it now as being perfectly acceptable because it's oh-so-tasty would be up in arms about animal cruelty and just how awful this is.
Civilization has evolved and with it we moved beyond the barbaric practices that people in the past once found acceptable. If you want to go back to the days of 'an eye for an eye' and rubbing rocks together for fire, that's your choice, but it's a pretty weak excuse to wave around in defense of why we should continue practicing animal torture in the name of haute cuisine.
"maybe we should also go back to keeping slaves"
With that comment, I can say with 99.9% certainty that you're not black. That's about the same certainty I feel in positing that you've never spent more than 45 minutes on a real farm. I'm being generous with your 3rd grade field trip to Pierce College.
Anti-fois gras activists nearly always tie up ths issue with anti-elitism. Like the "a few rich assholes" jabs you threw in. It dillutes your argument. You would shut your mouth SUPER FAST if your privileged ass didn't live in a country where we had SO MUCH food that you could devote minutes/hours of your life judging what people do to cultivate it, instead of trying to keep from starving.
You're a caricature of yourself.
Your rebuttal is so pointless and off topic that it would be funny if weren't so pathetic. You have no idea who I am, what the color of my skin is, my social class, my income, etc...
The fact that people are starving in other parts of the world has nothing to do with pointing out and fighting against animal cruelty in all it's forms. Just because there's more than one problem in the world doesn't mean we should ignore the ones right in front of us. If you cared even the slightest bit about people starving you'd address the ridiculous imbalances that exist in regards to how much land and resources go towards raising food animals which could instead be used to feed all of the worlds hungry many times over. But no... that would sound too anti-elitist and make too much sense. It would mean giving up your Big Macs and your T-bone steaks, and I realize that for people like you, such a thought is inconceivable.
In the meantime it's not the poor starving people in Africa who's survival depends on foie gras, nor is it those same starving people who are driving the demand for fattened duck livers... it's the rich elitist minority who you are so passionate to defend... a handful of individuals for whom this heinous practice is perpetuated so they can savor their precious & expensive luxury regardless of it's true cost. The sad joke is that you folks really believe this is a matter of your rights being encroached upon rather than what it really is about: preventing animal abuse and torture.
If standing up against this disgusting practice makes me anti-elitist, so be it. Banning foie gras will hurt starving kids in Africa how? The only people who will be effected by this ban are a few snobs who'd rather not think about where their food came from, what it actually is, or the horrible manner in which it was produced. You're right, I am judgmental and I have no problem with calling out people who are so blind, selfish and willing to believe in any excuse they can come up with as long as it helps them justify the awful things done in the name of what's for dinner.
"For the Animals Every Day is Treblinka"
"People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times."
Quotation of Isaac Bashevis Singer
The whole country goes down and there are actually folks defending cruel balderdash food? Congrats!
"According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times."
They were trying to prevent people from murdering other people in the earliest of times too, Dalai Dumbass.
Carrie,
Your argument is poorly conceived and poorly punctuated.
". . .to simply make an example of foie gras seems to miss the forest for the trees. Why can't they ordain that all restaurants must buy locally and organic, from cruelty-free producers?"
Paraphrased: we should not regulate one cruelty-derived edible as we should instead ban the lot of them. Oh, you are a shrewd debater indeed.
Not a winner, please play again.
Carrie,
Your argument is poorly conceived and poorly punctuated.
". . .to simply make an example of foie gras seems to miss the forest for the trees. Why can't they ordain that all restaurants must buy locally and organic, from cruelty-free producers?"
Paraphrased: we should not regulate one cruelty-derived edible as we should instead ban the lot of them. Oh, you are a shrewd debater indeed.
Not a winner, please play again.
i think you guys are ignoring the fact that like the professor from Cornell, many experts in animal physiology (who don't have agendas) are punching holes in the argument that geese suffer from this force feeding. The esophagus and stomach of a duck is not like that of humans. It's more elastic and stronger. I'm hearing it time and time again, yet the argument by animal rights activists is "We'll if you were a duck, you wouldn't like it..." Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. Nor does the argument about evil rich people. This is a moral issue. People should decide for themselves whether they want to eat foie gras or not. Seeing REAL treatment of geese at these farms is not like those worse case scenarios that PETA carefully edits and shows. High quality farms engorge their ducks for the last two weeks of it's life. They show no signs of pain or suffering that PETA makes them out to be.