|
In cooking, the process of clarification entails straining out extraneous muck from liquids so that they might be pure, clear and ideal for consumption. With this series on food terminology and issues we're attempting to do the same. It takes two hours to get to Hudson Valley Foie Gras from New York City, but it only takes two seconds on-premise to see the looming foie gras ban in California has ruffled Izzy Yanay’s feathers. “It looks horrible and has a French name – which is already a very bad thing. Nobody needs to eat foie gras and it’s very expensive, so it’s a very easy target,” said Yanay. Yanay is the General Manager and Vice President of Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Ferndale, New York. The 200-acre farm is the premier producer of foie gras in the United States, and provides the controversial delicacy to top chefs like Thomas Keller and Jean-Georges Vongerichten. In 2004, California passed a law that gave the foie gras industry an eight-year grace period - until July 2012 - to figure out an alternative to force-feeding waterfowl. The bill, SB 1520, was written by Democrat John Burton. “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. For the sake of animals and the Californians who care about them, we should simply celebrate that the 7 1/2 years of waiting is almost over,” said Burton in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed. With the July 1 deadline less than a month away, foie gras enthusiasts are scrambling for a repeal. Part of that effort includes transparency by foie gras producers, by urging skeptics and supporters alike to witness the process first-hand. “If you are so concerned, come and see it for yourself. You draw your own conclusions,” said Yanay. Taking his advice, here’s what I found during a recent site visit: All the ducks at Hudson Valley are Moulard male, a hybrid of male Muscovy and female Pekin ducks. The farm sends its female ducklings to Trinidad to be raised for meat because the males produce a fattier, and thus more profitable, liver. This all-male practice follows the standards of the Comité Interprofessionnel des Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, a trade association that represents France’s professionals in the “fattened poultry sector.” “The limiting of the appellation of duck ‘Foie Gras’ to fattened male ducks only, [is] in keeping with tradition but also to improve quality,” said the association. At three months old, the ducks are transferred from the free-feeding barns where they were hatched and matured to pens where their force-feeding regimen will begin. Hudson Valley Foie Gras advertises its products as “cage-free.” Under USDA regulations, cage-free does not mean the birds have access to the outdoors, but that they can freely roam within a confined area. Cage-free is not synonymous with free-range. Here, approximately 11 ducks are stored in each four-by-six-foot, open-topped pen. The force-feeding procedure, known as “gavage,” involves holding the duck by the neck and dropping pellets of food into what’s known as the duck’s “crop” by a tube. The crop is located in the lower neck area of the duck and is essentially a storage tank for food. During this stage of production, the ducks are force-fed 10 to 12 ounces of pellets, three times a day. The pellets are a mixture of corn, soybean, oatmeal and added vitamins and minerals. Each feeding lasts approximately 12 seconds, and is done by the same feeder every day for a maximum of 21 days. “They’re fed by the same person because they’re more relaxed and under less stress,” said Dr. Lawrence W. Bartholf, a veterinarian on-site during the foie farm tour. Bartholf works independently from the farm, but does often accompany visitors on farm tours and is a New York State Veterinary Medical Society spokesman for the Hudson Valley. He was compensated for accompanying the tour. At the time of the feeding, the ducks huddled to the corner away from the feeder. After their turn on the feeding tube, they waddled – seemingly unperturbed – away. “It’s a non-event for these birds because their esophagus is not sensitive like ours. Their esophagus is flexible enough and durable enough that it would tolerate a struggling fish and all its spines,” said Bartholf. However, animal-rights activists lambast these claims and staunchly assert that force-feeding is inhumane. “Most injuries caused by tissue damage during handling or tube insertion would result in pain. The oropharyngeal area is particularly sensitive and is physiologically adapted to perform a gag reflex in order to prevent fluids entering the trachea. Force feeding will have to overcome this reflex and hence the birds may initially find this distressing and injury may result,” advised the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW). Before each feeding, the handlers palpate the duck’s throat for the presence of pellets; if they feel the last meal, they will skip the next feeding because the bird didn’t digest the last meal. If pellets are detected, the bird is marked with a blue dot. Eight hours later, if pellets are still felt in the marked bird at the next feeding, this means the bird has reached its genetic potential for liver size, and it goes to the abattoir, or slaughterhouse. At the slaughterhouse, the ducks are shocked with electrified water to stun them so that they are rendered unconscious. From there, their throats are slit to allow all the blood to drain from the animal. “The heart has to continue beating so when the throat is cut, blood pumps out for a time. This is standard in all animal slaughter, although some religious customs preclude stunning. We are not comfortable with that. The bird has to be alive at the point where the throat is cut so the blood pumps out,” said Marcus Henley, the operations manager of Hudson Valley Foie Gras. “Blood left in the animal will cause spoilage and an animal not properly bled will be identified and rejected by the USDA inspectors. After stunning, the birds never feel pain and do not wake up,” he continued. Waterbath stunning is a common practice in the poultry industry. From there, the birds are cleaned, plucked and frozen overnight. The next day, the ducks are butchered for the foie gras and the other parts of duck Hudson Valley distributes - like the legs, thighs, breasts and fat. While the ban in California has become highly publicized, the state is certainly not the first to move forward with such legislation: The production of foie gras is currently prohibited in more than a dozen countries, including Israel, Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) also does not support the practice. “The production of fatty liver for foie gras however raises serious animal welfare issues and it is not a practice that is condoned by FAO,” states the organization. When asked why the ducks would not overfeed themselves naturally, Bartholf said ducks rely on external stimuli for three events: “egg-laying, migration and getting ready for a period of starvation.” In the controlled environment of the farm, ducks don’t have these natural triggers. In a recent TED talk, Dan Barber spotlighted a Spanish chef, Eduardo Sousa, who is raising geese for foie gras without force feeding - allowing them to feed freely off his farm’s land and slaughtering the birds right before migration, when the animals have naturally fattened up their livers. No farm in the United States has successfully replicated this practice and thus, they still rely on force-feeding. Despite the almost certain probability that the ban will go in effect on July 1, Yanay is convinced the force behind force-feeding will prevail, and the ban will ultimately be overturned. “We’re going to win. Trust me, we’re going to win,” said Yanay. Editor's Note: Eatocracy visited Hudson Valley Foie Gras as a guest of D'Artagnan, a vendor of the farm's foie gras. |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
I'm definetly a carnivore but that just goes way too far. I see nothing wrong with eating meat but you don't need to tortcher the poor things.
Had a foie gras and horse bologna grilled cheese sandwich in Brooklyn a few weeks ago. DEE-LISH!
Look around you, people! Fat Americans everywhere! Over half of us are overweight. That means there are many, many fatty livers out there. Livers regenerate. Just a little shock........a quick and deft incision....slice a third of a liver off, feed the family faux gras........six weeks later you're ready to repeat the process. Why bother the poor ducks.
They are born to be fed and killed. Would it be better not to be born? Sounds too deep a discussion for a duck.
Read the article. See the farm. This is NOT torture, and there is no discomfort for either the ducks or the feeders.
And Foie Gras is delicious.
It's good to be king of the food chain.
Quack quack quack. Quack. Quack. Ow! Ow! Ow! Quaaaaaaaaackk!
You're an eff ing IDIOT.
If you live a life of fear and possible torture, than maybe it is better not to be born. There's nothing great about being the king of the food chain if you have no compassion toward the creatures we sacrifice for our culinary pleasures. To me, that makes us lower on the chain, in terms of our sense of humanity and morality.
Is it more compassionate to eat all the parts of the animal that has given his life to sustain yours or to throw away the parts that you simply find (in your own personal opinion which are no better than anybody elses) objectionable?
So we would torture them to enlarge their livers to justify eating that particular part? I guess I don't understand your logic, sorry.
@Hi, first off you have to actually believe they are being tortured. That was the part about having an opinion. As the observer/reporter noted "After their turn on the feeding tube, they waddled – seemingly unperturbed – away." I can't find any part of the definition of torture being applied to these birds. I don't think they are being hurt if they waddle away seeminly unperturbed. It's more likely that dairy cows are being subjected to actual torture. I don't think the birds are being treated with any less respect than any other animal destined to be on someone's dinner table.
How many people opposed to foie gras will eat an economy chicken from the grocery store? Foie Gras ducks have it so much better than chickens in tiny cages. Lets start focusing on the real problems and let the foie gras farmers raising free range ducks be..
They are food for crying out loud. Who cares how they are fed or how they live as long as they taste good in the end.
Apparently the three countries that have banned the practice and the legislators in California.
lets figure out a way to painlessly slaughter cow, and make sure the slaughtered chickens and ducks think they are heading for better place before you kill them.... why process matter? you are killing them to EAT at the end, unless you are vegen, BUT HEY, vegetables are a FORM OF LIFE AS WELL, because vegetable cant make a sound doesnt mean they are not in pain when you cut them into your salad bowl!
wow,this comment has to take the cake as far as ignorance and cruelty is concerned.I could try and educate you but of course,you probably think you're the cat's meow so I won't even bother wasting my time.But that comment on the vegetables "feeling pain"??you really showed the world your 2-digit IQ on that one.Vegetables and plants have no central nervous system and therefore CANNOT FEEL PAIN,you ignorant sub-specimen!' nuff said...
Hey YT, I don't think your comment is ignorant at all. Here's an interesting read: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?pagewanted=all
We are a land of gluttony.
I can't believe all the ridiculous comments. I'm off to make some toast and have some fois gras for my breakfast!
If I did not already disagree with the process of gavage, and therefore avoid foie gras, after reading the arrogant, ignorant quotes from Mr. Yanay from the Hudson Valley, this would surely sway me to avoid ESPECIALLY foie gras from his facility. First, why would the fact that a product is of French origin deter consumers? The French are responsible for some of the finest cuisine in the world. I'm willing ot be that Mr. Yanay has either never held a conversation with a French person in French (thereby showing a willingness to truly understand others) or visited France where he would've learned what warm, welcoming people the French are. And second, how can Yanay possibly know if gavage hurts the ducks, does he speak duck, too?
Agreed; I noticed that too. And of course, it behooves him to say that it doesn't hurt the ducks, since he's the one in the foie gras business.
"First, why would the fact that a product is of French origin deter consumers?" – Because in the USA we all know that stupid people would rather eat Freedom Fries and say the French are bad (those same people can only use three letter words.) Mr. Yanay did not say anything at about his his opions of the French, only about what common Americans think. Indeed he respects the process that is derived by the French as the classic method to use.
Someone needs to engineer an ultra addictive food product for ducks. That way, they can fatten themselves up without the scrutiny of animal cruelty. Fact is, we raise farm animals so we can eat them. Sympathizing for the animals then eating them doesn't seem to fit well together.
If we're going to eat them, we can at least make their lives as cruelty-free as possible. No need to torture your meat before eating it.
are you saying we should not put a knife into the chicken or beef before we eat them? the killing process isnt painful?
I did not say that at all, yt. Not sure why you're trying to speak for me.
yt, sorry, my reply came off as peevish and I apologize for that. I misread your comment and replied too fast, sorry. I think the killing process can be made as quick and painless as possible. Temple Grandin is an animal specialist that works to make the slaughter process humane, so the animals don't panic or feel anything. Ideally, we could grow meat in a lab and not worry about it, LOL, but it's unrealistic to think that either people will give up meat (so we don't have to worry about slaughter) or will eat "artificial" meat.
There is a crucial fact missing here: What percentage of ducks die as a result of Hudson's 28-day force feeding regime before its time to slaughter them? I'd like to see some hard numbers and I suspect that number is very high.
Good question, plus what's going on at other places that produce foie gras? This article centers on Hudson Valley in what sounds like a single controlled visit.
I'm confused. What's the question? They're FORCE FEEDING an animal to fatten it up. How is there any ambiguity about whether this is cruel? Let's not pose questions that have obvious answers to give ourselves the opportunity to justify cruelty. Is it cruel to FORCE an animal to fight with another animal because it makes us money? How about FORCING an animal to do tricks for us because it makes us laugh? Just because overweight, indulgent Americans like the taste of something doesn't mean we should find a way to justify the patent cruelty associated with it. Compassion should always outweigh profit and gluttony.
Meh... whatever. The French obviously love it, too... and the animals are going to be slaughtered anyways. Next...
How enlightened. We should use the same justification for abusing children and other people. Meh we're all going to die anyway.
Seriously meh...I agree. Its a frikkin duck and will be slaughtered for food anyway. There are bigger issues to deal with.If this really were the biggest issue facing our country we should all be so lucky.
wish I could "thumbs up" some of these answers. Urban dwellers have such a misperception of animals and completely over-personificate them. I don't see how the force feeding process for ducks can compare to abusing children. We force children to go to the dentist and get vaccines also – is that abuse? I force my horse to stand still while being shod, and my dog has to sit even when she doesn't want to. Is that abuse? If I could force feed my goat to help her gain weight I would. Seriously, feeding a duck pellets they would not normally eat on their on is NOT abuse! Stunning an animal to slaughter it humanly is NOT abuse. I don't get why animal activists are out to put an end to all animal production! I will continue to raise and eat my ducks, chickens, eggs, cows, etc. I feel sorry for everyone whose opportunity to do so is becoming more and more limited because a fraction of the population thinks we should treat animals like little people.
torylynn, I grew up on a farm and I consider myself an animal advocate. I'm not sure why people who are interested in the welfare of animals are often termed "city dwellers" or "urbanites." All I'm asking is that if we're going to eat meat, we try to make the short lives of this animals as cruelty-free as possible. Surely you can't disagree with that? Also, you're comparing apples to oranges. Horses have to have their feet worked on for their own health. Children need medical care. Training your dog to sit gives him/her good manners and makes life safer and more pleasant for everyone. If your goat is starving, sure you're going to force feed it to save its life. Ducks do not require over-feeding to be healthy or to live, unless they're ramping up for migration, which, unlike having a pipe shoved down their throats, is a natural phenomenon.
Do you really think that this food started here in the States? Seriously? Read the name of it again, and then please sound it out. Use your words. Now ... after we have THAT settled, why are you so quick to make sure we treat animals humanely? They aren't humans, and we should worry about people first, and let animals be food. Like they are in nature. You are complaining about their poor diet conditions before they become dinner? Wow.
For me, if there's any doubt that cruelty is involved, it's just not worth it. There's so much debate about this and no one can seem to prove that this can be done humanely, let alone done humanely on a large scale. It's just not worth doing it if everyone is confused about whether or not it's humane. It certainly doesn't sound humane or look humane. My feeling is, we overweight Americans don't need another hunk of food on our plate, especially a luxury item for which possibly animals have to endure unusual suffering for us to "enjoy."
For me, if there's any doubt that cruelty is involved, it's just not worth it. There's so much debate about this and no one can seem to prove that this can be done humanely, let alone done humanely on a large scale. It's just not worth doing it if everyone is confused about whether or not it's humane. It certainly doesn't sound humane or look humane. My feeling is, we overweight Americans don't need another hunk of food on our plate, especially a luxury item for which possibly animals have to endure unusual suffering for us to "enjoy."
Mitts–seriously? You think because you think it's bad it must be solely American? No other country in the WORLD does anything you would consider bad, it's just those stupid, evil Americans, right? The great thing about being American is that you get to have that uniformed opinion. And those who want to eat fois gras, can eat fois gras–because it's not all about you.
I agree Truth. I grew up in the country surrounded by farmers and hunters for almost all my life. It does not mean I do not care for animal welfare, if anything, I feel I care MORE for animals being raised around livestock. Foie gras is one food we can do without. And you CAN kill an animal humanely. Decapitation is quick, cutting major arteries is quick. And read Temple Grandin's work. She CREATES slaughtering pens for cattle, for goodness sake, and yet she is one of the best authorities today on animal welfare.
These are animals that feed us. We SHOULD respect the life that nourishes our own. And look around and online. Not one veterinarian I have worked for approved of foie gras production. It's a despicable practice that should end. And I'm sick of that absurd rhetoric that "we have more to worry about". This world is not a zero-sum game. You can care about human rights abuses in Cuba and at the same time care about where you diamonds come from, or how pigs are slaughtered and all at the same time.
I beat my chicken night after night. Is that considered foul play?
The proper term is "choke;" you choke your chicken, you don't beat it. You beat your meat.
The pictures that accompany the article are the most sanitized photos of foie gras production I've ever seen! Begin with the fact that female ducks are not used because their livers are too veiny and therefore not silky smooth. The female ducks are killed, not sold to other buyers. The two main ways that the hours-old hatchlings are killed is either being gassed or suffocated in black trash bags, or ground up alive. (Male chicks on egg-producing farms are ground up alive too – what's left is used for fertilizer.) Their living conditions look absolutely nothing like that clean tidy open space shown in the pictures – they are crammed together and living on top of their own feces – the smell of ammonia can be overwhelming. They always seem to like to show ducks being force-fed that are at the earliest stages of the process. In a short number of weeks these ducks will look vastly differently – they will look and act sick (their liver is being made non-functioning as it fills with fat up to 10 times its normal size), they can't preen and groom themselves so their feathers will look pitiful, some will no longer be able to walk because their weight has increased so much, and some will die before they are slaughtered. In fact, many will die. Foie gras production has the highest mortality rate of animal animal farming.
