Meed
boy named crow
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,206
I don't trust out of context statistics. I would want to know the living conditions for both sets of birds, what vets say the birds actually died of, etc. I would also want to know whether both numbers, which are quoted in two different sources, were obtained using the same methods. A number by itself does not indicate force feeding is harmful. And it does not, by itself, indicate force feeding is cruel.
A mortality rate 25 times higher than normal either indicates that force feeding is harmful or that the living conditions at Hudson Valley are highly substandard.
And once again, you're describing evidence you've seen from the Canadian farm, which is a bit dishonest when discussing this article on the conditions of a different farm in a different country. You also seem to be missing the point, that your prized photos and videos from the Canadian farm do not prove that foie gras farming is inherently cruel.
I don't know what farms the liver pictures I've seen have come from and I don't know why you're assuming they came from a specific Canadian farm. All foie gras farms have to enlarge the liver way beyond its normal size or else they cannot legally classify their product as "foie gras". I don't see why the specific farm matters in this regard.
You've still given no reason to believe that foie gras production is inherently cruel. You've only given a case for why a particular farm in Canada uses cruel methods. I wish I could spell out the difference more but I don't know what else to say to get it home. It's a logical fallacy to conclude from some A is the case that all A is the case.
I never made any claims about anything being "inherently cruel" so I don't know where that came from. However, a 10-25 fold increase in mortality rate is a good reason to believe that force feeding is harmful to ducks, in my opinion.
Last edited: