Follow Zester Daily on Facebook for the latest in food news, cooking tips and healthy eating Follow Zester Daily on Twitter for the latest in food news, cooking tips and healthy eating Subscribe to our Zester Daily RSS Feeds for the latest in food news, cooking tips and healthy eating

Vive Foie Gras! Print
California's impending ban on foie gras production impinges on our basic civil rights.
By Ariane Daguin   |   Monday, 05 December 2011   |   00:03

Foie gras production is safe and humane -- and should not be bannedAlthough foie gras production methods are safe and humane, animal rights extremists are pushing to make the delicacy illegal throughout the country.  This movement is not only anti-agriculture, but at its very soul, anti-American. Currently, the only state with a ban in place is California, where producing and selling foie gras will be prohibited as of July 1, 2012. Not only will this decimate the only foie gras farm in the state, it will impact countless restaurants. The ban infringes on the freedom of the nearly 40 million citizens of California.

Even if you don't eat or sell foie gras, this ban will impact you. The issue is not about whether the production methods are safe and humane -- scientific studies prove they are. The issue is the right of the public to choose what to eat. It is about the American value of freedom, which includes the freedom to eat and sell what is lawfully produced.

California today, the country tomorrow

Animal rights extremists seek a nationwide foie gras prohibition. If foie gras producers and consumers give up without a fight in California, tomorrow they will seek to ban even more animal products. Specialty duck is an easier target than massively consumed burgers, from the all-powerful factory farm industry. It is in the interest of freedom of choice that you should arm yourself with the facts and join us in the movement to address the anti-foie gras initiative. Don't let the extremists reach into your favorite restaurant and even your own kitchen to take food off your plate. Read the impassioned foie gras essay by restaurateur Mark Pastore, owner of San Francisco's Incanto restaurant, to see what foie gras freedom means to him.

The outcry from those who would ban foie gras completely is centered on the gavage method of feeding, which prohibitionists claim is inhumane. We know it is not. But don't take our word for it. Check out the following facts, backed by scientific studies and the eyewitness accounts of veterinarians and journalists who have visited at least one of the handful of American foie gras farms.

Fact No. 1: Ducks have no gag reflex and their esophagi have a tough lining, so they can swallow huge fish or other prey without pain. As the National Audubon Society states: " ... birds have a remarkable ability to expand the mouth and stretch the esophagus to swallow large prey." Gavage takes advantage of a natural trait of the bird -- its ability to swallow large volumes of food without feeling pain. Veterinarians use this same feeding technique to save the lives of waterfowl, and parent birds use it to feed their young by plunging their long sharp beaks into their baby bird's esophagus. Nature does not operate according to the animal rights agenda, and numerous videos attest to the capacity of ducks to swallow whole prey.

Fact No. 2.  In nature, web-footed birds gorge themselves and store calories as fat in their livers prior to migration. The effect is reversible, proving that a fattened liver (foie gras) is a natural propensity in ducks and geese. When waterfowl arrive at their migration destination, the fattened liver has returned to normal size, after being reabsorbed by the body for energy. Likewise, the liver of ducks fed for foie gras will return to normal if the feeding is halted.   

Studying the "use of a natural fattening phenomenon, foie gras has been recognized as a non-pathological and non-harmful product. It has been shown that physiological indicators of stress, nociceptive (pain) signs and behavioral responses were hardly affected by the gavage procedure." Read the entire study by Drs. Daniel Guémené and Gerard Guy in "The Past, Present and Future of Force-Feeding and Foie Gras Production." 

Fact No. 3. Independent vets and scientists conclude that gavage causes ducks no harm. The most detailed scientific study of the effect of feeding ducks on foie gras farms, published in 2004 in the World Poultry Science Journal, contradicts the claims of anti-foie gras activists. That study also concluded that foie gras is a "non-pathological and non-harmful product." Further, the study found that biological indicators of stress in the ducks were "hardly affected" by the feeding procedure.

Fact No. 4. American foie gras is raised on small-scale farms using artisanal methods. There are only a handful of farms raising foie gras in the United States. Each uses the managed feeding method, where individual feeders establish relationships with the group of ducks they feed.

Anthony Bourdain filmed a foie gras farm for "No Reservations" and came to the conclusion that the ducks were not harmed.

Fact No. 5. The American Veterinary Medical Assn. has investigated foie gras production and has refused to take a position against it. In September 2005, it released a statement that said: "Because limited peer-reviewed scientific information dealing with the animal welfare concerns associated with foie gras production is available, and because the observations and practical experience of (AVMA) House of Delegates members indicate a minimum of adverse effects on the birds involved, the HOD did not support the resolution opposing force feeding used to produce foie gras."

The fact that AVMA has refused to condemn foie gras production after conducting an investigation shows that science does not support the claims of the animal rights extremists.

The bottom line is that foie gras production is humane, and though practiced by a very few farms in the United States, it is accepted in the mainstream of animal agriculture. If one looks to scientific studies and not to extremists for information, it is evident that claims of animal cruelty are simply not supported by the facts.

To learn more visit the Artisan Farmers Alliance website and sign the petition to repeal the statewide ban on foie gras in California.

Please stand up for your rights and the rights of chefs and farmers, and against the tyranny of extremists.


This week's Zester soapbox contributor, Ariane Daguin, is the owner of specialty foods company D'Artagnan, and a pioneer in the world of sustainable and organic foie gras production. Thanks to her father, the renowned Andre Daguin, she was expert at deboning and preparing ducks by age 10, and went on to become the first purveyor of game and foie gras in the U.S. She received a Lifetime Achievement Award from Bon Appetit in 2005 and the French Legion of Honor in 2006. 

Photo: Ariane Daguin, Courtesy of D'Artagnan

* * *

Enter to win D'Artagnan foie gras on this week's Zester Daily contest.


smaller | bigger
security image
Write the displayed characters
...
I am not a animal right's extremist. Your article is hyperbole. There will be zero long-term financial impact on restaurants. They have been given multiple years to make adjustments for the new legislation.

AS for the farm, well maybe they should have started a farm that did not torture animals only to produce a luxury food item. People are not going to stop eating at restaurants because there isn't foie gras on the menu.

There are thousands of other menu items that can be served. Last night, I had an eight course meal at one of San Francisco's up and coming restaurants without any foie gras. There was no outcry in the restaurant. The restaurant was still full. People were still complimenting the chef.

Impinging on freedoms? There are many laws protecting animals. This is not impinging on freedoms. It is insuring that inhumane people are not allowed to torture animals. Do you kick dogs? Should kicking dogs be legal?

Don't worry, for now you can still gobbled down blue-fin tuna until the fish is extinct. For a couple more years, you will be able to indulge your desire to harm animals by eating shark fin soup. There are also fur coats that you can purchase. There are plenty of outlets remaining where animals are not protected from people who can not discern between responsible farming of animals for consumption as food and simple inhumane treatment of animals.

a guest , February 22, 2012
...
Jesus... you people must never have read Ishmael. I bet most of you are the type who would slip a blood diamond on your sweetheart's finger without a second thought.
a guest , December 31, 2011
...
great job ariane....the fact that you should even have to start a petition for this just shows the madness and insanity of the people.
as an avid cigar aficionado it is exactly the same issue we have to stand and fight for. agenda activist run a muck with the intention of destroying your american civil liberties........ and for the record, i do not smoke cigarettes and don't endorse it ...but what i do endorse is the right of every american to make that choice for themselves. We cant smoke a cigar, we cant eat a twinkie ,we cant drill for our own oil, we cant eat Foie Gras caz we are now hurting the Little geeseeeeees....just like all the little childresssss..... these activist don't care about accurate studies contrary to their cause that show whats natural in the goose liver growth etc.....just like they don't care about the thousands of doctors and surgeons that know a stogie a few times a week is not going to kill you, that you don't inhale cigar smoke, there are no artificial chemical in cigars that make u addicted to them and give you cancer.....all they care about is forcing their will on You and taking your civil liberties away.....it's amazing to me how so many people stand by and do nothing...Great story and it proves the point that the agenda is civil liberty not ......cigars or Foie Gras
a guest , December 14, 2011
...
This is entirely correct and a very important antidote to the lies told by the antis and the animal rights crowd
a guest , December 09, 2011
...
The L. John Harris comment below makes a good deal of sense. At least he considered the argument rationally instead of exploding with angry insults and questioning the authors humanity. I agree with him that anthropomorphism is the key problem here. Comparing ducks to suffragists being force fed? It should be clear that Djuna Barnes was talking about people, not ducks. We have to at least acknowledge we are not the same animal, right? I did get a chuckle seeing Barnes quoted as an authority on foie gras, though.

You think the author is trying hard to defend her point of view? Maybe it's because the entire debate is so narrowly limited to the only people who have heard of foie gras in this country: a handful of farmers and chefs on one side and then the professional animal rights people and their band of emotional, unstable supporters on the other. And they don't want us to eat meat at all.

Frankly, I am sorry to see the anger and the lack of rational debate in the comments. Bodes well for us as a nation going into an election year, huh?

a guest , December 08, 2011
...
wow, thank goodness for foie gras and the passion of the people who care for it (and the history/heritage of cuisine). Without gastronomic benchmarks and the real people behind them (like foie gars and Ms. Daguin)- a trade, a profession, and an art would be lost.

Thank you for keeping the spirit and flame alive, to all who get involved in the fight. There is no "right answer", and unfortunately- the "activists" will never be satisfied. Thats what they do for a living... stay active in whatever cause can keep a fight raging.

Rage on food lovers and activists. The flame will burn bright, hopefully keeping light on the subject- and keeping foie gras on menus and in hearts as to serve as reward to the millions of hard working industry professionals dedicating their lives to the industry.

Lets continue to honor the time honored product, the legacy of the ducks and geese who have contributed their lives- and the great chefs in history that believe foie gras is honored product- passing integrity and technique through the generations.

