apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I'm a vegetarian, live in Chicago, and I think this is the biggest waste of time and tax payers money! Jeez!!!!! I just cannot believe this is an issue!

They are just anti-French! What about VEAL! Why not pass a law banning VEAL!

It really does not matter because there are no quality French restaurants in Chicago, so this is not worthy of discussion. Chicagoans also lack panache. Look how they bastardized pizza. Imbeciles! Foie Gras, SERIOUSLY!

FASCIST!

Pierre,

Watch out, we have a Chicago site now... those Chicago readers might have something to say about their panache!

A kitchen blog could not provide enough room for my thoughts about this. I am in shock, which is rare for me. Let's see if I can be brief -

Foie Gras? Ok, I don't eat it because of the obvious but what the hell are "they" going to outlaw next? You don't want to goose to suffer? Don't buy it! I can't believe people allow this crap to happen. People need to start accepting accountable for their own decisions and stop allowing government to make stupid waste of taxpayer time decisions. This isn't real is it? Please, please put some money into cancer research, ending starvation, MS, education of the forgotten, and all those homeless we all pass by daily - anything to help this world but this is an embarrassement. No wonder foreigners think we're nuts!

Are we talking a blanket pate ban here? What about Braunschweiger (the foie gras of the working man)? I defy you to try to take away a Chicagoan's Braunschweiger.

Everyone knows that regular old force-fed goose liver can easily (with a kit bought on the Internet) be transformed into a full-blown foie gras capable of delivering that uniquely French blend of fanciful and humdrum.

When Foie Gras is outlawed, only outlaws will spread it on their miniature toasts.

I just re-read my post and apologize to Sara Kate for the rant or more so for the typos which occurred due to my inability to contain myself. My opinion stands. And Then I read stonelake's post and I'm thinking...liverwurst, sausage, then chickens, then broccoli because science has proven it bends just prior to cutting from its source.....and I think this is just a bad idea - because we now have irradiated strawberries and things. I'm wondering what the Chicago city counsel ate for dinner last night?

Pierre -

You wouldn't know a good pizza if it bit you on your surrender-happy, French ass.

ah, my dear pierre,
who's really anti whom here?!?

if you are equating Chicagoans' (lack of) panache with their love of stuffing pizza or the fact that there are "no good quality french restaurants," why not try escaping the Loop's tourist traps and guidebook instructions and venturing into our intense, well-rounded, sometimes beaten down, often times beloved, neighborhoods (and their corresponding restaurants!) that are full of people with panache....

we love the french! (but not name callers)

Heather,

I know Chicago too well and this is not about Chicago, this is about the right of people everywhere to appreciate finer culture. But if Chicagoans just want to eat brats and drink beer, so be it! Bon appetite.

Oh, the midwesterners you see in Chicago with panache are usually from Madison, Wisconsin.

"Are we talking a blanket pate ban here? What about Braunschweiger (the foie gras of the working man)? I defy you to try to take away a Chicagoan's Braunschweiger."

ROFL. I fully admit to loving braunschweiger, I have no shame. I am also curious to find out of this applies to other forms of pate -- I love it all. This may throw a kink in some future plans to move to Chicago ...

Broccoli bends?

Ha! Pierre is the new Jonathan.

oh...mon...dieu!

it is, indeed, an embarrassment, one akin to this gov't. wanting us to rename french fries "freedom fries". i have to agree with chicago's mayor: there are BIGGER ISSUES. where does one go from here. yikes.

Foie gras is the bad news in Chicago restaurants...
The GOOD news is: you can now take home your unfinished bottle of wine from the restaurant.

Isn't there fatty duck liver that is made humanely, without force-feeding the poor little duckie?

actually, Pierre (if that is your real name), this Chicagoan/midwesterner avec panache is from Cleveland.

also, who gives a shit? the food snobs still dull enough to think that eating foie gras is cool can afford to fly to another fancy city that still serves it. i'm sure new york or LA will be happy to take their money.

and if any of you knew anything about chicago politics, you would know that this kind of crap is de rigueur.

Judge our city council, not our people or our panache!

"The GOOD news is: you can now take home your unfinished bottle of wine from the restaurant."

I am picking up what Anna is laying down. The Chicago City Council giveth, and the Chicago City Council taketh away. They are jealous Council, and a loving Council. They Are Who Are.

Well, shucks, Pierre. I didn't know we were considered so plebian for not regularly gorging ourselves on overfed, gelatinous bird organs. Do tell me what other delicacies I must savour in order obtain this elusive "panache" so that I too can make generalizations about others. If you are so intimately familiar with Chicago, you would know we are as much a city of steaks and hot dogs are we are haute vegetarian (Green Zebra) and molecular gastronomy, (Moto, Alinea). Next time you visit, try to venture outside of Navy Pier and Michigan Avenue.

It is great that government is noticing that humans are not the only living creatures on the planet that need to be protected from abuse. It is self centered of us to pull the whole "what will they ban next" routine. Well, I hope that the answer to that would be anything else that is obviously painfully harmful to a living animal, including humans. And I'm not talking about slaughtering animals in general, I'm talking about the excessive torture that foie gras bred ducks and the like go through. We spend enough time worrying about how much we are spending on gas without figuring out how do anything about it, why not worry about torturing ducks to feed ourselves a bit of pate?

