PETA and Foie Gras

[redfarmer]

Did you read the post I was responding to?

I did. The person referred to shooting chickens with a pellet gun for fun. I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant to your case against foie gras since foie gras farmers aren't force feeding the birds for fun.

I didn't see any debunking, just a link to an Anthony Bourdain video. I'm not inclined to see his view as authoritative, nor his presentation as impartial.

He has a veterinarian in the presentation that talks about why claims of harm to the bird are anthropomorphic. I also quoted veterinarians representing a professional veterinarian organization that stated they observed nothing that was inherently cruel. I can provide more links if you'd like.

Well, you've submitted it, but maybe you could flesh out your criticism? But I haven't suggested that we only eat for nutrition. Only that basic nutrition is a more serious matter than taste. If someone in sub-Saharan Africa says "I have no bread" and you say "I have no cake", I regard one of you as being in a more perilous situation (it's not you). And If you're suggesting that we may torture animals to death if the result is delicious enough, you're taking a much dimmer view of eating, and of human beings, than I am.

You seem to be suggesting we should only eat for nutrition. You suggest that luxury foods should be eliminated in favor of staple foods, thus implying that luxury foods are things we should do without. However, if we also eat for taste, luxury foods are very relevant as they provide tastes that may not be available elsewhere.

If you are suggesting that we should only abandon luxury foods that are produced cruelly, then you need a case for why foie gras is inherently cruel to produce, which I have not yet seen.

 

[RandFan]

To a degree, yes. I think that animals should only be kept as pets if they are treated humanely and with love. I believe that many, many people who own pets are not suited to care for them in such a way.

Not really an answer. Your complaint is with cruelty not pets. Unless you think the only way to stop the cruelty is to forbid pets altogether.

Saying that you are for pets just not the cases where having pets lead to cruelty is another way of saying people shouldn't be cruel to their pets.

 

[mumblethrax]

I did. The person referred to shooting chickens with a pellet gun for fun. I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant to your case against foie gras since foie gras farmers aren't force feeding the birds for fun.

Are you aware that I wasn't making a case against foie gras in particular, but responding to that post? If people don't care about cruelty to animals in agriculture, if they're willing to define it out of existence, there's not much point in establishing that it exists.

He has a veterinarian in the presentation that talks about why claims of harm to the bird are anthropomorphic. I also quoted veterinarians representing a professional veterinarian organization that stated they observed nothing that was inherently cruel. I can provide more links if you'd like.

And I have links to veterinarians and scientific bodies finding that there is something inherently cruel about it.

I still don't have any reason to believe that Bourdain didn't go vet-shopping, or that anything important has been debunked.

You seem to be suggesting we should only eat for nutrition. You suggest that luxury foods should be eliminated in favor of staple foods, thus implying that luxury foods are things we should do without. However, if we also eat for taste, luxury foods are very relevant as they provide tastes that may not be available elsewhere.

I didn't suggest this. Again, I brought up the distinction in light of animal cruelty--my position isn't that we shouldn't eat luxuries, but that we shouldn't eat luxuries that involve doing egregious harm to animals.

Since that indicts almost all of animal agriculture, I don't see much need to go into further detail when it comes to foie gras.

 

[RandFan]

You seem to be suggesting we should only eat for nutrition. You suggest that luxury foods should be eliminated in favor of staple foods, thus implying that luxury foods are things we should do without. However, if we also eat for taste, luxury foods are very relevant as they provide tastes that may not be available elsewhere.

Some would say that eating animals is not necessary and therefore *most if not all animal consumption is for taste. Luxury foods is just an egregious example of that. I think.

*Some vegans as in the case of Laura Dern cannot maintain health without some animal protein.

 

[RandFan]

And I have links to veterinarians and scientific bodies finding that there is something inherently cruel about it.

I appologize for asking but could you re-post the links?

I still don't have any reason to believe that Bourdain didn't go vet-shopping, or that anything important has been debunked.

Me either. However I would like some data to refute his assertions.

I didn't suggest this. Again, I brought up the distinction in light of animal cruelty--my position isn't that we shouldn't eat luxuries, but that we shouldn't eat luxuries that involve doing egregious harm to animals.

I don't eat veal or foie gras. I share this sentiment.

Since that indicts almost all of animal agriculture,

I'm not sure about that claim.