Ciaporkchop
chef/owner
St Thomas, USVI
a guest , December 08, 2011
...
2 of 2

"Fact No. 4:" I realize English is not Mrs. Daguin's native tongue, but she must understand that "relationship" is not the word we use for the forcible insertion of a foreign object into another's orifice.

Nevermind Anthony Bourdain's heartily overestimated credibility; the excerpt of his video on Youtube shows us all we need to see. While most captive animals visibly anticipate mealtime, in the video at 2:22 and 2:40 we can clearly see the frightened birds struggling to get as far away as possible from the farm worker and her gavage auger. At 2:34, that worker gives us a look which speaks volumes to how she feels about her "relationship" with the animal writhing between her and the machine.

As for "Fact No. 5" and the "limited peer-reviewed scientific information dealing with the animal welfare concerns associated with foie gras production," I suggest you read the HSUS report on The Welfare of Animals in the Foie Gras Industry, and its six and a half pages of citations (found at http://www.humanesociety.org/a...lfare.pdf.)

But again, if Daguin truly operated an "artisanal" farm, her entire argument - and indeed her complaint - is baseless. As much as it may pain her to admit, Eduardo Sousa has been recognized for producing the best foie gras in the world, and his methods are indisputably artisanal. If Daguin truly cared more about quality than quantity, then she, too, could adopt those same methods and achieve the results that only nature can produce.

If.



A. A. Ellis
a guest , December 08, 2011
...
1 of 2
This editorial is just that: an editorial. Despite her spirited attempts to corroborate her assertions with empirical evidence, Mrs. Daguin's essay is replete with gross fallacy, and departs from reality with distressing frequency. With that in mind, I will endeavor to critique her distasteful word-pâté one paragraph at a time.

Daguin launches with a series of logistically indefensible volleys designed to spark an emotional, knee-jerk reaction; vis-à-vis words like "anti-Amercan" (Really? Why not go the full nine yards and throw Socialism in there, too?)She continues by alleging that the state of California has outlawed the production and sale of foie gras. This is only partly true: as of July, 2012, the California Health and Safety Code prohibits the production and sale of any product which is the "result of force feeding a bird." This leaves the door open to anyone who would produce foie gras through 'natural' means, as does award-winning Spanish farmer Eduardo Sousa. As for Daguin's statement that "the issue is the right of the public to choose what to eat;" what of the birds' same right?

Daguin is correct in that force feeding is at the heart of the issue. While it is reassuring to read that she "knows" force feeding to be humane, she has neglected to consider the "eyewitness account" of one person who is possibly more qualified than anyone alive today to discourse on the subject of gavage. You see, during the Women's Suffrage movement, imprisoned female activists used hunger strikes to protest their mistreatment and unequal rights. Gavage was administered to these women by prison doctors. To better understand the process, writer Djuna Barnes decided to undergo the treatment herself. As Daguin states, human physiology is different from that of a duck's; however, it was not the physical pain to which Barnes attributed the greatest horror of the experience. Wrote Barnes: "If I, play acting, felt my being burning with revolt at this brutal usurpation of my own functions, how they who actually suffered the ordeal in its acutest horror must have flamed at the violation of the sanctuaries of their spirits." As she says, it was the wresting of power from her in the performance of her basic bodily functions that was the source of unimaginable revulsion.

To Daguin's alleged "Fact No. 1:" While it is true that ducks and geese posses esophagi tougher than those of humans, "tough" is a relative term. While it may be evolutionarily designed to withstand the passage of a large fish or a mother's beak, such is a far cry from an unyielding, foot-long metal pipe, hastily and mercilessly introduced multiple times a day. Injuries from gavage include burning, bruising, perforation and hemorrhaging, as well as resultant infection and even death by asphyxiation.

As for so-called "Fact No. 2;" humans store fat when we consume excess calories, to be drawn upon in times of famine. That doesn't mean that unnaturally exacerbating and prolonging this condition is healthy. The corn mash fed to ducks and geese is nothing like their natural food; if allowed to live longer they would suffer severe malnutrition as a result of this diet. Given the choice, these birds would never eat this gruel voluntarily. Not only that, but they are fed up to two pounds of it a day; far more food than they would ever naturally consume, preparing for winter or not.

Daguin here commits the intolerable offence of padding her evidence. The "studies" she refers to here and throughout her essay, as well the one in "Fact No. 3" are no more than one and the same. Published only in the World's Poultry Science Journal, this study shows no discernible signs of scientific legitimacy.
a guest , December 08, 2011
...
"Nature does not operate according to the animal rights agenda..." There is nothing natural about forcing food down the gullet of a duck, either. The only motivation for doing that is a financial one.

"In nature, web-footed birds gorge themselves and store calories as fat in their livers prior to migration. " Again, there is no comparable natural process that causes or forces animals to eat beyond when they would normally stop feeding themselves.

"Independent vets and scientists conclude that gavage causes ducks no harm." But, the only research cited by Daguin was published in 2004, by the World Poultry Science Journal. This publication would certainly appear to be an industry publication, not an objective, independently funded study.