OK. I guess the most humane thing we can do is NOT EAT any living thing. RIght..........
You're ridiculous. So the ONLY way you can eat is by eating some animal that's been literally tortured to death? If this is true, humans should just kill themselves now and do the universe a favor. I'm not even anti-eating animals, but there are plenty of ways to raise and slaughter animals without TORTURING them.
so if they grind up the female chicks and they grind up the male chicks......what the h@#! is the meat in my duck lo-mein?!?!?!
Cat.
Dur. This is like asking, Is it OK to sexually abuse children? Society has acknowledged for decades the cruel process of creating this product. Why even bother having an article on it? Oh – b/c of the idiot responders we see here who somehow think there's something wrong with you if you think this is cruel. And btw – no – I don't eat animal products. So get that judgmental head out of your bu&$.
You're actually comparing force-feeding ducks with sexually abusing children? You sick, perverted, steaming pile of duck entrails. You're a filthy, amoral, pile of goat phlegm.
So ... you are a vegan? Sorry, most normal people I know do not listen to the likes of you. Therefore, your entire comment is most likely wrong, so I should naturally infer the opposite. Bring on the tasty pate ...
Most "NORMAL" people....I didn't know there was such thing as normal. You're a good example of not being "normal"...
Read your statement again. ... And then change your screen name.
It does not take much of a social conscience not to eat something I cannot afford anyway.
I would just like to point out that not all foie gras is produced with gavage. The traditional method might say that you need gavage, but it's not necessary.
This is just wrong. As I am a minority, if you do not agree then you hate black women.
You a racist
FANTASTIC!!!!!
This is just wrong. As I am a minority, if you do not agree then you are a sexest racist.
No problem with anything here. I hate liver. Gizzards.... yumm!
Yet another example of what a brutal, stupid, unethical, piggish creature man is. Mankind is destroying the flora and fauna of he Earth. That's a fact. Not even talking about Global Warming, although the Industrial Revolution has THOROUGHLY exacerbated and natural warming trends. I'm talking about loss of habitat (which hurts us, too), species extinction (which hurts us too, since, say, some species are critical in keeping other species in check), animal cruelty (If you claim to be Christian, and you eat this stuff...then you are in defiance of the Bible), etc. Really disgusting, right up there with veal.
Yes... good points about many. Time for nukes to solve the issue.
Not on my menu. Under Obama I now eat Ramen helper.
Too bad for you. Under Obama, I eat steak. Under Repubs, I ate hot pockets.
God just told me he hates you as you love to perform abortions.
You sir.....are ignorant.
Geese are NOT endangered, and they are happy as could be waddling up to be fed and have the food kindly massaged dsown their throats. Further, since you are complaining humans strip the "flora" from the planet, what exactly do you eat? Not carnivore, not herbivore.....do you sustain yourself on the white-paste nutritional suppliment they used in "The Matrix"???
And you think HE'S ignorant?!
You do realize that pigs are rather piggish, but you sure seem to love them a lot.
To Eric: You are a d o u c h e! : )
And you're extinct.
I thought your bible said that you were able to use all of the plants and animals as you saw fit. Didn't your creator put them here for your entertainment? I am pretty sure that's in the first part. What do you propose we do to be in better harmony with our environment? We have to eat. And ... animals are made out of food.
Reading through the comments shows that most people have no idea what they are talking about. The best, and most common way to eat the liver is to cut the duck open and eat it when it is alive. Then you wring its neck. You take the day's ducks and sell them to the Chinese joint down the street for Peking Duck. Only the defective ducks are make into Foie Gras bricks. Learn.
A good solution would be to not allow the constant feeding of the ducks. However, if you were allowed to cut their legs off and sell them for cooking, you could keep the duck growing and not have to have fencing. This would allow for less cost of raising ducks, allow them to be bigger as they could not run and exercise, and they would be much easier to catch. I would think that the legs from younger ducks would be very good. Just a thought.
North Korea refuses to import Foie Gras.
Are you sure that's not because the North Korean regime just makes pate out of dissenters' livers?
That's because the ducks make the Kim family look short.
Boy George has said many times that he tastes much better than Foie Gras and many Vegans come to him to show their support for banning Foie Gras.
Isn't this the same as putting fertilizer on vegtables without their permission? It is force feeding in a way.
And if you get too much fertilizer on one plant, it can damage the plant. This may cause distress and may cause pain.
I tried to have a duck farm. However, they kept dying. I sent a soil sample to the Dept. of Agriculture and they said there was no problem with the soil so I must have been planting them upside down.
It must be remembered that those who do not eat meat often use semen on their vegetables to provide a source of protein. This has been a boon for fund raising by local priests.
The only semen that is in use in your house either going down your mouth or up your rear end.
Those who are vegetarians are cowards and killers. At least the birds can bite you. However, you vegans kill the defensless vegetables who have been proven to feel pain and scream when you pull them from the ground. What is next for you? Child molesters as the kids cannot protect themselves? If Obama had a son he would not be a vegan. He would be chewing on duck FG.
I love it, will continue to eat it. If you don't like it, then don't eat it. No one has the right to tell others what they can or cannot eat.
Want to save an animal? Then bag an activist!
SHUT IT DOWN!
Why? If you don't like it, don't eat it. But why should your uninformed opinion have any impact on other people? You already stated you couldn't manage to read the whole article, so why should anyone assume that you know what you are talking about?
That's so disgusting. I couldn't read the article and got sick. I can't understand being a person who can torture animals that way. That's so depressing.
If you didn't read the article how do you know what it said?
I tend to view our treatment of animals to how we treat our pets or our friends and family. Would I want to see someone grab my cat, shove food forcefully down his throat, and keep him in a pen with ten of his doomed buddies until the time for slaughter arrives? No. Then why are we doing this to these beautiful birds? For necessary food to feed the starving masses? No. We do this because haughty chefs and "traditional purists" deem it necessary. There is a Spanish farmer who produces prize winning "foie gras" from birds that enjoy their free-range, olive and fig eating lives so much that they call wild geese from the skies to join their flock. If we must murder animals in the name of food and human pleasure, can't we at least give them some of the same during their short lives?
It's a bird, not a cat. Birds are designed differently than mammals. Birds have a rigid throat and gullets, unlike mammals. People need to learn some anatomy. It causes no harm to the animal at all.
Shawn, I don't think an accurate picture is being portrayed here. According to another website I found online: "The mortality rate on foie gras farms is up to 20 times higher than the death rate on conventional duck farms. Birds used in foie gras production often die when the metal feeding tubes puncture their necks, when their stomachs literally "burst" from the enormous volume of food they are forced to ingest and when force-feeding overfills them to the point of suffocation. "
I disagree. I would think the mortality rate on both farms would be somewhere around 100%.
The "harm" that comes to the animal is a result of it being made out of food. We, being the top of the food chain, are allowed to fatten up animals before we eat them. It may not be "humane", but humane actions should be reserved for humans. At least the duck ate well during it's life. Life in the wild is rough. Some animals starve to death out there ...
So you think it's okay to be cruel to animals? Okay to hit puppies? Tear kittens apart? By your logic, humane actions and compassion are only reserved for humans. How'd you arrive at that? That's sad, if that's what you truly believe.
We are monsters.
Maybe when we finally make contact with ET, they will treat us the same way.
If you are a monster, then use a silver bullet on yourself and do society a favor.
I have met aliens, and they did treat me the same way. Only they put their tubes in a different hole.
Best post of the thread. Well done!
It is basically a diseased liver, plain and simple. Livers filter everything in the body, so you are just eating multiple doses of toxins.
Actually it's not a diseased liver. Ducks and geese naturally develop this fatty liver just before the migration season to sustain them on the journey.
While I don't agree with force feeding (which simply fattens the liver quicker than natural), I have no trouble with the farmers who use natural means to produce their foie.
I cannot wait until the day these sadistic scum, bags are slaughtered and then force-fed to the ducks! Then justice will be served!!! MEAT IS MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DUCKS DO NOT EAT FISH IN NATURE!!! Therefore the esophagus or any other part of their anatomy is not adapted for dealing with "a struggling fish and all its spines." If Dr, Bartholf wants to call himself a veterinarian, he should know that ducks normally feed on aquatic plants and invertebrates. This is a rather shocking level of ornithological ignorance coming from someone claiming to have knowledge of these birds.
ducks do eat fish
Some ducks eat fish. Wild Muscovy ducks and mallards (the wild ancestors of Pekin ducks) do not.
Sam's comment is valid.
Of course they eat fish and other small animals. See (for one source): http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/reg2010/Muscovy%20Duck%20Final%20Rule%201%20March%202010.pdf
To be fair, he didn't say they eat fish. He was describing how flexible their throats are. Although I agree that using a fish to describe this is implying they would eat fish.
You are a liar. I have ducks in my pond which help keep the fish population down after spawning.
Why don't you all eat roadkill? It's a dead animal. Yummy.
http://www.road-kill-cafe.com/roadkill.html
here you go. Road kill is good eats
It's also how Bob gets his wearable fur and the honor of being known as the "Roadkill Fashionista".
Let's see what it feels like. Let me hold you down and force feed you to see what it feels like.
How do mother birds feed their babies? Sticking their beak down the babies esophagus. No nerves.
That is how I feed my wife every night in bed.
See what it feels like? Do you realize that this equation ends with the duck on a dinner plate, so are you suggesting to take it that far? Or that we just need to treat them better before we cut them into pieces and cook them? Keep in mind that ducks are FOOD. Debating how you treat food before you KILL and EAT it, is somewhat ridiculous.
I just don't get it. I mean I'm a fairly liberal person, so I like the idea of people being able to decide for themselves what to do. So the argument of "Its unhealthy don't eat it" really annoys me. Its called moderation. If you think being obese is from this you are dead wrong. Most of the people eating it also spend time buying all fresh, seasonal and local produce whenever possible, not cramming cheeseburgers down their throats.
As for cruelty, look at those animals. I've been to Hudson valley. They are in good health and getting fed. Also the force feeding as stated, is only part of it. If they aren't digesting they don't continue to do it. Personally the animals are getting much better treatment than ducks during hunting seaons where the hunter only keeps the breast meat and tosses the rest.
The duck is not almost extinct, all the peices are used fully and not tossed, and they don't over feed them, if they aren't digesting it. Go protest somthing else that matters and let the few people who can afford this and enjoy it, alone. They don't show up to your houses carrying the carcus of a duck forcing you to eat it. The producers have improved what they do, so ok the ban is in effect, but most of the producers held up their end of the bargin of improvments only to be shut down. That is stupid.
Basically, Meat eaters are retarded. I don't mean mentally ill, but slow minded or inable to respond to information available to everyone should they choose to look. A non-meat diet is sufficient to sustain any individual if you follow the basic food groups. Non-meat dishes can be as tasty as meat dishes. So why are the vast majority of humans still killing animals for food. Because they're too lazy to do some reading – too close minded to try new things – too afraid of what others will think of them – too afraid to break with tradition.
I have to disagree with your intelligence of meat eaters statement.
I eat meat. Very little, but I still do. I agree that a vegetarian diet (done correctly) can be very healthy. But an omnivorous diet (done correctly) can be just as healthy. I like to eat a large variety of foods (including meat) because of the wonderful range of flavors out there. Not because I'm too lazy to educate myself. Someone who decided to go vegetarian or vegan isn't "better" than someone who doesn't.
Meat eaters are less “intelligent” in that they are unaware or unwilling to face the fact that their habit of eating meat causes immense cruelly and suffering to animals. Many meat eaters own pets and will shell out lots of money to feed and provide veterinary care for their animals, yet these same individual don’t give a thought to the suffering that animals must endure to feed humans. We have the knowledge today to feed ourselves without torturing animals in the process yet only a minority of humans avoids meat diets. The facts speak for themselves and you may educate yourself on this issue if you care to. Until then – you, as so many of your like-minded comrades are retarded.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I am completely educated on the subject. I researched vegetarian diets a couple of years ago while considering to go that way myself. Just because we can survive without eating meat doesn't mean we have to.
I understand that your values have led you to put not eating meat as one of the priorities in your life. That's fine. One of my priorities is to go out of my way to buy meat products that were raised and slaughtered as humanely as possible. I hope your attitude of feeling like you're better than people who eat meat doesn't hurt you in the long run.
I don't eat meat, and I would like to say to edrury707: shut up. Thank you.
edrury, the mere fact that you're willing to use the word "retarded" like this, even with your thinly veiled "justification," shows that you are not thinking critically in the way you are asking meat-eaters to think. Your words hurt people; please think before using terms like that again.
Retarded = vegetarians and vegans that want to push th eir agenda on everyone else. I eat meat because I like it. It's healthy if you consume correctly, and we are designed to eat protein, although in smaller amounts than most americans consume.
Vegans look like they are dying and they also stink and fart constantly. Just stay outside with the cattle. They have the same IQ as you anyway.
I think the term you refuse to use or acknowledge is free choice. We choose to eat or not eat meat for various reasons, none of them having to do with our mental capacity or capability. Whether we have the ability to feed ourselves meat free is also illrelevant. If we live in a free society and it is legal to do so we should choose to feed ourselves how ever we like. To name call and totally dismiss this is more indicative with YOUR mental capacity than ours.
SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT IDIOTS WITH SO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS, THAT THEY FRET THAT DUCKS (WHO WILL GET SLAUGHTERED NONEHTLESS) HAVE THEIR THROATS IRRITATED WITH FORCE-FEEDING? THESE MORONS HAVE GOT TO BE STOPPED! BEFORE LONG EVEN YEAST AND MOLD WILL HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS...
Morons they may be, but at least they've mastered the art of using both upper and lower case characters when they write.
This ban is such frivolous nonsense. Foie is too good to pass on.
"... are more relaxed and under less stress... " Right. Would YOU be relaxed and under less stress if someone were force-feeding you? I think not. You may have a liver, but you're certainly missing the common-sense part of your brain.
I LOVE foie gras and eat it every chance I get. Anyone who thinks that a duck or goose has "rights" is a psychotic piece of garbage who should be euthanized immediately!
You mena erased.
Troll
When all those whose hearts are bleeding for ducks that are overfed start complaining about and passing laws against hunting and fishing, I'll believe they're sincere. Hunters actually enjoy killing and wounding animals, period. That's why they hunt. Is there anything sicker than that? And these guys who "catch and release" fish are actually dooming most of those fish to starving to death due to the trauma of the hooks in their mouths. These people call themselves "outdoorsmen" and say what they do is "sport". And you let them get away with it while you pat yourselves on the back for coming down on people who raise ducks. Well, congratulations. Now try to do something meaningful.
You clearly know nothing about fishing. Mortality rates for properly released fish are extremely low.
We should hunt dorks like you, Mik!
I hope you're a vegan and you wipe your butt without toilet paper (those trees felt pain when they died, you know!). Seriously, it's ignorant people like you, who have never produced a speck of your own food, drive a gas guzzling vehilcle, buy everything at a grocery store and get mad when the price of your daily cup of joe goes up! My hubsand is a hunter. He doesn't hunt for trophies or for the kill. He hunts for meat. Have you EVER eaten meat from a grocery store? Let me ask you something? Which animal had the better life? One who lived in a slaughter house, walking in 12 inches of it's own crap then herded into a disgusting factory and slaughtered? Or an animal that lives in the woods, ate organically and bang, one second, no trauma, no fear, no confusion- dies. We produce a lot of our own food, with a large garden, chickens for eggs etc... we treat our animals ethically and as organically as possible. Which is probably a lot more than you could say for yourself.
You seem to know all about me...none of which is correct of course but I understand the level of a mind that wants to place everyone into a cultural stereotype for their own convenience. I, on the other hand, praise you for most of your lifestyle. But I have seen with my own eyes a doe, shot and wounded by an ex-friend of mine, scream and run off into the woods to presumably die in agony somewhere. My friend was trying to turn me on to hunting, which obviously had the opposite effect. Another time, he also killed (legally) a fawn that still had its spots and was lying in the underbrush, where it's mother left it. So much for the nobility of hunting your own meat. It's one thing to raise animals that wouldn't otherwise exist for food. It's quite another to enjoy killing the same wild animals that the rest of us get a thrill out of just seeing out in the woods; pure symbols of a wild and innocent America that is rapidly disappearing.
Hunting is the "sport" of little baby-brains who like killing animals because it gives them a sense of power that they cannot acheive among actual grown-ups.
There are groups trying to stop hunting, like the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting. Hunting is cruel and brutal, and hardly a "sport" when the odds are so in favor of the human hunter. Some animals are killed instantly, but many are not, especially with bow hunting which is especially gruesome.
