# California Foie gras ban



## Deckhand (May 1, 2012)

Seriously!

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012...repeal-looming-foie-gras-ban/?test=latestnews


----------



## SpikeC (May 1, 2012)

When Foie Gras is outlawed, only outlaws will have..............


----------



## Crothcipt (May 1, 2012)

Typical of anything governmental. Write the law to satisfy one set of people but don't do anything to make it work the way it is supposed to.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 1, 2012)

I'm interested, if you are given 7 years to change a method and wait till the last minute to protest, how is it the governments fault?


----------



## Crothcipt (May 1, 2012)

money put aside for a study on how they want the producers to follow through at the bottom of the articale.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 1, 2012)

I read that, but with only one producer in CA it would seem rediculous, or even monopolistic, to throw money their way. I'm sure there are some valid arguments, but peoples lack of planning are not others emergencies. The gov't makes lots of mistakes, but it also takes lots of undeserved critisism as well. This CA law doesn't surprise me, but if it were in TX I would be shocked.


----------



## SpikeC (May 1, 2012)

It's the always the governments fault! Haven't you been paying attention?


----------



## Crothcipt (May 1, 2012)

So there being only 1 in the state it sounds like someone is wanting it closed down. I also like to look for the conspiracy in everything. 

With only 1 in the state it should have been resolved between what the state wants. It is not the growers fault something is wrong and has no idea what to change.


----------



## RRLOVER (May 1, 2012)

Well I can live with out fowl liver,but what is next?????? I know!,you won't be able to imprison a baby cow for my my dinning pleasure.


----------



## SpikeC (May 1, 2012)

I have read somewhere that foie GRAS can occur naturally in wild birds. The trick is giving them something so tasty that they gorge themselves. That might cost a bit more for feed, tho, eh?


----------



## SpikeC (May 1, 2012)

BTW, we are so spoiled it is ridiculous.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 1, 2012)

Just because Hollywood is in CA, doesn't mean everything is a conspiricy.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 1, 2012)

I'm sorry if I come off as not supportive of small business, I really am. I am no PETA activist by any means, but I don't believe in the industry, nor Wagyu for that matter. I'm a huge dog guy, and I am just glad I don't live in Korea.


----------



## Deckhand (May 1, 2012)

AFKitchenknivesguy said:


> I'm sorry if I come off as not supportive of small business, I really am. I am no PETA activist by any means, but I don't believe in the industry, nor Wagyu for that matter. I'm a huge dog guy, and I am just glad I don't live in Korea.


Or Hawaii:biggrin: Although maybe that's changed.


----------



## ecchef (May 1, 2012)

SpikeC said:


> I have read somewhere that foie GRAS can occur naturally in wild birds. The trick is giving them something so tasty that they gorge themselves. That might cost a bit more for feed, tho, eh?



Yeah, but then they would have to raise the price, and that might put it out of the reach of the 99% that ought to have it as well! :sarcasmalert:


----------



## tk59 (May 1, 2012)

RRLOVER said:


> ...what is next?????? ...


This is the crux of the matter. How many things do you consume every day that might possibly involve curtailing what someone perceives as the the right of another a living thing? Maybe you want to be told what you can and cannot do to a plant, animal, etc. I do not. How about farmers killing poor furry squirrels, rabbits, etc.? Get real.


----------



## SpikeC (May 1, 2012)

And then there are the poor defenseless brussels sprouts and cauliflowers!!


----------



## Salty dog (May 1, 2012)

I heard the nerdy chef give a lengthy speech (first, chefs don't give speeches) on natural foie. Something about "lavage" or what ever.

In short, I used to like it but no more. And it's kinda gone out of style.


----------



## ThEoRy (May 1, 2012)

Was banned in NJ back in 2005 or so because of trans fats blah blah. Really it was just something for politicians to point at during an election year to take the focus off of the real issues, THEM.

Anyway it's been lifted since then and I'm serving it on friday night paired up with ahi tuna.


----------



## Deckhand (May 1, 2012)

SpikeC said:


> And then there are the poor defenseless brussels sprouts and cauliflowers!!



