 Foie gras: it's French for ‘fatty liver,’ and it's produced by deliberately overfeeding ducks or geese. The birds' livers become enlarged up to ten times their normal size and the result is many a chef’s delight: a rich, creamy delicacy enjoyed the world over. Foie gras can be seared like a steak or smoothed into a pâté, and it's at the center of a major legal flap between California chefs and animal rights activists. The process of feeding the birds to enlarge their livers is called gavage. The ducks or geese are force-fed more food than they would usually eat, and therein lies the controversy. Opponents claim that the process of force-feeding the fowl is detrimental to their health and well-being. Foie gras enthusiasts argue that ducks and geese, which don't have a gag reflex, are used to swallowing fish whole and putting on weight for migratory flights. In California, the practice of force-feeding was banned more than 7 years ago, but producers of the delicacy were given a grace period during which they could come up with a more humane way to feed the birds. In fact, the sole producer of foie gras in California endorsed the bill. The grace period is up on June 30. On July 1, it will be illegal in California to sell products that are made as a result of force-feeding animals. Cosentino has joined about 100 other notable California chefs and culinary professionals, including Thomas Keller, Michael Chiarello and Tyler Florence, who have formed the Coalition for Humane and Ethical Farming Standards, or CHEFS. They’re advocating humane feeding methods that produce a high quality product and "support a broader standard for ethical treatment of animals and humane farming practices," according to their website. To some, their efforts seem too little too late. As the deadline nears, tempers are starting to flare. Cosentino has received death threats against himself and his family, and protesters have picketed outside his restaurant. Tensions are clearly running high. Cosentino thinks this is part of a larger debate. “[Animal rights activists] have an agenda for a vegan country," he says. "Once this goes through, they’re going on to the next meat item they deem unfit.” He would prefer that the activists go after factory farming of other animals: “We’re pumping the food we eat with antibiotics. Let’s focus on those big pictures.” Paul Shapiro, the Vice President of Farm Animal Protection for the Humane Society points to a “whole host” of animal protection projects he’s working on, and rattles off laws the state of California has passed protecting cattle, chickens, pigs and sharks. Of this current battle, he says, “How much suffering are we willing to inflict on animals who stand completely helpless before us? Shoving a pipe down a bird’s throat multiple times a day is cruel, and the state had a right to ban it.” Shapiro points to studies that say the mortality rate is 10 to 20 times higher for force-fed ducks. He says, “The ducks display really serious fear and aversion. They huddle in a corner. They have to be caught by hand and dragged to have this pipe shoved down their throats.” Cosentino has been to Hudson Valley Foie Gras in New York, one of four farms in the U.S. which produces foie gras. “I found very comfortable living environments,” he says. As for the ducks huddled in the corner, he rebuts, “It’s the same concept as if you put on a monster outfit and walked into a preschool.” “It’s OK to have disagreements, but to ban something outright doesn’t work,” Cosentino finds. “Let’s focus on making something right.” As it stands, CHEFS needs a Californian legislator to introduce a repeal bill. So far, no one has offered to do so. Senate President Pro Tem and Democrat Darrell Steinberg told reporters yesterday, “I'm not going to allow an issue like that to preoccupy the Legislature.” If foie gras fans did find someone to introduce legislation on their behalf, the state would likely take up the bill. But, it’s unsure if they’ll find someone to swallow their 11th hour appeal. |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
1. Foie isn't the real issue, ask these protesters if ANY animal consumption is humane – they will say no. So where does it end?
2. The fact that they target restaurants who are huge proponents of ethical and sustainable farming shows their true intention. They don't care about the animals being farmed humanely, they are against any farming of animals for consumption.
3. The way the bill is written puts limitations on much more than just foie.
4. The harassment towards chefs and restaurateurs (threats, personal attacks) has been ridiculous. Peaceful protesting is one thing...this quite another.
California is doomed!
I would suggest giving it back to the Mexicans, but they've managed to do that themselves.
Eat what you like and the rest be damned!
JustMe –
I have to say that I don't agree. The entire animal IS used. Yes, we cut out the best cuts for steaks, but the trimmings get used as well. The best trimmings get used for grinding. When you see a hotdog that says : "All meat", and it's 99 cents for a pack – you can be assured that you are doing your part to use the whole animal. The hide becomes leather. The bones are cooked down, the marrow is used, then they grind the bones so the calcium gets used. The guts get used to make feed. Seriously, I don't understand what they are saying about not using the whole animal. There is not much that leaves a processing plant as trash. They do want to maximize profits after all.
Ryan,
You're correct. I stated that badly. We use the entire animal because the less desirable parts for human consumption still have value to the producers. But, we raise more animals for food because of human consumption demands for the choicest parts. The main point of my post is that those supporting continued supply of foie gras are not unconcerned with humane animal treatment.
The chefs listed as being supportive of continuing to make foie gras available are also part of a movement to use animals head to tail. Today, we raise and butcher animals in this country and only use the choicest parts. There's an enormous amount of waste. Knowing how to correctly prepare the parts that we don't use would mean less animals raised for food and less stress on the environment. If you pay attention to these chefs, you will quickly learn that respect for the animals is what head to tail is all about. We would butcher fewer animals if we didn't throw away three quarters of their edible parts. These chefs also pioneered the free range movement pushing for humane treatment of animals we raise for food. They don't just talk about farm animals; they spend time around the farms and care about the quality of the lives of the animals we raise for food. I wouldn't trust, e.g., Tyson, to tell us the truth about what is best for the animals; I do trust these chefs.
My favorite part of the article is when it says: "Mortality rates for force fed ducks is 10-20 times higher."
Uh, they raise these ducks to be eaten. So the mortality rate is 100% in the best case scenerio.
Unless I'm wrong and they raise ducks to make duck eggs to eat. Have not heard much about duck eggs, or why they would be superior to chicken eggs.
Also, can't they just move operations out of California? Plenty of other businesses have left to escape regulations there. Oh, you do know that California no longer has the most Fortune 500 and 1000 companies? Care to guess which state now has the most? I'll give you a hint: low taxes, balanced state budget, resonable regulations, warm climate, and once was a nation.
Mortality rate refers to the birds that will never make it to slaughter. Obviously...
As far as evading regulations, laws and regulations are what separate us from animals. Specifically, they protect us from the worst parts of our humanity (i.e. violence, greedy, sexual deviance, etc.) so that we can live in 'relative' harmony (keyword:relative) You want less regulation and unbridled capitalism? What do you think the last recession was a product of?
It's clear to me they need to tax those Fortune companies more and inject it into the Texan education system.
Ryan- a Duck is a duck it flies and swims and is not on this earth to be eaten in any shape or form! So having it's liver expanded 'til it bursts is a torturous and cruel death- but stranger than that- why would anyone want to do it? there are so many things to be done in this life and on earth! Why not try photographing or drawing/paintin ducks instead....then perhaps you will start to see the beauty and beauty in general as opposed to insane cruelty!
PETA Nuts need to go away.
These animals are bred to die, they are a food source nothing more. It is not inhumane to force feed the fowls, nor is it inhumane to enjoy Foie Gras.
@palintwit All the other news Media forces feeds Obama is Great garbage to all you democrats and you suck it up.
Got to wonder why you are reading and commenting on a news site you think is wrong to begin with.
Regardless of why they are bred, they are still living beings and still feel pain! It is because of ignorant people like you that billions of animals suffer every year!! If you or someone you cared about had to endure such atrocities, I'm sure you would feel different, but compassion and empathy seem to be taking a backseat to arrogance and apathy!
Wait a minute! Who/what says ducks are bred for food???? A duck is a duck – he flies and swims and does many things....if you don't know that you are either too mentally challenged to be allowed on the internet ...or too young to be allowed on this message board. look up ducks- take pictures get to know one!
“I found very comfortable living environments,” he says. As for the ducks huddled in the corner, he rebuts, “It’s the same concept as if you put on a monster outfit and walked into a preschool.” Umm, I don't think so. The person who puts on the monster outfit doesn't kill the kids and remove their livers. No, I am not a vegetarian but there are certain foods I won't eat for reasons of principle and for health reasons. I don't usually eat red meat partially because I hate the idea of cows being killed and it hurts my stomach; I won't eat lamb because I can't stand the thought of cute little lambs being killed; I definitely won't eat veal for obvious reasons; and foie gras is just plain disgusting.
"reasons of principle" include-
"hurts my stomache"
"can't stand the thought"
"obvious reasons", and
"disgusting".
Thanks for that reasoned, well thought out argument.
The "monster outfit" is a farce. Normally, when you are the source of food, the animals come running to you.
This subject is so hysterical. Humane way of feeding? How about "STOP KILLING" for humane reasons?
There should not be a law that bans foie gras. If a group a people do not like this product and how it is produced need to educate others so the do not desire the product. Additionally, its a duck or goose raised for food – get over it!
It's the manner in which it's produced, grichard1959. It qualifies as cruelty to animals, being force fed down the throat via a pipe. The so-called delicious product of foie gras is actually a diseased liver. Google it; it's pretty horrifying. So, yes, we do need laws to ban this outrageous, cruel manner of "food" production.
I've googled it, wiki'd it, and youtube'd it, and I don't find it horrifying. Ducks don't have a problem with the pipe down the threat, otherwise swallowing a whole fish and regurgitating it later would cause them the same problems. Stop anthropomorphizing them.
And inducing a diseased organ in an animal bound for slaughter anyways doesn't seem like a big problem to me. They aren't going to live long enough to suffer the detrimental effects of the disease.
