Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.

Food

Thirteen States Ask Supreme Court To Overturn California's Foie Gras Ban

foiegras.jpg
Photo via LAist Featured Photos pool on Flickr

One year ago, Congress defunded public media. Now that we're 100% community funded, please become a sustaining member or increase your existing membership today.

Thirteen states — including Kansas, Missouri, and Georgia — have filed a brief asking the US Supreme Court to review California's ban on the sale and production of foie gras. The ban was voted on in 2004, and went into effect in 2012, and the states claim that it's a constitutional issue that puts discriminatory barriers against commerce from other states.

Since the ban was enacted, local chefs had gotten around the ban by buying the product online—some are still serving it as a gratis item on tasting menus. (Animal rights activists hacked into the purveyor's accounts and exposed the California chefs who used it, who were then threatened withlawsuits from PETA.) They could be fined $1,000 per sale per day for their disregard of the ban.

Those petitioning the Supreme Court say that the ban infringes upon the farming practices in other states. Attorney Michael Tenenbaum told McClatchy DC that, “The Supreme Court should take the case because it raises an issue of extraordinary national importance in terms of whether one state, like California, can dictate the farming methods to be used by farmers in other states."

Tenenbaum is based in Santa Monica, and is also representing a California restaurant company, a New York state foie gras producer and a Canadian organization of duck and goose farmers. The states have filed separately as well. He believes that though "California may forbid its own farmers from using an established feeding technique," it cannot deprive "out-of state farmers of the competitive advantage they retain."

California Attorney General Kamala Harris says this isn't an issue the Supreme Court needs to take up. Her team writes in a brief: "State laws prohibiting the sale of products based on concerns about animal welfare, or simply on a social consensus concerning what is appropriate, are not unusual." The brief gives state bans on horse meat as an example.

A decision on whether or not the case will be heard should be made by September.

[Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that it was Mercy For Animals had hacked into the computers.]

One year ago, Congress voted to defund public media, eliminating a critical $1.7 million from our budget every year going forward. But they couldn’t silence us, and we’re not going anywhere. LAist is now 100% community funded and that means we’re taking our future into our own hands and turning to you to keep local reporting strong.

You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our nonprofit newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our communities. We are free to follow facts wherever they lead and to hold power to account without fear or favor. Our only loyalty is to our readers and listeners and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen Southern California’s communities.

If this story helped you, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief

Make your tax-deductible donation today