 

[redfarmer]

I still don't have any reason to believe that Bourdain didn't go vet-shopping, or that anything important has been debunked.

In all fairness, we really don't know if anything has been debunked or not since you still haven't said why you think it is wrong to produce foie gras--something you admit earlier in your last post.

 

[redfarmer]

Some would say that eating animals is not necessary and therefore *most if not all animal consumption is for taste. Luxury foods is just an egregious example of that. I think.

*Some vegans as in the case of Laura Dern cannot maintain health without some animal protein.

We actually had this debate at the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly this year when we decided to adopt a statement of ethical eating. There were some who objected to preference being given to plant-based diets in the statement without acknowledgement that there are people who cannot live without animal protein.

Personally, I tend to see a wholesale condemnation of animal eating as being rather short-sighted and a sign of privilege.

 

[Meed]

Thanks for the link redfarmer

Anthony Bourdain on No Reservations, Foie Gras Not Cruel

Or:

I'm not impressed with this video.

"strangely enough, a few twisted angry people would like to take your foie gras away"
"these fanatical stealth vegan extremists believe the force feeding of ducks to plump their livers is actually cruel" [said with incredulity]

Bourdain is being extremely dishonest by characterizing his opposition in this fashion.

Wolfgang Puck, the Los Angeles chef whose culinary empire ranges from celebrity dinners at Spago to a line of canned soups, said yesterday that he would use eggs and meat only from animals raised under strict humane standards.

With the announcement, Mr. Puck has joined a small group of top chefs around the country who refuse to serve foie gras, the fattened liver of ducks and geese.

ONE of the world's leading chefs yesterday criticised the inhumane farming methods of one of his country's most infamous delicacies, foie gras.
Frenchman Albert Roux, who has trained high-profile chefs including Gordon Ramsay, Martin Wishart and Andrew Fairlie, said the traditional method of producing foie gras, by force-feeding ducks and geese, should stop. More humane methods should be used that allow the animal to gorge themselves naturally, he said.

Famed Chicago chef Charlie Trotter is no one's idea of an animal-rights activist. He has devised mouth-watering preparations featuring just about every creature deemed fit for human consumption, and his 2001 book "Charlie Trotter's Meat & Game" includes 15 recipes that use foie gras, the enlarged fatty liver of a duck or goose.

But Trotter had a change of heart about foie gras and has quit serving it at his eponymous North Side restaurant. The act has placed him at the center of a fiery fray that has animal-rights groups aligning with Republican lawmakers, foie gras bans being effected in California and, perhaps, Illinois and Chicago's top chefs engaging in an earth-scorching war of words.

...

Trotter said he became uncomfortable with serving the delicacy after visiting three foie gras farms (he refused to identify them) and concluding that the ducks were suffering as they were kept in small cages and fed grains through tubes inserted down their esophagi.

"I just said, `Enough is enough here. I can't really justify this,'" Trotter said. "What I have seen, it's just inappropriate. There are too many great things to eat out there that I don't believe that any animal would have to go through that for our benefit."

The force feeding of animals for non-medical purposes, essential to current foie gras production practices, is explicitly prohibited by specific laws in six of nine Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany,[43] Italy,[44] Luxembourg, Norway,[45] Poland,[46] or following interpretation of general animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.[47]
...
Turkey also banned the force feeding of animals on June 24, 2004 by the enactment of the Animal Protection Law No: 1/323.[49]
Since 1997, the number of European countries producing foie gras has halved. Only five countries still produce foie gras: Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, France and Hungary.[50]
...
Sections 25980-25984 of the California Health and Safety Code, enacted in 2004 and to become effective July 1, 2012, prohibit the "force feed[ing of] a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size" as well as the sale of products that are a result of this process.[53]
...
On January 8, 2008, the San Diego City Council unanimously[54] passed a resolution that "commends the Animal Protection and Rescue League (APRL) for raising awareness of the cruel practice of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras, commends the many San Diego restaurants that have stopped selling foie gras before the California statewide ban goes into effect, and encourages San Diegans to avoid supporting this extreme form of animal cruelty." The resolution also cites an independent Zogby poll finding that 85% of San Diegans favor an immediate ban on foie gras.[55][56][57]
...
Foie gras production is illegal in Argentina as a mistreatment or act of cruelty to animals.
...
In August 2003, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture to ban the force feeding of geese, effective 31 March 2005.[68]

Sure sounds like it's just a few twisted angry vegan extremists who care about foie gras.