Try again ... this time, actually do your research. Or here, I'll do it for you:
From the Humane Society of the United States:
Foie gras (French for “fatty liver”) is the product of extreme animal cruelty. Factory farms produce it by force feeding ducks so much that their livers become diseased and enlarged. This causes a tremendous amount of suffering and can make it difficult for the birds to walk and breathe normally.
Few people would want to eat any part of a diseased animal, but in the case of foie gras, consumers eat the diseased organ itself.
Foie gras producers shove pipes down ducks’ throats to force feed them far more than they would ever eat. The force feeding can cause bruises, lacerations, and sores. The duck’s livers may grow to ten times the normal size.
Some foie gras factory farms cram birds into small, filthy cages where they can’t turn around or spread their wings.
More than a dozen countries have prohibited foie gras production. Wolfgang Puck doesn’t use foie gras, and many restaurants have removed it from their menus.
From the Animal Defense League about other countries and some states banning the practice:
# SB 1520 author and current chairman of the California Democratic Party John Burton recently published an op-ed in the LA Times, in which he wrote, “The time has come for this humane and common-sense law to finally take effect. Many years have passed since the Legislature discussed this important issue. We don't need to re-debate the cruelty of force-feeding.”
# Due to the inhumane treatment of the birds involved, more than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Israel (formerly the world’s fourth-largest foie gras producer), have either prohibited force feeding for foie gras production or have interpreted it as illegal under existing anti-cruelty laws.
# Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco have passed resolutions condemning foie gras. Retailers such as Safeway, Costco, Target and Whole Foods Market refuse to sell it. More than a hundred California restaurateurs have already dropped foie gras from their menus.
@Bageldog - see below. Plenty of information for you. Good luck and please don't tell me that having compassion for animals put in this cruel situation is anything "ascribing human characteristics" (anthropomorphizing) to animals. Pain is pain. Perhaps you could try a big feeding tube down your throat against your will and see how you like it?
"please don't tell me that having compassion for animals put in this cruel situation is anything "ascribing human characteristics" (anthropomorphizing) to animals. Pain is pain. Perhaps you could try a big feeding tube down your throat against your will and see how you like it?"
Good gravy, in one sentence you tell me you're not anthropomorphizing the animals, yet in the very next you give a stunningly clear example of it. Saying "how would you like it" is the very definition! It is a moot argument, because humans are not ducks. I wouldn't like being held underwater either, but fish seem to do it just fine. You're not going to convince anyone with bad arguments.
I'm against factory farming and unfavorable living conditions, but the simple truth is that water fowl lack the gag reflex, and the pipe down their throat simply isn't a problem.
@Bageldog, good gravy yourself. Why are you so pro foie gras production? Just because an animal doesn't have a gag reflex doesn't mean having a pipe shoved down its throat isn't painful. The pipe abrades the skin - it's called FORCE FEEDING for a reason. Are you actually listening or trying to learn anything? These animals are perfectly capable of feeling pain and fear. I'm not comparing them to humans at all. Interesting that you jumped right on that. Are you saying animals can't feel pain and fear? And again, I challenge you to be force fed with a pipe and see how it feels. I'm challenging you to try empathy, to try to put yourself in another creature's situation, if you're so determined that foie gras production isn't painful to these creatures. It's so bad that it's being banned in California. The practice is banned in other countries. Doesn't that tell you something? No, apparently not. Not for you, anyway.
*sigh*, I think I'm done with you now. I've repeatedly explained why you can't use the "how would you like it" argument because human and duck physiology does not match. You alternate between continuing to use that argument and claiming you never have. It's very frustrating.
You know, when I put a leash on my dog and take him out, that's FORCE WALKING! How would YOU like it? See, it's just a bad argument.
You would get more traction with people like me if you focused on issues that have the weight of fact, such as insuring the animals have clean living spaces and plenty of room.
@Bageldog, the feeling is mutual and I too am done with you. You don't seem able to comprehend the research, information, and the article itself. Walking a dog, by the way, doesn't enlarge its liver and most dogs like to be walked. These ducks aren't asking that they be force fed to the point that their throats are abraded and their livers are enlarged. As the article says (did you read it?), the ducks huddle to get away from being force fed. I merely suggest you try force feeding yourself because you seem to think it's okay for ducks ... they're sentient beings who can feel pain and fear, and we can see by their behaviors that they want to avoid force feeding. Yet you seem to think it's okay for them, ergo, you're a sentient, feeling being, so why don't you see how it feels? Just a challenge for you so you can develop a little empathy. I find it dismaying that states ban it, countries ban it, and yet you, Bageldog, know so much that you think foie gras production is okay. So, yeah, let's quit now, because you're kinda hopeless, dude, LOL.
I ate the best dish ever the other day at Joe Beef in Montreal. This divine creation is based on the "double down" from KFC and goes by the same name: Instead of the two chicken breasts that make the "bread" of the sandwich, the chef uses 2 pieces of seared, battered and deep fried foi gras. In between they place a fried egg, bacon, smoked ham, and a maple syrup reduction sauce. Delicious.
If anyone ever plans to visit our beautiful city, make sure to check out Joe Beef and Au Pied Du Cochon, both known for delicious, rich, over the top delights.
(Just make sure to reserve 2-3 months ahead if you want to eat thursday-saturday
Sad that animals have to suffer (re foie gras) just for our eating pleasure. Like we need more on our already stuffed plates and in our already overstuffed stomachs. Go to a farm that produces foie gras Eating Meat ... see how it's done and then see how much you enjoy this supposedly yummy concoction. Educate yourself; don't just, speaking of foie gras, accept whatever restaurants stuff down your gullet.
After we've cleaned up the process by which we produce foie gras, what about applying a tax to it? That would make it less desirable and economically viable. They already tax cigarettes and alcohol. If people still want it, fine. But at least lets take that tax money and use it to subsidize family farms that do raise animals humanely.
I won't argue that eating meat is natural, but how natural is foie gras? I'm also a meat eater, but at the very least be aware of how many animals had to die so you could eat that foie gras "double-down". We live in a time where we are all so separated from the production of our food, that we consider the act of raising animals for food as "production" and not "husbandry" as it once was. What once was a noble profession is now considered menial. Sad state of affairs.
It is sad. We're over-consumers who don't always care what creatures have to suffer for our over-consumption. And you're right - we've insulated ourselves from the processes used to either fatten up or slaughter animals. I can't believe anyone would argue for foie gras, the production of which is so bad it's banned in other countries and will be banned in California.
I like meat, but...yuck.
After a short-lived ban, it is once again possible to buy horse meat in Ontario. To celebrate, a restaurant there is offering a horse filet paired with foie gras, called the "Quack and Track".
It's shocking to see that people are such hypocrites. While there is nearly unanimous support in the Western hemisphere for banning shark fin consumption due to the inhuman practices that are often associated with it, the same society appears (based upon this poll) to be much more accepting of their own inhuman practices.
I'm going off of memory here, but I believe the problem with shark fin consumption is that the fins are removed from the live animals, which are then dumped back into the ocean alive, now finless.
Unless you think foie gras is produced by surgical removal and the ducks then are just to die without a liver, this isn't really a good comparison.
I think the point is, the way that foie gras is produced is inhumane. So we should be concerned about shark fin removal and foie gras feeding. Both sound like living he**.
Foie gras is nasty anyways. The one or two times I've eaten it, I've found myself ill.
Oh, it's nasty? Then we should stop doing it. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Here's information about foie gras production from the Humane Society of the United States. If PETA makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps consider information from the HSUS about the practice:
Foie gras (French for “fatty liver”) is the product of extreme animal cruelty. Factory farms produce it by force feeding ducks so much that their livers become diseased and enlarged. This causes a tremendous amount of suffering and can make it difficult for the birds to walk and breathe normally.
Few people would want to eat any part of a diseased animal, but in the case of foie gras, consumers eat the diseased organ itself.
Foie gras producers shove pipes down ducks’ throats to force feed them far more than they would ever eat. The force feeding can cause bruises, lacerations, and sores. The duck’s livers may grow to ten times the normal size.
Some foie gras factory farms cram birds into small, filthy cages where they can’t turn around or spread their wings.
More than a dozen countries have prohibited foie gras production. Wolfgang Puck doesn’t use foie gras, and many restaurants have removed it from their menus.
The Humane Society, rather sadly, has essentially be taken over by PETA in recent years. They are not a reliable source for such information.
SixDegrees, that's a ridiculous assertion. I do wish when you troll on these boards - as you do with your silly posts and insults - you'd try a little harder to contribute to the conversation. The American Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the SPCA) is also against foie gras production: http://www.aspca.org/About-Us/policy-positions/force-feeding-of-fowl. Are you saying they're also taken over by PETA? About Karen Dawn of Dawn Watch? Or Farm Sanctuary?
Doesn't matter: Foie Gras is a food. The fowls are bred merely to become our food. They would not have been bred if there was no use for them. We are not talking wild animals here but a purposefully planned product. The Rest of the meat of the fowl is also eaten. Delicious stuff.
There is no shortage of nutters. Their presence and spew, however, is no reason to believe their blatherings. I'll take the word of actual veterinarians and the numerous studies which have found little or no ill effect from forced duck feedings, thanks.
SixDegrees, there's certainly no shortage of nutters - check in the mirror and you'll see one!
Here Six, do you think the Animal Defense League has been taken over by PETA too? These are points by them about the groups/individuals opposed to foie gras production:
# SB 1520 author and current chairman of the California Democratic Party John Burton recently published an op-ed in the LA Times, in which he wrote, “The time has come for this humane and common-sense law to finally take effect. Many years have passed since the Legislature discussed this important issue. We don't need to re-debate the cruelty of force-feeding.”
# Due to the inhumane treatment of the birds involved, more than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Israel (formerly the world’s fourth-largest foie gras producer), have either prohibited force feeding for foie gras production or have interpreted it as illegal under existing anti-cruelty laws.
# Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco have passed resolutions condemning foie gras. Retailers such as Safeway, Costco, Target and Whole Foods Market refuse to sell it. More than a hundred California restaurateurs have already dropped foie gras from their menus.
In 2004 and 2005, the American Veterinary Medical Association House of Delegates, the US accrediting body of veterinary medicine, was forwarded resolutions from its Animal Welfare Committee to oppose the production methods for foie gras. After hearing testimony from 13 delegates, the HOD declined to take a position and left a simple statement: "Limited peer-reviewed, scientific information is available dealing with the animal welfare concerns associated with foie gras production, but the observations and practical experience shared by HOD members indicate a minimum of adverse effects on the birds involved."
The HOD sent delegates to visit foie gras farms. One delegate, Robert P Gordon of New Jersey, indicated his personal position changed drastically after the visit. He also testified tube feeding is less distressing than taking the rectal temperature of a cat and urged the AVMA to take a position based on science, not emotion, while cautioning against anthropomorphism. The New York delegation offered their opinion that opponents of foie gras were intending to create a wedge issue; that the arguments used against foie gras would be modified to be used against other livestock production. The testimony of the delegate from the Association of Avian Veterinarians was that medicating and feeding sick birds via tube was a normal practice that birds accepted without stress. Another delegate who toured the farms stated that the birds appeared to be well cared for and better off than other poultry raised in factory farming.
Eric,
Do you really trust the American Medical Veterinary Association? From the HSUS:he Pew Commission endorsed legislation to phase out the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes on factory farms. The American Medical Association and dozens of other major public health groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization support the legislation because they fear the consequences of agribusiness’s misuse of antibiotics to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane, and often unsanitary conditions. But the AVMA is staunchly opposed to the bill.
At the AVMA, we’ve seen time and again how the livestock veterinarians, such as the swine and poultry veterinarians, control the thinking of the organization. These vets typically work for agribusiness and they embrace the mindset of the industry, including the view that animals are just production units. And unfortunately, it’s standard for the AVMA to stand in the way of sensible reforms in the realm of industrial agriculture.
We fought for years to ban the abuse of downer cows—those too sick or injured to stand or walk on their own—by the livestock industry, and the AVMA stood on the sidelines as we sought to advocate for humane handling of these animals and better food safety procedures. It took our investigation at the Westland/Hallmark slaughter plant to finally overcome the objections of agribusiness and to see a no-downer policy adopted.
Downer cow
© The HSUS
Just a few years ago, the AVMA supported the egg industry’s routine practice of starving egg-laying hens for days on end to extend the laying cycle of the birds. It wasn’t until a veterinary group aligned with the poultry industry, the American Association of Avian Pathologists, introduced a resolution in 2004 that the AVMA changed its position on the subject.
Similarly, for years the AVMA supported confining calves in veal crates so narrow they couldn’t even turn around for months at a time. After the American Veal Association passed a resolution in 2007 urging the veal industry to stop using veal crates, only then did the AVMA change its policy. In both cases, the AVMA showed no leadership on animal welfare, but simply followed the lead of industry.
The AVMA also fought a 2002 Florida ballot measure to require that breeding pigs have enough room to turn around and extend their limbs. The measure overwhelmingly passed, and AVMA later changed its position on gestation crates to one of neutrality. Five other states have since passed laws banning gestation crates, yet the AVMA still doesn’t oppose the crates, despite an abundance of scientific evidence supporting our position.
There’s also overwhelming scientific evidence that force-feeding ducks and geese for foie gras is detrimental to their welfare—and even the AVMA admits that such force-feeding causes lipidosis (illness in the liver). Yet the AVMA still refuses to oppose such animal cruelty and remains neutral on the topic.
In 2008, Californians overwhelmingly passed the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which phases out extreme forms of farm animal confinement. The California Veterinary Medical Association—to its credit—endorsed the measure, yet the AVMA refused to support it. This led CVMA’s then-president Dr. Jeff Smith to pen an op-ed about why CVMA voted to support the measure. Dr. Smith wisely wrote, “When one acknowledges that these positions are clearly not defensible from a welfare perspective, the profession needs to say so instead of being deemed irrelevant or taken kicking and screaming to the eventual proper ethical outcome.”
Vets should be in the forefront of animal protection, and they are at the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association and other more progressive veterinary associations. But at the AVMA, it’s too often essentially an echo chamber for industry on the major animal welfare questions of the day. If it’s an issue like animal fighting, where no vets work for the industry, the AVMA takes the right position. But if vets are in the employ of industry, the group then typically trots out the industry viewpoint.
We hope that the younger generation of vets usher in changes in this ossified organization. We’d like some day to stand shoulder to shoulder with the AVMA on matters relating to the defense of animals. But too often, we stand on opposite sides of the major policy debates for animal welfare in America.
These people are such hypocrites. How is it that they can simultaneously fight so vigorously to support abortion as a legal right but decry giving a duck too much corn as barbaric and sinister. we know that the duck is going to die anyway, so their issue is not the death of the duck, but the pain during the feeding process, and thats why it should be banned. So by that logic, if a fetus feels pain, they should also fight vigorously on behalf of the fetus that feels pain when it is aborted? I had no idea ducks were more valuable than babies.
You are missing the point. You are thinking like a Terran and not like a Vegan.
Terrans, or humans, are the enemy. Terrans are a threat to Bambi, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, and Dumbo and thus must be eradicated.
Aborting a Terran before it is born is perfectly acceptable in the war against Terrans.
Are you smoking Fruity Pebbles again?
Right on. Couldn't have said it better myself.
name one animal rights activist that is pro-abortion... can't think of any, then why would you say they all are? stupid.
By your logic, since every human is going to die anyway, you should have no problem with abortion, either. Also, why would you think there is only one thing that anyone could have sympathy for? Couldn't someone be anti-abortion and anti-force-feeding of ducks and geese?
Of course it should be banned. I could go on about the French, and the Koreans butchering dogs right out in the open marketplace, but Americancorporations like Tyson are no different with their barbaric inhumane practices that we only know about when someone goes in with a hidden camera. No animal should suffer like that. Sickening. I can't even look at packaged pork at the stores knowing what those animals went through.
I can not sleep at night listening to all of the plants screaming in pain as you graze. I agree animals shouldn't suffer but at the same time you know the abuses are rare and yet you murder plants without a second thought. You need to eat only love and sunshine as they are the only things that doesn't require killing.
Abuses are not rare, they are the norm since Foie gras is BASED on forced feeding. The foie gras itself is a pathology – fatty liver desease.
Just to answer your trolling, unlike animals, plants don't have a nervous system so can't feel pain. But if you care about plants, then you should obviously be vegan since the animals you eat, eat plants themselves, in much larger quantities than if you'd eaten the plants directly.
Pray tell kind sir – just how do you know that plants don't feel pain? Have they spoke to you in your drug induced dreams and said that mowing the grass actually tickles, or spraying a weed with a herbicide feels good because they needed the bath anyway? I bet you are one of those folks that think hunting should be banned and hunters forced to get their meat from a grocery store because that is where the meat is produced without harming any innocent animals ....... People Eating Tasty Animals, Unite!
PETAU? Is that Hawaiian?
Won't SOMEONE think of the plants?
FEED FEED FEED and EAT. Next up on my list – A nice, forced fed, armagnac soaked, Ortolan Bunting.
What will we do if we find out that plants have feelings too? Will the Vegans insist that humans eat dirt?
Vegans seem to think that humans are the least important, most destructive organisms on the planet.
Vegans seem to think that humans need to go.
If that is the case, maybe they should start with removing themselves.
Goodbye, Vegans. Terra for Terrans! Foie-Gras... Yum!
I am freinds with a ton of vegans most of them do not care what you eat.
The animal rights position is so incredibly exaggerated. If you've actually seen it done on AMERICAN farms (and I don't mean PETA edited videos from some foie-gras farm in Bulgaria), the ducks actually come up to the feeding tubes on their own accord and show very little discomfort. It is FAR from torture.
I don't know any chef (who have better knowledge of their products) who thinks this ban is a good idea. It's another example of irrational emotion , threats, and politics shouting down rational thinking.
More often than not, the best position is to stop meddling and allow people to CHOOSE on their own whether they want to eat it or not, and choose on their own whether they find it moral or not. Telling people what they should believe and how to live their lives is never the right answer.
Savvysearch, you might find this information from HSUS interesting ... don't know why anyone would condone animal cruelty or consider it a "personal choice."
Foie gras (French for “fatty liver”) is the product of extreme animal cruelty. Factory farms produce it by force feeding ducks so much that their livers become diseased and enlarged. This causes a tremendous amount of suffering and can make it difficult for the birds to walk and breathe normally.
Few people would want to eat any part of a diseased animal, but in the case of foie gras, consumers eat the diseased organ itself.
Foie gras producers shove pipes down ducks’ throats to force feed them far more than they would ever eat. The force feeding can cause bruises, lacerations, and sores. The duck’s livers may grow to ten times the normal size.