Not from there, but I had some foie gras for the first time in Chicago a few days ago. (It was pretty good, although rich to the extent that it was a bit sickening: sort of like eating a stick of butter. Not the kind of thing you want to eat a lot of, or do all the time.) Amid our merrymaking, I and my companions paused spared a thought for the goose, although I'm sure it never took it upon itself to spare any consideration for me.

But glad to hear of this banning thing. Seems like a great idea.

Hey, why don't we ban butter? Milk doesn't want to be churned, and for all we know it is experiencing all kinds of pain.

Or firewood? I'd hate to think we human beings were responsible for torturing a dead plant by cutting it into pieces and then throwing it into a fire!

Or oil? In addition to all that harsh drilling through the sand, we're disturbing the eternal rest of trillions upon trillions of dead biologic entities who had lain undisturbed for eons. For all we know, it's been there so long it might even be sentient.

And lastly, I'd like to ban death. I don't know if there's enough momentum behind the issue to do so, but I'd sure like to see it happen.

Anyway, good job Chicago City Council. And good job, Chicago voters.

I sure hope that "The Council" doesnt forbid me to eat my reused intestines for ground pork product casings or stop me from forcing my chickens to lay unfertilized eggs or stop me from shaking the ones that do end up ferilized.. or even worse stop me from cooking the embryonic yoke of the unferilized fowl how ever I feel.

I also hope the dont stop me from drinking the bovine secretion that I soo crave in the morning.

A rose by any other name is perhaps not as sweet.

I better start printing my "Keep the council out of our kitchens" shirts soon.

dang! first the berghoff closed and now foie gras is done for! What gives with the city of my birth?

And pierre, the grand old berghoff's demise notwithstanding, Chicago has fantastic restaurants. Trio, Charlie Trotter's, Alinea, Oceanique, Rick Bayless' joint, Ann Sather's, Swedish Bakery, the culinary treasure that is Harold's Chicken Shack... I could go on.

Also, Chicago's architecture kicks every other American city's butt. Even though I concede that banning goose liver pate is a phenomenal waste of time.

I think it's great. I think all cruelty toward animals should be outlawed whether it's masked as haute cuisine or not. Outlaw veal? Absolutely!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/opinion/27hamilton.html?pagewanted=1

New York is not immune to odd food rules, we are in the midst of a crackdown on sous vide. (see today's NYTimes)

Foie Gras is a gourmet delicacy that should be enjoyed once or twice a year since it so rich. Why dont they ban McDonalds instead? That crap is poison and is killing people.

anne - once you start legislating what people can and cannot eat, you have entered the slippery slope of controlling people's personal lives. isn't there enough of that already being attmpted? let people be vegetarians, vegans, kosher, halal, whatever. but don't tell me or anyone else what to eat.

barbara, I'm not telling you anything - the Chicago city council is. It's not about what you eat, IMHO, it's about animal cruelty. I don't see any issue beyond that and all it encompasses. Besides, a law isn't going to stop people from doing what they REALLY want to do. I'm just glad that the issue has been brought to the forefront. But if you want to eat foie gras you'll eat foie gras.

I agree with Barbara. The issue at hand is not the purported cruelty to the goose. That is a very controversial topic under debate that can't be settled one way or the other very easily. It could be seen as cruelty; but others argue that hand-feeding a free-roaming goose all the things it likes and giving it a petted, cossetted existence before the inevitable end is far, far less cruel than the standard lives of chickens in the current industrial farm system.

But again, that's not so much the issue as how much power government has to legislate the kinds of foods we sell and eat. In my opinion, this is a case of gross overreaching and misplaced priorities on the part of the city council.

slippery slope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

even as a non-smoker, i feel that smoking bans are part of that slippery slope.

interesting debate on what gov't should and should not legislate for the greater social good.

in terms of diet and the larger social good, gov't could start by eliminating corn subsidies that make all those cornsyrup products so cheap to sell to kiddies at vending machines in their schools.

I can't believe how many people here are not taking the anti-cruelty stance.

faith, did you read the NY Times article? The "issue at hand" sure is cruelty. This is how we get foie gras:
"Foie gras is produced by force-feeding grain to ducks and geese several times a day through a pipe inserted into their throats, causing their livers to expand."

not this:
"hand-feeding a free-roaming goose all the things it likes and giving it a petted, cossetted existence before the inevitable end."

I just read the entire article on this ban and I think it puts things in a clearer perspective.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/26foiegras.html

Everyone has their opinions on the subject and that probably won't change. But for Daley to say that the council is more concerned over foie gras than children getting killed is ridiculous. As the alderman who sponsored the bill states: The city council can walk and chew gum at the same time.

banning foie gras is, to me, a political red-herring to court progressive voters.

if anti-cruelty is truly a political chewing-gum issue, then ban the consumption of meat/eggs produced at industrial farms.

oh wait, the illinois economy is linked to livestock production. corn production, too.

if we ban foie-gras, we're only affecting out-of-state, out of country businesses.

i hate gesture politics.

This is ridiculous. If the council is concerned about foie gras, then they should take a look at all/most of the industrial meat producers today. Its not like any of the farm animals we eat live a happy life. I'm far from vegetarian, but this ordinance is ridiculous. I do hope that this law is challenged in court -- at which point everyone will laugh at the goofy lawyers and legal system and those frivolities.

At least the Chicago council didn't ban those Lithuanian bacon buns!

But I think it's a beginning - not in regulating what one is allowed to eat, but what we, as a civilizes society will tolerate when it comes to abuse. No, IL or any other state is not going to ban chickens or livestock but I hope that each state legislates a ban against cruelty in those industries.

Maybe this is a test case, I don't know. But anything that brings to light the cruelty that animals endure at the hands of man is just fine with me. I don't mean to get into a political discussion (and won't) but I see this as a good move and hopefully more legislation will occur so that animals won't have to put up with abuse. There is a kind and humane way of doing just about everything.

You can tell I'm passionate about this, can't you :)

Still seems to me to be shortsighted and more posturing than actual belief...by the same logic we should ban cars beacuse they inflict cruelty on some *300,000 deer every year. Being a carnivor is a chose for many .. meaning that food ( meat) must be killed to be consumed. Most people are very removed from the process of making this meat supply edible. I am not so sure the mass killing o fanything is humane.. but here is a case where you cant divorce yourself from the process.

I do expect that chicken, milk and sausage are next on the banned list should they too become politic agendas and banning books becomes too frivolous.

*my stats are from 1993- http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmj/9705/rm970503.htm

Not to offend Page, but don't you see the difference between accidentally hitting a deer on the road and shoving a steel pipe down the neck of a goose several times a day for over a month?

Go Cubs!

“Simply because there are other inhumane acts that occur against human beings and there are a lot of problems we need to deal with doesn’t mean that we can’t take a short moment out of the day and forbid the sale of a product . . . THAT'S NOT GOING TO EFFECT ANYBODY. It’s not required for human sustenance.”

Quote from the article Anne posted, with CAPS added for emphasis.

That's do-nothing politics straight from the source.

There are a lot of pressing issues related to the national diet, agri-practices, and the environment when it comes to the industrial food-chain. In my book, this ain't one of them.

Thank you, JenPDX. How can this be perceived as NOT being political when the Chicago city council, which I presume is a body of elected officials, made this decision.

Anne, this is a political discussion, too, whether or not you choose to participate in that aspect of it.

I'm with you JenPDX.

barbara, I chose not.

I'm stating my feelings on the subject of animal cruelty. Turn it into politics all you want. I'm not coming at it from that angle. I didn't realize I was being obtuse.

I think eating meat is indeed cruel. But I don't think we should avert our gaze from that cruelty, because killing is what being carnivorous means.

And I agree that the number of geese who die--and cruelly--for foie gras is far outstripped by the horrifying number of factory farmed chickens, pigs and cows who are slaughtered everyday after pretty sad and short lives.

Industrial agriculture is a HUGE business. It is also why Americans are fat, and why you can't drink the water in Iowa.

I think it's far more politically expedient to go after foie gras than it is to really confront agri-business. Because there aren't very many farmers out there force-feeding geese. Although there is a LOT of money and a LOT of acreage given over to hoglots and to growing corn.

seems to me this law is going to affect, what, 2% of the population, so i'm not quite sure why they bothered with it. i've never eaten foie gras because i don't like how it's made.

what they should do is ban the sale of any inhumanely produced animal product, but that would really hurt anyone on a budget. it is a shame that there is so little affordable animal protein not raised in a factory environment.

for people who are concerned about the humane slaughter of meat, you might want to look into buying kosher or halal meat, as jewish and muslim religious practices dictate a quick, humane slaughter. also, look into the meats available at farmer's markets and ask the farmers about their practices.

Anne, that's fair, except I'm not turning it into something political. It is political because it was decided on by a political body.

I would just hope that you also recognize the politics, even though your priorities are with the animal cruelty part. Just as for me, even though I see it as being more important politically, that must not shadow my understanding of it as involving animal cruelty. I'm just not as concerned with that aspect, just as you are not as concerned with the political aspect. I think it's important that we both recognize the complex and various sides to this issue.

JenPDX,
I hate gesture politics too.

Most animal protein is produced inhumanely. And most of it is raised, fed and produced in the midwest--on giant feedlots. It is also slaughtered in the Midwest, by poor people and immigrants, who work in awful conditions.

But legislating against that? Naw.

To all this I say,
go Sox!

Anne -

Did you mean to make a joke about obtuse and angles? (recall 7th grade geometry class on triangles...)

I get nervous when governments/politicians start banning things - especially when the bans *only* affect private citizens, private/small businesses.

But, I understand your point that any measure against animal-cruelty is a 'win' in your book. I respect that.

" I think it's important that we both recognize the complex and various sides to this issue."

I absolutely do recognize both sides of this ban. As I said before I'm glad it shed light on inhumane conditions in the world of animals used for consumption. I can't speak for the reasons the council chose to act on an issue that affects almost nobody but I'm still happy is was acknowledged. That is a huge step for a political body.

First the goose, then the chicken, then the cow and the broccoli and on and on and on we go and one day we will find ourselves so legislated that we ourselves are in a little cage being force fed. Has history taught us nothing?