I found this terrifying video of a brussel sprout harvest with a big knife:sofa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBVNQM9xvi4&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## SpikeC (May 1, 2012)

The horror--the horror..........


----------



## mano (May 1, 2012)

Salty dog said:


> In short, I used to like it but no more. And it's kinda gone out of style.



Well prepared foie is never out of style.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 1, 2012)

tk59 said:


> This is the crux of the matter. How many things do you consume every day that might possibly involve curtailing what someone perceives as the the right of another a living thing? Maybe you want to be told what you can and cannot do to a plant, animal, etc. I do not. How about farmers killing poor furry squirrels, rabbits, etc.? Get real.



I admit it is a gray area, but if the farmers were shoving funnels down squirrels throats or keeping them in a 6" x 6" box, I might re-think my diet.


----------



## tkern (May 1, 2012)

The treatment of chickens or cows far exceeds the brutality that geese or ducks go through for the foie gras process. Said duck or goose is fed through a tube 3 times a day a large amount of food, the rest of their day is spent doing whatever they want; not stacked in large crates to defecate on the birds below them or kept in a 1'x1' area like a large portion of the chx industry. "Natural" foie gras is harvesting the liver right before the birds migrate south, so the bird has already eaten as much as it can for the journey. The birds are just given food so plentifully that they don't want to leave the farm and fly south.


----------



## tk59 (May 1, 2012)

AFKitchenknivesguy said:


> I admit it is a gray area, but if the farmers were shoving funnels down squirrels throats or keeping them in a 6" x 6" box, I might re-think my diet.


Yeah. They don't confine them but they probably do a lot of dying slowly in agony from traps or poison. How about fish? Do fish not suffer? Whatever it is you're eating, I bet there is something there. Even a dog is confined in some way or another. Is that nice? How about dog food? Even the nicest dog food ain't that great. If you don't feed your dog lean, raw meat every day, maybe you're abusing it, no?


----------



## brainsausage (May 1, 2012)

mano said:


> Well prepared foie is never out of style.



+1. I eat it raw with a little Himalayan NaCl. Nevermind the hundreds of other preparations/applications. In regards to the cruelty aspect- Martin Picard the chef/propietor of Au Pied Du Cochon, and main supplier of foie in Canada- claims that the geese actually get rather excited and rush up during feeding time. Granted this could be marketing on his part, but it does make a little sense. In the wild animals have to work pretty hard to stay fed, and in this instance someone gives them the opportunity to gorge on stress free food multiple times a day...


----------



## brainsausage (May 1, 2012)

tkern said:


> The treatment of chickens or cows far exceeds the brutality that geese or ducks go through for the foie gras process. Said duck or goose is fed through a tube 3 times a day a large amount of food, the rest of their day is spent doing whatever they want; not stacked in large crates to defecate on the birds below them or kept in a 1'x1' area like a large portion of the chx industry. "Natural" foie gras is harvesting the liver right before the birds migrate south, so the bird has already eaten as much as it can for the journey. The birds are just given food so plentifully that they don't want to leave the farm and fly south.



Intensive farming is very horrendous. They've attached a lot of fun words to try and make it sound more palatable- like free range, and organic. Free range only means they get a very small window of time each day to 'wander' en masse outside of their enclosures. They aren't living idyllic lives, on some sun drenched swale of countryside. They have a half hour to be outdoors shoulder to shoulder with eachother. And organic just describes their feed. Not their living conditions. It's surprising how much better happy, well cared for animals taste. The flavor profile, texture, and appearance is far superior. Pork is pink, not tan. So really, extensive farming- it's a win/win. Animal is taken care of and happy, and you get to enjoy a delicious reward of giving an animal a good life. Big business ruins everything... Except my awesome tv


----------



## SameGuy (May 1, 2012)

Salty dog said:


> And it's kinda gone out of style.


Really? Not around here.


----------



## thedips (May 1, 2012)

mano said:


> Well prepared foie is never out of style.



^ this!