So much animal abuse, everywhere. And we call ourselves a superior species.
I dont get why people care about how food is treated. I'm not one of the animals are better than humans people though so i guess i'll never understand
@ready
Only those who have a fully belly all of the time care about stuff like this. I am sure if this delicacy was served to folks who are starving in Africa, they would not care what it was as long it cured their hunger. I often believe that the very same people who raise a fuss about this and other issues when faced the reality of starvation, would become animals and act like zombies eating other human beings. These are the ones I most wary of because their rationality makes no sense and I cannot expect them to think rationally if times get hard.
So you're basically saying that you're indifferent to suffering? I hope you realize that speaks volumes about your personality.
If eating a diseased liver is your thing, then have at it.
Whether or not to eat stuffed fowl? A personal decision, not one to be mandated by a bunch of PETA cranks. Because prohibitions ALWAYS work so very well, don't they? (sarcasm at eleven)
Nobody's trying to snatch food from you, Hypatia. Animal welfare advocates, which, by the way, are not a "bunch of PETA cranks," are just trying to ensure that we make the lives of these animals less miserable. Of course, there are cranky nuts in any organization :), but there are plenty of good people who are just trying to help animals. Foie gras is especially heinous because it's not a food we even need; it's a luxury bought at a high cost to the animals forced to produce it.
I don't eat foie gras for the same reason I don't eat meat-the cruelty is terrible
I don't eat meat often; but when I do, it's rare.
Get it? See what I did there?
Clever! :)
The delegation from New York, where two of the country's three foie gras farms are located, took a strong stand against the resolutions. The HOD deliberations began with New York alternate delegate, Dr. Walter K. McCarthy, saying that the New York VMS board unanimously voted to direct their delegate to cast a vote against them.
Dr. McCarthy said that if the New York Veterinary Medical Society were to oppose foie gras production, its veterinarians would fully expect opposition to methods used to produce veal calves and other livestock to follow. Referring to the positions proposed by the resolutions, he said that opponents of production agriculture could easily propose modifications to those positions that would make them applicable to other stock.
"We cannot condemn an accepted agricultural practice on ... emotion," Dr. McCarthy said. He presented what he considered facts about foie gras production to correct what he said are misperceptions. In contrast with what some critics claim, he said that the esophagus of the birds used for foie gras is lined with a cornified epithelium, "a very tough esophagus that can accept a great deal of abuse."
He said it is very elastic and pliable, so the birds can swallow a huge amount of fish or grain. The birds don't appear to be anxious around the persons feeding them, he said, and mortality is much less than at most agricultural facilities.
"The people who have actually seen these facilities are the ones you should listen to," he added.
Two of those people are New Jersey and Vermont delegates, Drs. Robert P. Gordon and Thomas L. Munschauer.
Dr. Gordon did so because, he said, the AVMA "is claiming" to be a science-based organization. "We've all seen the pictures. Seeing with your own eyes and penetrating the issue is worth a thousand pictures."
On July 5, he visited a farm in New York. "After being on the premises, my position changed dramatically," Dr. Gordon said. "I did not see animals I would consider distressed, and I didn't see pain and suffering." He said it is more distressing to take a rectal temperature in a cat. He cautioned against anthropomorphism, which is different from the human-animal bond.
Instead of the term force-feeding, Dr. Gordon advocated tube feeding, a term he noted is used in veterinary medicine. Dr. Susan L. Clubb, alternate delegate for the Association of Avian Veterinarians, said that some owners feed psittacines via tube. Their esophagus easily accepts a tube without stress, she said, and it would seem logical that the same would be true in birds used to produce foie gras. AAAV delegate Dr. James M. Harris agreed with Dr. Gordon that the use of "emotionally laden terms" is inappropriate. "We are a science-based, factual-based professional organization. ... Whatever decision we make today has implications for agriculture." He appealed to his colleagues not to "give the squeaky wheel the grease."
Dr. Gordon can't possibly be serious. He says the AVMA is a science-based organization and his 'science' is that he went to a farm and walked around and didn't see any animals in obvious distress? He calls that science? If you want to test the proposition scientifically, you can make use of the fact that animals secrete known hormones when stressed. There is a lot of work done in this area. After establishing a baseline for ducks, design an experiment in which some ducks are force-fed and others are free-fed, then take blood samples at appropriate times and compare the stress hormone levels between the two groups. I would live with the results of such a study, whether they were consistent with my pre-conceptions or not. That is how a science-based organization would approach it. Having this joker wander around and say he didn't notice any stressed ducks is a joke.
I know that this practice is banned in three countries and will be banned in California. That says a lot to me. Seeing a farm in New York in a controlled setting may not be representative of the foie gras situation. I find it odd that they're carping in your quote about "emotionally laden language," as if they're trying to figure out a way to make "force feeding" sound, well, comfy. But thank you - I appreciate the post and the information. But I do viewing situations of cruelty do cause us to have an emotional reaction; I have no problem with that.
If only I could type! I'm missing a "know" in the last part of my post, sigh.
Has anyone here gone to a feedlot ? Talk about humane conditions for steers...Or poultry...Or trouts....Or Tilapias...Focusing on a few ducks and geese allows all of you to stay clear of the conditions in which your holy steaks and hamburgers are harvested...
Hypocrisy is alive and well in this country...
Compassion extends to other creatures, in addition to ducks (more than a few, by the way). People are focusing on ducks due to this article, but we can also certainly focus on feedlot, CAFO, and other issues. I don't think the average American realizes how bad conditions are for other animals; that's part of the problem.
I think the average American probably realizes what goes on, but doesn't have a problem with an animal that is raised for food being killed to make food.
There's concern about the manner in which the animals are raised and slaughtered, BeerBrewerDan (love that name!!). I do think not everyone is going to become vegan, but would prefer humane raising/slaughter.
No hypocrisy here. I think that any feedlot is OK including foie gras because its all delicious.
Ignore one cause because there are others out there that also deserve attention? You make no sense.
Has anyone tried kicking a bull in the balls over and over again before slaughtering it? it might make the steaks more tender.
Has anyone tried waterboarding pigs before slaughtering them? Might make those port chops juicier, eh?
Seriously, are there any limits to what we'll do with animals? If your favorite snack requires the torture of an animal, and you keep eating it, there really is something wrong with you.
I agree. I had just typed that if a delicacy is the result of cruelty of this nature, how can we eat it? How can we condone its production?
How can we eat it? Because it is delicious.
For a lot of people, its taste is ruined by the back-story, Jay. Apparently the California legislators agree. But I do understand people like the taste and it's hard to contemplate giving up something you like. On the other hand, I wonder if we obese Americans need another hunk of food on our plates. Not saying you're obese, at all, LOL, just a general point.
Thereis nothing going to make a steak from a bull tender. That is why bulls are not turned into steaks.
geesh.... city peoiple
Waterboarded pork is sublime.
Amen!!
Christine Nicol, Professor of Animal Welfare, School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, UK:
“My view on the production of foie gras is clear and supported by biological evidence. This practice causes unacceptable suffering to these animals. The primary issue is the use of force....Foie gras production takes no account of the physiological state of the bird, but involves force feeding far beyond the point at which the bird would naturally stop. This practice is repeated daily for a number of weeks, causing lesions to the throat, pathological changes to the liver and painful distension of the abdomen, limiting movement."
Yeah..yeah..facts are great. The reality is (and the real question) is do animals have the same rights as we humans do? Whether it's force feeding geese, or raising chickens in a box, or whatever it is, none of it is really all that humane. So who decides what is ok and what is not, and at one point does the government stop invading the lives of its citizens?
I like that, "yeah, yeah, facts," hahaha! But, seriously, I'm sorry, I don't see the prevention of cruelty to animals as "government invasion." In some areas, legislation for the protection of animals is needed. That's not government invasion, but a moral imperative. We have traffic laws and speed limits ... unfortunately, we can't seem to do things right on our own without some kind of laws in place for either our own protection or the protection of animals. No, I don't think the government should dictate what people eat, but it should oversee how animals for food are raised. That's not invading, just stepping up to do the right thing. Laws are the only things that will serve as enforceable protection, unfortunately.
We have traffic laws and speed limits for the protection of other human beings. My argument is that just because one person thinks it is morally wrong, another person might disagree. Sure, if it can be done in a more "humane" way, then I have no argument for doing it that way. However, I think the burden to figure out a different way should be on those who oppose it, vs. forcing laws on others for the protection of animals, who aren't human! Using your logic, we should kill all wolves in the wild so that that they can't eat the antelope the way they do (far more inhumane than producing foie gras), or at the very least, capture them and feed them vegetables for the rest of their lives. Once these restrictions are imposed, it's never ending as to how far it can go.
Government should do whatever it has to do when people lack the empathy and moral judgment to do the right thing, you idiot.
Heather This is the whole problem in America. You can be as ethical and moral as you wish, but using the government to force your standards down our throats seems to be the trend for anything anyone doesn't like. Everyone here is here because their ancestors hunted. Some may be opposed to hunting on their moral high-ground but imposing their morals on others is an infraction on my freedom. I am in the middle east. Why don't you all urge PETA to help save the thousands of sexually exploited donkeys and camels over here. Talk about stress.
Coloradom, we also have laws that protect animals. There are anti-cruelty laws, anti-abandonment laws, and anti-dog fighting laws, for example. I have no worries that we're going to try to make carnivores eat veggies, LOL. That's not using my logic at all. I'm not talking about us trying to impose ourselves on a natural situation - a predator eating prey - versus the wholly unnatural situation of humans force feeding fowl with metal pipes.
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. The overall position of the House of Delegates was that, "...observations and practical experience shared by HOD members indicate a minimum of adverse effects on the birds involved."[18] The closing comments in the HOD were that the AVMA should be taking positions on facts and science, make broad policy positions on general animal welfare, and support positions that created oversight of controversial practices for fear that prohibition would cause production to move to countries without animal welfare regulation.
Marianne Heimann, Institut de Pathologie et de Génétique, Loverval, Belgium Annick Delire:
"In addition to the lesions caused directly by force-feeding, the immune system as well as the liver is rendered frail to cope with any stress to which the animal is subjected. The animal therefore often develops infections, which can be combated by the use of antibiotics. This however, poses the very serious problem of having residues of antibiotics within food destined for human consumption.
• “[T]he means of obtaining this delicacy, and the money which it fetches, above all for a minority, does not justify the extremely painful conditions in which this food is produced.”
In 2005, the delegates from New Jersey and Vermont of the American Veterinary Medical Association gave testimony to the organization after touring tube-feeding farms. Dr. Robert Gordon had visited a farm in New York on July 5th. He noted, "After being on the premises, my position changed dramatically. I did not see animals I would consider distressed, and I didn't see pain and suffering." As written at AVMA news, Dr. Thomas Munschauer visited a New York farm at the request of "both sides." "I didn't see exploding esophaguses ... and it didn't seem like the birds were distressed. For the most part, they appear to be well-cared-for. That's what I saw." [30]
Lynn R. Dustin, Veterinarian, Bay Area Bird Hospital, San Francisco, California, USA:
• “Numerous injuries can occur from the process of force feeding. Because a gavage tube is inserted down the esophagus, scalding can occur from food that is too hot, and the tube can cause inflammation of the throat, bruising or perforation of the esophagus, asphyxia, over expansion of the esophagus and lesions of the neck, throat or chest.
Some duck species gorge prior to migration. However, they do not gorge to the extent of causing illness or making themselves incapable of breathing or walking, which results from force feeding. Nor do they suffer the repeated trauma of gavage tube insertion.”14
• “There is nothing natural about the production of foie gras.”14 • “The practice of force feeding a duck to produce a fatty liver is inherently cruel and should be banned by
law.”
Please read this article which outlines the concerns about health and what is actually happening at the farm. I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like a writer with an axe to grind either way.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-02-18/news/is-foie-gras-torture/
I had read that article, thank you. I would feel better about it if he'd visited more farms, viewed every stage of the process, and done more digging.
I just can't get over the fact that this is banned in other countries ... I'm sorry to keep harping on it :).
Hey vegetarian how many vegetables had to suffer and die for your salads? Vegetables are living things! And yet they are cut sliced and boiled for your eating pleasure you monsters should be ashamed!!! You deserve to have the same thing happen to yo so you can see how you like it. Vegetables aren't property they have rights just like us! Savages
Simple if you have a moral objection or a taste objection don't eat it. Some of us like to eat it
Well said Bob! If I like it then I eat it. That's exactly the same argument the naked guy in Miami used as he ate the homeless guy's face.
So you can't make up your own mind? You need the government to be your nanny? That is truly sad
Yes, that same government and its municipalities that banned slavery, legislated against child abuse, and creates traffic laws. If preventing cruelty to animals is creating a "nanny state," as you allude to, then I'm all for it.
We all have a moral obligation to help try and ensure that animals are treated as compassionately as possible. So, while I understand that you like foie gras, if I determine that the means to produce it are unnecessarily cruel, I will object and I will work to ensure that foie gras isn't available. Just like the legislators in California are doing. I do understand that people consider it a delicacy, but if it comes at a high cost to the animals who are forced to produce it, I think its supposed great flavor is greatly diminished. And we are also greatly diminished if we continue mindlessly consume the results of cruelty.
Where does this moral obligation come from? You are suggesting a linear link between morality and our treatment of animals. I would say that no such link exists, that our treatment of animals is independent of our supposed morality. What we are debating here is what we are willing to sponsor as a culture during this particular point in mankind's existence. That tolerance ebbs and flows with time, but it has nothing to do with a higher sense of morality. By your suggestion, all those who eat steak from feed lots, chicken from commercial chicken farms, and foie gras from Hudson Valley are all amoral in a clearly definable way. Rather, the truth would be that they are uneducated on the nature of how these products are produced, or they simply don't mind where the products come from. But neither of those states define an individual as lacking morality.
I think there IS a linear link between morality and how we treat these animals. It's cruel - and therefore immoral - to abuse an animal. Morality is concerned with the ethics of conduct. It's not ethical to abuse animals. I do believe that many people are just ignorant of the conditions of modern factory farming, and, when given information about what it takes to produce a steak, will choose locally grown meat if they can. Or make other choices that impact less the lives of meat animals. We, as a society, for example, look out for children out of, among other things, a moral obligation. But if you object to the phrase "moral obligation," that's fine. Perhaps I'm not articulating what I want to say very well and if not, forgive me.
KnowledgeisPower: exactly the point. You THINK there is a linear link. Just because you think that does not make it so. Is there a link? Sure, maybe, for some. What about others who disagree? Just because you want something a certain way doesn't mean others should have to follow.
I actually don't have that strong opinions on this matter because I do not think I am a perfect judge of what is right or wrong. I have posted counter facts to many of your quotes because you are clearly very emotional about this subject (it's your right) but posting charged quotes as fact to influence. Every one has a counterpoint.
My beliefs fall like this: I am not for animal cruelty. I don't see a need for people to inflict pain on anything. But our society has made a choice to eat meat and raise animals as livestock. As such, most of these practices are going to be "inhumane" at some point. I try to eat free range and organic meat, but don't ask waiters how my meat was raised. I do like the taste of Foie Gras, but wouldn't eat it if I thought they were raised with utter disregard for the animals. I do believe that Hudson Farms and Sonoma Farms have documented their reasonable care of animals. I am unsure about whether Gavage is OK, but actually don't see clear evidence that it is the practice in farming which should be singled out as torture. Farming in any shape or form could be called inhumane.. I am convinced that the main US producers of Foie Gras are as ethical or more than the typical farm. I also do believe that the animal rights activists will move to another target towards veal and other farming practices if Foie Gras is banned. I fall on the side of letting Foie Gras persist and having the animal rights activists keep the light shining on it so that the practices are reasonable. To me, that is where I would draw the frontier. My guess is that If I were a bird I'd prefer to grow up as a duck on the Hudson Farm than in the typical chicken farm with cages (most allow no mobility). So I'd feel like a hypocrite shouting for the ban of Foie Gras while eating my chicken sandwich.
I am against the ban of Foie Gras, for more transparency on farming practices, and for letting people make choices on this. That is my agenda in posting counterpoints.
They FORCE FEED these poor birds to fatten them up! I only wish the people mistreating these birds for profit could experience what their birds do! Shame on you!
I agree. The owners should be force fed three times a day and eventually fed to a cannibalistic tribe somewhere.
If you read the article, the ducks line up waiting to take their turn to be fed.
YOU'RE the one who didn't read the article. It said: "At the time of the feeding, the ducks huddled to the corner AWAY from the feeder." Why would the ducks stay AWAY from the food if it didn't cause them pain?
Have you ever been to a farm? Ducks will run away from ANYONE, even if they are not force fed. Ducks are shy animals (and for good evolutionary reasons, if ducks walked towards the first carnivore they saw, they wouldn't last much).