Some people are for animal rights, some people don't care, its a complex and full world and regardless of which side of the animal cruelty fence you're on, its crazy to let any body of government tell you what you can stick in your mouth, who you can talk to, who you can sleep with, and what color you are going to be and that's what this is about. These politcians dont' give a hoot about any damned geese. It's politics folks and people don't pay attention until it becomes about them, and then the cry fowl. Sorry, couldn't help that.

Seriously, let's just pay attention to the laws that are being passed, what their motivation is, and stop expecting someone else to take care of us.

Thanks and good night.

JenPDX - No, it wasn't a joke but I see your point. I was using the word in regards to "not clear or precise in thought or expression."

Ugh, 7th grade geometry! You HAD to remind me of my previous shortcomings, didn't ya?!

Questions:

Should we preserve an existing absence of legislation on whether it's socially permissible to be cruel to animals who become useful to us by virtue of that cruelty?

Should we be cruel to animals?

Should we care if others are cruel to animals?

Should we preserve the implicit, though not expressly guaranteed, freedom to do "harmless" (to other humans) things like eating that nonetheless have a history that is somehow negative?

Should we be kind to some random animal we've never met?

Will the animal ever return the favor?

What did those poor geese ever do to deserve such horrific treatment?

What did those aristocratic bastards ever do to deserve to be able to eat insanely expensive, morally questionable food?

Would it be OK to force-feed Zacharias Moussawi corn until his liver becomes a gooey, delicious (to some) paste?

If we are geese, and like corn, what should we do about the problem of overeating?

What if we are energy companies, and like oil?

What if we are the Chicago City Council, and have a lot of people in the city who are poor or addicted to drugs and are afraid of criminals?

Goose livers, freedom, what's more important?

I hate gesture politics too.
(stonelake, you're cracking me up!)

New York is certainly *not* immune. The NYT had an article in the past year...I'm not getting it on Google quick enough, but my recollection was Hudson Valley Foie Gras agreeing to some sort of phasing out period in their goose liver production.

And now my own funny little story . . .
traveling in France with my squeeze, who had been a vegetarian since high school, but went back to omnivore status a few years before this particular trip. we're with a group of friends, at someone's restaurant who is just feeding us whatever she wants to. pate is a house specialty.
my girlfriend:
"what is this delicious cheese?"

I used to live in Chitown. I'll continue to eat my pizza thick and stuffed... ahhh Gino's. But I'll say this. I'll continue to eat and ENJOY my foie gras too. The same way chickens run in fear of me. I'm sorry but dear lord come ON! You think wearing fur is cruel, don't wear it. Think stuffing geese is poor treatment? Don't buy it or eat it. But at this rate if the goverment needs to intervene on behalf of so many "unthinking" people, then trust me we're setting ourselves up for a much bigger problem. How sad people had to waste time on this. And San Francisco, damn you too! I want my foie gras!!! (I see lobsters are gearing up to March on Washington with a campaign sponsored by their brethren the mollusks union. Watch out!)

guido, that's a great story.

Just for the record, if whomever had a problem with my comment, please read my comment again you will notice that I am simply setting out other arguments I've read.

Frankly, from a political perspective I think this city statute will do more to hurt anti-cruelty legislation with regards to food production. It will be held up as a frivolous gesture with no real teeth, and also as an illustration of "anti-liberty measures" that those in favor of such anti-cruelty legislation will be willing to take. I am not saying I agree with any of this rhetoric - just that, politically, this was not a great move for people on that side of the fence. Short term media coverage, lack of long term influence. Much better to quietly work for healthier, more humane slaughterhouses, for instance. Less sexy, but better effects for us all. If I were a media director on the side of hypothetical big bad corporate food producers, I would consider this a win.

And again, for the record, I do not think that meat-eating is by its very nature cruel. However, I respect people who do believe that and do not try to force my pro-bacon views down their throat - literally or not. In fact, I have been actively learning some vegetarian recipes because of some vegetarian friends, and enjoying it very much.

Guido, that's funny.

I was in Toronto, and ordered a baked apple with fois gras, without thinking. After it arrived, my brain cells kicked in, and I said to my husband: fois gras isn't a kind of mushroom, is it? I was totally thinking truffles (think about it, truffles and baked apple with a balsamic and honey glaze!) but no, not truffles, not truffles at all.....

And I *am* a vegetarian - was then, will be for quite some time.

"But at this rate if the goverment needs to intervene on behalf of so many "unthinking" people, then trust me we're setting ourselves up for a much bigger problem."

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what the government does. It ditates who and where one can smoke, drink, drive, it keeps tabs on almost every industry (although not doing such a good job in some areas), it tells us who and when you can have an abortion. Yeah, the government does that sort of thing all the time, Dee.

Having been to the slaughter house outside of Chicago more then once, and having talked a lot with a French friend whose relatives own a small family farm that produces foie gras once a year....I'd rather go out as an obese duck in France then a cow in Chicago....any day

regards,
trillium

And unfortunately, more often than not, anne, it's the economically disadvantaged that suffer from the government's actions.

(not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here, just throwing this point out there)

faith, I agree with you. It would have been a much bigger and more acceptable gesture to deal with humane treatment in slaughterhouses (which seems like an oxymoron to me) than to pass a near-useless law.

guido - always one to bring a little levity to the table (no pun intended). Thanks!

ditates = dictates

sorry for the typo

I'd hate to be a cow in chicago, too. But I wouldn't want to be a pig in Iowa either.