Some foie gras factory farms cram birds into small, filthy cages where they can’t turn around or spread their wings.
More than a dozen countries have prohibited foie gras production. Wolfgang Puck doesn’t use foie gras, and many restaurants have removed it from their menus.
Once again: if they weren't going to be used as food, these animals would never have been born. That is their sole purpose in life. Same with cows, pigs,chickens,etc. We are caring far too much for an animal that has been bred to be our food source.
Someone mentioned plants and feelings, studies are now showing that plants do indeed "feel" pain. So I want all you plant eaters to start eating dirt until they find that that too has feelings. You all like to dictate what we meat eaers should eat so here i am telling you to eat dirt.
and for those who don't agree with your view that murder, rape, child molestation, etc. are immoral? they should be free to choose as well? society needs laws to protect those who can't protect themsevels, just like this one.
Hey. Back off. ALF is the man! Gordon Schumway
There is difference between eating an animal, and torturing an animal so that it tastes better, then eating it. It is a shame that so many people do not know the difference. I hope that they receive more sympathy in their deaths than they are willing to give when something else's life is on the line. Ban Foie Gras, veal, and Kobe beef. BAN TORTURE.
Then we should ban dog food and set all our dogs free. "Chicken and beef byproduct", I doubt many vegan pet owners feed their pets grass and grain, then complaion that animals should not be grain fed. Or should they? Oh, wait, um, no! In the wild, I mean.... dang! No... ummm.
Dart out of room...
I sniff Dawg Butt–Join me,Please?
Ooof. No, thanks. I notice one dog nose = the size of a dog butt hole. I don't like crowds.
That's What She Said....Sniff Sniff.
Something smells Fishy around here?
How 'bout you just stop eating it, and let others decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong? We don't allow loud-mouthed evangelical theocrats to dictate our laws; I see no reason to allow similarly rabid ideologues to do the same regarding our food.
"We don't allow loud-mouthed evangelical theocrats to dictate our laws"
R U Effing Kidding?! Have you watched CSPAN lately?!
Despite immense efforts on their part, they are meeting with little success relative to their unconstitutional goals.
Shoudl foie gras be banned? No. We do not NEED laws for this. It is sufficient to make people aware of it. Just as many people will not order veal, or order sharkfin soup, or seared dolphin kabobs. Educate people to what has to happen to produce the culinary delicacy and watch it's use plummett as it become socially unacceptable. No need for a single law there at all.
Quite correct. People are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and making their own choices. Ceding this ability to government is never a good idea.
Although frankly, this is a pricey item sold in very low volumes to begin with. There's not much room for sales to plummet in.
Why shouldn't laws and legislation protect animals? We use them to protect children. Legislation is the only way to remove cruelty in foie gras production (by removing its existence) or even in factory farming production - we really can't rely on the conscience of the producer (obviously; just do your research on CAFO operations), or on the consumer.
Laws exist only in the country they were created in. This is not an American concept.
Free market economy....if people don't want it, there won't be a market for it....the market exists because people want it to...
Producing it can be banned in California but it will still be produced elsewhere. Food animals should be treated properly but I don't trust what the vegetarians have to say about it.
True. And Canada is a world-renowned producer to begin with that will happily supply any shortages in the US marketplace.
They also produce large volumes of horsemeat. After a short-lived ban was lifted, a restaurant in Toronto tweaked opponents with an offering of horse filet accompanied by seared foie gras which they dubbed the "Quack and Track".
So you're assuming everyone who's against foie gras production is a vegetarian? How about trusting the many groups and legislators who are against this practice? Research it for yourself - sure, don't trust anyone (especially not the vegetarians, oh no!), but you can certainly find plenty of information about the horrors of foie gras production.
I wish animal rights activists cared about pediatric cancer as much as they do the alleged rights of animals.
I caught a Dog Fish once off the Galveston Bay....It looked just like Nancy Pelosi....Scary moment.
Did you give it a pearl necklace to match?
ZZ Top nor The Dog Fish were in Season at the time....yet Long John Silver's had a Special on Butt Fish. It was a Gold Mine without Media Control.
Cancer patients have 330 million advocates in the USA. Animals only have PETA and the Humane Society. That imbalance is the reason that PETA is so much more "enthusiastic".
PETA is a joke. They have accomplished absolutely nothing in the decades of their existence except to slow actual progress and make matters worse. Unless you count their funneling of money to ALF and other terrorist groups as an accomplishment, similar to playing Sinn Fein to ALF's IRA.
Hey. Back off. ALF is the man! Gordon Schumway FTW
At least with me, PETA backfires far more often than they succeed, and it would not surprise me if this was the case with many others.
I'm all for conservation of habitats, protection of endangered species, etc. And even if fur were something that guys actually wore, I would never ever consider it. I do think that if you're gonna hunt, you should darn well eat what you shoot, and make what use you can of the skins. I also think that it's stupid to hunt "big game" animals whose populations are already threatened and that don't pose risk to humans just because it's a thrill.
But I will occasionally decide to order a grilled chicken sandwhich for lunch. And I'm not going to feel the remotest bit of shame or remorse for that. And I have no problem with cattle being raised for eventual slaughter. I *do* make it a point to buy cage free eggs, and I *do* try to avoid any producer of meats that keeps thier cattle in small pens for their entire lives. I do oppose use of animal testing for cosmetics or other fluff purposes. I do not oppose the use of animal testing for medicines.
Freedom hating Christian Conservatives want to control my uterus and now Left Wing Lunatics want to control my diet. Is there any sane middle ground left in this country?
Yes, it's called No-man's land. Rosie O'Donnell awaits your presence. With angst.
BLAME IT ON THE RAIN, YEAH YEAH.
"Shapiro points to studies that say the mortality rate is 10 to 20 times higher for force-fed ducks."
No kidding... I would wager that 100% of them die from unnatural causes because, you know, we EAT THEM. What a stupid statistic.
we raise animals to EAT them. truth is if not for our love of steak there would be no cows. a goose is a BIRD...he/she is NOT human .... trying to make them so by "humane treatment" may make YOU feel better but it does nothing for the goose.
nature cannot be learned from a Disney cartoon. (bambi) does not exist.
Humane treatment does nothing for the goose? That's wrong by definition.
Yeah, ban it. That will create a black market and drive up the price. Way to go, idiots!
If it's that powerful a drug, it should be listed as a narcotic.
I love foie gras seared on top of a medium rare porterhouse.
Last night's Supermoon was the result of the moon being force fed sunlight.
That sounds very tasty, Himanshu. However, have you ever tried foie gras inside a masala dosa? It is divine. It also goes nicely with sambar
I must say that I prefer to substitute in foie gras when my staff is making tofu dishes. Don't tell them because it would upset the image I have worked so hard to create.
Doesn't California have more important problems to deal with right now?
Yes. Like, being California.
People who encourage this industry by indulging on foie gras are also probably supportive of child sex abuse and abusing elderly ladies. It's plain disgusting and vile and there's a special place in hell for people who feast on suffering.
I'll meet you there.
I would say that eating animals is detrimental to their health and well-being.
It should be mandatory for the pro foie gras chefs to be force fed one time to give them the idea of what it feels like.
I'd love to see one of those culinary prima donna's get force fed with their own godawful "delicacies" crammed down their pie holes. Go to it for an hour straight until they can't take it anymore. One guy holds up cheffie's nose while another person grabs his/her mouth from behind and widens that trap.Stuff 'em good. Yeah, i'll bet they'll be thinking what a poor duck has to endure for some rich slob the next time he cooks that crap.
How about meat eaters get slaughtered to know what it feels like to be cattle?
Sounds like a vegan wet dream. They're some of the most violent people on earth, judging by their comments.
Vegans don't have wet dreams. Kills bedbugs – they are very much against that sort of thing.
You just took the bite out of my rant. Kill joy.
You can't "give them a taste of what it feels like" because humans – unlike geese – have a gag reflex. Inserting a feeding tube down a goose's throat may give humans the willies, but the geese don't have anything like the same reaction to it.
A more accurate comparison would be to compare what the experience is like once the tube is inserted and the gag reflex bypassed – something that is done many thousands of times every day in hospitals across the land.
Or are you in favor of starving the sick to death, too?
No, the tube will work fine, thank you. Good idea!
An interesting point, Six Degrees. However, there is a difference here. The one tube is for sustaining life. The other is purposely used for force feeding and eventual slaughter. See the difference now?
It should be mandatory for Vegans to go live in more "primitive" societies where your daily calorie intake could mean the difference between life and death.
We need to ban the eating of unborn chicken! Imagine the suffering the poor dears go through as their encasement is brutally broken open and they are unceremoniously dumped into a pan of hot grease rendered from pig flesh.
I am now going to make bacon and eggs. You have made a monster of me.
Sounds like something that would be too expensive for most people to eat anyway.
Quite true – decent foie gras can easily run over $100 per pound, although a typical serving is perhaps 1/8 of a pound.
A foie gras ban is low hanging fruit for radical zealots who will use it as a stepping stone to enact further bans; the ban in question, for example, is extraordinarily vague, and will certainly be used to halt other food production on the grounds that many types of animal feed constitute "forced feeding" because it isn't what the animals in question normally eat. I expect the first such expansive complaints to begin before the end of the year.
Quite true – decent foie can easily run over $100 per pound, although a typical serving is perhaps 1/8 of a pound.
A foie ban is low hanging fruit for radical zealots who will use it as a stepping stone to enact further bans; the ban in question, for example, is extraordinarily vague, and will certainly be used to halt other food production on the grounds that many types of animal feed constitute "forced feeding" because it isn't what the animals in question normally eat. I expect the first such expansive complaints to begin before the end of the year.
Yes, I agree on the ban. Someone mentioned that fatty liver is a diseased liver. This is a a cruel thing to do. I had a cat that died from fatty liver disease and it was heartbreaking to see him suffer. Having a liver grow to 10 times its normal size must make the duck feel awful. Hey I love live ducks, I think they are adorable, and yes, I eat roasted duck. As a carnivore I know that animals are eaten, but they should be raised humanely and slaughtered humanely. No one needs to this pate. By definition is awful for people to eat. There are lot of things to eat in the world, but fatty liver pate and milk-fed veal are not necessary for the survival of mankind. This seems like a bit of "I can afford to buy it so it must be okay."
A fatty liver is NOT a diseased liver in geese. Geese normally store fat in their livers in preparation for migration, and naturally gorge themselves prior to same. Claiming that this is a disease when geese are concerned is simply wrong.
Not only that, but the animal (that God gave to us to use freely for food–had to get in a Republican red-blooded American stance) is being raised to be eaten. If the animal has a fatty, excessively large liver when it's brought to slaughter, so what? Force feeding isn't painful, necessarily (although not sure I'd like it done to me a few times a day), but I'll concede that it may very well be traumatic for the fowl in question. From what I understand, though, it's only done near the day of slaughter (within a couple of weeks) that the controversial method of "gavage" is used.
Overfeeding ducks and geese to fatten their livers has apparently been done since 2500 B.C. by the Egyptians, and we all know what a benevolent, loving, peaceful society they were. (Kindof joking here, but seriouosly..., since 2500 B.C.!!!)
Milk-fed veal... I thought that was how mother cows naturally fed their young?
So, you think it is cruel to slaughter and eat young cows but it is okay to let them become adults in a tiny pen, fed on cow carcasses and corn, and then slaughter them? You think their miserable life should be longer to make you feel better?
Almost thought you said I love d!ck. Then I re-read. Then thought you meant that anyway.
Just kidding.
"Opponents claim that the process of force-feeding the fowl is detrimental to their health and well-being."
I would think chopping off the gooses head wold be more of a detriment to their health than the force feeding.
I like fois grois, but technically it should be from a goose. What I do not like is vegans and vegetarians - they're hard too cook, the meat is stringy and I can never find a matching wine.
beer is always the beverage of choice when consuming the self-righteous.
It is easy to find a whine that matches Vegans...
I have never understood why this is considered chic eats.
It isn't considered 'chic'. It is considered tasty. Geese have been raised this way for many thousands of years, by many different cultures.
I am not for a ban. I know Hudson Valley Farm well and if you neglect one of the feedings for the ducks they line up next to the feeding tubes when they are hungry. They don't huddle in corners. If we are to ban anything it should be antibiotics and hormones in meat, not delicious liver.
it's not "chic", it's delicious. there are farms in spain who produce it humanely (i.e. no force feeding). foie gras is something i love to eat but don't because the forced feeding bothers me. let's focus on that and not other ignorant statements.
Is this a standard article brought out during slow news days?
To talk about humane treatment of an animal that is being raised so it can be slaughtered is a little disingenuous. Excuse me, a lot disingenuous.
If you're going to eat animals then doing it humanely is not crazy, You know they are going to be slaughtered, but they shouldn't have to suffer while they are alive.
Exactly!
I propose that California should ban mother nature. Every year I watch baby swans slaughtered by turtles. Likewise baby turtles have a mortality rate in excess of 99%. If the coons do not eat the eggs, the birds eat them. The winter mortality rate of a filed mouse is in excess of 95%. I was looking out the window and this evil robin just snatched this poor worm right out of the ground and swallowed the poor thing. There are these evil microbes that in below freezing weather act as catalyist so that ice crystals form. They use this to cause cellular desstruction of plants so they can feast on their insides. I don't know about you, but when I look out in the woods it is a slaughter out there. Everything is killing everything.
Personally I think these Vegans have a secret deal with some Alien race to fatten us up all on grains and cereals so we can be harvested. Like it or not humans do best when part of the diet is meat. When we eat too much grain we turn into butter balls as carbs is just sugar stuck together. So somehow to be healthy we have to raise meat. I am for the ethical treatment of animals to some extent. But practically speaking were going to end the life of that animal. My guess is that PETA is not going to be satisfied until animals are no longer raised for consumption.
OK..let's ban foie gras.... But at the same time, let's ban handguns... all those victims of gun-connected actions were treated just a inhumanely as the geese and the ducks.... and, oh... me thinking that humans have more value than birds..
Now I am aware that this is a poor argument, unconnected.. Still....
No, no, don't get down on yourself. That's a great argument you have going there. Foie gras and handguns, damnit! That's what's wrong with society! The correlation is obvious!
top of the food chain now but just wait. In the future we'll all be fattened up in the same way by the conquering aliens before we're consumed. human liver, yum!
Look araound we are being fattened up. In the past 20+ years our weight has increased and we now have an epidemic of overweight people. Everything we eat has been processed, modified, injected with growth hormones, etc. Our gov't allows corporations to alter our food supply. We get fat and unhealthy and the corporations get rich.
IT's not OK for this, but it IS OK to overfeed chickens and pump them full of chemicals to satisfy the normal U.S. consumer of breast meat? hmmmmmmmmm... MORE Hypocrisy eh?
Overfeed chicken.... and steers... and sheep... and... oh the list is long... "gavage" is not pretty, but creating ulcers in the stomachs of steers in feedlot is not better is it.. Shall we ban hamburgers...?
I disagree with over feeding and supplemental hormones and antibiotics for animals raised for food. Unnecessary and bad for the animal and harmful to us. Just a way for corporate farms to squeeze out every penny they can. Plus if we get sick from the hormones and antibiotics, the pharmaceutical industry can make more meds to help cure and continue record profits. It's a win win for the corporate culture.
Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up! Gavage is NOT inhumane. It is inhuman, for sure, but not inhumane. Geese and duck throats are made completely different than ours. Just because you saw a video in black and white and post processed grainy effects and horror themed music added in the background does not make this a bad thing for the very happy geese that love a full tummy and often swarm the farmer when they come in to feed. It is safe for them, not for us if it were done to us as humans. Stop trying to make an animal built differently than us compare to us.
Go actually do some research and learn how little, in comparison to other animal abuses, this is. Stop pandering to one side blindly to feed your ego. Do the work and actually learn something.
Yeah, what is with the "republican" banter?? I am as democratic as they come, spent 6 years in college so I could earn the living that I do, and enjoy a delicacy occasionally. Believe me, if you do, or do not, eat foie gras, has no relationship to political affiliation.....
Thank you. I hate all the stupid political garbage on eatocracy
Ohhhh but foie gras is SSSSOOOO good!!!
Of course the vegetarians and vegans had to sound-off here.....
Serioously, don't ban it. Foie gras is awesome. Don't want to eat it? Don't eat it, but whine elsewhere. I'm sure there is an "occupy" movement in your area in which to do so....
a n y f o o d i d o N ' t l i k E s H o u l d b E b a n n E d
Lets start with mayo and cottage cheese.
This can be humanely produced. Geese and ducks eat heavily right before their winter migration south, so they can fly hundreds of miles with minimal food stops. It should be a seasonal food, not an every day thing. Eating seasonally is good for everyone.
Exactly. I don't care if people eat foie gras as long as it is humanely produced. I don't support industrialized production of any food products but most especially meat products. Eating locally grown seasonal food goes a long way toward repairing the damage we have done ourselves by cramming overproduced foods down our own throats.
Disclaimer: I am a vegetarian (pescetarian). I don't care what you eat. Just don't torture it on the way to your plate.
How much do you wanna bet that most ppl. that eat this s*it are RICH REPUBLICANS?
Yeah, those evil republicans. Man, they are hell spawn themselves. Good you don't make stupid assertions based on your black and white political views. Do you even review subject matter, or do you do whatever Rachel Maddow tells you? Two things:
1) One of the issues with this country is to many people group each other, and are grouped, into Democrat or Republican, and divides the country. Look at issues, rather than taking sides...
2) Its a freakin article about making Foie Gras illegal ( or at least the methodology to obtain the fatty liver ), and why some people are ok with it and some are not. Not everything is illegal, but here, let me help you out with a rallying cry.
OCCUPY EATOCRACY!!!!!!
if every 1 would eat a vegan diet we wouldn't have this problem in the 1st place
No, we'd have a host of other problems, including groups like PETP – People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants.
It's not ok to slaughter animals (a living thing), but it is ok to slaughter carrots (another living thing?).
Sounds like textbook hypocrisy to me.
Then everyone would live longer, thus further straining our already strained planet. Eat hearty everyone, die quickly, and we can slowly reduce our population. It would be an interesting study to see if meat eaters have more children than vegans and vegetarians.
If everyone had a vegan diet, we would not have the highly developed brains that we use to argue over the virtues of eating a vegan diet. Vegans are anti-progress.
Have you ever seen Chris Cosentino? Or Anthony Bourdain? Or any other real, live chefs who are adamant that such bans be stopped? Please do so, then crawl back here and try to explain how you associated a love of foie gras with the GOP.
This to sqeptiq. I can't replay directly to your post.
Most vegans are antinatalists, so no, vegansim would not strain the planet.