I don't know if the animals like it or hate it, but the fact that they walk away from the feeder says nothing about it.
And then they come forward one-by-one, on their own, for their turn to be fed. Read the WHOLE article... at least the whole paragraph.
Maybe YOU should read it again. It says that before the feeding they are huddled in the corner AWAY from the feeder.
They move away from the force feeding ... they "huddle away from it." @Herby Sagues: I grew up on a farm and tend to ducks now. They run to their food with gusto! They won't run away from food unless they associate it with a painful event, like being force fed.
It's been documented that on other free range foie gras producing farms that ducks do run up to their feeder too.
Knowledge is power.
SherwoodOR
Foie gras is the fattened liver of ducks and geese produced by force -feeding the bird 3-4 times a day by means of ramming a metal pipe down their throats and pouring about 4lbs of grain and fat each session. The birds then find it hard to breathe or move due to the pressure on their internal organs. This is done for weeks on end until the liver (which actually becomes diseased) increases up to 10 times its normal size. The rates of death are really high during the prceedure(gavage).
I know and it's so yummy
California can fall into the Pacific for all I care. Here's the deal. Animals are property. Often, animals are for eating. Don't like Foie gras? Don't eat it. But keep yer draconian, autocratic, pointy, busybody nose out of others' business. Government has no business telling people what they can eat, whom they can marry, what to believe, what to say, where to live, or how they treat their live stock.
"Draconia" is unusually harsh treatment. I think this describes those that eat tortured animals then those that oppose it.
Animals are not property. Compassion is a human trait you might want to develop.
animals are delicious property. a carniverous diet is a human trait you might want to develop. If animals aren't property then we should kiss goodbye to all those life saving treatment and drugs that were tested on animals.
Animals are for eating...? Then you must condone cannibalism. I see!
What would you do if you walked by someone who was kicking and slapping a puppy or a child? Move on and not stick your nose in someone else's business? It would not be draconian, nosy, or controlling at all to either try and stop the cruelty or get help from someone who could.
Come on! There is a big difference between a puppy and a child. If someone was slapping a puppy I might think it was mean and uncalled for, but I would probably keep it moving. If it were a child and the person was seriously hurting him/her then a call to 911 would be warranted. Animals don't rank higher than human beings. Sorry.
I can't stand people like you..
Inhumane. I don't care how tasty it is.. it disgusts me that someone would want to do this kind of thing to an animal and support production... so they can make a buck. Wouldn't even want to try it.. just makes me sick to think about it. Honestly, who even came up with this sick concept!?
I assume you don't eat animal products at all then, because this is less harsh than most meat products.
And I assume that you didn't read the article but are posting a knee-jerk response to the words foie gras, a response which has been conditioned into you by so-called "animal rights" groups.
If you had read the article, you would know that the "poor" ducks line up to be fed.
SherwoodOR, I'm sorry, but I'm a little disturbed by your implication that people who care about animal welfare spread propaganda or are this certain class who are somehow separate from the normal citizen. I find that odd and inaccurate. I'm interested in animal welfare and I do due diligence and a lot of research. You, on the other hand, are stereotyping. Agreed, there are zealots in every organization, but to lump everyone into one stereotype, such as you're doing in this case, is inaccurate.
Honestly, I figured that someone would stereotype based on absolutely NO information at all. Happens all the time in these forums, sadly. Sounds like you and I are on the same page.
people with good taste
I like foie gras! It's tasty.
Me too. But I can't really afford it. More power to some duck farmer in upstate NY. Tough crap to all the animal wingnuts who want to tell others how to live their lives.
Yes, it is. I just wish it wasn't so expensive so that I could have it more often.
I just LOVE the stuff. I am in Switzerland 2 to 3 times a year and pop over the border into France. The Alsace region is famous for it's Foie Gras du Strasbourg. I pay a boatload of money for it but it is sooooo worth it. Then I hoard it and refuse to share with anyone. Yes I know, I am a meanie but I don't care. I can care less if they cut their feet off and force feed them that too.
Weak people.
"Then I hoard it and refuse to share with anyone. "
No that's cruelty.
Inhumane plain and simple.
Eating period is inhumane. Because something has to die for you to live. Even if its a plant that's why they call it plantlife.
Ever see chicken farming? This place is nice compared to most chicken farms!
Not so plain and not so simple.
I suspect that you didn't even read the article but are simply expressing a knee-jerk reaction of the words "foie gras," a response which has been conditioned into you by "animal rights" propaganda.
If you had read the article, you would know that the ducks are well-treated and that they line up to be fed.
I read the entire article, Sher.
I think you said it all. It is an amazing thing that others on this site lack complete compasion.
Well if they ban the foie gras the ducks will still get slaughtered exactly the same method. Electric shock, slit the neck, bleed to death.
So all you're really doing is stopping the force feeding. Which seems to be up to debate if it's inhumane or not.
I don't eat it because I think it's disgusting. But just saying- if it is banned, it doesn't seem like much would change for the ducks. They'll still live an approximate 4 month life.
Glad i'm not a duck
What it comes down to is the abuse by some farms ruining it for all farms, the foie gras industry should have been more responsible about what their neighbors are doing, restaurants should have been more demanding, now they are paying the price. Unlike other foods like beef and chicken, foie gras is a luxury item and does not need to exist and is therefor very easy to get rid of, they should have known that their industry would be held to much higher standards. It really is not too much to ask considering how expensive it is.
I dont feel sorry for any industry that collapses because of their own irresponsibility.
All animal products are "luxury" items – not just foie gras.
Most plant items are luxury items. You don't need that much soy.
only children use technicalities as an argument
I'm not seeing any "abuse" in this article.
I accidentally had it a few months ago... we were at a high-end restaurant we'd been a few times before & just ordered the 7 course chef's choice which this day included it. they'll substitute if you tell them you can't or even don't want to eat certain foods but they'd already brought it to the table so I went ahead & had it. must be an acquired taste (I like to think I have a reasonably mature/educated palate) – I didn't hate it but it definitely wasn't a "WOW!" & it was a non-trivial supplement (wanna say $30 or something like that)... having had it & knowing how it's made (which I did then) I certainly won't be going forward...
How is any of this any worse than the way animals are treated on feedlots and factory farms and poultry houses? It's completely hypocritical to cry "abuse!" for this and then allow animal overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and inhumane treatment for all the cows, chickens and pigs we raise for food.
We need to eat less meat so that we don't have to treat our animals this way in order to accomodate our diet of choice.
I suspect that, in most cases, the cry of "abuse" is just a knee-jerk reaction to the words "foie gras" conditioned into some people by "animal rights" propaganda.
Go ahead, force feed these ducks and keep fattening up their livers.
Real healthy for these foie gras buffalos.
When you start to get fatter and fatter on 5 oz of this at over 800 calories.. bon appetit
You get what you deserve...
I've personally lost about 25lbs since the beginning of the year. And I have enjoyed foie gras several times in that period.
Foie gras is not necessarily incompatible with a healthy diet. All things in moderation.
"Your" an idiot.
I doubt there are very many people in the world eating foie gras often enough for it to affect their weight. Seriously...
I'm more disturbed that they are electrocuted than the fact that they are force fed. Seems to me that people are fine with the fact that a live animal is placed in water were it suffers a live current through it's body. Electrocution is not a painless process, it seizes the muscles and anything that can process pain will feel it. But force a duck to eat, that's just outrageous!
So...if everyone decided that killing animals was harmful and they discovered plants sense fear and pain, do we starve?
Electrocution like your thinking is when you get zapped by a loose wire or even how someone gets jolted at an execution. Being electrified IN WATER is totally different. The process is so quick as to be essentially painless. Just like shutting off a light. BAM!! Done.
This process is not unique to Foie Gras.
Shock 'em, shoot 'em, it's all good to me. Animals are for eating.
You are all fat americans....and vegans are losers
Stop pondering yourself in the mirror, JJ.
Ya, the only JJ's live in America. Down South. And eat tons of BBQ. And are FAT too! Fess up! Be honest!
Having first hand seen the feeding of geese for this purpose I can honestly say the geese appear to be in no distress whatsoever at any time. In fact they seem to be better cared for than most other farm animals.
I agree. I also have seen the feeding process where a duck or goose is grabbed and they tilt the head put in the tube, wham bam and done, tube comes out, foul released and walks away doing what he was doing before he was grabbed. Its no big deal to the duck AND he comes away with a free meal. Its a win win situation really! Honestly there was no harm to the animal at all.
And for all you morons who are going to say "If its no problem, why don't you have someone force a tube down your throat and force feed you", I have a dog who eats out of a bowl on the floor, but I don't want to. My niece has a goldfish that she feeds with flakes she flitters out onto the surface of the water, but I don't want to eat like that. At our local farm them slop the hogs with food in the trough, but I'll pass. Cows & horses tug at the grass in the field, but I have no interest. Just cause these birds are fed with a tube does not mean its torture! Get over it! Try it! You'll love it!
If foie gras productions is so peachy, why is it banned in three other countries? Why is California trying to ban it? Surely there's more to this story than happy ducks getting a nice meal. Do your research. Plus, this is force feeding. Think about it. Hhorses choose to browse grass and the gold fish goes for the flakes. Are you holding your dog in a headlock while he eats? Do you have to force it on him and confine him? Is his throat abraded and his liver diseased? Don't thinks so. So please, there's no comparison.
Why is it being banned in places? Because bleeding heart liberals need a topic to rally around. If its not veal, its foie, or lobsters or caviar, whatever it is it gives board housewives something to make themselves feel good about and that their pathetic little lives have some sort of meaning. And as far as doing my research, I've actually been to Hudson Valley Foie Gras. Have you? I've seen the feeding take place and it really is no big deal. Also, if I HAD been feeding my dog by putting him in a head lock and force feeding him since he was a puppy then I guarantee you that all I'd have to do is rattle the feeding tube out of the drawer and he'd start drooling all over the place , just the way he does now when I pour kibble into his bowl. The animals don't see it as torture, ONLY YOU PETA TYPES DO!
"If foie gras productions is so peachy, why is it banned in three other countries? Why is California trying to ban it? "
The fact that a few jurisdictions have banned it does not make it wrong. My city prohibits the keeping of chickens within the city limits. Does that make keeping chickens wrong? No. Of course not.
Your thinking is just silly.
SherwoodOR, you're comparing apples and oranges. That's ... um ... silly! I'm simply pointing out that if something is banned in an entire country - not one country, but three - and legislation is pending in our country, there's something somewhat, well, important going on here. This bears a second look, don't you think? Or are you just going to go with, well, whatever you're fed?
As a professional in the veterinary field, I will say yes it does not harm the animal to force feed, but I will add that this is on occasion, not on a daily basis. These animals are probably obese and the fact that the liver is desired for the fat I gaurantee you the poor animals have fatty liver disease. They are sick, and my guess is they get slaughtered not long before they would die "naturally" from the fatty liver disease. And the fact that the animal its self has zero control over how much food it is recieving the animal is most likely recieving much more than necessary which just contributes to the obesity. And while they may not look "fat" they have a seriously decreased quality of life, the added weight on any animal can cause very serious heath issues and joint problems, ask anyone who is overweight!
Because SOME farms are cruel and need to have some regulation, the point of the article is that not all farms are alike, an thus a complete shutdown is extreme.
Mr. Really says, "SherwoodOR, you're comparing apples and oranges. That's ... um ... silly! I'm simply pointing out that if something is banned in an entire country – not one country, but three – and legislation is pending in our country, there's something somewhat, well, important going on here."
As I said, my own city bars the keeping of chickens within the city limits. We are not the only city to do this. Many cities do. I'm sure that I could find hundreds - if not thousands - that do. The fact that some cities or countries ban something does not make that thing bad. It just means that some politicians in that city or country decided to ban it.
42 states in the US do not allow gay marriage. 12 ban it constitutionally. What does this lead us to conclude about the eight states that do? Obviously, they are insane to allow something that 42 other states prohibit.
The state of Oregon prohibits self-service gasoline. New Jersey does too. What does that say about self-service gasoline? Obviously, it's horrible and should be outlawed everywhere.
Or, maybe, it says that Oregon and New Jersey are just silly?
Wow, Matthew, hostile much? Do you think yelling at me (in caps - so mature) and calling me names will help? Is this because I disagreed with you? Can you say that all foie gras farms are the same as Hudson Valley? By the way, what in god's name is a "board housewife"? Do you mean "bored housewife?" Oops! And what exactly do you mean by that, anyway? Stereotyping all over the place, aren't we? "Liberals, PETA types," "bored housewives ..." Gosh, too bad you went ape sh8t all over the place in that last post, Matthew. It kind of blows your credibility. And I guarantee you if you grabbed your dog and forced him to eat, he would, yes, still eat, but cringe, shake, and crawl to do it. You need to study canine behavior, Matthew, and then work on that temper while you're at it.
I'm hostile because you are a MORON! And nice of you to point out grammatical errors. What are you an out of work English teacher? You have made MULTIPLE grammatical mistakes in your posts, but I have not pointed out any of them because I am not a tool. Like you. You Sir, are a first class tool.
AtomicFoie sweetheart, I wasn't talking to you. By the way, my name isn't "Sir." And if you call someone sir, in this country, use a lowercase "s."
Love for you to point out my grammatical errors; it never hurts to learn more about grammar.
Have a good day, ma'am.
Two mistakes in the last half hour if I MUST point them out.
@12:31 you typed Hhorses.
@12:33 You used the word bear when you should have used bare.
Physician heal thy self! Tool.
Matthew - you mean "bears another look"? In that instance, "bear" is correct; "bare" would be incorrect.
They're called typos. None of us should be making them, but typos happen. I shouldn't have pointed your misspelling out; you're right. I don't know where I confused bear/bare, sorry. The real issue is your hostility toward me because I disagree with you. You're not going to win fans by slinging around insults and reacting huffily if someone disagrees with you. Yes, you visited Hudson Farms. That's great. You visited one foie gras producer in what, unless you went undercover, was, I assume, a controlled visit. I'm not saying Hudson in of itself is a baaad place. I am saying that this practice bears a second look, because, again, it's banned in other countries. It's going to possibly be banned in California. There's a story there and it's not about happy ducks, I'm sorry to say. That has nothing to do with liberalism, housewife boredom, or necessarily PETA. Numerous other animal advocacy groups have expressed concern about foie gras production. So you can call me whatever you want, but I urge you to keep an open mind.
I'm not aware I called you any names and if by capitalizing a word or four is to you, hostile, then you need to grow thicker skin. I meant nothing personal by that. That being said, we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm off to lunch now so I'm out. No foie today though. Good argument.
I think typos should be outlawed.
Matthew, things do get testy on the comments board and I'm guilty of that too. I just don't like being lumped in with bored housewives et al because I'm interested in animal welfare. But you might not have meant it that way. Let's proceed in peace! Have a good lunch!
Till we meet again! Have a great weekend.
Fois Gras is disgusting. And I say that as a French person who tried it (once) at a highly reputable restaurant in the French country side. Howver, even if tasted good, I wouldn't eat it because of the process.
Good! More for me! Here's the thing, folks. All animals die so that we can eat them. So in that sense, I suppose it is cruel. I'm not sure that plants don't "suffer," as well. But we are at the top of the food chain. As Andrew Zimmern says, "If it looks good (and it does to me), eat it!"
Here's the thing, Ms. Grammar - let's at least not make the process of eating animals cruel and inhumane. We're not all trying to tear the meat out of people's hands, but simply find ways to make the process of raising and slaughtering animals as compassionate as possible. We torture animals in CAFO's. This has nothing to do with supposedly being at the top of the food chain (by the way, pit yourself against a lion on a savannah and you'll find out who's on the top of the food chain); it simply has to do with acting compassionately toward other creatures.
Amen.
You point out about facing a lion and while most people aren't up to the task. A tribe in africa was forced to give up just that test of manhood. And these are not people armed with modern weapons. So I think that still puts your arguement in perspective. Because if I had modern weapons and I'm talking anything from world war 1 on I think the lion would have a severe disadvantage. Nukes usally trump everything. The last point was exagerated but my point still stands, brains can and do beat brawn.
Foie is the tastiest food I know. I even feed it to my dogs! Tortured animals just taste better. Word.
One either consumes animals or they don't.
The description given here hardly seems like "torture," with the ducks voluntarily lining up to be fed.
Eating animals is proven to lead to cannibalism.
We are all in the zombie waiting room. Just waiting for someone to kick open the door. Probably be Michelle Obama.
Only if you smoke bath salts.
I am a liberal, I am a chef, I grew up on a farm, I love foie gras. This is like everything else- if you don't like something, don't participate in it. I would work on the farm for a day and help with the feeding of the ducks because I like this food. Just like I bottle fed veal when I was 8 at a friend's farm, notched piglet's ears, clipped eye teeth, and cut tails on pigs, slaughtered chickens, and hunted for game with my parents.