"American foie gras is raised on small-scale farms... where individual feeders establish relationships with the group of ducks they feed." And, then they shove food relentlessly down their gullet, and kill them. Very warm and fuzzy, indeed.

"Anthony Bourdain filmed a foie gras farm for 'No Reservations...'" Anthony Bourdain?? Daguin quotes this profanity-spewing, drug-addled burn-out in support of her position?

The American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) findings can hardly be considered unbiased. AVMA exists to aid ranchers in keeping livestock healthy. Unhealthy livestock is a financial drain on their businesses. Ranching, whether the product is cattle, poultry, or alligators, for that matter, is a business, and the AMVA's raison d'être is to assist ranchers in keeping their inventories healthy, and profitable.


a guest , December 07, 2011
...
To ban foie gras is an act one could say is absolutely absurd. It is one of life's delicacy's, and there is NO reason to make it illegal to make! It is a product that harms NO animal whatsoever! It is a ridiculous move, and the thought is even more ridiculous. Let's get on with the act of living and do things that need to be done to better mankind!
a guest , December 07, 2011
...

I am not an animal rights activist, but may consider becoming one after reading your article. The fact that you need to put so much energy into convincing yourself that this cruelty is somehow okay is in itself quite telling. Force feeding ducks for your pleasure is beyond cruel, it is shallow. The fact that you see it as your right is perhaps even most disturbing of all.`I imagine there is a significant profit margin in all of this. I suppose that is what really motivates this kind of thing. THAT is really the bottom line for you Ariane, isn't it?
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
My nature is to see, or try to see, both sides of moral/political/cultural/culinary debates. It helps me to go back to basic principles and terms to clarify my own position.

Definition of Terms:

Empathy-- the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another sapient or semi-sapient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion.


Sympathy--a social affinity in which one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her feelings. Also known as empathic concern, it is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Although empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, a subtle variation in ordinary usage can be detected. To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort. Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non-fleeting concern for the other person.

Anthropomorphism--any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

Irony-- the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning.

My own view is that we can empathize and sympathize with animals and their suffering at the hands of carnivores, and yet still take their lives for our own nutrition and pleasure, albeit with maximum respect and minimal suffering for the animal based on the highest technological standards and protocols.

So I can empathize and sympathize with animal suffering, stopping short, however, of anthropomorphism. I do not believe that ducks and geese are experiencing what we would be experiencing (as explained in Ariane Daguin’s informative article) if fed in the same fashion. I also empathize and sympathize with those radical vegetarians, vegans and animal rights activists who do identify anthropomorphically with animals that are taken, or otherwise processed, for our food.

Ironically, all the world’s suffering is referred to as the “human” condition, even when it is the duck’s and goose’s condition at issue. Anthropomorphism does not tolerate irony, especially its own. L. John Harris



a guest , December 07, 2011
...
Thank you! You make great points and we need to keep these animal extremists at bay as they continue to take away our liberties daily with their baseless claims and radical agenda.
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
Thanks to you for writing this excellent piece. Hope I win the foie gras you're giving away!
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
"If you don't approve of foie gras and it's [sic] production, then don't eat it."

This is rather like saying, "If you don't approve of rape, then don't be a rapist. If you don't approve of murder, then don't murder." Needless to say, this argument doesn't begin to address the malfeasance of those who DO rape and murder, etc.

(BTW, learn the distinction between "it's" and "its". "it's" = "it is". Pretty elementary, I'd say, yet apparently beyond the grasp of many.)
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
If you don't approve of foie gras and it's production, then don't eat it.
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
Ariane, t'es tellement de mauvaise foi.
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
PETA and organizations like it have chosen this issue because it is low hanging fruit. PETA has neither the resources nor the support to go after the poultry of beef industries. If PETA had their way we would all be vegans, we would give up the pets we love and the leather shoes you are currently wearing would be illegal. I submit that the folks that support this ban should spend their time more wisely. Worry more about your fellow man. Volunteer at a food bank, raise money for Aids research, Defend the rights of Gays and Lesbians. Human beings are suffering under the strains of war disease, poverty and discrimination and we are more concerned with legislating the force feeding of ducks.
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
No gag reflex? This is scientifically incorrect.
This is from page 35 of the report of EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/international/out17_en.pdf
"Birds, including ducks and geese, have a wide range of pain receptors and an elaborate pain recognition system. Most injuries caused by tissue damage during handling or tube insertion would result in pain. The oropharyngeal area is particularly sensitive and is physiologically adapted to perform a gag reflex in order to prevent fluids entering the trachea. Force feeding will have to overcome this reflex and hence the birds may initially find this distressing and
injury may result."
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
People who hate cruelty are not extremists. Human greed should not take precidence over everything else.
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
I have been on Fois Gras farms to get undercover footage. You either have not been on one, have been shown false condition or are completely heartless. There is no humane way to force-feed an animal to enlarge it's liver to 10-12 times the size. Theses diseased livers are also harmful to humans, having been linked to Alzheimer's. Also, our own White House will not even store "real" fois gras. They get there fatty duck liver from a manufacturer in Spain that allowed them to eat as they do in migration when their livers double in size. "Real fois gras manufactures says this ids not real fois gras since the livers are't big enoguh. Our own White House refuses to stock this so-called "real" fois gras so your arguments about being an American have to strength. In Korea, they beat dogs to death because the adrenaline makes the meat taste better. This would never be allowed here. Nor should force-feeding an animal. You are either misinformed or heartless. If you do have a heart then I suggest you check your facts. Davina Lynch
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
The foie gras industry has also expanded from a European artisan practice of raising a few geese to feed the family over winter at the beginning of the 20th century to a multimillion-dollar factory farm industry, mostly based in France, employing 30,000 people. There, every year, 20 million ducks and 800,000 geese are raised to be slaughtered, producing 21,000 tonnes of foie gras and 30,000 tonnes of meat for the restaurant industry. Are the 'extremists' making money here? No. Follow the money & you will have the truth. I hope this woman & everyone who agrees with her chokes.
a guest , December 07, 2011
...
One of the most patently insulting pieces I've read in a long time (right up there with Mark Crutcher's tripe about Planned Parenthood being a front for eugenic extermination of African-Americans). Where this article is concerned, I hardly know where to begin, but let's go with this:

"American foie gras is raised on small-scale farms using artisanal methods. ... Each uses the managed feeding method, where individual feeders establish relationships with the group of ducks they feed."

Ms. Daguin, the only comparable "relationships" you could be speaking of here are the relationship between the child rapist and the niece or nephew he violated; the relationship between an abusive pet-owner and the dog or cat he beat to death; or that of the terrorist/aggressor/oppressor and his victim.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Stop with the lie that it is "humane". It is not. The unfortunate bird is FORCED to swallow about 8 times more food in it's lifetime than it normally would just so we can have foie gras.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
The landslide 2008 vote on Proposition 2 showed that Californians care about the way farm animals are treated. Force-feeding in the production of foie gras is one of the cruelest practices in animal agriculture. Ariane Daguin's ideas are well outside those of mainstream Californians.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
lol, so if you are so confident reviewing the information she provided, let it go to to the legislators for review. We are all just talking here and mostly we don't know what we are talking about. Unbiased people should hear out both sides, look at all the information. We need to do that. That did not happen in 2004. What are you afraid of?
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
lol, the first thing I see when I go to the Farmers Alliance website linked in the article is a video from Anthony Bourdain supporting Foie Gras. Bourdain is highly vocal against vegetarians, vegans and animal rights, read his recent Playboy interview. This entire thing is biased and lacks credibility, the author is doing nothing more here than trying to protect her income based on cruel and unusual practices. Nobody will starve without foie gras.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Follow the money - what we have here is the "first purveyor of . . . foie gras in the United States" wanting to continue to profit from her cruelty.

Foie Gras is not exactly main stream cuisine, and neither were shark fins. Shame on you.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
The very translation/meaning of "foie Gras" is cruel- FAT LIVER-
Don't think these poor creatures are naturally producing "fat Liver" for you to eat.
The very fact that they have to be penned and forced to overfeed over and over again is beyond cruel-
Why can't you see that?
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Misinformation #1: In nature duck/geese feed themselves a metal pipe jammed down their throat is not natural.
Misinformation #2: See #1 above.
Misinformation #3: Independent vets/scientists say a lot of things. Several also say that eating fatty foods cause diseases.
Misinformation #4: Calling shoving a metal pipe down an innocent animals throat and calling it "artisinal" is an insult to artisans. I'm sure you also believe rape on silk sheets is artistic.
Misinformation #5: One could also say they do not support the production of foie gras.

Anthony Bourdain has done a lot of things, including eating the eyeballs and assholes of animals.

Flawed arguments by a flawed human being who hates animals and only interested in their pleasure not matter the cost. My civil rights are being violated knowing the torture these animals undergo and living in a tortuous violent world created by force feeding.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
What an idiotic statement.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
"...individual feeders establish relationships with the group of ducks they feed"? Perhaps Ms. Daquin should therefore submit to being force-fed with a metal tube several times a day at the hands of her friends and loved ones!
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
To all those concerned about animal suffering, please direct your words and actions to the real atrocity -- the way millions upon millions of chickens, hogs, and cattle are raised in Confined Animal Feeding Operations.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Can anybody put me on some of that Spanish foie gras? I don't think so. Seems like a Dan Barber/PETA put-up to confuse the issue. They probably paid him pretty good. He sure doesn't have it on the menu at Blue Hill.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
As you say, re-examining is good and reasonable. It is suggested that the evaluation that led to the passage of the ban was incorrect and biased and should be re-considered, especially in view of the studies and information that have been developed since 2004. If foie gras was bad in 2004, it will be again on re-consideration in 2012. If the process was flawed and incomplete in 2004 and foie gras was not judged fairly, re-examination will clarify the issue and the ban will not be necessary. While slavery has not been re-introduced and will not be, many other laws have been re-examined and overturned. As you say, the American tradition of re-examining laws and amending them.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
This is quite possibly the dumbest line I've read in an article: "It is about the American value of freedom, which includes the freedom to eat and sell what is lawfully produced."

