apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Isn't it amazing how compassionate us Chicagoins are? We just can't stand to see poor little ducks being overfed.

Sometimes I just scratch my head in bewilderment.

Mushroom pate is similar to fois gras and vegetarian. It's pretty good, but then I've never had the "real thing".

It's force-feeding, not just 'overfed'. Here's the Wikipedia reference:

"In modern foie gras production, force feeding takes place 12−18 days before slaughter. The duck or goose is typically fed a controlled amount of corn mash through a tube placed in the animal's esophagus."

I applaud the Chicago restaurant community for moving away from serving foie gras. With so many dining options, I think this is one that people can do without. And, who knows - maybe this vegetarian faux gras is actually quite good!

On the one hand, faux foods annoy the hell out of me, because it's a vegetarian trying to have his cake and eat it too (and they generally strip the ingredients of their nutritional value to make them taste like whatever they're imitating). On the other, production of foie gras is barbaric.

Police brutality is barbaric too. I'd like to see the same amount of energy that was put into banning foie gras in Chicago into that.

Art,

If one could simply pass legislation to "ban" police brutality and have that be the end of it, I'm sure it would be done. You're comparing two completely different scenarios here. Should NO progress be made simply because some issues are more complex to solve than others? I understand your motivation here, but it's not a very logical one.

And this coming from someone who usually agrees with your posts. :)

Joy R.,

I know my response came off a little harsh but it is frustrating how this ban came about. This was a city ordinance spearheaded by an alderman who probably had no idea what foie gras was. Most people in Chicago don't know what foie gras is either. This was another politician's way of using tax payer dollars and a public forum for some grandstanding.

When I say police brutality I also mean homelessness, wandering drug addicts sleeping on the street, robbery, gangs dirty streets. Minus police brutality, which I have no idea actually occurs in this alderman's ward, all of these other nasty things do, more than it's costituents would like. If given the opportunity to speak I believe most voters in this ward would rather have the time that was devoted to a debate they don't care about devoted to one of these issues which affects their own livelihood.

While I do not condone cruelty to animals, I do believe however, that it could be argued that the raising of all commodity livestock is in some way cruel to animals. How can force feeding ducks be any more cruel that strapping a sow to the floor to be sucked dry by hundreds of piglets until it eventually becomes useless, is exterminated and ends up in someones hot dog?

Joy, you are a vegetarian. This Alderman probably eats those hot dogs and doesn't think twice about it. I'd also bet he'd facilitate the licensing of a nice friendly Italian restaurant in his ward with a nice juicy veal chop too.

I forgot to mention that because foie gras has been banned by city ordinance it is now a department of health issue. Meaning, city health inspectors are responsible for enforcing this ban. If someone reports illegal fois gras use by a restaurant, an inspector must be dispatched to deal with the issue. It just seems to me like this is not a political and public health and safety issue.

Final note:

http://www.sonomafoiegras.com/

Here is the link to the company which used to supply the restaurants that I worked at in San Francisco. They explain how they feed their ducks. I also heard that they play classical music for the ducks in the barn (that may be a rumor). Sometimes people don't get to see the other side of the argument when it comes to issues like this.

Art,

I have no doubt that politician's intents are laced with, well, politics, but if something good gets done in the process... better than nothing, yes?

As a vegetarian, I would hope that as more issues like the cruelty of foie gras gain publicity, people (and politicians) will be more apt to examine the inherent cruelty in all animal products.

Also, the company which you reference, if indeed these are their actual practices, is in the extreme minority. Regardless of feeding measures and musical exposure (???), the company's methods still result in a painfully swollen (10 times normal size) diseased liver, not to mention death. Mmmm. There is no "humane" way to produce foie gras.

Joy R.,

Are you sure Sonoma Foie Gras is in the extreme minority? This process has been done for ages. The relationship between animal and farmer is an interesting one. While the farmer cares for his animals he will ultimately kill them. But they do care for them. Their goal is not to harm the animals or to be cruel to them. If the ducks were harmed and sickly the final product would not be good and all of the work that it took to care for that animal would be wasted.

The ducks actually look forward to the feedings. When they are slaughtered, the liver is the most expensive part of the animal but everything else is also used. The breast meat is large and robust in flavor, the massive amount of skin or fat is rendered and used to preserve items for the pantry, the feathers are used in coats, pillows, comforters, the bones are roasted for soup. I know this sounds like a horror movie to a vegetarian as do any meat eating practices but it is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

But like everything else, if left up to "factory" methods, caring is taken out of the equation and ugly things can happen, with all food, meat or vegetable produce. And that is not limited to the food itself but to the slaves who may harvest it.

Art,

Unfortunately, yes, I am sure. And yes, any duck/goose raised to produce foie gras is a duck/goose with severe liver disease - so they are indeed "sickly". Wikipedia actually has a decent page on foie gras:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras

Many people have this strange notion that as long as the animals we turn into meat are "happy", that their death is somehow more validated. To me, this makes no sense. It could be argued that some slaves were treated humanely - would this change the fact that idea of slavery is still morally flawed?

I guess the main difference is that I believe that all animals have a right to live their life without humans screwing it up. Our advanced evolution should be used to sustain and aid and not to destroy or manipulate.

I'm interested what you would think of someone who had a dog for a pet, fed it, groomed it, played with it... and then killed and ate it. Would this bother you? Both the hypothetical dog and the well-treated ducks we discuss trust and depend on their owners.

(And let me just say how refreshing it is to converse with a meat-eater who doesn't resort to throwing low-brow insults or sarcasm at me because of my lifestyle...)

Jim of Chew on That - totally agree. I've been a vegetarian for years and I hate all that pretend sausage, pretend burger stuff. If you want burgers, don't be a vegetarian! And faux foie gras - well I've never had the real thing so I don't know, but it just seems to represent so much of what is wrong with our attitudes about food. Eating and cooking should be a pleasure! There are so many things to cook with which are way more delicious, fresh, simple and gorgeous than meat substitutes!

Joy,

I have the greatest respect for vegeterians. I would never insult someone for such a healthy and conscientious lifestyle. Your decision to be vegetarian based on the rights of the animals is a noble one. Many people are vegetarian because they think it is healthier. This is not always the case as the vegetarian market is flooded with these fake meat products like tin_angel points out. I also have known many unhealthy vegetarians who live on pasta and french fries. But I digress.

The pet dog argument though never really works. Nobody would do that. Somebody who kicks dogs around and looks at them as competition for resources like in some countries and secretly in this country, however, may eat them. Many countries eat horses as well. This to me is very odd and sad as well. But I eat meat so ultimately, if I objected to it I would be a hypocrite and would not support legislation to outlaw it...especially if I were a meat-eating alderman.

Art,

My point with the dog comparison was that you seemed to argue that being well-cared for validated using animals for food. Yet if someone did this to their dog/cat/hamster, we'd be shocked. Where is the line between "pet" and "product"? Is it just what we label animals in our cultural frame of reference, without any thought to how silly this distinction is? I know we're off topic here, but it's an interesting question, none the less. :)

Joy R.,

We are all animals. We are, in this age and in most circumstances the highest on the food chain. Our bodies are developed to be carniverous if they have to be so the fact that many humans use animals for food, shelter and energy is valid. Please do not try to convert an Eskimo to vegetarianism!

Even though we are animals we have the ability to reason. The human mind has the ability to make a conscientious decision to eat food from a can that takes complicated tools to open, to eat only sweet potatoes and leaves, to be vegetarian, to be lacto-ovo vegetarian, to be lacto-pesco-ovo vegetarian, to be vegan, to be raw, to be omniverous. You have made the choice to be a vegetarian and see that as taking the higher ground, according to your cultural frame of reference. Please do not try to convert an Eskimo to vegetarianism! Within their cultural frame of reference vegetarianism would surely result in starvation. Keep in mind that the beginning to the end of the great Native American population started with wiping out one of the greatest symbols of their existence--the buffalo.

Human reasoning also allows us to develop emotional bonds with other animals. This often why many farmers do not name their livestock or keep a few different animals around as pets and companions and never butcher them. So I believe that there is a clear distinction between pet and product because we have the unique ability to be able to make that distinction. Our ability to choose what to eat is based on both our cultural frame of reference and our innate carniverous or vegetarian tendencies.

Art,

I would never try to convert an "eskimo" (Inuit) to vegetarianism, since, as you point out, their environment clearly does not support such a lifestyle. However, ours does. My (and many other vegetarians) goal is not to convert the entire planet to veganism - we recognize that this is impossible) but rather to re-evaluate our (often perceived) need for meat and animal products and lessen our dependence on them whenever possible.

Again, my point with the dog comparison was to point out how trivial the distiction between pet and food is. I believe that people should question their cultural reference point when a certain belief no longer offers a necessity or an improvement to society.

You are correct that the human body has evolved to survive on a range of diets, but we see time and time again in research that consumption of the animal products we love so much seem to have a direct correlation (if not a causation) with the leading diseases we face. Survive and THRIVE are not the same. Cultural tradition is not the best ruler to measure any belief, especially those concerning diet. We have to defer to science (not that this is always clear-cut either). Just because we can "choose" what to eat doesn't make all of the choices biologically healthy.

Sorry we got onto such a tangent!

"but rather to re-evaluate our (often perceived) need for meat and animal products and lessen our dependence on them whenever possible."

I couldn't agree with you more.

Ahhh, tangents, sometimes veering off the path is fun.

ciao!

:)