Not rich, not a Republican and I love the stuff.
Here in California, we're concerned with how we treat our food animals.
Instead of worrying about things that... you know, actually matter.
Maybe this is why we're broke.
California has a long history of shoving things deemed politically incorrect outside their own borders. Electrical production and pretty much all manufacturing are prime examples. It creates a boon for neighboring states, who happily supply the demand for such things that still exists in California, although it makes things for Californians considerably more expensive.
Once this ban is in place, consumption of foie gras in California will not drop a whit. People will just pay more for it, and won't mind because it is a rare treat, not an everyday snack. Consumption may actually rise for a while, as the hue and cry brings the delicacy to the attention of more people.
Yeah..maybe we should worry more about how we treat our fellow human beings living in slums, or the millions under the poverty line, or the Veterans coming back half broken...
I crushed a snail today... completely by accident... I wonder if there will be a law against that.
Hmmm... then drive on I-5 between LA and Sacramento, past Harris Ranch. The stench from cows will tell you when you have arrived. Their are made to live from corn (not their natural food) while standing in their own poop up to their bellies. Same thing around Chino. And standing is all they can really do because there is no space to move around.
Ordinary folks cannot afford foie gras and manage to go about their business with it absent from their diet. Wealthier folks, who more often than not live by their own set of rules, couldn't care less that an animal suffered for their pricey dish. Let's keep in mind that it's these folks who support Republican politics, much to the detriment of most of our nation but to the benefit of themselves.
Not all rich people are Republican. Gee, in California, the movie industry has many millionaires and I believe they are mostly Democrat.
No one should be eating this and actually, the richer you are the more you can afford to eat consciously. Organic food can be quite expensive.
If you cannot come up with a humane way to make ducks overeat after SEVEN FREAKING YEARS then perhaps you should stay way from animals, period. No one is saying that you cannot sell foie gras. All they are saying is that you're not allowed to torture an animal in order to have your foie gras. Is that *really* so terrible?
Use of a feeding tube is not 'torture'. Read up on it.
Meanwhile, Californian foie gras consumption will not drop even a little as a result of this legislation. Like California's energy production and manufacturing industries, production will simply move to neighboring states and continue to provide for the undiminished demand.
Hudson valley has been doing it humanely for years. Watch the youtube video.
Besides the fact that eating diseased liver is just freakin' vile, the process of getting the liver to this point is irrefutably inhumane. I actually cannot believe there are a few comments here suggesting that the inhumane nature is just a myth. Do some research, and then eat your words, or better yet, your own diseased liver!
Geese aren't human. And they fatten their own livers through seasonal gorging; it's a natural part of being a goose.
So – fail on all points for you.
Do the geese eat enough naturally to make their livers 10 times their normal size? I'm all for letting nature take its course.
Ban that sh*t and kill all violators.
Such rational and compassionate people, these animal lovers.
Why don't we just shove a tube down your throat and see how you like it? Yea, don't think you would. Animals can't speak for themselves, the least we can do is try to do it for them. These poor animals are treated inhumanely just so we can eat their livers. Seriously? That is just messed up. I'm all for eating meat, but we really need to make sure that we at least give the animals some respect and some sort of life before slaughtering them for our own needs. The whole process of foie gras is just disgusting, and the animals are obviously afraid. If anyone thinks it's totally fine, then just let someone throw you in a crowded, dark room and shove a tube down your throat.
I can understand one being opposed to the forced feeding, but advocating violent acts against people in doing so destroys you're argument and makes you appear to be the vicious and irrational one.
This is why I have trouble taking groups like PETA at all seriously.
Phil, you're argument is a fallacy called ad hominum. In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.
Not even a valid argument. Humans don't like stuff shoved down their throats because they have a gag reflex; geese, however, don't. Overlaying human characteristics onto things which are not human is a childish fallacy.
My dear Watson, you need to reeducate yourself on ad hominem. I believe Phil was referring to how you APPEAR, not calling you a name. Elementary, Sir.
Just to be snarky, I think they should have a tube up the other end, too! LOL
so cruel, so cruel - humans do just horrible things to animals just to satisfy their own wants....
What do you think a stalk of broccoli feels when you take a knife and cut off its legs. You cruel, inhuman, uncaring low life piece of garbage.
Broccoli is already brain dead before you cut off its legs you irrational piece of garbage.
How do you know? Has a broccoli ever talked to you and explained how to measure its brain function?
Who gives a ____? When geese, or chicken, or cows or any other animal gets to the top of the food chain they can make the rules.
All of these hyper-sensitive, tree hugging, sandal wearing, soy milk slurping, granola munching, holier-than-thou vegan/vegetarian idiots piss me off. Y'all eat what you want. Leave the rest of us alone.
I find it absolutely stunning that all these people horrified by the treatment of animals that are raised for food are generally the same people who could not give two (2) sh*@ts about the person suffering two doors down from their "green" house.
Yes, it should be banned. nothing justifies the kind or cruelty it takes to produce this dish. and you can make a perfectly fabulous pate' out of plain old chicken liver.
I like a good pate' from the TSA before getting on Air Force One.
Shouldn't you at least address the topic at hand when making erroneous comments? There's foie gras – which can be served whole, chopped or even make into a pate'. As for the 'cruelty' involved in production – it doesn't exist; it is pure lies spread as propaganda by PETA and vegan extremists who are pursuing a larger agenda and have no problem at all fabricating BS.
Fck you a $ $ h ole.
I'd love to force feed you and then kill you, you piece of s***. See how you like it.
A very humane attitude. Truly makes me see the right in what you say.
God, you people are nuts.
Typical response from a PETA M0R0N, they would rather kill a human being than an animal.
... and another animal extremist proves the point. Compassion for food stock aka animals but no problem expressing vile hatred and threats to a PERSON that does not share their batsh!t views. Nice!
How can anyone argue with such a concise, well-reasoned response?
Seriously – you need to calm down. Try eating some fatty red meat; it'll calm your nerves.
As a conspiracy theorist shouldn't you be wearing a tin foil hat?
It should be banned because the industry abused their power and should be shut down.
I dont believe filling their crops is the main problem, its not a stomach, those things are normally capable of holding a lot of food. Its the way they do it that is the problem. Screwing birds to a wall so they cant move is extremely unacceptable and far worse than even the worst chicken factories.
I would support a permanent ban or a timed ban for them to clean up their act.
Maybe you ought to look into how the ducks are raised before you open your mouth. They are not chained or bolted in place. They have a feeding tube inserted by hand, some food poured in, and the tube is removed and the duck goes about its business. Start to finish, 5 seconds, 3 times a day.
Ducks don't have a gag reflex, their breathing tube is in their tongue, not in in their throat like us. No voice box, no fine bones to break. Their throats are built like this in order to swallow fish whole.
Furthermore, the enlarged liver is a natural condition for migratory water fowl. They naturally fatten up for migratory flight, foie gras farmers "exploit" this natural ability to increase harvest yields.
Pure nonsense, bs. Do a little actual research before peddling such propaganda.
I think he did, doofus.
Apparently not, given that there isn't a single true statement contained in the post.
At the end of the day it boils down to this: We humans are at the top of the food chain. Animals are not. We humans are omnivores meaning we eat meat. Animals are meat and the more of the animal we eat, the less wasteful we are. This means that outspoken, activist-type animal rights dufuses are a waste of oxygen and time, and generally have nothing but too much time on their hands to be of any real use to the rest of us at the top of the food chain. And don't you, like myself, have a sneaking suspicion that those who are such vehement anti-meat eaters and such are probably sleeping with their animals too?
Agreed! And very well put!
Ban turkey too. They are breed and feed to produce a lot of white meat. In fact they become so heavy they can hardly walk.
It is The American Way in an Election Year.
I have a general rule against eating internal organs.
Gizzards too?
Internal organs are among the healthiest and most nutritious parts of the animal to eat. Eating only the flesh and not the organs wastes the majority of the micro-nutrient value of the animal, and is one of the reasons that modern Americans are so unhealthy and in need of vitamin supplements. There are certain organs of certain animals that are unsafe to eat, and you wouldn't want to eat old or diseased organs, especially filter organs. But the healthy organs of young animals, that is where much of the nutrition lies.
Either you are part of the "ghoul culture" or you are not. Either you eat the flesh of other animals or you do not.
Sure it is cruel to overfeed the birds, it is also cruel to kill and eat them. I mock anyone who eats animals who supports this ban- it is hypocritical.
Obozo is a DIK...Mock me now.
no need, you did just fine by yourself. ;-)
Sadly," That's what she said " only in Chinese. :)
You are mocked. lol
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I eat meat, but I try to only eat meat that I know to have been raised humanely. I believe that raising and killing animals for food is morally acceptable, but causing animals to suffer extreme pain and fear, as many factory farmed animals do, is immoral. I wish regulators would set better standards for humanely raised meat, so that people would at least have a choice not to eat factory farmed meat.
Nevertheless, I respect and understand your position that all meat is morally dubious.
Youre an idiot, its pretty difficult to come with a response to such a horribly stupid comment. We're going to kill them anyways so might as well torture them? How does one respond to logic as insane as that? Youre human right? you have a human brain capable of basic human logic correct?
I eat meat. It's delicious. My ancestors didn't spend all this time turning my species into an omnivore so I could insult them with this arrogant self-righteousness! Yeah, we're all ghouls. And you, by eating only eating vegetables, are raping the soil and defiling the earth by replacing it's natural beauty with crops that decimate nutrient levels in the soil that need to be replaced by synthetics and other gross violations of nature. Pack up your earth raping quasi-superiority and stuff it in your hemp sack!