Ummm...isn't that the whole point of a BAN? It makes something UNLAWFUL to produce. Is the author against the American tradition of re-examining laws and amending them? This is so ridiculous, it's funny to me. At one point slaves were property...so did President Lincoln take away the "American freedom to sell and trade private property?"

Wake UP people...just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that you shouldn't think about it and re-evaluate it. Are we really that weak of a society that we can't make compassionate changes without throwing a hissy fit about our precious "traditions?" Seriously people, you sound like children...."But Mommy, I wanted to eat that!!! It's yummy!! MOMMY WHY WON'T YOU LET ME EAT IT??? WAAAH"
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
"for a legislative practice to be hi-jacked"
that is exactly it! keep PETA out of the legislative process!!
It is disturbing to think that people can legislate their values because they have the cash.

It is really upsetting that animal activists are attacking this small practice just because they can. They are obviously demonizing it.

I had the opportunity to visit a lot of farms because of my college studies, and honestly the 2 foie farms i went to were the cleanest, least smelly, happy, running around ducks with their compatriots farms I've ever been to. Those videos circulating around were not taken in america, there is no way. Furthermore, you are freaking out the ducks by jumping in their homes at night with bright light and kidnapping them. Leave them alone.

I would rather be a duck in a foie farm then a chicken or cow in in american farm!! seriously!!
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Has anyone listened to the TED talk about a Spanish foie gras producer? Fascinating talk about foie gras, but also a wonderful story.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Has anyone listened to this? It's a fascinating TED conference talk about a Spanish foie gras producer and how he works. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_b...rable.html
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Has anyone listened to this? It's a fascinating TED conference talk about a Spanish foie gras producer and how he works. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_b...rable.html
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
You don't seem to be getting the point. Animals are killed for food not pleasure. They shouold not be mistreated in the process. The author makes the point, well supported, that foie gras is not abuse. That being the case, the abuse is in the legislative process. If you want to say you should not kill animals for food, be clear about it. That is not what is being discussed here.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
your know what is cruel, factory farming! perdu chicken!
people are getting all pissy about foie gras because its elitist, its expensive, it a luxury, it has a strange french name and if you don't know anything about it, yeah it looks evil. Since this is a luxury product its important that it be of the utmost quality. You cannot get good quality meat if you are not practicing good animal husbandry. Period! This is a fact.

Furthermore, these animal activist are so aggravating - There are 3 SMALL foie farmers in america, and they choose to wage a war against them? They are not touching big ag!! They are not attacking the factory farms which raise and kill their livestock in such despicable conditions, and produce such disgusting and unhealthy meat that gets fed to all our children! They are attacking three small farms who practice animal husbandry, keeps their farms small, and don't inject their livestock with antibiotics and hormones.

Leave this small business and the 1000 year old practice of foie alone and address big ag guys!! come on!! its easy to pick on the little people isn't it!!

a guest , December 06, 2011
...
These animals are capable of awareness, feeling, and suffering. Humans have an ethical obligation to refrain from behaviors which inflict suffering upon all sentient beings. Ditch foie gras - go vegetarian for your health, for the earth, and for the animals.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
That's right -- Don't tread on my right to tread on the rights of others! If I want to pay people to abuse and kill animals for my own pleasure -- that's MY RIGHT. And I agree -- it's downright Un-American to fight for the freedoms of the downtrodden and exploited. Anyone who says otherwise is probably a Communist.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
I am a vegetarian. But I do not think banning foie gras is a good idea. If you read enough, rather than only materials from PETA, et al, it is pretty clear making foie gras does not hurt the animals. A small group of farmers got run over by well-funded animal rights organizations. If the AVMA won’t condemn foie gras, what is California doing? For the legislative process to be hi-jacked to take out small farmers as part of a personal (what was Senator John Burton’s (bill sponsor) motivation?) or organizational agenda, that should not happen anywhere in America. THAT should be illegal. Watch out when they come for you.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Isn't freedom of choiceCome on people is what we are about in the USA? Next someone will be telling us we can't have a coca cola or eat a nice N.Y Strip.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
I like Foie Gras and hope that it does not get banned. While I think concern for animal welfare is important to society I think much more important is to help children who are starving and being abused. Why not focus on that? Why not use all your energy to address children welfare. If you used as much concern for children as you do animals we could actually have a better US. Think of the children you could help. Once you eradicate hunger and abuse in America then you can worry about the ducks.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
What a pathetic article. I think the only extremist here is the one throwing out the hyperbole: "extremists," "anti-agriculture," "anti-American," "tyranny of extremists." Give me a break. And to wrap the thinly-veiled concern for business profits around a cloak of "consumer freedom" just insults your audience.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
You're an idiot! I don't have the "freedom" to torture puppies and kittens either but I'll just have to live with that.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
I am against animal cruelty. I am also one of the few consumers it seems that knows the facts about Foie Gras production in the US and that it is not cruel to animals.