"Ariane [Daguin] is owner of D'Artagnan a purveyor of fine founds including foie gras. She's nice. She likes animals! She's not evil!"

Ariane Daguin, co-owner of D’Artagnan, the country’s leading distributor of foie gras, is not tortured by doubt. “Animals have no soul,” she says, in her rich Gascon accent. “God made ducks to have that liver—and He made it incredibly delicious! Why would it exist if not for us to enjoy it?”

I am certainly not going to claim she's "evil", but saying "she's nice. she likes animals." is extremely misleading since she apparently believes they have no soul and God designed foie gras specifically for us to eat.

"Let's ask the experts"

"The experts" apparently = 1 vet. The info about the lack of gagging and breathing disruption was good, but as far as I know these aren't the complaints that are made against foie gras.

The vet says it's normal for ducks to store fat in their liver. Sure! But that doesn't change the fact that it's not normal for them to store anywhere near the amount they do in foie gras farms.

Left = foie gras liver, right = normal liver

For an alternative perspective I suggest watching this video. In fairness other foie gras producers may not be as bad, but this is from Canada's largest foie gras producer, Elevages Perigord and most of the foie gras sold in the US comes from Canada.

(Warning: Graphic)

 

[mumblethrax]

In all fairness, we really don't know if anything has been debunked or not since you still haven't said why you think it is wrong to produce foie gras--something you admit earlier in your last post.

Well, you claimed that something had been debunked, without any input from me. Have you changed your mind about that?

Yes, I'm opposed to foie gras production. I don't consider this an admission.

Personally, I tend to see a wholesale condemnation of animal eating as being rather short-sighted and a sign of privilege.

Can you elaborate, or are you just dropping the p-bomb for want of a genuine argument?

 

[RandFan]

We actually had this debate at the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly this year when we decided to adopt a statement of ethical eating. There were some who objected to preference being given to plant-based diets in the statement without acknowledgement that there are people who cannot live without animal protein.

Personally, I tend to see a wholesale condemnation of animal eating as being rather short-sighted and a sign of privilege.

Ultimately we may significantly reduce the consumption of animals. That may very well be a good thing. Personally I'd like to see the end of many methods used by factory farming. I'm against causing suffering simply for profit. I don't have a problem with animal consumption per se as animal husbandry provides many benefits to animals that they could not otherwise get (yes, I concede that the vast majority of these animals would not exist without the consumption of animals). However, like Dennett says, how clever it was for the sheep to adapt the shepherd. I don't mean to speak for Dennett as it relates to the consumption of animals but I would agree that it is a boon to them that because we eat them we also can provide protection against predators, the elements and starvation and also provide medical care. That the end result is that an animals must die is not in and of itself sufficient reason to end all consumption of animals.

Now, I think Peter Singer has a point and I'm happy to take whales off of the menu and perhaps many others also. I don't want to take away pork but my preference for it may have to yield.

JMO.

 

[mumblethrax]

I appologize for asking but could you re-post the links?

It would be tough, because I haven't posted them in the first place.

I'd start with the report from the EU's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. Cornsail has answered the Bourdain video--I haven't watched it, so you'll have to tell me if his response is persuasive.

 

[redfarmer]

I'm not impressed with this video.

"strangely enough, a few twisted angry people would like to take your foie gras away"
"these fanatical stealth vegan extremists believe the force feeding of ducks to plump their livers is actually cruel" [said with incredulity]

Bourdain is being extremely dishonest by characterizing his opposition in this fashion.

I will say I haven't watched your video yet. I will say that I won't take the word of three celebrity chefs that foie gras is inhumane--I wouldn't have taken Bourdain's testimony if he hadn't had the visit to the farm and the talk with the vet.

As for making it illegal, I'm sure we're all aware that illegal does not always equal immoral, nor does legal equal more. I could quote the instance of the city of Chicago, which made production and sale of foie gras legal again after three years of it being illegal. I don't see anything new in the Wikipedia article that hasn't already been answered.

 

[redfarmer]

Well, you claimed that something had been debunked, without any input from me. Have you changed your mind about that?

Yes, I'm opposed to foie gras production. I don't consider this an admission.