----------



## Crothcipt (May 1, 2012)

Wow. He def. isn't going away hungry from that chef's table. Like what the chef said. I'm gonna kill him then give him more food.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 2, 2012)

tk59 said:


> Yeah. They don't confine them but they probably do a lot of dying slowly in agony from traps or poison. How about fish? Do fish not suffer? Whatever it is you're eating, I bet there is something there. Even a dog is confined in some way or another. Is that nice? How about dog food? Even the nicest dog food ain't that great. If you don't feed your dog lean, raw meat every day, maybe you're abusing it, no?



I invite you to my house to see how my dog is treated. PM me for my address.


----------



## brainsausage (May 2, 2012)

AFKitchenknivesguy said:


> I invite you to my house to see how my dog is treated. PM me for my address.



Ummmm.... Wrong thread? :lol2:


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 2, 2012)

brainsausage said:


> Ummmm.... Wrong thread? :lol2:



Meh


----------



## ecchef (May 2, 2012)

The relationship of dog to human is entirely different than that of cows, geese or catfish. Dogs are not bred as a food supply. Food animal breeding is determined by market demand and the animals are at the very least 'taken care of' or they wouldn't fetch dollar one at sale.

Dogs, on the other hand, are bred as pets, and far too many of them wind up leading brutally harsh existences once their 'owners' decide that they are no longer useful or wanted and are summarily abandoned or given up to shelters. 

Take a long look into the eyes of a steer munching away, blissfully unaware of his fate and then into the eyes of an abused dog desperately trying to figure out what went wrong and tell me which one has suffered more.

Screw the damn geese....if we don't eat 'em they'll just wind up crapping all over your lawn.


----------



## TB_London (May 2, 2012)

The TED talk is quite interesting

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_s_surprising_foie_gras_parable.html


----------



## RRLOVER (May 2, 2012)

mano said:


> Well prepared foie is never out of style.



You can prepare it anyway you want and it still going to be a LIVER..............and caviar tastes like fish eggs.......and escargot tastes like snails!!:knife: You were I am going with this


----------



## mano (May 2, 2012)

RRLOVER said:


> You can prepare it anyway you want and it still going to be a LIVER..............and caviar tastes like fish eggs.......and escargot tastes like snails!!:knife: You were I am going with this



You make magnificent knives, but I don't know if I'd ever want you to cook for me. Tell you what, you supply the knives and I'll make you an outstanding dinner with foie, escargot, caviar and whatever else you want. I'll leave with the knives and you'll leave with a beatific smile.


----------



## add (May 2, 2012)

brainsausage said:


> ...in this instance someone gives them the opportunity to gorge on stress free food multiple times a day...



Where do I get in line? 






Uh, scratch that... sounds like a school/prison cafeteria.


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 2, 2012)

I wonder why our children are dying of obesity-induced fatty liver caused by McDonalds, Sponge Bob and lazy parents. Yet we have to force-feed ducks? Just give them what we're having!


----------



## ecchef (May 2, 2012)

Or better yet...turn obese kids into Soylent Green. :idea2:


----------



## brainsausage (May 2, 2012)

ecchef said:


> Or better yet...turn obese kids into Soylent Green. :idea2:



Wait- soylent green is people?!?!


----------



## tk59 (May 2, 2012)

AFKitchenknivesguy said:


> I invite you to my house to see how my dog is treated. PM me for my address.


Thank you for the invitation. I just might take you up on that sometime. Regardless, it really isn't about you or your dog or foie gras, for that matter. I'm just saying that there is probably someone out there who disagrees with how you are doing something and would like to keep you from doing it that way, whether it's what you eat, how you raise your kids, what kind of car you should be allowed to drive, where you can engage in various activities, etc., etc. You have to draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Andrew H (May 2, 2012)

tk59 said:


> Thank you for the invitation. I just might take you up on that sometime. Regardless, it really isn't about you or your dog or foie gras, for that matter. I'm just saying that there is probably someone out there who disagrees with how you are doing something and would like to keep you from doing it that way, whether it's what you eat, how you raise your kids, what kind of car you should be allowed to drive, where you can engage in various activities, etc., etc. You have to draw the line somewhere.



There are limits on all the things you mentioned, what you eat, how you raise your kids, what kind of car you should be allowed to drive, and where you can engage in various activities. Personally I think 'what could be next' is an unsophisticated argument. Deal with each issue individually.