It is sad and frustrating to read all of these uninformed and misleading comments. If this ban goes into effect it will be the first "win" for extreme factions of the animal rights movement to eventually clear meat off the American table.

I urge you to please become truly informed and not be a victim of hateful propaganda. Are you against cruelty against innocent people and farmers? US Foie farmers have endured nothing short of terrorist style attacks on their farms, businesses and personal threats against their families.

I too, have fallen victim to propaganda that cloaked itself in "anti cruelty" in the past. It is easy. These people have lots of money to spin a tale to elicit exactly the emotion they want to.

Someone could very easily place hidden cameras in your home and piece together a pretty compelling argument for whatever they wanted that was 100% false. If someone made it their agenda and life's work to destroy you, they would.

The agenda of the "extreme" side of the animal rights movement is to eradicate MEAT by attacking vulnerable and innocent Foie farmers.

I will not be a pawn to extremists. Will you?
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Unfortunately, foie gras is a luxury food item with a French name that few Americans have heard of or care about. So the debate is between the minority of those who do know (usually the farmers that raise foie gras and chefs that cook it) and the animal rights activists. Both sides can be said to have opposing agendas. From the comments so far, it is clear which side comes out swinging and making ad hominem attacks.

Did any of these vitriolic people follow any of the links in the article and read the science she refers to? Or did they just get angry and post ugly comments?

Ducks and geese eat a lot before migration and fatten their livers, with or without human intervention. Yes, it's true that fattened livers are not healthy in humans. But, sorry, ducks are not people. Their livers have a special function that ours do not. Hunters have found fattened livers in ducks--from ancient Egyptians to modern day hunters.

The duck esophagus is different, too. Because they eat whole fish and frogs in the wild--and sometimes even their own young--they are tougher than ours. Vets know this, since they feed sick ducks with the same type of tubes. Again, as cute as they are, ducks are not people. Do you store food in your crop before digesting it?

All of agricultural history would be wiped out if mankind had not found ways to breed animals for specific purposes, or to manage crops to our best advantage. Feeding ducks to maximize a natural trait is a part of that continuing effort to get the most out of nature.

It is not Hitlerian, it is not vile or evil, as these comments would make it appear. There is strong science to defend this process. It seems like people just react emotionally to this issue. Do some research. Stop watching animal rights videos.

Maybe it's time to consider why our government should be making these decisions for us. Do we trust them so blindly to do always do what is right? And talk about having an agenda! Really, a legal ban on a food item? Did Prohibition teach us nothing?

a guest , December 06, 2011
...
I am a Californian who looks forward to seeing foie gras relegated to the pages of history where it belongs. There was a time when we didn't know better, when we didn't know that animals were sentient beings, capable of suffering. Now we know better and we can't hide behind our greed and lust for something delicious to justify mistreatment of other beings. The momentary taste is just not worth it. I'm disappointed that Zester would assign this piece such a headline. Foie gras, c'est mort.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
I agree with the people that want to stop this inhumane treatment. Have you ever asked a duck or goose if this bothers them? Do you really have to eat animals? I am glad one state has taken action, hopefully more will follow.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Banning foie gras will just be the beginning in banning other meat products. It is simply an easy target because there are so few producers. What's the difference in enjoying foie gras versus enjoying an over-fed 25 lb turkey on Thanksgiving? Lets look at the facts here people. If the only argument you have is criticizing a head-shot, than leave this argument for the grown-ups.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
That's good enough for me! Thank you Ariane for doing the work and allowing me to enjoy one of my favorite luxuries without guilt! Not that I ever paused for doubt or actually felt any real guilt. Fois Gras is a true luxury and no one that I know takes it for granted or fails to appreciate the passion and dedication that goes into producing this delicacy. I never stopped eating it.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
I have never met anyone who can spell Yquem that didn't love foie.

I don't eat it more than a few times a year--it's not supposed to be a staple, but as a treat it's Manna.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
This was an interesting story about an alternative production method, heard it on "This American Life" last weekend: http://www.thisamericanlife.or...2011?act=3
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Humans have no "right" to be cruel to animals...not even American humans. Just because a duck can handle something doesn't mean it should have to do so. It's time for Ms. Daguin to find another profession and leave cruelty and spinning the truth to the professionals.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...


Wow, she's calling the concern for other living beings "un-american"? Isn't it funny how those wishing to protect the status quo invoke this specter of being unpatriotic whenever it suits them:

Oppose slavery? You're unAmerican!
Believe in votes for women and minorities? UnAmerican!
Against war and conquest? Un-American!

The argument would be laughable, if only so many didn't agree with it.

This is about protecting animals from having jagged PVC pipes shoved down their throats and gruel aggressively pumped into their stomachs, for the purpose of enlarging and inflaming their liver.
Yeah, that's what this is about.