Oh, goodie- now I know what to get for my friends in Chicago as an engagement gift. They didn't eat foie gras before, but probably will now that it's banned. Isn't that why we do a lot of other things?

What I find most interesting is that on the regular design posts people get off point and it gets crazy and sometimes annoying. The Kitchen, while a fabulous thing, has never had such a politically hot topic going on - not that I know of - and has brought to mind with this topic a diverse group of opinions that are most certainly about food and not at all off topic. It's good to hear such passionate opinions about our food and our food source because we are not disconnected from it. IMO, the way we treat animals is how we will treat children; the way we process food, the opinions we have on how we feed ourselves, attend to our own health, reflect our views of the world and how we live in it. I don't think its a question of who does or doesn't eat meat. I think its a question of whether we care enough about what sustains us to look at it and keep it safe and clean and use it with respect. And...I think we need to be the watchguards of the government, not the other way around. Someone in local Chicago politics needs to speak up and see that the council's attention goes elsewhere. You might be able to legislate animal rights, but not what someone puts in their mouth. And you can't legislate what comes out of their mouth either. That's what makes us free.

Big Brother just burped and I hope people don't just excuse it and let it go. We all need to treasure our freedom to vote for better politicians (is that possible?) and look at our food sources. Both are at risk.

seems to be a clear cut question of community standards. these doofuses were elected by a larger group of doofuses to represent them in the city government. i'm assuming that the majority of residents of chicago probably wouldn't like the taste of foie gras, and would have objections to the ethical implications of foie gras production. it's a no-brainer.

the argument over whether the government has the right to mandate what you can't eat is laughable. this is not a first amendment issue.

i can't butcher and eat my next door neighbor here in san francisco, or his dog (that has been barking constantly at night). and, i think the dog (a nice juicy little boston terrier) would probably be a lot tastier than most of the foie gras i've had in the past.

now, to all those proposing to ban veal, them's fighting words.

jackie, that was a brilliant post. It's not the ban of foie gras that I applaud as loudly as I do the issue that was brought to the forefront because of it. The discussion around Chicago and maybe the country, like on the thread, will bring more awareness to the inhumane treatment of animals and that's what I think the city council has done, whether that was their intention or not. I'm glad Sara Kate put it on The Kitchen and I'm glad that the discussion that followed was on topic and lively.

sorry bobby, but veal is vile.

Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Holland, Israel, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom...


have all banned foie gras.

This isn't a new thing. I'm shocked that it's even surprising to folks. I just had to point that out. It's even been brought up for the entire state of California. It's not just one city's so-called posturing politics. I would say it's almost a global trend. And living in a city with a smoking ban, I can't even say it's a slippery slope. People will do what they want if they really want to do it.

I was at a wedding a few days ago. The family of the bride was, for the most part from England or Iran. I was outside talking to a few of them as the smoked and laughed about the US almost total ban of smoking in public. Then I asked why they had such hate towards us and the freedoms we have. They laughed and laughed and laughed looked me in the face and said the only place less free then the states is Iran and only because the still kill people in the streets and they had yet to see that here. I start in on all the great things about the states (start with nothing grow big, overcome anything,etc) They then told me they had gone to a very large park the day before and got a ticket for laying in the grass, they paid $75 for laying down in the grass at a public park. I find this law to be much the same. I am very sad that people have let go of the idea of live and let live.

First they came for my foie gras, but I said nothing because I was a vegetarian...

the Chicago Tribune almost made it sound like the mayor was for the ban:

"Mayor Richard Daley, who has confessed to an occasional foie gras nibble, scoffed at the council's priorities. 'We have issues with children being killed,' the mayor said."

isn't chicago the city where they were thinking about banning bars or some such ridiculous thing last year?
seriously, i remember reading something about how all the rich people that had bought condos in what used to be blue-collar neighborhoods with lots of loud, noisy bars were trying to get the mayor to allow each neighborhood to vote on whether all the bars in their, say, 3 block radius had to close

if i'm not crazy, and this is true, Chicagoans have one mayor with some serious control issues

its almost as stupid as the nyc mayor telling people not to dance!

i don't see the ban as an encroachment of freedoms: a good definition of government is that which defines who has the right to commit violence and remove freedom (hence, wars and jails are permissible, albeit disagreeable, while murder and kidnapping are not).

animal protection laws are in line with this (it is illegal to set your neighbor's yappy dog on fire). it is not unreasonable, in this context, to legislate minimum standards for the humane treatment of farmed animals, and, if needs be, eliminate the market for inhumanely raised animals by banning their sale. our right to eat anything we want is not, unfortunately protected by any law or legal tradition (although you wouldn't know it by our nation's obesity rates).

all that said, the chicago city council hasn't done much for the cause by banning the foie, and in the universe of hierarchies, i'm more concerned about kids not getting nutritious school lunches than i am about the few geese who might be spared by this law.

I, personally, am pleased, although I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion. We are too easily separated from where our food comes from, in my opinion, and the way it gets there. We just pick up packets in the grocery store, and pretend that it was never an animal. Don't get me wrong--I have no issue with people eating meat, but we don't even try to make the industry humane.