It infuriates me all of the people in this forum who shout political insults back and forth- there is a class of people who are moderate and fit in both categories you know. Just because I am liberal does not mean that I won't shoot a gun to kill my own food, and my husband and I also adopted our cat at a shelter, and vote for higher taxes to pay for healthcare for all.
Most of you who are calling this practice "abuse" have no idea how your food is brought to your table. Protest through practice and abstain- but stop taking away the rights and practices of others. Foie Gras is a pleasure to eat and prepare. These ducks live far more comfortable lives than the chickens that are mass produced and they are pretty much force fed as well- have you seen the size of their breasts?
I appreciate your honesty, but seriously, as a foie eating hunter who is also a liberal, you are in a very small class of Americans. In fact, you may be the only one! Good hunting & Good eating!
WELL SAID!
Why is being cruel to animals a right? When did that happen? Bear in mind, this practice is banned in other countries and will be in California. Kinda makes you think it's not a happy process, doesn't it?
Its Kalifornia, comrade.
"This is like everything else- if you don't like something, don't participate in it."
You can't really mean this. Do you support parents' rights to abuse their children? I mean, if you don't approve of it just don't participate in it yourself, right? Do you support legalizing dog fighting as well? Certainly it is reasonable to have laws that prevent harm from those that cannot protect themselves. For victimless crimes, then yes, just leave others to their own business. But for anything that might negatively effect others (polluting, domestic abuse, charismatic cult leaders, etc.) it at least bears discussing whether the victimized parties are worth protecting, and if so, to what extent.
Face it, these animals are being raised for slaughter. All of the same arguments raised against foir gras apply to the whole meat industry in general; if it's wrong to force-feed a bird because it's "unnatural" and not what the bird wants, then it's just as wrong to raise them from birth for the purpose of eating them. I don't think any animal likes being somebody's lunch, but most of us have no problem with eating meat.
So in the end, if you people want to ban eating meat, then come out and say it. I don't think you'll find much support in the public, though.
I want my meat raised humanely and slaughter humanely. I don't want to tell anyone what to eat, but I do want laws that protect farm animals from being handled/managed in an inhumane manner. Is that too much to ask for?
Agreed, Natalie. It saddens me that people are arguing for a practice that's bad enough to be banned in other countries.
Your arguement keeps coming back to we should do it because other countries do it. All countries pander to special interests. And special interests only care about what they want. In alot of moslem countries magazines that show to much of a woamn (Cosmo) are banned, so is alcohol. In afganistan they allow them to grow opium poppies, in parts of columbia they are allowed to grow coca, in parts of mexico they grow peyote. Just because another country allows it or doesn't allow it is no basis for policy. And california does alot of kooky things, like one city protested a marine recruiting station. And the environmentalist are against wind energy because the blades supposedly kill birds. I think the state motto is whatever it is we're against it.
Seriously. I hate to think how many people opposed to force feeding these ducks are eating feedlot hamburgers and chickens from overcrowded factory farms without even thinking about it.
When we know better, we do better. Fois gras gets a lot of press, but I would be willing to be that most people that oppose the practice would oppose CAFO conditions if they really knew what went on there. Most people know they're "bad" but don't really want to know *how* bad, because it would mean they would have to change their habits. If the press (and not just extreme groups like PETA) actually exposed how bad feedlots are, a lot of these same folks would stop eating McDonalds and KFC. Not all, but many.
I agree completely. I'd starve if I had to kill and slaughter my own meat but happily eat what someone else supplies. I don't think that's being hypocritical, just realistic, and it's good when everyone can work and contributes. I think too many people say to quit eating all meat if this is so bad, but the fact is it's about the force feeding, not raising animals for slaughter Countries ban FORCE FEEDING, not meat production. The article mentioned someone who raises them without that and that's the only change that needs to be done. Bon appetit.
That hurt to read that! Those poor ducks just leave them alone! How anyone could eat this meat or any meat after reading something like this is beyond my comprehension.
Meat is Murder! Tasty, Tasty Murder.
So struggling to find food in the wild, only to be ripped apart and eaten while still alive by another hungry animal was a much better life? When is the next tornado to Oz cause life just don't make sense here?
Nearly all animals Americans eat are force fed something. What about the milk cows fed a constant stream of antibiotics and hormones to keep their milk supply flowing and their bodies from rotting? The chickens that are pumped full of steroids and antibiotics to enlarge their breasts? This looks bad, that's why it is considered different and separate from other animals people eat. It's not.
So we should just let the cows rot?
99% of americans force feed themselves into huge fatty messes anyway, why should we make this a big deal....
Funny how many folks want to 'slaughter" something 'humanely' like it eases guilt.... If you were starving in the woods and got your hands on a nice fattened duck, you wouldn't think twice. Yes, it will be painful. Yes, the animal will be 'stress'. Yes, the animal will be respected enough to be USED for nutritional value. And while you were enjoying your duck in the woods, perhaps a bear comes up and eats you – would you condemn the actions of the bear per-se?
I know that is it artifical environments that these animals are raised, but the world just isn't a fair place. When your bit of bad news comes down the pipe, you will be happier to remember it is all fair play. Now get back to work!
I appreciate the transparency of this particular farm very much! However, poultry are not covered by the humane slaughter act and just because "Waterbath stunning is a common practice in the poultry industry" does not mean it is humane. Water bath stunning has been shown to have many flaws:
The customary slaughter method of birds killed for human consumption involves the stunning of several live
birds at one time using electrical water baths supplied with constant voltages. The birds are hung upside-down
on shackles prior to conveyance through the electrified bath. This system, which is used globally, is increasingly
under scrutiny as research suggests that it can be both inhumane and ineffective. Scientists have demonstrated
that handling, inversion, and shackling are traumatic and stressful to birds and that shackling itself may be
painful. In some cases, birds may also receive painful pre-stun electric shocks. There is growing evidence that
the existing electrical water-bath stunner settings, including those used in U.S. slaughter plants, may not render
birds immediately unconscious. Further, birds may miss the stunner completely and remain conscious when
their throats are cut and possibly when they reach the scald vat. Since the existing, constant voltage, electrical
water-bath systems that involve stunning several birds simultaneously are increasingly considered inhumane,
alternative technologies that use gas mixtures to render birds unconscious have been developed to improve
animal welfare. To date, the most effective and least aversive method of stunning birds prior to slaughter is
Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK), which rapidly and efficiently gasses birds while they are in transport
crates. (This abstract taken from: http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-the-welfare-of-birds-at-slaughter.pdf)
I go out of my way to only eat meat that was raise humanely and slaughtered humanely. We can do better than our current system. I am sure of it.
I've eaten foie gras, and it does have a flavor that is very appealing to the palate. I also feel that as the dominat species on the planet we have a responsibility to everything on the food chain below us. predators and prey fall into a natural balance aside from humans. We have a tendency to take things to excess, whether it be our eating habits, religious beliefs, or poliical views. I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that we do not take pleasure in the suffering of other living beings. if this ban brings about a more civilizied means of foie gras production, then I welcome it. If it merely brings the issue to forefront and we examine the practice more thoroughly and it is determined that is not causing undue suffering to the animals, then remove the ban.
Real original story. Maybe we should open up the Horse Meat converstion again.
Boring......
Foie gras is delicious. Too rich to eat all the time, and it's a challenge to find really good foie gras, but on the rare occasion it is a real treat.
If you don't agree with the process, great. Don't eat it. Actually, this goes for everything you don't agree with... don't do it! But you will get nowhere browbeating others who choose differently.
If you don't agree with slavery don't buy products produced by slaves. Hmm, that line of reasoning doesn't sit well with me (I do agree that we should vote with our pocket books whenever possible though). How about if something is morally wrong, we as a society should set up laws to change it.
The government made some changes so that we don't have toys from China with lead based paint to buy in stores. Consumers didn't need the option or right of having those toys to buy. Do we need to option of buying inhumanely raised or slaughtered animals? Of course we don't.
Wouldn't it be great if the government insured that animals were raised humanely and slaughtered humanely. Then your average consumer wouldn't need to worry their pretty little heads over it. Instead they could just buy meat that had been treated humanely when it was an animal.
That sounds a little too "Nanny State" to me.
Including poultry in the humane slaughter act and only selling meat that was raised and slaughtered humanely would be nanny state-ish? Really? How?
It's nanny stateish because. What is humane really? It is an ambigous term. Your version of humane is not the same as mine or someone elses. But you still demand that we all follow your view. And others say the only humane thing is not to do it at all. Just like you argue that it can be done but only if its humane. But what would fit that description, have you ever seen anything killed. And if you drug the animal out of its mind don't you risk making it poisonous or carcinogenic? Thus making it pointless. Now I know your all for asuaging guilt and not making the animal suffer, but where do you draw the line and why do you feel it is your right to force everyone to act as you. And for all the people who bring up the slavery issue aren't you just being devicive, because you can look at everything as being like slavery and using a strawman arguement to try and guilt someone away from their point is immature. How clean are your hands? Do you eat chocalate, buy products from china, or have any jewlery. What about the fuel in your vehicle, or the rare earth minerals in that computer or electronic device your using? I'll bet you turn a blind I to cruelty every day, how many people di you help before you demand someone do all the animal and world saving for you?
Most correct and intelligent thing said yet!
Thank you!
Oversimplified argument.... but I agree... Seriously. Its food. Delicious, delicious food. Next you'll be trying to take away my Veal! Jesus Christo!
Read the story about killing baby girls in India. THAT's inhumane.
So called "animal welfare" is an affectation. It is the byproduct of an affluent society that has lost touch with the natural world. Animals do not care if they are killed and consumed. They are born, live and die. No one should be intentionally cruel to an animal, meaning that should not harm an animal for the sole purpose of deriving pleasure from the act of harming. That's is deviant pathological behavior. But to kill and animal or force feed it or contain it in a cage to raise it for consumption is not cruel. The animal doesn't care. People have become sensitive and project their human emotions on to animals and it makes them feel good to "protect" them. But the animal doesn't care. Animal welfare is ALL about people making themselves feel good. It has NOTHING to do with improving the life of the animal. . .because the animal doesn't care.
To make the claim that animals don't care is as brazen as making the claim that they do care. Some animals (i.e. chickens) have proven themselves to be one step above a slug in terms of intelligence, while others (primates, dolphins, even crows) have been found to have incredible levels of intelligence and understanding. Just because we can't train an animal to make it useful as something other than food doesn't mean that they "don't care".
Whether an animal cares whether it's consumed for food or not has nothing to do with it's intelligence. All organisms, plants and animals, don't want to die. They want to live and reproduce. That is the primary motivation for ALL forms of life. But animals, even intelligent ones, don't recognize differences in the quality or manner of their death. You and I might say, I'd rather die in my sleep than get eaten by a shark. An animal doesn't care. You and I might say, I'd hate to be force fed. An animal doesn't care. Animals aren't emotional they are instinctive. So an empathetic person might reason that an animal is "scared" or "worried" or "depressed" but they aren't. They are instinctively anxious about death like all animals are. . .but that's the extent of it. The reason we have a taboo about eating some animals, like dogs or primates, is because they come closest to exhiting what we would regard as true emotion. . .but even they don't care about the cause and manner of their death. To them they are either alive or dead. If they are alive and being fed, they are happy. If they are not being fed, they are anxious to find food. If they are threatened, they are anxious about dying. But they don't care if the cause of the anxiety is "cruel" or "humane."
If they're happy, then they exhibit emotions, no?
Yes, but they have a natural aversion to pain, and thus more painful methods of death are worse for them, just like they would be to humans. I don't understand why you think some higher brain function is necessary to "suffer". All animals can "suffer". Like above, with the stunning process – it's not necessary by a long shot. But they do it because letting an animal slowly bleed to death is painful for them. If force feeding is painful, then they care.
I'll grant you that the ultimate reason of the death, whether by predator in the wild or on a farm for foie gras, is completely unimportant to them. But the method by which it occurs causes pain, and a level of pain beyond what is necessary or useful bothers people because they know that the animal feels that pain.
@Dliodoir Finally, a rational response on a CNN artcile. Kudos to you.
They don't care? Prove it. Are you an expert on animal behavior and feelings? Unreal - I can't believe anyone would post something like this.
The proof is all around you. That is what I mean when I say that animal welfare is an affectation of a society detached from nature. If you better understood nature and life in general you would understand that animals do not place value judgments on the manner of their treatment and death. When you produce an animal that communicates clearly that it doesn't want to be treated "cruely," I'll believe you. But cruelty doesn't exist for animals. All threats to their existence are equal.
You think you are so above animals and their way of thinking, but you aren't. Dolphins hunt for sport. Orangutans show generosity. Chimps have highly structured societies and economies where services are traded for food. Animals adopt other animals to raise. There is a mountain of evidence that animals feel emotions similar to humans. There is no evidence supporting your conclusion that they don't "care".
I am all for raising animals as food and eating meat. And you are correct that animals do not ponder their existence. Instead, they live in the moment. However, they most definitely do feel pain and most of our factory farmed animals have memories as well. Just because we bring an animal into this world to produce food for us does not mean we get to ignore its basic health needs or hurt it more than necessary. Inflicting pain or mismanaging animals such as making them live in filthy or overcrowded conditions is cruel and it is wrong.
Back to foie gras. I have seen footage of geese in Europe who ran to their handlers for "force feeding" time and were not treated roughly at all. And I have seen footage from the USA where the ducks were in bad shape and the "force feeding" was truly forced (I am not referring to the farm in this article). Additionally, there is a farm that takes advantage of the birds natural tendency to produce a fatty liver before migration- this foie gras production does not involve force feeding. I think it is great that we are bringing attention to and discussing the production of foie gras and poultry farming in general.
So animals that are kept confined in tiny cages for animal testing don't care? When they are shaved and have needless surgeries performed on them time and time again doesn't bother them one bit? When they don't have a choice about having soap and makeup and other cosmetic products dropped in their eyes or on their skin and left to see what happens, it's ok? I don't think so, buddy.
Of course they would prefer that those things not happen to them. Animals do experience pain. . .but they don't suffer. Suffering is an emotion projected on to them by humans who would feel suffering if they were in a similar situation. They want to stay alive. When they are confined for any reason, they are anxious that they will be killed. It doesn't matter to them if the confinement is for processing as food or to be used for testing or as a pet. All animals want to live and eat and reproduce. That is all they want. Any other desire attributed to them is a projection of human emotion that is done to make the PERSON feel better about themselves.
Of course, animals are capable of suffering - they obviously feel pain and display distress.
From Robert Defranco, director of the Animal Behavior Center in Queens, N.Y., and author of several research papers on animal emotions:
"... animals definitely have primary emotions like fear. They can also feel anger. And now there is growing evidence that they have secondary emotions like love, jealousy and greed. The proof may rest in the part of the brain called the amygdala. It's believed that fear and possibly other emotions are linked to neurons in the amygdala."
"It's a larger area in dogs than it is in humans. So we could say that the dogs will experience more emotions. They live very much more in the moment than humans do," Defranco said.
Anger, love, jealousy, greed. . .yes animals can exhibit behaviors that we equate with those human emotions. . .but it is not the same thing. They are extentions of the primary emotion of wanting to be alive. They may be "angry" if you take their food away and be "greedy" in wanting more food than they need to sustain life and be "jealous" if another animal has more than they do. . .but it is not the same as human emotion. If it makes you feel good to care for the "welfare" of animals than you should do it. But know that it is for your benefit because the animals don't care that you care. They care about living and they care about eating and they care about breeding. That's it.
"It’s bad biology to argue against the existence of animal emotions. Scientific research in evolutionary biology, cognitive ethology (the study of animal minds) and social neuroscience support the view that numerous and diverse animals have rich and deep emotional lives. (Here I focus on mammals, although there are data showing that birds and perhaps fish experience various emotions as well as pain and suffering.)
"Charles Darwin’s well-accepted ideas about evolutionary continuity—that differences among species are differences in degree rather than kind—argue strongly for the presence of animal emotions, empathy and moral behavior. Continuity allows us to connect the 'evolutionary dots' among different species to highlight similarities in evolved traits, including individual feelings and passions. All mammals (including humans) share neuroanatomical structures, such as the amygdala and neurochemical pathways in the limbic system that are important for feelings." Marc Bekoff, PhD.
Then animals themselves are horrendously cruel monsters that deserve death? They kill. Do they enjoy the killing? Are they cruel? Animal behavioral science is couched in the context of human psychology because those are the words we have and the words people will understand. But they are not the same thing. Yes, some academics argue that they are the same or similar to human emotions. . .and others argue that they aren't. But. . .if the ones that argue that animal emotions and cognition is the same as humans are correct, than you will concede that animals are awful, awful creatures who kill. Some kill more than they need to eat. Some shun animals of their own species who are different to them, are they racist? Some kill their young to promote their own genetic dominance. If what you suggest is correct, than animals are capable of crime and should be subject to punishment. But we need not go there. . .because they are NOT the same as us. Your concern is all about you. The animals do not care.