I don't care if people say it's delicious. Maybe human skins makes really beautiful leather bags--is that any justification for doing it?

Can we maybe leave the flag-waving and witch-hunting out of this one?
Or is that all people have to fall back on:

Protecting ducks and geese from having PVC pipes shoved in their throats is a threat to this country.

The very fabric of America will unravel!
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
What sort of fools do you take us for? If the process were pleasant, and amicable to the ducks, then they wouldn't have to be force fed!

Inflicting violence upon others is NEVER a "civil right."
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Foie gras is so blatantly cruel that anyone who defends it would certainly defend absolutely any manner of torture inflicted upon animals in favor of their taste buds. The thought of these animals being so mistreated to make a "delicacy" makes me nauseous. Every time we eat, we make a choice -- to support cruelty or not. Foie gras belongs in the history books as a symbol of unfettered gluttony and selfishness.
a guest , December 06, 2011
...
Foie gras production is so cruel Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the law to ban it, and he's not an animal rights guy by a long shot! This is an elite specialty food. Freedom doesn't mean doing what ever you want no matter how much it hurts another. Who feels that entitled? Most Americans are kind. Don't hide behind the flag, it's not loss of freedom but loss of profits that they're worried about.
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
This woman has every interest in the ban being overturned: she will make more money. I could make money out of taking advantage of people or animals, too. I don't because I think that's a rotten way to make a buck. This woman doesn't seem to care how she makes her money. Thank goodness we don't have to live by her moral compass--there's a law that reflects the moral compass of those who have no financial interest in the suffering of millions of animals. Have a look at some of these photos (not graphic): http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/duck.html Most people think it's cruel.
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
"In a rare moment of candor, Hudson Valley Foie Gras co-owner Michael Ginor had this to say to a reporter in 2009: "There's no question that the duck on day 28 of feeding is not as happy as a duck that hasn't been fed...I felt like I was never 100-percent wholesome with it in the sense that I think you can't be 100-percent wholesome with it...I understand the issues. I partially agree with the issues.""

Even the foie gras producers know it's wrong. Very excited for this ban to take place.
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
The feeders form relationships with the ducks? I bet you think all the cows at slaughterhouses have names and get special feed on their birthdays. Anything for a buck I guess...this article is trash, just like your argument
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
The author of this article has a vested interest in propagating falsehoods. Don't trust what she writes. The ducks are force fed until their livers become engorged and diseased. They suffer incredibly. A person with such a conditions would be hospitalized. Foie gras is not a humane product. I avoid it at all costs.
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
There is nothing safe nor humane about shoving a metal pipe down the throat of a duck 2-3 times a day to force 2 pounds of corn mush into his esophagus. According to the ASPCA, "The birds' livers become so enlarged…that according to documentation by veterinarians, the animals must experience unspeakable pain and suffering. Birds have literally exploded from these forced feedings. The results of necropsies on dead birds that have been force-fed reveal ruptured livers, throat damage, esophageal trauma, and food spilling from the dead animals' throats and out of their nostrils." There is nothing humane about foie gras production. This is animal torture for a cruel delicacy. In addition to the inherent animal cruelty involved in foie gras production, there is also the devastation caused to the environment and human health from the foie gras factory farms. "In 2010, the Humane Society of the United States successfully sued Hudson Valley Foie Gras for releasing unacceptable amounts of chlorine, ammonia, and fecal coliform into the Middle Mongaup River in Ferndale, New York. Like other forms of factory farming, foie gras production harms the environment by producing excess waste that can potentially flow into crucial waterways." I look forward to the day when the foie gras ban takes effect!
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
This article is pure propaganda. Follow the money. This person has a vested interest in propagating lies. Look at her bio, to convince yourself of this.
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
This TEDx video explains a farmer in Italy who does Foie Gras RIGHT! (http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang///id/406) It is using the natural means that you imply in the article. It explains that if you make FOIE GRAS from a duck/geese that gorges itself naturally (rather than artificially) the taste is better. Toxins store in the liver! If you eat the liver of an animal that is stressed, you are eating the toxins created by that stress. There is nothing natural about MAN force-feeding a duck. I am very much NOT a vegan or vegetarian and I love LIVER made the RIGHT way.
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
I'm not going to lie, I love the taste of fois gras but I try to eat it on very rare special occasions. In the end, I think people convince themselves that it's ok when we really have no idea if it's uncomfortable for the animals, gag reflex or not.

There are plenty of non-extremists who feel fois gras is cruel. It's unfair to lump everyone together. I have many vegan and vegetarians who are kind, easy-going and rational.

To clarify, I am neither a vegetarian or a vegan.

Jennifer
www.savorysimple.net
a guest , December 05, 2011
...
Excellent piece. Thank you for writing this.
cliffordwright , December 05, 2011

busy
Last Updated on Wednesday, 07 December 2011 19:18
 

Zester Daily | Food News | Cooking | Dining Out | Healthy Eating | Wine

Copyright © 2012 Zester LLC.

Site Design & Hosted by digical