Foie gras laws causing a flap with California chefs
May 4th, 2012
09:30 AM ET
Share this on:

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.

San Francisco-based chef and restaurateur Chris Cosentino is one of the most outspoken voices opposing the looming ban on foie gras. “Foie is low hanging fruit for attack,” he says. “It’s very frustrating as chefs and producers to be so lambasted.”

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.

Posted by:
Filed under: Animal Rights • Foie Gras • Food Politics


soundoff (342 Responses)
  1. Rodzilla

    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.

    May 17, 2012 at 3:39 am |
  2. DB

    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!

    May 12, 2012 at 1:56 am |
  3. Ryan in Texas

    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.

    May 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • justme

      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.

      May 8, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
1 2 3
Pinterest
 
| Part of
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,398 other followers