Meat good.
the food chain is perfectly natural and acceptable. everything kills to eat, including some plants. it's the nature of how life on this planet works! our bodies are designed to be omniverous, not herbivorous. you are going against nature when you deny yourself animal protein. it's the way we humans treat our food animals that's the problem, not the fact that we eat them. there are ways to respect animals while still relying on them for food. just ask the Native Americans. they would thank the animal for its gifts before harvesting it. and nothing was wasted. we need to clean up our act in this area of endeavor, and many others, if we want to live in a healthy world.
You are Hired....Here is a shovel, Please follow the Elephants.
To say that something is natural says no more about its moral character than to say that it is red.
Well, when you look at the bodies of omnivores you actually see we differ quite substantially (we're actually quite closer to animals who eat no or little meat – insects really). But let's assume you are correct. Don't we evolve? Hasn't research shown us the dangers of meat consumption? Millions of people worldwide live fantastically healthly and long (and longer) lives being vegetarian. Shouldn't we be learning something from this? If you can argue we need to be more compassionate re. foie gras, can't you argue we need to be compassionate re. the killing of animals for food when it's 100% CLEAR we do not need to kill them? And by the way, I know it's been in vogue for a long time to automatically assume Native Americans (or native peoples in general) have this amazing regard for the sanctity of life. However, this is not necessarily always true when you look at the facts. It drives me crazy that no one ever critically analyzes this assumption. Plenty of native people are cruel to animals and/or are wasteful, in addition to overhunt. Many move to new locations because of overhunting.
It's too bad you have trouble with anything unless it's black or white. Those of us with more intelligence have the ability for more complex thought. Your argument is not defensible: If you eat meat then anything goes? That's ridiculous. If you can spare suffering of an animal, shouldn't you do that?
And by the way, I don't eat meat and never will.
MOOOOchelle Obama eats it along with her husbands favorite dishes, chicken poodle soup and german shepard pie.
OMG! You are SOOOO witty! Wow, they way you made fun of those famous people by misspelling her name and pointing out his dietary intake!!
Thanks. Have a nice day.
If an activist hugs a tree will it hug back?
STOP ANIMAL ABUSE IN ANY FORM AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM!
PEOPLE STOP AND CARE ALITTLE AND THEN ALITTLE MORE AND THEN MORE!!!!
CARING IS CONTAGIOUS
Just because your a Vegan doesn't mean you have to YELL.
Herpies is contageous too. Stop herpies.
No, it isn't animal abuse.
No, if you give an animal herpes, I'd call that abuse.
How do i say this.........no.
I love your comment. I was one that didn't really care that much in the past, but just as you stated over time I have come to care deeply. Very good advise.
really, that just makes you as equally inane and irrelevant as the initial commentator
Comments like this are why your parents tell you not to play with your food. Eventually, get attached to it.
I think it is worthless for people to argue over Foie Gras. It should not be banned. It is laughable how Americans have such a disconnection to the sources of their food. People act outraged over forced feeding of Geese, yet they have no problem eating chicken and beef from a supermarket where the animals were treated in far worse and inhumane conditions.
How can anyone in their right mind eat a piece of chicken from an animal that was kept in a hen with thousands of other birds; no ability to move around and become so fat that their legs canot support their bodies and cry foul over Foie Gras. How about meat from a cow that had so much ecoli in its gut that it has been fed antibiotics from birth? There is a reason we do not see where our meat comes from. It will literally make you sick to see how the large Agribusinesses process our food.
Such stupid disucssions.
As is your reply, That's why I use Weight Watchers......Watch This....
You mean it doesn't just appear in those tidy little shrink-wrapped packages in the grocery store?!?!?
I agree with you 100%
Uh cows and chickens are not treated worse than fois gras geese. Fois gras farming is the worst of the worst, birds are clamped to wooden planks and connected to metal pipes for their entire lives like a science experiment. It would be too expensive to give normal chickens and cows that kind of attention. Factory animals are mistreated in bad ways but Im not sure what would possibly make you think geese have it better, I mean really, use some common sense.
It seems youre the one with the disconnection to his food.
Maybe you ought to look into how the ducks are raised before you open your mouth. They are not chained or bolted in place. They have a feeding tube inserted by hand, some food poured in, and the tube is removed and the duck goes about its business. Start to finish, 5 seconds, 3 times a day.
Ducks don't have a gag reflex, their breathing tube is in their tongue, not in in their throat like us. No voice box, no fine bones to break. Their throats are built like this in order to swallow fish whole.
Furthermore, the enlarged liver is a natural condition for migratory water fowl. They naturally fatten up for migratory flight, foie gras farmers "exploit" this natural ability to increase harvest yields.
Utterly wrong. Read up on how foie gras is actually produced and stop spewing baseless propaganda.
Actually, I have *seen* how they are fed myself. It isn't propaganda to say that they are fed by hand, without tying them in place.... it's true.
I don't really understand this argument. "We should only fight against one form of cruelty at a time. Not multiple forms of cruelty." I wonder how this would look if we applied it to humans...maybe we should only prosecute murderers and let all other criminals go free because, hey, whatever they did is not as bad as murder? Look, there are a lot of people in this world who love animals. Let them fight for *all* animals, okay? There are enough of them to cover all the bases. Why is this so offensive to you?
"detrimental to their health and well-being"...
Well duh! I can't imagine that chopping there heads off is any to good for them either.
I don't know why everyone is only focusing on the issue of force-feeding because that's not even the cruelest aspect of the dish. Foie gras means "fatty liver", in other words DISEASED liver. Have you ever seen someone with organ failure and how much they had to suffer? Well, that's what the ducks have to experience and they don't even get the luxury of medical treatment because that's the goal, to make their livers diseased. In just a few weeks time, their livers swell up to 10 times their normal size. This makes it difficult for the birds to walk, move, or even breathe. In fact, many of them become so sick, they don't even make it to slaughter, so there really is no way to make this dish humane. It is inherently cruel.
Simply wrong. Geese normally store huge quantities of fat in their livers prior to migration; it's their fuel for covering those long distances without feeding. A fatty liver in geese is completely normal, as is geese seasonally gorging themselves.
Wrong. Wrong for birds at any rate, you'd have a point for mammals. But ducks aren't mammals, are they? All migratory birds have the ability to fatten up their livers in preparation for flying thousands of miles. They do this by gorging on food during the pre-migratory months.
Someone figured out they could fatten up their livers any time of the year by force-feeding, instead of waiting for particular times of year when they would do so naturally.
The person who thought of this ideal should be banned. Were they sitting on a farm one day wondering what would happen if they overfed their ducks and geese? What lunacy!
Gavage has been practiced for several thousand years; the ancient Egyptians were particularly noted for it, although it also appears in Greece and Roman culture and in several others, where it was developed independently. Geese do this normally; they gorge themselves prior to migration, and preferentially store the fat in their liver as food.
No. Someone noticed that goose liver harvested around the start of goose migration was mighty, mighty tasty and gorged with fat. Several thousand years ago, this was exploited as a routine part of animal husbandry in a variety of cultures, including ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece as well as Asia.
I don't know why everyone is only focusing on the issue of force-feeding because that's not even the cruelest aspect of the dish. Foie gras means fatty liver, in other words DISEASED liver. Have you ever seen someone with organ failure and how much they had to suffer? Well, that's what the ducks have to experience and they don't get the luxury of medical treatment because that's the goal, to make their liver diseased. In just a few weeks time, their livers swell up to 10 times their normal size. This makes it difficult for the birds to walk, move, or even breathe. In fact, many of them become so sick, they don't even make it to slaughter.
Well, no. Geese naturally store fat in their livers, and gorge themselves seasonally prior to migration; the stored fat is their fuel for the long distance flight. Producers are simply exploiting a fact of goose physiology. There's nothing 'diseased' about it.
Let's just ban everything that any special interest group objects to! That will solve all of our problems!
*sarcasm alert*
Way to give up, nb! That's how to rep the USA!
*sarcasm alert over*
I belong to the People Having Air To Survive. Our goal is to keep stupid people from breathing. Dingus
People Having Air To Really Survive
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a *real* useful invention.
Let's start with banning all special interest groups first!
Let's shove a tube down your throat ......have any special interest in that ?
Only if it makes his liver fatty and delicious...
Yes, it just may.
Foie Gras should be a passe as eating the ortolan bunting. There is no reason to do it.
You should try some before offering such an uninformed opinion.
Really? Do you know the culinary process for making foie gras? Do you know the ritual of eating an ortolan bunting? Yes, I do. Both are unnecessary sources of food. That is the problem with some French cooking = the delusion that bad ingredients can be made into a delicacy. Let me force feed a duck or a goose an obscene amount of corn until the liver is sufficiently fattened..... Seriously? Something good is going to come out of that first step? How about you eat Alpo instead? As for the ortolan, it is illegal for a reason and should stay that way.
This is worse than the #2 Bush Administration. I just can't keep up with all this narrow-minded idiocy.
Have a Heart Lewis...
That is all.
Take notes.
This is a disgusting practice, but speak with your dollars. We have enough worthless laws already. You don't like it then don't eat it.
Completely agree that the market should decide. Veal, for example, is increasingly rare; it is quite difficult to find it in most meat departments, where it was once common. This isn't the result of a ban or excessive regulation; it's simply a matter of the public choosing not to buy it anymore.
Disagree that the practice is disgusting. Some may not care for it, but they likely wouldn't care to hear how the rest of their meat is produced, either.
Ever had foie gras? It's freaking delicious and expensive. A dangerous combination in this country.
"Amazing " is right, how can we be so stupid / naive to give so much power to the fed. gov. or state to legislate what we should or should not eat? Where is it going to stop? Nobody's forcing anybody to eat or not eat what he/she does not like, yet!!! Governments like to control people, they've done it ever since we've been on this planet, so watch out!!! Don't give up your rights / freedoms, and don't let your gov. decide for you. People are and should be more important then animals...
Dude, you are thinking like a Terran, not a Vegan. Remember, Terrans are the bane of Mother Earth. Terrans need to go. This is the end goal of the Vegans. Humanity is a cancer that must be removed from their Disney version of Earth.
One can have duck and goose liver pate or liver in general, every day of the week without force-feeding. If a duck or goose gorges itself prior to flight and we intercept it in time to get the fatty liver, great - enjoy the fois gras. Force-feeding for the purpose of getting the fatty liver is not natural, hence, it's cruel. I say let's let things happen naturally, let the price of fois gras trend high like gold and let's leave the pricier "organic" fois gras to those who want to afford it.
Nearly everything about our agriculture is not "natural." Otherwise we would be hunter-gatherers.
Uh – there is nothing AT ALL about agriculture that is "natural". By it's very nature, agriculture is completely outside the natural realm.
All u people. Just stop this nonsense. Just stop eating meat.
How about you stop the nonsense, telling others what to do!!!
I will cannot, will not eat your green eggs and ham sam i am.
NO WAY! I love me a nice prime rib anyday. Give up meat? Fuggedaboutit.
Why not include sheep, bovines, horses, dogs, cats and all animals. They suffer greatly when they are killed so we can eat. When you worry more about animals than poor people you have a problem.
Not all death is suffering, I mean compared to living on a factory farm death is merciful. That's why I eat meat to help bring a merciful end to all those poor suffering animals. And cause they're tasty.
I had foie gras when I was in Paris.....it was delicious......haven't had it since...
Animal Rights activists are just trying to duck the real issues. What a bunch of quacks.
Yes, I agree. Hopefully, they will not do anything to run afoul of the law.
I LOVE foie gras. Don't ban it. It's too yummy!
Agreed. Don't ban abortion either; I rather enjoy the taste of human fetus. I love to eat animals.
I agree! Don't ban abortions either!
Odd that animal rights activists complain about force feeding the ducks as detrimental to their health but say nothing about what is actually detrimental, the harvesting of the liver by executing the duck. Personally I think that Foie gras tastes like sh!t and suspect that the only reason most people eat it is because it's billed as high end cuisine.
So, you know what shit tastes like or you think you know what foie gras tastes like?
Eye of the beholder... There are many ways to prepare foie gras. To my palette some are divine, heavenly even. Others are so disgusting that I can't choke it down.
Maybe you've just never had "good" foie gras?
Hey a $ $ hole, cargocult F8G!
Animal rights activists DO oppose meat consumption and the harvesting of the liver itself. Fck you. Go spread misinformation and anti-ARA lies somewhere else.
They say that this is detrimental to their health? More detrimental than ultimately killing them? They're raised just to die for pete's sake!
You boil a frog 1 degree at a time so it won't jump out of the pot. You start out banning something small and then you work up to the big things. One lie at a time, until we're living like the Matrix with the dead reprocessed and fed as nutrients to us as we live in our little pods.
That was a film. This is real life.
Lies. This is really a film.
Yes, ban it. It's full of fat and calories. We must protect the wealthy from poor food choices the way they want to protect us by outlawing Happy Meals.
This made me chuckle
'...detremental to the health and well-being..." OMG, that is hilarious. it is going to be killed and eaten.
"... detrimental to their health and well-being ..." I think slaughtering them to eat them is detrimental to their health and well-being, as is the case for all animals, and plants as well. And how about all those yeast cells we kill every time we bake a loaf of bread? Baking bread is definitely detrimental to their health and well-being.
Kinda feel bad for the ducks/ geese, but is it really much worse treatment than any other factory farmed animal? I predict CA will be the first state to become entirely vegan.
I don't live in the U.S. but it's interesting to see how you let your government take your liberties away one by one.
This is nothing to do with liberty, dumbass. It's cruelty to animals. You're gonna raise it to kill it one day, you should treat it well at least. doy.
Yup. Assault rifles are perfectly OK, but no foie gras! Keep watching, you haven't even begun to see how screwy America is going to get.
Oh my, you've obviously never applied for a firearm license in this country have you? If you don't want to carry the burden of protecting yourself by observing the 2nd amendment of this great countries constitution, so be it, but don't act like it's as easy to get a firearm as it is to buy a pack of cigarettes.
Actually, in some states its easier to buy a gun than a pack of cigarettes!
I support the Second Amendment yet oppose cruelty to animals. Fck you a $ $ hole. I hope you get r a p e d in your sh** country due to a lack of firearms for self-defense. Die F*G!
So what's your point Shirley?
I love the pic on this article. Yes Ban!
PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.
Wow. How original.
To be clear, foie gras is not banned – foie gras made by force feeding a duck or goose through a tube is. Those who defend the practice by stating that waterfowl naturally overeat should set up a gravity feed system that allows the ducks to eat as much as they want whenever they want. If it works – voila! Foie gras. If it doesn't, maybe they should come up with a different argument. I also don't get why opponents have had 7 years to do something about the ban but waited until the 11th hour. Conversely, these misguided souls who think causing pain to an animal is wrong but have no qualms about threatening human life need to figure out which species they belong to. Horse meat was banned in California in 1998 and no one did a thing about it; the shark fin ban passed this year without a violent uprising by a single chef (Chinese or otherwise). Either we roll over and let the state have the final say on what we can or can't eat, or we come up with an ethical, sustainable way to prove we can have our foie gras and eat it too. Reminds me of Martin Niemöller's "First They Came" ...
I can't speak for all duck farms everywhere, but the one I toured was vastly different ones I'd seen on youtube. No isolation cages, no restricted movement. Just large, open pens that the workers waded through, catching each duck individually and feeding. Yes, at first the feeding tube seemed cruel, but then you have to remember that ducks and humans, birds and mammals, are not built the same way. The ducks do not appear to be in any distress or pain during or after feeding. They largely don't seem to care anymore than they would if they were just being caught and released (sans the feeding). The birds appeared healthy, plumage was clean (a sure sign of a distressed or diseased bird is unkempt feathers), no motility or breathing issues.
I can't say that they overall looked as content as ducks on a lake somewhere, but that's the breaks for farm-raised food.
Look, think of it this way – it's in the best interest of the farmers to have healthy, content animals. You aren't allowed to put diseased animals into the food supply, and a dead duck won't be sent for slaughter. Dead, diseased, or stressed animals are a direct hit to the bottom line. Yes, there will always be losses, maybe at a higher rate than had they all been running free in the wild. But then a lot of them would also have met untimely and messy ends at the tooth and claw of a predator, to diseases in the wild, or to starvation. Really, I don't see why people get so bent out of shape about *reasonably* operated factory farms, because the "wild" alternative is a lot friggin harsher.
Save a duck! Eat a vegan. I prefer mine medium-rare peppered with a zesty lemon sauce.
Nah. No sauce can mask that bitter taste of self-righteousness that Vegans are infused with.
Braunschweiger !!
Romans used to force-feed geese (and those even saved Rome, warning the defenders against invaders).
Geese and Ducks force-feed themselves, as they will eat until nothing remains (put geese in a stone field and you'll see).
The problem is not Foie Gras or gavage, the problem is "How much suffering are we willing to inflict on animals that stand completely helpless before us?" With that logic, there will be no more meat or any animal by-product (egg, milk...).
I am already annoyed when the FDA decides what I can eat or not, and how I can eat it... but when activists try to force-feed me with their "approved and acceptable food", they are restraining my freedom and beliefs. Minorities should not restrain everyone to their beliefs, and pressure politicians to their interests.
Like that stupid recent New York law removing many "offensive" (like “birthday”) words from school tests, a line must be drawn to prevent all those groups to force-feed us their beliefs and restrict our lives to the lowest common denominator... which is NOTHING, as surely everything in this universe is offensive for at least one sub-group beliefs.
If you are against Foie Gras..fine. But why ruin it for the rest of us who like it.
Have you been to the Cinco de Mayo thread? H8in's seems to be the trend today.
Why, if you like it so much, go to where they force feed ducks and see if you come away still hankerin' for that crap.
$10 says you won't eat it ever again.
OK..send me my $10.
Ban forcefeeding, Ban McDonald's
But then where would we find jobs?
somebody should sign that stupid duck who sells insurance up for this feeding program.
Fox News force feeds bullsh!t to the little teabaggies all day long. And they lap it up.
Imagine what THEIR livers must taste like.
Ha ha. LOL
step and fetch it dancin' little demmie.
davey -> *poot*
Ever notice all ducks wear dog masks as a bill?
I brought a duck to dinner the other day for it's birthday. The thing stuck me with the bill. Do you believe that?
A duck will kill you as soon look at you... they deserve what's coming to them...
I'm not down with the force feeding. Ducks are meant to be shot in flight, not tied down and force feed. That's for....well, I shall refrain from using the word.
*fed
So shooting them in flight is less painful?
SAVE THE LIVER.....
danny- is it really you???