Little more for you, Dliodoir ... love doing your research for you. From Peter Singer:
"Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us–the species of mammals and birds. The behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of the pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on. In addition, we know that these animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically like ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain: an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than with basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.[1]
"We also know that the nervous systems of other animals were not artificially constructed–as a robot might be artificially constructed–to mimic the pain behavior of humans. The nervous systems of animals evolved as our own did, and in fact the evolutionary history of human beings and other animals, especially mammals, did not diverge until the central features of our nervous systems were already in existence. A capacity to feel pain obviously enhances a species' prospects for survival, since it causes members of the species to avoid sources of injury. It is surely unreasonable to suppose that nervous systems that are virtually identical physiologically, have a common origin and a common evolutionary function, and result in similar forms of behavior in similar circumstances should actually operate in an entirely different manner on the level of subjective feelings. […]
The overwhelming majority of scientists who have addressed themselves to this question agree. Lord Brain, one of the most eminent neurologists of our time, has said:
'I personally can see no reason for conceding mind to my fellow men and denying it to animals. […] I at least cannot doubt that the interests and activities of animals are correlated with awareness and feeling in the same way as my own, and which may be, for aught I know, just as vivid.'"
You are correct. Good comment. Of course it's not about the animals. It's about the sensitivities of the activists having precedence over the rights of others. It's about monomania and power. That's the 'animal rights' movement in a nutshell.
Sounds like those ducks have it better than most livestock, really. The way they are slaughtered is consistent with almost any other animal. Some don't even get the amenity of a stunning!
As for inhumanity of forcefeeding, it seems to come down to the dispute over whether the birds' esophagi can handle the process and the food. As migratory birds, they are designed to get very fat and to store food. I don't really know if you can compare shoving in a plastic tube to eating a spiny fish, though.
Really, unless you are a vegetarian/vegan/pescatarian, you can't complain.
Enjoy that tasty hamburger, because the cow was forcefed hormones and corn – something cows aren't even supposed to eat – and then its meat was treated with ammonia to kill the e. coli. The E. Coli got there because corn changes the pH balance of the cow's stomach and stops him from fighting it off naturally.
Enjoy that ham, because its mother lived in a 1' by 2' pen all her life.
Enjoy those eggs and chicken salad – the chicken never saw the light of day.
Of course we can complain! We can complain about ducks being force fed. We can complain about the wide-spread use of antibiotics and hormones in CAFO operations - and we should.
my point was only that some on this board are content to call others monsters for enjoying foie gras, while buying meats that are treated just as poorly.
"I know the process and will continue to eat it. 38.11% (2,952 votes)"
SELFISH ASSHATS!
The voting public has spoken! And on CNN no less! If you put this poll on Foxnews it would probably be 80%!
Arrogant, self-righteous nit wit!
...says the bone-headed DENIALIST and APOLOGIST.
What? Get out of here. That stuff is GOOD! If cute puppies' or baby seals' livers were this good after force feeding, I'd force feed them too!
Yeah, and humans once said that human slavery was "natural," too. You accept everything because some *told* you to believe it, or can you think yourself out of a paper bag? Diseased liver is full of bile and toxins. It's gritty, bitter, and full of dangerous microorganisms. You must really be insecure to feel yourself "entitled" to slurp up something like diseased livers, in that case. Does the term "morlock" mean anything to you? It should.
Hey, who died and made you boss?
Stay out of my kitchen, or I'll kick your self-righteous ass.
My thoughts exactly. Making a decision on the side of cruelty because one is ignorant is one thing, but to do so because one is arrogant and mean is quite another.
Lets take one look at the word "inhumane". What is the root word in this? "Human". To say that treating these ducks "inhumanely" is bad, you are equating a duck with a human. This is what I never have understood about PETA. Animals are NOT people. They are here for us to eat and enjoy as pets etc, but they are not on the same level as a human. Ever.
The term "inhumane" has to do with OUR behavior, not the type of creature we're dealing with. See: "Without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." That would be about our behavior, which, when it comes to animals, can be incredibly cruel and callous.
No it is not about what happens to humans exclusively...its about what humans do to other living creatures....Human behavior....either "in" or just "humane"
I would dispute you in that trying to stop a cruel practice does NOT equate animals with humans. Because an animal isn't human, is it okay to treat it cruelly? That seems to be what you're saying. Treating an animal with compassion isn't saying it's human at all. It's saying that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling pain and distress.
Who are you to decide of an animal's suffering matters? The arrogance of some people!
My previous post was meant for Bobbie
Wrong!.... Do animals feel pain like humans? yes they do!............
Where does it say animals are here for us to torture?............. and a reminder, humans ARE animals....
I say lets lock up a baby and force feed it... yum yum!!
Please look up the word "inhumane". It does NOT mean the animal is a human. It means that the manner in which it is being treated is lacking in humanity, i.e. compassion and decency.
No, animals aren't people. But that doesn't mean we need to inflict maximum suffering in order to produce a ball of cholesterol sold to foolish diners as a "gourmet" treat.
Please invest in a dictionary and take a class in logic.
Ugh... This is why the only meat I eat its fish. It´s insane how we torture animals, that are as sensible or intelligent as the dogs we have for pets, just to have cheap food or rare "delicacies".
Those poor FISH! you savage!
You actually advertise that you eat MURDERED fish! Torn from the sea, frightened, shaking, thrown into an icy waiting room and then decapitated and disemboweled. YOU APPROVE OF THIS TREATMENT OF A LIVING CREATURE!? You sick sick person! Shame on you!!
Fish may react to painful stimuli, but they don´t have a very complex brain with a neocortex, like many other animals. They probably don´t even have any meaningful form of consciousness or any other inner experience (instrospection, selfreflection, desire, complex reasoning) like mammals do. Its difficult for me to feel bad about them being killed for food.
Fish feel. Believe me. I fished for decades and finally stopped because I saw the damage I was doing. Its very sad.
You might want to check some facts and reconsider why you subject animals that can and do suffer to continued pain for no apparent reason.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=underwater-suffering-do-fish-feel-pain
Force feeding a duck is such a horrible thing. I mean, it's OK to inject all of the animals we eat with steroids and hormones so that they mature faster and become more resistant to disease, but force feed a duck? Outrageous!
Yep, the duck waddled over and turned on an episode of "Fat Albert" in protest....
This whole issue seems a bit hypocritical to me. If it's unethical to force feed a duck in order to bring it to market weight then we should also outlaw large scale chicken, pork, and beef production farms. All of which use combinations of chemical stimulants, sweetened feed, and behavior modification to force the animals to gain weight quickly so they can be slaughtered for consumption.
Yet, we don't complain about our cheap breakfast sausage, the 99-cent hamburger, or the large chicken breast on our salad. Why? Because foie gras is an easy target, most people have never tried it, can't afford, or don't have anywhere to buy it. It's a rich man's novelty food, not a necessity. Therefore, it's easy to target and get people riled-up about how it is produced. Meanwhile, all high capacity farming uses the same types of methods to put food on your plate.
Don't like how foie gras is produced, then don't eat it. Want to change the way large scale farming is done, buy your meat from the local farmer (but get ready to pay a 300% premium) and vote with your wallet. It's called capitalism and it works.
Ucking F-A!
Bingo.
Moderncommunication, thanks for your post. There are plenty of folks riled up about factory farming too. The existence of factory farming (which is dreadful) doesn't make the practice of foie gras production okay.
I basically agree with everything you've said, but would like to address each paragraph a little more closely.
P1: Yes, it is hypocritical. Yes, that's all true. However, pushing for a more humane way to treat and slaughter animals we use for food doesn't have to involve the either/or of shutting them all down or living with how it's currently done. Other industries have had to make changes: we no longer use DDT; many solvents we used to use we no longer use in favor of more environmentally safe ones; we no longer use chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant and found better ways. The sad fact is that business – any business – is reluctant to make changes and will continue to justify how it does things, until it is forced by an external force to do it another way. Whether that's a government regulation – or as you said – our pocketbook – industry will make changes when necessary. In the case of this article, they had 8 years to come up with something else. Man has shown a remarkable ingenuity to solve problems when he wants to.
P2: Again I agree with you. But large-scale farming, either of animals or of vegetables, entails its own risks both to us as human consumers (salmonella, e-coli, listeria), and to the environment as a whole (entire no-life zones in the Gulf of Mexico). Man is a problem-solver – are we seriously not smart enough as a species to solve ethically questionable practices? And in fact, if you read the news and inquire as to alternatives, you'll find there are some intriguing solutions out there to some of these problems. And you strike me by your reasoned responses, as someone who does. Let's explore and push for those, rather than continue to defend the status quo. Change, even good change, is usually painful at the outset.
P3: Yep, I agree here too: I can, and I have. But I will admit not everyone has that option, and I chose a simpler lifestyle. But that is my choice, and I respect your choice for something else. Nevertheless, when you consider how fat Americans are getting on those 99 cent hamburgers of convenience, and an expected even larger increase – with the huge increase in diabetes and other health-related diseases from this current modern eating lifestyle – then it behooves us not only as Americans, but as human beings on planet earth to find more safe and sustainable ways of living.
Finally, I don't really care one way or the other about foie gras – if you like it, eat it, if you don't – don't. But how it gets to our table – how anything we eat gets to our table – should matter to us, including farming methods and the humane treatment of animals under our care before and during their slaughter.
I completely agree and thank you for your thoughful post. We can make the raising of our food kinder, safer and more intelligent in its production – since we are supposed to be the more intelligent ones, it's why it should happen.
Logical, well thought out, AND proper use of spelling and grammar? Who are you sir who are so learned in the ways of science? Everyone take note. This is how you formulate a proper argument. Kudos to you forum god.
anyone pro foie gras is an idiot and you might as well start force feeding babies and eating them too while you're at it.
And yet, somehow I am going to guess you are "pro choice." So ok to kill a baby but not "force feed" a duck.
Two separate issues....
P.S. Bill: What's it like to have an unwanted pregnancy? Oh, that's right, you've never had to worry since you can't get pregnant.
Jacka##
Wow Melissa, what are you, like 15 years old or something? Your comparison makes NO sense what so ever. Why don't you just go back to your Justin Bieber blog. There's a good girl.
You are an idiot, why not closing down Perdue & Tyson Chicken and all the american beef factories. We are a democracy let the people decided what they want to eat.
If you think that any of your meat is treated any better than these ducks, you are incredibly naive.
Let's start with the fact that California has no problem with people growing illicit substances- like marijuana- and they won't let people drive cars that emit too much smoke, and now they have a problem with something that has been going on since BEFORE America was even discovered by Europeans? Get real. VIVA GOURMET CONSUMPTION
How is fattened baby liver? I've never had it...
When a duck or goose eats a whole fish and has to swallow it whole, (because, mind you, ducks don't chew the way we do) is it being inhumane to itself?
You are dumb Melissa....plenty of people eat it and love it.......one day you will be able to afford it and try it.......
Wow, eight slap downs in a row to Melissa. Where are all the lib's this morning? Somebody kick the left coast outta bed!
Ducks breathe through their tongues and they don't have a gag reflex. They could hang out with a tube in their throat all day and it wouldn't interfere with their breathing at all. Ducks raised for foie gras have a much, much better life than the ones raised for chicken nuggets, buffalo wings, and eggs.
The ducks certainly don't go hungry, thats for sure!
I'm with you, Melissa.
Are you 15 too?
to all you bleeding heart get over yourself. if you don't like that animals hav to be killed to be eaten, then by all means find a better way. me i enjoy bow hunting, know why we have to hunt deer and such? because a bunch of dumb dee dumbs shot their predators so now we have to control their numbers. i enjoy the taste of meat and how many ways it can be fixed, so please step the frack away from my food or i will bite you and give you rabies.
Its one thing to hunt an animal to cull its numbers because of overbreeding but as you said.....you ENJOY bow hunting. You get your jollies from killing things, thats only 1 step away from psycho as far as im concerned.
Look at brigth side, he is not killing people.
you say that like it's a good thing.
Wow, did you ever miss the point. The point was not the eating of meat or even the mass-scale animal farming done. I've considered bow-hunting myself, so have at it. The question was, how is the animal treated prior to its slaughter? Presumably as a bow-hunter, you attempt to kill the animal with a clean shot so it doesn't suffer. I assume you don't aim for the flank to injure it, and then finish off with an easy kill. At least, I HOPE you're a responsible hunter. Therefore, assuming you are a responsible hunter, you should at least consider that we should treat animals raised for food in as ethical and humane a way as possible, just as you make as clean a shot as possible when bow-hunting.
Once on "Bizarre Foods," host Andrew Zimmern paid a visit to a foie gras farm in France. When it was feeding time, all the geese happily waddled over the get fed. They didn't care whether they were fed via "gavage" or had their food scattered on the ground in front of them. It doesn't matter to them HOW they get fed, only that they ARE fed, and that they have full stomachs afterward. And of course the final product, foie gras, is so utterly luxurious and delicious, especially when seared in a hot skillet. So really, I don't see any ethical difference between ducks and geese being harvested for their livers, and chickens being harvested for KFC.
Foie Gras is absolutely delicious!
It isn't something you eat daily, it is a delicacy.
How many of you have a pet goose that you are in love with?
Geese are nasty angry birds, and they are no where near endangered.
Flocks of them are sucked into airline jet engines, causing danger like the "Miracle on the Hudson".
I'll eat the thing instead,
It is a delicacy. But the real Fois Gras in Europe is the liver of the force-fed domesticated geese, not wild geese.
It is true, it's not something you eat every day. I agree, if you don't like it don't eat it.
But it's a fact that, it's been around in Europe since the roman period. Hungary and France are big producers along with other countries and it's part of their cusine.I think only people that like international cusine would appreciate it.
Foie Gras is SOOO tasty, i could eat it every day. There are so many delicious ways to cook with it! AND you can incorporate TRUFFLES......AND wash it all down with a delicious Sauterne Wine! Chateau D' Yquem anyone! I don't care about the duck..ITS A DUCK! It was born to serve me, just like veal, fish, chickens, beef caviar et al. Call me cruel, call me mean, say Ill have high cholesterol and deserve to die of a heart attack. Whatever. I don't care what you think. I'M STILL GONNA EAT IT EVERY CHANCE I GET AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I win.
You can step off your soapbox now moron! I'd like to force feed you, hold your fat lil head and neck down and shove garbage down your throat, see how you like it! Go on, eat your fatty fat liver, add to your growing waist line! I'll stick to my pasture raised local meat.
agreed 100% vet tech.
Exactly, I will continue to eat foie gras, you cant stop me....I will even feed and slaughter the duck myself.......and you losers dont think they fatten up chickens and beef? Fairies.....
HAHAHA, your retarded and thank you yes, I will continue to eat WHATEVER i want and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
yeah sorry but i think you have a nerve to call others retarded after your comments.
You sound like a fat, gross loser.
You sound like a man hating cat hoarder!
Americans are peculiar. They have no problem with frois gras, but if you torture a dog or eat dog meat somehow you're a wacko.
By the way, there are lots of human fatty livers to go around these days. How about donating the fatty livers of deceased humans for consumption?
You are an idiot. A dog is a domesticated animal that brings joy and companionship to humans. a goose/duck does neither. That is truly a stupid comparison.
actually you're the idiot, geese and ducks can be loyal companions as well.
K now we know melissa is a tard...
Vote with your mouth. Just don't eat it. I find it sad and repulsive that humans will go to any length to satisfy even the smallest, most trivial demand. People who don't care and eat it with full knowledge are making their own choice about who they are and what they represent. But you can't regulate away human natures incapacity to care much about animals. Maybe eventually demand will fall by itself.
Or grow.
It is horrible to see what the world has come to when you look at the results of the vote. This and other terrors instantly convinced me to stop eating what comes from 'slaughterhouses' and will continue to fight for their abolition. May all who eat this mystery get a heart. God help you.
Typical reply of someone who is clueless about the source of food. If you don't want to eat animal flesh it is your choice but you may not choose for me.
God did help me. He taught me to love the taste of perfectly seared Foie Gras with either a balsamic drizzle or a sweet fruit compote....or both!
Read up on the internet real fast about foie gras so you can impress us with your 'I eat this prepared like that' crap? You still live with your mother, I'll bet. Along with Matthew.
Foie Gras is delicious...had it last night, and will have it again on Saturday.....as an appetizer....one day you will be able to afford to have some and will love it too....
Helen-
I was happy to read your response. I haven't eaten meat in years and glad to see you decided to stop eating some of it due to this. This is how it happens. If people knew the full process for creating meat- the fear, the life of torture etcc, most would stop. And you can get all of the nutrients needed without meat. Many people think you can't, but you absolutely can and you can be a vegetarian bodybuilder if you so decide. As for those that wouldn't stop after learning ot the pain and fear, really nothing much you can do about them. Unless we can eventually change the laws that is- to at least stop some of the tortured practices of factory farming.. There are people out there who are trying to bring light to this subject.
