I telephoned Daniel Guémené, Ph.D., a research director at INRA, the prestigious French Institute for Agricultural Research. Guémené is an extremely prolific author of papers published in French and English journals, places such as World's Poultry Science and British Poultry Science. One of Guémené's keen interests is in discovering and refining ways of knowing whether poultry, ducks in this case, are in pain. He began his work on force-feeding in 1995, and as far as he can tell, his group at INRA is still alone in scientifically assessing the effect of tube feeding.
His first experiments examined the concentration of corticosterone—a hormone closely associated with stress—in ducks' bloodstreams before and after feeding. He expected a sharp rise—but found none at all. Over the following years, Guémené's group also looked at other indications of distress—avoidance of the feeder, withdrawal, pain signals in the medulla—and found possibly some pain in the final days of feeding, probably caused by inflammation of the crop; minor signs of avoidance, but not aversion, among some ducks at feeding time; and an increase in panting. Ducks showed the most stress when they were physically handled in any way or moved to new cages. Mortality on foie gras farms appears to be lower than in standard poultry operations. Guémené's group confirmed that although a grossly fattened liver is not natural, it is not a sign of disease; after feeding is stopped and the liver shrinks, there is no necrosis—no liver cells have been killed.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (the largest and oldest veterinary organization in America) has also considered tube feeding. In 2004, a resolution opposing the practice was introduced in its House of Delegates and referred to a study committee, which over the following year analyzed the limited amount of peer-reviewed literature and visited at least one of the three American foie gras farms. In July 2005, delegates presented their arguments on both the original resolution and a compromise version, apparently approved by an animal-rights representative. One opponent of tube-feeding who had made the farm visit conceded that the birds were not in distress or pain, that, although obese, they could still walk, and that they were better cared for than most chickens raised for food. But he still concluded that this was "not a good use of these animals." When a vote was taken, both ban resolutions were overwhelmingly defeated. Some delegates were influenced by the argument that if the organization disapproved tube-feeding, who knew what might follow? Why, next year they might condemn the confinement of veal calves, or the batteries of small, mechanized cages in which egg-laying hens are kept for their entire adulthood. Not a bad idea.