I have been meaning to read The Omnivore's Diet. It was written by a guy who wrote a great article for the NY Times a few years back, tracking a calf's progress through a typical slaughter house. It was not pretty.

Oops, Omnivore's Dilemma. I thought that title sounded wrong.

Just a quick correction from the UK: we have not banned the sale of foie gras merely the production of it. Sounds a little NIMBY, I know, but given that this is an inherently political issue I think the distinction is an important one. I can't speak for the other countries mentioned but I believe it to be much the same case.

THis is an off topic tangent:

Name, your claim that america has the great opportunity to start from nothing and grow big is actually a fallacy: America has the least generational mobility out of all countries featured in a recently published article, linked in my name.

Carry on.

Fiona: I think your post makes the most sense (more than mine) because basically all I was trying to say is that we really are separated from our food source. I've been an animal rights person for years and was a vegetarian for 10 - for personal physical reasons I do eat some meat now; I'm vigilent about as much as I can be regarding food and animal rights and do my best at all times.

There are so many sides to this issue and that's why I'm so pleased Sara Kate put this on AT. Regardless of which side of the issue one is on, we all need to be more attentive to the realities of how we allow our world to be run. Many people pass the blame to others when IMO it all comes down to each of us paying attention.

Name: I have a friend who moved to Vienna. Suddenly he is anti-America. Well, he sure loved it when he was here. He moved for business reasons. Money talks. We need a louder voice than money and maybe accept responsibility for how we function as individuals. (Was it a fun wedding?)

I am appreciating this discussion.

If you are so tied to foie gras that this ban troubles you on a practical level, you may want to get out more. Philosophically, however, I find myself agreeing with those who would like the City Council to step off.

Their previous work in this regard was to ban smoking in restaurants and public places (and in bars in two years). I tend to like the effect of that for my own personal comfort, but from a political standpoint it makes me oogy.

Here's what the City Council should be looking at: Crime, corruption, zoning, taxes, quality of life, etc. Yes, they can spin off a pet bill or two every once in a while, but this seems almost ridiculusly picayune and narrow. I understand the animal cruelty issues, they don't especially bother me, but even if they did, is this what a city council should be spending time on?

So, in conclusion, the most important thing about this ban is that it is hilarious.

I totally agree, Jackie, on all levels. I have a friend who recently learned about the atrocities that the diamond industry contributes to (civil war in Africa, amputations, etc) and was like, "That's horrible! But diamonds are so pretty."

It's fine to like diamonds, but if you want to enjoy them, at least (imo) make an effort to move towards legislation that will rectify the issue. Write a letter to a legislator or the editor of a newspaper, so people will be aware of the issue, for pete's sake--that's not even really putting yourself out or making a major effort. Or just buy vintage diamonds, if you don't want to write a letter.

I'm not trying to be all self-righteous, but it really amazes me when people won't even consider the consequences of their purchases. We have so much buying power, but we don't choose to exercise our clout.

I don't want every facet of my conscience to be dictated/regulated by legislation. That's what I read, have parents, teachers, friends, and community to inform me...

"Here's what the City Council should be looking at: Crime, corruption, zoning, taxes, quality of life, etc. Yes, they can spin off a pet bill or two every once in a while, but this seems almost ridiculusly picayune and narrow. I understand the animal cruelty issues, they don't especially bother me, but even if they did, is this what a city council should be spending time on?"

Yes! Why shouldn't they? Do you think the city council is going to ignore all other issues in favor of a foie gras ban? "Hey, let's go home now. We're done here!" No, of course not. But why NOT legislate on issues of animal cruelty? Our food doesn't just appear on a beautiful plate in an expensive restaurant - there was a horrible process to get it there. I agree with Fiona and Jackie when they convey feelings of disconnect from our food source to the point that we almost believe that meat comes from the pasture in a plastic tray.

I've had people get angry with me when they find out I'm for animal rights. They think that I should be involved in more "noble" causes like child abuse and poverty and hunger. What amazes me is that they assume I don't care about any other issue but animal rights. My concerns are just as strong for the other issues as well. So why would you assume that since the city council banned foie gras that they are ignoring all other issues?

I don't think they are, this case just strikes me as ridiculous. You are of course free to feel that it is not, I respect that.

I am not angered by people who are for animal rights. I just can't bring myself to care as much, and that makes me feel vaguely guilty. I'm pretty hypocritical about animal rights, i.e. I hate when dogs and cats die as pets, but I don't have any real problem with chickens being raised for slaughter, no matter the conditions. It seems to be a fairly common attitude.

It's an evolving thing for me.

stonelake, I'm guessing you would care more about those chickens if you had an up close and personal relationship with a chicken and/or went and saw how most agri-business prepares the chickens for your consumption. It's always easier to care about things closest to us, and dogs and cats are a lot closer to most people then a flock of chickens. Most people are pretty far removed from the source of their food, whether carnivore or vegetarian, and you have to make a fairly conscious effort to become more involved with what ends up in your stomach. Here's to evolving!

regards,
trillium

trillium - you took the words right out of my mouth:
Here's to evolving!

I could send out videos of agricultural abuse that would turn one's stomach but I can't bare to watch them myself and I've seen just about everything. KFC workers slam live chickens to the walls and then stomp on them. And yet KFC rakes in billions of $$ from unsuspecting and/or uncaring consumers. And that's just one company. The abuse spans over every animal based industry.