My original question to you was why you believe it is wrong, which you still haven't answered but have been going around in circles with...

Can you elaborate, or are you just dropping the p-bomb for want of a genuine argument?

If you really need it. Those who can become vegetarians and vegans are those that can afford, financially and physically, to do so. Not everyone in every part of the world can afford this luxury currently. And, as RandFan and I were both discussing, people do exist who will die unless they eat at least some animal protein.

 

[Meed]

However I would like some data to refute his assertions.

I don't think his assertions (other than "it's not cruel") really addressed the complaints against foie gras production. I haven't heard "they gag and can't breathe" or "it's not natural for ducks to store fat in their liver" as arguments against foie gras. Then again I haven't spent a ton of time on the issue.

 

[redfarmer]

I don't think his assertions (other than "it's not cruel") really addressed the complaints against foie gras production. I haven't heard "they gag and can't breathe" or "it's not natural for ducks to store fat in their liver" as arguments against foie gras. Then again I haven't spent a ton of time on the issue.

From Wikipedia:

Animal rights and welfare groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),[1] Farm Sanctuary[2] and the Humane Society of the United States[3] contend that foie gras production methods, and force feeding in particular, consist of cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. Specific complaints include livers swollen to many times their normal size, impaired liver function, expansion of the abdomen making it difficult for birds to walk, death if the force feeding is continued, and scarring of the esophagus.

PETA claims that the insertion and removal of the feeding tube scratches the throat and the esophagus, causing irritations and wounds and thus exposing the animal to risk of mortal infections

I interpreted his discussion of the feeding tube as a refutation of PETA's claims that the feeding tube scars the esophagus, and the discussion of the liver as refuting claims that liver function is impaired when it is expanded to many times its normal size.

 

[RandFan]

It would be tough, because I haven't posted them in the first place.

I'd start with the report from the EU's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. Cornsail has answered the Bourdain video--I haven't watched it, so you'll have to tell me if his response is persuasive.

Thank you.

 

[Meed]

I will say I haven't watched your video yet. I will say that I won't take the word of three celebrity chefs that foie gras is inhumane--I wouldn't have taken Bourdain's testimony if he hadn't had the visit to the farm and the talk with the vet.

Agreed, but you are missing the point I was making there. Bourdain tried to give the impression that it was only "a few twisted angry" "vegan extremists" who are against foie gras. That was dishonest. Not just because of the high profile chefs I quoted (who are not even vegetarian), but also all the anti foie gras laws in Italy, Denmark, Poland, Israel, Argentina, The UK, California, etc etc.

As for making it illegal, I'm sure we're all aware that illegal does not always equal immoral, nor does legal equal more. I could quote the instance of the city of Chicago, which made production and sale of foie gras legal again after three years of it being illegal. I don't see anything new in the Wikipedia article that hasn't already been answered.

See above.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think his assertions (other than "it's not cruel") really addressed the complaints against foie gras production. I haven't heard "they gag and can't breathe" or "it's not natural for ducks to store fat in their liver" as arguments against foie gras. Then again I haven't spent a ton of time on the issue.

Those are fair points. Not compelling but they do make the video less so. Thanks. BTW: The comparison of the two livers, now that's compelling. I'd like to know if the ducks in the video result in the same and if there is apparent suffering. I'd happily concede it seems intuitive that there would be.

 

[mumblethrax]

My original question to you was why you believe it is wrong, which you still haven't answered but have been going around in circles with...

I think I have answered this. I believe it harms animals to no good end.

If you really need it. Those who can become vegetarians and vegans are those that can afford, financially and physically, to do so. Not everyone in every part of the world can afford this luxury currently. And, as RandFan and I were both discussing, people do exist who will die unless they eat at least some animal protein.

Look around the world and tell me who the people who eat most of the world's meat are. This argument is baffling, like arguing that only the rich have the privilege to spend less on gratuitous consumption; people doing so, therefore, are guilty of unexamined privilege. It's a complete reversal of the reality, where the world's poorest people can't afford to eat anything but a plant-based diet.

 

[Meed]

From Wikipedia:



I interpreted his discussion of the feeding tube as a refutation of PETA's claims that the feeding tube scars the esophagus, and the discussion of the liver as refuting claims that liver function is impaired when it is expanded to many times its normal size.

He made no assertions about scarring of the esophagus or liver function not being impaired that I can recall.