But I have seen all the PETA videos about slaughter houses and how meat is really processed, but that still does not change the fact that it is delicious. And what about organic, free range family run farms that produce meat? What is your argument with them and the humane way they treat their animals? Sounds to me like you're just another granola swilling, tree hugging, self righteous, indigenous left wing x-hippy loons.
indigenous?
I really wasn't trying to speak to you. I diidn't reply to anything you said. We are in 2 different worlds with no intersection. Let's keep it that way.
jb,
You are wrong. Most people will never stop eating meat. It doesn't matter if they understand the process. They will still eat it because 1
a) it tastes good and is nutritious and b) most people don't have misplaced empathy projected on animals. There will always be a small minority of people who anthropomorphize animals and ascribe human like qualities to them, like pain and fear and suffering, but they will always be a very small percentage of the population. Animals are born, live and die. It matters not to them whether they do so in the wild or in a slaughterhouse. They don't appreciate your empathy and any effort to improve their lot is done SOLEY to assuage the misplaced guilt of humans. As others here have pointed out, I am constantly amazed at how people so concerned with animal welfare can support abortion, especially late term abortion.
You say that I believe that dogs and cats and other animals suffer pain and fear and are affected by the environment they live in. Whereas you believe this is not true. For you, they are things beneath you that warrant any treatment that is done to them.. So be it then.
Take your left wing drivel vegetarian pansy crap somewhere else......
You know, it always reminds me of Galileo and his round Earth theory, and how he almost died for it, when it comes to arguments on eating animals... It is never easy to be amongst the minorities no matter how right you are!( no offense to no one!)The population is booming and the only option that is left for getting meat is the factory farm. Free range is almost a dream.
How about it with some Fava Beans and a nice Chianti!
Genius reference. I'm talkin' about a little place called, Assspin ;)
Americans are being force-fed with so-called convenience foods, developing all sorts of diseases along with enlarged organs, including livers. The entire corporate food industry manipulates ingredients and additives to make us addicted to fattening foods. As a result we have the dubious distinction of being the most obese nation in the world...
And all we care about is how friggin' ducks are fed and slaughtered to make foie gras?
I've had foie gras a couple of times and didn't care much for it, but I don't give a flying duck about how it's raised and made. At any rate, it is a very small percentage of what animal products are produced daily; nothing in comparison to the inhumanity of sprawling feed lots with thousands of heads of cattle wading knee-deep in excrement while awaiting slaughter.
Some law-makers have way too much time on their hands. How about dealing with economic recovery, job creation, renewable energy and efficient mass transit instead of such quackery?!?
you make perfect sense. Good observation.
I like what you said a lot.
They have too much time.
How do you not see the importance in the way we raise and slaughter our livestock? Do you not see it as a reflection of American society? Because it is, of course it is. It would be folly NOT to do so.
Yes, the way we slaughter our livestock does reflect American society: an increasingly divided & polarized nation where strident voices from left and right claim to know the "truth" and want to shove it down – force-feeding style – into the other camp's throat. No middle-ground anymore, no voice of reason, no one to rise and say: "OK kids, knock it off and go wash your faces before dinner!"
People who eat factory-farmed food have no say on how others get their food.
This article is pretty sanitized. It makes it sound like the ducks are given a meal a couple of times a day...the truth is that they're force-fed several POUNDS of high-fat food a day until their liver becomes grossly diseased and expands to 10 times it's normal size. The suffering is immense and constant and many ducks die from burst organs, not to mention rough handling because one person is trying to force-feed hundreds of ducks several times a day. This is why it's banned in so many countries. Look for undercover video online for the whole story.
Like was said before, who gives a flying duck!
I give a flying duck...his freedom to fly...!
We really are a very sick society. I quit meat over thirty years ago and have never looked back. The insanity of factory farming, cruelty and the fact that greed has taken over should cause everyone to pat attention to what they eat and feed their children. Read the book "Eating Animals", one of the most well written books that will wake anyone up on the complete picture. It isn't pretty.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat :-)
We are losing too much freedom in the false pursuit of liberty and compassion.
Life needs to have danger, ugliness, disgust and a sharp, jagged edge.
IMO if I passed a law it'd be making it "natural" only. That Foie Gras could only be made during fall. During fall geese will eat and eat and eat and eat, hence the "Invention" of this dish by noticing it. Foie Gras should be from "free range" geese only, meaning they have a large area to run around, grass and reeds to peck in, a lake to swim in. And then come fall indeed people should be able to feed them, providing an abundance of food. This will create the tastiest and healthiest food ever, not quite as big but all the taste of the force feed garbage. And that there will be a "Season" not a "market" will make it more precious still.
Having raised ducks and geese for years I can tell you this practice is largely unnecessary as ducks and geese will happily eat themselves into a stupor 24/7 if you let them. The force feeding is to cram the highest amount of calories into the bird in as quick a fashion so they can have a young bird that's still edible aside from its liver. It's for man's convenience, nothing more.
I've tried foie gras and I personally think it's disgusting, process of production not withstanding.
Well, these farms are producing food for profit, are they not? So even if your implication that left on their own, these birds would produce the same end product vis-a-vis the liver were correct, the ability to sell an edible bird apart from that would be more than just a matter of convenience, but part of runing an ongoing business concern.
Where are all the racist comments and moral outrage? Ah, it's ok when white folk do it.
Seems to me you have used the racist card, now move on.
If we are the current dominant large species, we have every right to eat whatever we want. We've just evolved that way. Dinosaurs didn't have to be "moral". We are genetically the same as early humans, who ate much more meat than we do currently. We'll most likely be replaced at the top (as long as Ahmadinejad doesn't do anything) in around 100,000-500,000 years anyways. Also, look at this: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/12/the-physiology-of-foie-why-foie-gras-is-not-u.html
It is funny how we sugarcoat the fact that mankind is cruel , destructive and selfish by claiming we are the dominant race and we can do what we want with animals and nature. What constitutes dominant ? Can we outrun a cheetah, are we stronger than a grizzly, or for that matter, do we possess any of the survival traits of animals. Sure, we have a brain that is capable of producing incredible things, but as far as the basis gift of surviving in harmony with each other, we are dead last. Animals kill to survive. Not out of hatred, jealousy or maliciousness. So, are we really superior ? I dont think so.
"The oropharyngeal area is particularly sensitive and is physiologically adapted to perform a gag reflex in order to prevent fluids entering the trachea." So, while this adaptation was supposedly evolving over millions of years, how did the animal survive? What prevented the food from entering the trachea in the meantime?
Read my Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition). Also, read my very popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
That being said, cruelty to animals is absolutely wrong, and this force-feeding should be banished!
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)
As a religion and science writer, I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East."
But Foie Gras is soooo Yummy!
Babu,
You open Pakistani restaurant but no people! Where are people!?
LOL......Babu, where are your immigration papers....
Money.
hahahahaha best comment so far, you win the prize LMFAO!
Foie Gras is simply disgusting to eat anyway.
Be honest John, you've never even tried it! Its delicious.
Foie Gras is a delicacy that, prepared by the right chef and paired right, unlocks a rich flavor. I am not rich at all but I appreciate cuisine. It's always the same animal rights a holes that want to tell everyone else what to do, and how inhumane it is and this and the other thing. I bet most of the people crying about the meat by-product on here are pro choice but god forbid we should force feed an animal to fatten it up. We'll see one day how you all fair when the organic vegan grocer is looted and fairway closes shop and you actually have to grow and hunt your own food. At least the weak minded will die off...
Judging by your ability to produce a coherent argument, you should be among the first to go!
It doesn't bother me at all. I't's always been known how foie gras is produced but it's never made me feel I didn't want to eat it. There are a lot worse things in the world to worry about.
This is evil, hideous and devoid of any morality or compassion. Kind of cool that because it is so unhealthy, it could harm those that participate. Perhaps, there is a God after all!!!!
Anyone who can justify this is totally devoid of any heart, morality or compassion. Kind of cool that is so unhealthy as it will punish those that participate in this hideous and inhumane industry!!!
What is the difference between this and treatment of "broiler chicken", "veal calfs" and "caged pigs"??? Are you going to stop those as well?? You are a foo_l?
a much better article
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/12/the-physiology-of-foie-why-foie-gras-is-not-u.html
I personally feel that foie gras and veal are disgusting because of the processes involved in getting the finished product. I know there are many more processes regarding farm animals that are potentially as cruel and disgusting, but that's where I start. Until the US actually monitors the growers properly and guarantees a healthy and humane environment, I can't in good conscience condone cruel practices in the name of eating a delicacy. I mean, I'm human, I'm an omnivore, but it is a dilemma!
"I personally feel that foie gras and veal are disgusting.."
It's spelled "tasty." You misspelled it.
animals have been killed by humans for millions of years...for food, for hide, for sport, for body parts...etc...just the way it is and always will be. survival of the fittest. these days at least they knock them out before slaughtering...hasn't been that way for millions of years. to me, killing plants and killing animals is the same...you're killing a living thing. get over it. i'll take my foie gras seared please...amazingly good! maybe we should focus on not killing, torturing or trafficking humans for greed and power before worrying too much about the systematic farming of duck and geese?!
"killing plants and killing animals is the same...you're killing a living thing" - What? Have you never heard of a central nervous system? Plants don't feel pain; animals do.
that's why i prefaced it with "to me." To me, in the end it's the same thing, you're killing a living thing that is here to procreate, evolve and be a part of the food chain...no matter how simple or complex the organism. This is one topic where evolution and creationism agree. Plants and animals are here to provide to one another.
Just because one CAN eat foie gras doesn't mean that one should. One is just promoting the practice of inhumane treatment of animals.
Can you please provide us with a list of foods we are allowed to eat?
Yes anything that isn't a tortured murdered animal. There ya go.
Won't somebody think of the brussel sprouts? These poor things are plucked from their host stalk and plunged in to boiling water, placed in a steam "room" or inserted in to a dark box with a *giant* overhead flame.
I went to Paris last year. Saw all the sights. The one thing which I will always remember most of all was the Foie Gras. Better then the Tower and statues and paintings. I will also remember the 10 Euro I spent on a Coca Cola. Screw the French
Read about Ortolan Bunting. Foie gras is tame in comparison.
You're not kidding! What sickos!
Force fed. Enough said.
Anyone who is okay with this, step on up, let me shove a pipe down your throat and feed you until your liver is swollen and diseased, and then slit your throat so you can bleed out and your liver can be eaten.
Grow up Ziggy.
I agree, grow up ziggy. But a cannibal might enjoy some human foie gras. I absolutely love duck foie gras by the way.
I suppose you photosynthesize all of your energy to live? Because if you eat asparagus, step right up, let me cut you off at the ankles after cruelly forcing you to grow in one tiny area for two years, then boil you alive for a minute or two, only to drizzle hot melted butter all over you and the shake salt on your blistered skin.
Grow up Dave. Last time I checked asparagus didn't try to fight for its life before it was eaten.
An apple's pit is poisonous? Maybe evolution's way of self defense?
"Oops," you eat apples, don't you?
An apple's pit is poisonous? Maybe evolution's way of self defense?
"Oops," you eat apples, don't you? Curse you!!!!!
no but it makes your pee smell............. internal warfare?
This is a cruel and inhumane.
DISGusting! Whoever eats this stuff is going to hell i promise. Im sorry but im going to report this for animal cruelty. with so much vegetation and fruits in the world, you want to induce suffering to these poor animals? SICKO !!! reported..
Fruits and vegetables taste like poopies. Foie Gras is YUMMY! Give me more! GIVE ME MORE!
Another non-intelligent answer.... Sounds like you need a tube shoved down your throat.
Then shove a cattle prod up Atomic's ass and fire it off.
Delicious!
Used to love this stuff, but the last three times I had it, it made me very sick. No one else was affected, so it must be me. Giving it up with sadness… More to the point, if the farm cannot make enough poundage without this practice, they must be allowed to continue. There is a market and the local jobs. If you force this industry out too, the frozen livers from China will be produced under much worse conditions – bet the farm.
Fatty liver is a PATHOLOGICAL process; and in humans with obesity and/or diabetes (also Syndrome X = Metabolic Syndrome) it is termed NASH & NAFLD (Non-Alcohlic Steato-Hepatitis / Fatty Liver "Disease").
We are producing sick birds with this process & then eating their pathological livers!
gonna barf...
Eat, live, and die happily. Let people enjoy what they like.
Spoken like a true republican.
I am a lifelong Democrat and I agree with him. It is more like a Republican to step in and tell you how to live.
Sarah, so, allowing people to do what they want is now Republican? And you are trying to make it sound insulting? Sign me up!!!!!!!
Actually, in all honesty, I don't see what politics have to do with this subject in any way shape of form. Nice try, though
Wrong, its always the left wing democrap limp wristed pansies always trying to place rules on people and tell them how to live....P.S......foie gras is delicious.....eat it all the time and no one can stop me........
I enjoy people named Mike being drawn, quartered, and force fed to their children.
Because you are on a forum protesting cruelty.......ohhhh kaaaay
Gross! Better get your statins & insulin out if you eat that crap.
Most people have never had fois-gras because of the price. But, that doesn't matter because they are defending the right to exploit for profit. Animal health, safety and respect doesn't even register. Yeah, we need to eat, but this and in this way??
AMERICANS WASTE 96 BILLION TONS OF FOOD A YEAR!
I wonder what percentage of foie gras produced is wasted?
ZING! You nailed her with that one!
The point is, is we are becoming a nation of, "So what". After working for restaurants, and some very expensive ones at that, you become aware that people waste so much good food. Even the most expensive stuff gets scraped into the trash. You are wrong about me being 'nailed on that one'. I have plenty of friends who work in the business and can verify the waste. Even Foie-Gras. You are the one 'nailed'. And, stupid, at that.
@Tara – you're hilarious! I have a sister named Tara that is very funny and intelligent but I don't get to see as often as I'd like, what you said reminds me of a witty remark she would say:-)
You are – what you eat. Imagine yourself being force-fed continuously. So have some conscience and discourage such unnatural practices of the industry.
Agree 100%!!! Animal cruelty, high cholesterol, diabetes...this is one dish that should be illegal for everyone's sake!
Who the heck do you think you are telling me what I can't eat? I'm going out tomorrow and but foie gras and veal chops and I'm oing to eat them in YOUR name!
I wish I could "like" this reply!
What you want to eat, and what you can probably afford is only potato chips and cheetos on a good day. You ain't foolin' nobody here.
Cynthia, thanks for sharing the Red Herring.....are you sharing it because you are vegan?
I wondered what happens to the rest of the duck? Is it wasted? Does anyone eat the rest of the bird? Also force feeding the bird is terrible I eat meat and poultry. I raise my own, free range, non-caged, chickens and water fowl. You can raise birds for human consumption humanly.
Hudson Valley Foie Gras uses the whole bird and sells confit, duck fat, whole duck ect.
Oh like you would know.... Go eat your cat.
I've driven up there once, nice place. No squealing ducks anywhere in sight. You ever been there DB?
Read the article....its tells you they use the whole bird.......and its all delicious...
In every city in this country, mothers are dumpster-diving to find a pizza crust or a half-eaten apple to keep their kids from starving. And a few gourmets are whining because they can't have their fatty duck liver. I feel so sorry for them!
This is why poor people on government assistance should not be allowed to breed while accepting federal aid.
And don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for homeless kids, but some people just shouldn't have kids. Don't repress my culinary whims because I'm not poor! I worked hard to afford my foie!
Matthew makes a good point. I too feel for the poor who cannot afford good food, that's why I pay so much in taxes. But don't try to make me feel guilty because I have the means to splurge on food every so often.
Now, you should add Greece and Spain to the same list.
Good point. We should produce more fois gras and get it to the dumpster diving moms.
All these people are comparing fatty duck liver to FIL in humans. Humans are not migratory water fowl. Migration involves flying hundreds of miles, which necessitates gorging on large amounts of food as an energy store. Because of this, water fowl have evolved bodies capable of undergoing this process. There's no comparison. Foie gras is using an artificial process to mimic what already happens in nature. How is that cruel?
FOIEK YEAH! PREACH IT BROTHER!
I have nothing against Foie Gras but this description of how poultry is killed for market is more than I personally ever needed to know. As a journalist I've covered many homicides and cruelty to animals cases. The descriptions contained above are just as disgusting. Can't help but wonder if the writer received an incentive to write such, to me, a piece that's obviously meant to bias readers.
Probably a ridiculously large lobe of foie on the house, which would then make this a fair trade.
'We were all born MEAT EATERS. If you don't eat meat you are denying who you are' Sorry, that's just not true. If you did any research, you know that our anatomical equipment (teeth, jaws, and digestive system favors a fleshless diet). Still if makes you feel good to shove meat in your mouth, be my guest. And enjoy your heart attack when it happens.
hehe you're special
You know the pointy teeth, right? Foiek off vegan.
HAHAHAHA, Enjoy your granola clogged bowel obstruction!
And, go enjoy your diarrera. Ewwww.
Our stomachs produce acid that is much weaker than that of herbivores, so we cannot digest cell walls. The actual nutritional information on vegetables is only accurate if the veggies or fruits are pureed to break down the cell walls, otherwise every cell that was not manually chewed (see your poop for corn, nuts, etc.) has no nutrtional value other than as intestinal brillo (which is a good thing).
Our Stomach acid is on the level with other meat eaters too. and the first 8 teeth on top and bottom, match those of meat eaters, not herbivores.
We evolved into humans when the species had a 35-40 year live span. Meat may not be healthy for you, but our bodies were specifically designed to eat meat.
THis is also evidenced by the fact that fats are craved based on a positive feedback loop and good carbs like veggies are on a negative feed back loop.
What this means on laymans terms is that the human body is designed to eat as much fatty food as is available. When we evolved,our fatty meals were few and far between so we needed as much as possible. With good carbs like veggies, we have a negative feedback loop which causes us to stop eating when nutritional needs have been met.
Eating meat may not be the best thing for your body by any means, but to say that our bodies are not suited for eating meat, forgets that we are the same genetically as when we left the caves and started building huts.
Wrong. Just because you choose to write a run-on sentence doesn't mean it's correct. Try again...
You are a tard. The way our teeth are structured, we are naturally born to be omnivores.
False. Our teeth have evolved from seed and root eating teeth to flesh tearing teeth. We are actually becoming more carnivorous with evolution. Our bodies have also evolved to be able to digest more protein. Just because you can put a lie out there doesn't make it true.
I say we stop eating it. I say we eat the people that are against it!
Count me in.
You know you can hear a lettuce screaming when you rip its head off of its roots, right?
Music to my Ears. Did you also know that you can hear a lobster scream when you plunge it into a nice warm tub?
fun fact, that's not screaming (lobsters don't have vocal cords), its gas expanding and escaping from the shell.
oh the humanity
So much of the meat and other animal products produced and consumed in modern America are the result of producing what is essentially a disease state in the animal. It is insane that we should find it surprising when it is less healthful also.
Hey, foie gras falls into the paleo guidelines...
Rob: most paleo-centric ways of eating allow for products from animals that are allowed to be healthy–grass-fed beef, free-range (truly free-range, that is) chicken, etc. Foie gras doesn't fall into that category. (Eating paleo isn't just about eating low carb. Frankenfoods are shunned, whether the result of over-processing or, as in this case, the result of force-feeding an animal until it has fatty liver.
I bet the makes of Lipitor love that Americans continue to eat unhealthy foods, produced inhumanely. It's just sick & wrong to torture animals so that fat Americans can get even more obese.
Happy heart attacks to all you cruel f*cks!
Choke on your granola Blake!
Choke on your steak bone, Matt....
I love how people always assume all Foie Gras eaters do it all the time and/or are high risk heart attack patients, and conversely that eating a vegetarian diet automatically equals healthier lifestyle.
A restaurant that serves Foie Gras probably has its vegetarian dishes loaded with cheese, oils, butters, etc. If you claim you eat at home more, fine, that's awesome, but when I prepare my omnivoric meals at home, they are just as healthy, if not more so, because they are complete proteins I am eating with my fruits and veggies, not tofu in an unnatural state molded into a "meat shape" with artificial flavoring to make it taste like a burger.
Get over yourself, peoples......
Well thank you. That's the beauty of this country we should have the right to choose...beside we have a great health care system
The herd needs to be thinned anyways. Continue consuming your fatty,diseased liver. Dead men walking.....
Ya your right, I may only make it to 75!
Yep. Eat a grape, live forever right? Hey, you are only going to live about three years longer than me.....and those are the years you will be in diapers. I win.
"may initially find this distressing and injury may result,” ... or it MAY not. It's food, and if that's what it takes to produce it, that's simply the way it is. If I want Foie Gras, I have a right to buy it and eat it. If you don't like what it takes to make Foie Gras, don't buy it or eat it. But don't be making laws to infringe on my personal, constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.
I bet you also don't care about the sweat shops and child laborers who make your clothes and gadgets. Yes, people should have freedom to choose, but when you aren't intelligent enough to consider the implications of your actions and the cruelty and inhumanity you're supporting with your dollars, the smart and compassionate people are going to step in and do it for you. And they should. Freedom doesn't mean the right to make stupid decisions and destroy every other living thing on this planet so your taste buds can momentarily be satiated. If you're a selfish idiot, people are going to try to stop you. Get used to it.
I couldn't care less about sweat shops! Except in so much as I probably can buy the products at a cheaper rate!
And if you try and stop me you will get hurt. Badly.
You probably camp outside of Wal-Mart for the after Christmas sale. I can see it now.
Cheap labor is great. Both for the worker and me the owner of the factory
You mean cheap labor is good for YOU and the owner of the factory.
Do you foie gras eaters realize you are eating the equivalent of forced abscesses or gangrene. Diseased liver like this would not exist unless they massively force-fed the animals. A human with a fatty liver several times normal size would be close to death. The same goes for dangerously anemic atrophied veal flesh.
What kind of freak even willingly eats that stuff? The type that eats monkey brains or stillborn human babies, just because it's an exotic delicacy.
Dude, make it SOUND as bad as you want, we don't care, it TASTE awesome! END-OF-STORY-!
yum
And how would you even cook a still born baby? Baked stuffed or butterflied I guess? Or in a turkey fryer?
maybe spit roasted
Ooooh – Rotisserie Style! Yum & self basting!
Duck liver functions differently than human liver. Duck stores fat in liver as a natural process. Study show that once the force feeding stops, the liver returns to normal size. Humans can't do that.
You realize that they naturally gorge themselves prior to migration? So if they did on their own, then it would be ok, right? Tool.
Time to ban it. It's just too cruel.
no it's not
You spelled delicious wrong.
I didn't write delicious
And I wasn't talking to you.
Foie Gras is just too damn tasty not to eat. Sorry ducky, I'm bigger than you and smarter than you.
LOL! GET IN MY STOMACH DUCKY!
I should have the right to make my own choices as to what I want to eat or drink. Get the government out of my refrigerator, pantry, and any other place their trying to get into
Bingo!!
Cool. When your family dies of an e. coli infection from contaminated beef, just thank God for not creating evolution!
Or contaminated spinach?
Your handle fits
Besides, we all die. I'm 49 and I retired at 36 and I eat foie. How's your life going tree hugger? Maybe YOU should eat foie too.
Successful yet can not put a first grade sentence together? Yeah.....right.....(my three year old can teach you how to spell sores if you would like....you could learn a lot about the English language from her).
I may misspell words occasionally, but I don't have to feed my three year old Burger King and government cheese handouts. Your envy is showing and is clouding your thought process.
No to France, no to French, and no to Foie Gras. Let them eat cake.
not a cake with butter...... the do gooders will be after you
these snobs- they feel like eating some french sounding delicacy ill make u feel better- these eople are not more civilized than supposedly less civilized people from so called "thirs world" that they routine claim superiority over- fools paraduse and your demise will happen slowl;y but surely
Forget about the duck... it's what this does to YOU! I love Foie Gras but not willing to die of a heart attack or stroke for it. A treat once a year perhaps but even then ... it just does hell on you.
okay? so don't eat it every day... it's a luxury/gourmet for a reason.... have it every once in a while... sustains the industry, but doesn't abuse it... as for the ducks... I could care less... their meat is going to be used one way or another, as one of the lower species on the food chain, might as well utilize all of their meat... :P yum.
You can spend your life being afraid to eat anything decadent and hate life because of what you are imposing on yourself, OR, you can enjoy every bite and shave a couple of the more miserable years off of your life. You choose.
Or you could be healthy and not be miserable.
Not interested. There's plenty of other stuff to eat.
BUT ITS YUMMY! TRY IT YOU'LL LIKE IT!
Are they going to ban veal next?
I hope so
I hope so
We don't NEED to eat lobster either...but we do it because we like to. Or King Crab. Or Veal. These aren't needs but wants, and we have a right to them. If a lobster makes me happy, well, that's enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. If fatty goose liver gives me a thrill, that too is protected. I'm sure it's better than the skinny little chicken livers I eat.
One should not be emotional about food. Whether it's force-fed or not, it's just food. Some people will not be happy until all meat eating is banned, and that's just a fact.
Point to the part of the constitution that makes it a right. The pursuit of life is a right. Factory farming isn't. The killing of another animal isn't the real issue, its the disconnected way in which we harvest that flesh that is.
If you dont like it dont eat it. You are not morally superior for being vegan, and when you brag about it you are a douche
Actually, vegans are morally superior. Most moral philosophers will agree.
Not really, plants are alive. If you want to make the argument that they don't feel pain, well then, I am pretty sure the Ducks being asleep doesn't feel pain when it is slaughtered.
Usually, when one has to pronounce their moral superiority, it can be more due to lack of self esteem. I actually try to detract from the carnies vs the veg heads, but self-righteous statements seem to irk me the most
Well, if we're going to make this an issue, can someone petition my former high school to change its mascot? We were known as the Goslings because our town was famous for it's goose Foie Gras. Can't be intimidated by a sports team named after a baby anything.
this happened because of religion
i do enjoy the foie gras.
Curious how we regard fatty liver as a disease in humans but we consider fatty liver in ducks to be nutritious.
not nutritious. tasty.
exactly, who would want to eat a diseased liver???
Ducks, it should go without saying, belong to a different species. Waterfowl store fat in their livers; we store it in our guts – foie gras ducks aren't diseased. If you stop the gavage – or if they fly south for the winter – the livers return to normal.
Who said it's nutritious? You need to read more, dude!
That's good, because all these people who enjoy foie gras they will die much earlier than those who don't.
Why do you think I have no compassion for them when I see them gavage pills after that thinking they will get rid of high cholesterol?
Good Lord, another article in order to create fights between vegans vs meat eaters . I miss all the cool booze articles. Last week it was gestation crates, now this. I lived in France Foie Gras is cruel, unnecessary and tastes like you know what. Prop 2 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act passed with 67% of the vote in CA, sorry, that state cares about animal welfare. Also cage free eggs will be the norm. But hey, the people who think there is nothing wrong with it and it's not cruel, are free to be restrained and have a long tube shoved down their throat to check it out.
I lived Germany about 12 years ago and fell in love with Foie in the Alsace region of France. Had it for dinner one night and loved it so much that I had it for breakfast the next day AND went to the local producer and brought a bunch back home. I have loved foie ever since and eat it every chance I get. I have a great recipe for a take on Beef Wellington where the beef is stuffed with foie that is wonderful (I can forward it to you if you want!). All the x-hippies and tree huggers in Cali can go pound sand. Just means more foie and veal chops and caviar and lobster and caged eggs for the rest of us!
You must have misread my comment. I think Foie Gras is disgusting and this tree hugger in CA supported Prop2.
HAHA wow....I've never read an intelligent comment or response from someone that supports meat consumption or any other animal suffering, so it makes sense that Matthew misread what you wrote. But seriously Lila you're right, with all the cruelty that goes on with the agriculture industry today there has been some progress with the various bans and reforms. Hopefully it will continue down path.
Do you guys not have sarcasm in Cali? I WAS JOKING!
Rrrrrrrrrrrright Matthew, right
Not eating meat is weird. Being vegan is just sick. I know three or four vegetarians and all but one is morbidly obese. I know one vegan and she has open soars all over her face that reminds me of scurvy. Next time your in front of the mirror, open your mouth and look at the incisors that you have. They are not there for munching carrots. We were all born MEAT EATERS. If you don't eat meat you are denying who you are. And yes, Christina, I wear fur trimmed coats too. Animals are there for me to eat and cloth myself with. Thats the way it is. I'm happy with it and I will never change. Animals are yummy!
Durrr... those aren't carnivore teeth, idiot. Gee I never looked in the mirror at my mouth before until you suggested it just now. Are you some freak with a dog's teeth? Ever take a biology class? I don't think so since you say someone has "open soars".
Um and those fur-trimmed coats are likely from German Shepherds skinned alive. Yes they actually skin them alive, look it up!
Let me guess your source... PETA?
Now there's a wealth of misinformation and lies!
Remember when PETA tried to sue Sea World under the 13th Amendment, saying the whales were slaves? It says a lot about an organization when they try to equate one of the worst inhumanities in history to a few whales doing flips.
You spend too much time listening to the Rush Douchebag show you slackjaw.
No, common knowledge for anyone who has ever taken a SCIENCE CLASS. And guess what else? Most of the world is LACTOSE INTOLERANT, meaning they can't digest dairy products. More clues about what we should NOT be eating. Oh, and we have 2 sets of long intestines – indicative of plant-based diets. No claws, either. Have to cook flesh to eat it. I can keep going down the list if you like. We're primates, and primates are plant eaters. Get it now?
@Roobios – No, we do not HAVE to cook meat to eat it. It just tastes better that way, and we have evolved to adapt to a cooked meat diet. Have you ever heard of sushi, or steak tartar? Also, there is a very small window from the time an animal is killed to when you can no longer safely eat the meat without curing or cooking. Cooking meat (a.k.a. the master of fire) is one of the pinnacle evolutionary points of man. ... And steak tastes GOOD. ... Can you imagine a BBQ with only corn on the cob, and salad to eat? Would it smell great from half a mile away? No. Your mouth salivates when you smell cooking meat. It's biological. Your "revulsion" is self-taught and ... retarded, at best.
Soars? Oh man, all that meat has gone to your head. Pity for the poor animals dude!
Love it would eat it every day if I could. And yes I like fur coats
and leather and all other animal products
Sounds like you'd be the first in line to buy a coat made from baby skin.
What kind of man wears a fur coat? That's so strange...
I do a full length mink coat nice and war on cold winter days
As long as people can stuff their fat face – they don't care how the animal is treated. No need to eat meat – Haven't eaten in 20 years 6 feet tall 190lbs – feel great.
to each their own, but only the religious try to turn their habits into everyones.
I don't think he is turning his habits,on you.. Seems to be merely stating you don't need meat to be strong and healthy as the meat industry lobbyists/nutritionists would have you believe.
It is incredibly hypocritical that this process is deemed inhuman and the process in which the US handles it's Beef production is allowed to continue as is. This is the world we live in, and foie gras has been around for a very long time and it is quite delicious. If you dont want it, dont eat it, obviously there is enough people who enjoy it for a farm like this to stay open. There are bigger battles to face in this country. Get over it.
Why do meat eaters even reply. If you love it so much and feel totally at ease, then why defend yourself. And just because something has been around for a very long time does not justify pain and suffering.
I was never a fab of foie gras, even before I knew what the process was to obtain it.
Now I like to say my diet is 95% vegan. As in about once a week I end up eating a meal with some kind of meat or dairy in it. Since I rarely go out of my way to eat meat, I highly doubt I'll go out of my way to have a dish with foie gras in it.
To the Hudson Valley Foie Gras consumer below:
Other investigations at Hudson Valley Foie Gras and America's other leading foie gras producer, Sonoma Foie Gras in California, revealed that ducks were crammed into filthy, feces-ridden sheds and that others were isolated in wire cages that were so small that they could barely move. Investigators also observed barrels full of dead ducks who had choked to death or whose organs had ruptured during the traumatic force-feeding process. The investigators rescued 15 ducks, including two who were being eaten alive by rats because they could not move.
BON Appettite!
If this is from PETA, it's automatically unreliable and untrustworthy. Research the accomplishments of Dr. Edward Taub.
Can't handle the truth Josh?......
THE COLON IS BETTER
Ohh, you seem the kind of guy who would also buy animal fur coats.... you have a very sad life.
I've been to and bought from Hudson Valley Foie Gras and I've been to and bought from D'Artagnan. I will continue eating all the foie I can get my hands on! Its so delicious.
Check your cholesterol sucker. Liver carries the most of it. You won't live long, and that's actually really good.
Your very mean for a libtard.
*You're. As in, "you're an expected level of mean for a person who uses terms that are pejorative to two groups of people."
@Tara – you're hilarious! I have a sister named Tara that is very funny and intelligent but I don't get to see as often as I'd like, what you said reminds me of a witty remark she would say:-)
Haha!! You're*, all that fat has went to your brain!
Matt, = tardbagger
how adult of you!
And this is why the US has the highest rates for obesity - and that our top killers are all related to bad diet: heart attack, stroke, and cancer. Be proud while you chow down on that chunk of duck fat.
Give me a break. People aren't fat because they eat Foie Gras... most people haven't even HEARD of it. They are fatsos because they eat greasy fried foods.