I know I belabor this and I apologize. It's second nature to me now to speak out. I certainly don't want to offend anyone here. But the more aware we are the more intelligent and humane decisions we make in life.

hello everyone,

Ive been reading this blog about fois gras and am quite suprised to see the reactions. I must say that from a culinary stand point, fois gras is a wonderful ingredient and a stand alone item, if done well. The fact that there are so many concerns about a food product, and let's be real about this, goose, duck, chicken and everything under the god loving sun is food for us, is quite rediculous. Don't we have anything better to do with our time? Aren't there some real issues in this country that we need to deal with. Trillium, you couldn't have said it any better. I work for a major food company and the ammount of chicken that I go through in a year reaches into the 10's of thousands of pounds. Am I supposed to worry that the 20 or more chickens stuffed into a two foot cage are happy to be there. I mean come on. There are bigger issues to deal with.

Gabe, you sound pretty hardened. (And actually, I believe Trillium is saying the opposite of what you are saying.)

If you have "20 chickens stuffed into a two foot cage," then I'm guessing that they probably have their beaks cut and their claws cut so they don't injure each other. That's what they do to chickens stuffed into cages on egg farms anyway.

I know it's positively amazing, but I manage to be concerned about stuff like the humane treatment of animals and other issues, as well. They really aren't mutually exclusive.

I appreciate your comments, Fiona. Sometimes it seems that many animal rights activists care more about animals than people. Thank you for not being one of those.

But what if there came an occasion where they ARE mutually exclusive? Some would say that eating meat, period, is inhumane and would probably promote the ban of omnivorism if they could. But many (including me) believe that meat is necessary for a healthy diet (okay, not the processed meat that most of us eat). So whose rights are more important?

This is why you can't compare it to smoking, which is one human's rights against another's to do in public what they're still allowed to do privately.

For the record, fois gras can be made either through force-feeding or hand-feeding. A goose will eat until its liver becomes fatty if you give it enough food. Force-feeding is faster, and meets the American greed more quickly.

I realize that banning fois gras is very unlikely to lead to legislated veganism. And we do need to treat animals humanely. But obviously there are MUCH worse infringements than producing fois gras that affect BOTH animals and humans ("national diet, agri-practices, and the environment", thanks JenPDX).

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=foie_gras_USA&Player=wm&speed=_med

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=foie_gras_USA&Player=wm&speed=_med

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=covance_main&Player=wm&speed=_med

But hey, they're just animals so why do we spend our time trying to make THEM happy?

ok, hang on a minute.

first, I distrust PETA as much as I distrust big ag, they're not the first people I'd reference when having an intelligent and rational conversation about eating other animals. Please, lets not go there.

secondly, I'd suggest to any one interested in thinking a little more about these issues check out "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy" by Matthew Sculley (a speech writer for the first Bush!) instead.

thirdly, Gabe, I am suggesting that you worry about ALL the chickens you process/use/eat at home. if not for "humane" reasons, do it for altruistic ones. the environment they live in is highly conducive to all kinds of nasty diseases that could hit you personally were it hurts.

regards,
trillium

trillium, why is PETA a problem? Just curious. I think a video of the conditions speaks where words can't. And words can be twisted to make anyone believe in a cause where videos are pretty fair in their documentation.

For anyone like Gabe, who has been involved in the industry of animal torture for human consumption, it's hard to soften up enough to care about inhumane conditions. Making a living is his focus and certainly not the welfare of any other living being. I was putting forth the videos for anyone else who might be wavering on the issue. I personally think PETA does what others won't. I admire them.

To tell the truth, I don't think I've posted as much on any other topic EVER. I need to let go here. I can't post anymore or even I'LL get sick of me! I've made my stance pretty clear. See all of you on the other side of AT.

anne,
(I hope no one's confusing me with you)

Like I said:
"fois gras can be made either through force-feeding or hand-feeding. A goose will eat until its liver becomes fatty if you give it enough food"

Like you said:
"No, IL or any other state is not going to ban chickens or livestock but I hope that each state legislates a ban against cruelty in those industries"

So why ban fois gras flat out? Why not just ban the cruel, force-feeding type? If humane treatment of animals is the issue, this law clouds it.

If you believe that animals should not be used for human consumption at all, it will be hard to be taken seriously on other issues. Choose your battles. A few over-zealous radicals kind of make it hard to hear the truths that are valid.

-Anna

PS: I know you're getting beat up on here, hopefully you realize it goes with the territory of being outspoken.

Oops, didn't see your last post! Didn't mean to resurrect something you wanted to let die.

I'm not just saying that to have the last word. Bring it on!

Ugh - ok, first anna, I don't think anyone will confuse the 2 of us. I don't think you need to worry that someone might think you are me.

"So why ban fois gras flat out? Why not just ban the cruel, force-feeding type?"
contrary to what you believe, I am not a member of the Chicago City Council. Ask them that question.

"If you believe that animals should not be used for human consumption at all"
I have never made that statement - here or anywhere else.

"I know you're getting beat up on here, hopefully you realize it goes with the territory of being outspoken."
I'm not getting beaten up here. I can hold my ground with any of my convictions but I also think that nobody here has come down on me. We are all stating our point of view.

First: I eat meat. I want to raise chickens. If I ever get around to doing so, I will raise them humanely and butcher them humanely and then eat them, because I like eating meat, not torturing things.

Second: This law is ridiculous. If you want to change standards for meat production in this country, the 12 people in Chicago who eat duck liver are not a problem. It does not deal with poultry production at any reasonable scale. It is feel-good nonsense.

Bummer. I had the best Foie Gras appetizer at X/O (in Chicago) last summer. I know it's not PC to eat, but I love it.

And, as a resident of Chicago, we have quite a few top tier restuarants here. To suggest otherwise sounds as though one has never been here.

Anna, I don't think Anne has been getting beaten up at all. I think the conversation has been pretty respectful overall, and to me, it seems pretty evenly split.

And Josie, I can see your point. But how do you do that? If you are vocal, you become PETA, which most people do sort of regard with disdain. People need to want to educate themselves, and I do think that movement is starting, but how do you propagate that movement? Does it just have to grow organically? (Kind of a pun, I guess)

I mean, I don't think most people know that egg farms cut off the end of chicken's beaks and parts of their claws. Most people who learn that seem revolted, and are amazed, but do they then look for cage-free eggs? I dunno.

This is not anti-french this pro-stupidity! Peta please take a leaping jump, My community of foodies
are sick of you.

Please the ban of Foie Gras is phathetic!! Vive Le Foie Gras!!!

Fiona, I agree with you it is largely a matter of education AND creating a demand that lowers the price of the alternative.

I don't think PETA is the answer. But then again I think the top tier of PETA (I respect the bottom-level people highly) consists of a bunch of thundering loonies. My feeling on that score - and I know I'm not alone - is don't kill dogs and then tell me *I* am a murderer for eating organic chicken.

I'm a greedy bastard, frankly, and *I* don't want to get sick because agri-businesses are allowed to sell diseased, medicated, filthy birds. I bet that is an easier sell for the American public than the argument chickens have souls.

I found out that Paris has banned deep dish pizza. If we are lucky, they rest of the world will follow suite.

I noticed above someone said that we, in the UK, have banned foie gras however i had foie gras with my duck at the OXO restaurant in London only weeks ago. It could be that we have only a partial ban or that it's allowed to be imported but not produced in the UK. I think what we have is quite good if that is the case because then if one truly desires foie gras they can have it. For a premium.

Have Paris actually banned deep dish pizza? i'm definitely not a fan and prefer a thin, crispy base to my pizza so i'm all for less people serving deep dish but banning it? What about the people who really like it? I personally don't know anyone who prefers it over an italian pizza but i'm sure in the states where you're more likley to find a deep dish pizza than a thin and crispy pizza (from my experience in New York City, Chicago, Boston & LA only. please don't take offense if i'm incorrect) i'm sure they would be offended if their idea of pizza is unavailable. Everyone who calls themself a connoisseur should at one time in their life make a pilgrimage to Italy and France to taste the traditional version of their favourite, even in the UK usually americanised, foods.

Having just returned from Scottsdale and savoring the most unusual and delicious version of foie gras I've ever encountered (seared to perfection and served with a bittersweet chocolate dipping sauce - I know it sounds strange, but try it, you'll love it!!!), I wash my hands of the City of Chicago...

Why not place the ducks and geese into a coma before force-feeding them, so that they don't feel anything? Seriously. It wouldn't be cheap, but neither is foie gras, and one could probably create a way of doing this on a (small) factory scale, and make it relatively low-price per duck/goose. Then it would be certainly no worse than any other sort of meat operation, and so the animal crueltly people should be at least satisfied enough to find something else to complain about.

Just Back from the South West of France
home of duck foie gras.

We watched ducks being feed - not cruel at all. In particular, since the poor bird will be later killed and eaten. But no-body seems to have a problem with that for cows, pigs, etc.

Frankly to make good foie gras you need to treat the animal quite well. Ducks in nature stuff themselves before long migrations. Ducks store the energy needed in their livers. Foie gras is a high quality natural source of energy. I think the animal activists should take up other issues first.

By the way many North Americans might be healthier if they ate more foie gras – in moderation. We had foie gras nearly every day for that last 2 weeks plus wine and lots of cheese. Along with lots and lots of in season fruits and vegetables. I LOST 5 pounds!

Can wait until next year

Robert

What's the point? Is this an issue of animal rights or...???????????

I think the whole matter is ridiculous. It's so refreshing to see all the 'animal rights' people come out of the woodwork on this, but yet they have no focus on the really important issues, like homeless, jobless, child abuse, disease, substandard educations, etc. etc. But, oh, the poor duck. Just FYI... there is a reason we have a food chain and we are at the top of it. Get off your animal high horse and put your energy into something that really matters, like other humans and their needs.

I really can't believe all of the people who have posted here that are not at all concerned with the torture of animals. Why are you so willing to disregard their suffering? There are plenty of ways to make farming- and even slaughter- more humane. If we, as a civilized society, can make things a little less cruel then why not do it? Taking a step to make conditions better for animals doesn't take anything away from humans. All of you who said that we need to think about "real" issues (meaning issues that are important to you) should stop complaining about people taking action on an issue that is important to them. If your issue is all of those kids being shot by gang leaders in the city then do something about it and shut up about everyone else.