----------



## tk59 (May 2, 2012)

Andrew H said:


> There are limits on all the things you mentioned, what you eat, how you raise your kids, what kind of car you should be allowed to drive, and where you can engage in various activities. Personally I think 'what could be next' is an unsophisticated argument. Deal with each issue individually.


Limits: The point is who gets to set them for you. Anyway, this is obviously a political argument. I'm not sure why you mods are participating in it or even allowing it to continue.


----------



## Craig (May 2, 2012)

tk59 said:


> Limits: The point is who gets to set them for you. Anyway, this is obviously a political argument. I'm not sure why you mods are participating in it or even allowing it to continue.



Why wouldn't they? The best moderation is as little as possible. If the knives come out, we'll all just remark how pretty they are and carry on with our days.


----------



## Craig (May 2, 2012)

Foie Gras is one of those things I keep meaning to learn more about to decide if I'm comfortable eating it. I mean I know the general argument about force-feeding and living conditions, but I don't know anything beyond that. One of these days I'll read a good article or book or something about it.

The arguments for eating them always ring awfully hollow to me. Usually something along the lines of "Other animals get abused, why should these be any different?" There's no logical connection between some jerk somewhere beating his dog and it being OK for someone else to torture a goose so you can eat it. The treatment of the dog or the chickens or any other animal has no bearing on the morality of eating the particular item on your plate, be it foie gras or a McChicken. If this animal is treated so badly that it isn't right to eat it, but other animals are treated worse, to me that's an argument for helping the other animals, not ignoring this one.


----------



## mano (May 2, 2012)

The foie I use is sourced from a farm that IMO is humane:

http://www.hudsonvalleyfoiegras.com/index.html

They have a video on the web site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8 and invite outsiders to view their feeding methods. There are other videos that aren't put out by the farm itself.

Others' may not like any type of force feeding, but I'm comfortable with Hudson Valley. I didn't read the article about CA, but IIRC, they use a similar method. It's quick and appears to cause no real distress to the birds.


----------



## SpikeC (May 2, 2012)

Wow. This is a great talk, everyone should watch this!



TB_London said:


> The TED talk is quite interesting
> 
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_s_surprising_foie_gras_parable.html


----------



## tk59 (May 2, 2012)

SpikeC said:


> Wow. This is a great talk, everyone should watch this!


+1 Pretty cool. Makes me want to go check out the farm.


----------



## mhlee (May 2, 2012)

Of all the chefs who have made statements about this, the best statement, in my opinion, was made by Michael Chiarello. He's quoted as follows:

"I've also walked into a chicken farm where a million chicks are dead because some idiot mixed the chemical wrong in their feed. A million chicks dead in one fell swoop. The point is not foie gras, the point is boneless skinless f***ing chicken breast." (Asterisks added.)


----------



## Deckhand (May 2, 2012)

TB_London said:


> The TED talk is quite interesting
> 
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_s_surprising_foie_gras_parable.html



That was a seriously amazing video. Thanks for posting!


----------



## Deckhand (May 2, 2012)

```

```



SpikeC said:


> Wow. This is a great talk, everyone should watch this!



Definitely, that video was time well spent! And he talked about Brussel sprouts:biggrin:


----------



## Johnny.B.Good (May 2, 2012)

I have watched a number of TED talks (on video), and generally conclude it was time well spent.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## mano (May 2, 2012)

Fun and inspiring video. Anyone know who the farmer is and where to get his stuff? My guess it's near impossible to buy and it costs a fortune, anyway.

Dan Barber may be a "nerdy chef" but he's a well respected very smart guy with New York Times 3 star and Michelin caliber cooking chops. If he wants to swear off foie gras unless it's from Eduardo, fine. Me, I'll gladly settle for the $75/lobe stuff I get at cost from a French chef here in Philly.


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 2, 2012)

mhlee said:


> Of all the chefs who have made statements about this, the best statement, in my opinion, was made by Michael Chiarello. He's quoted as follows:
> 
> "I've also walked into a chicken farm where a million chicks are dead because some idiot mixed the chemical wrong in their feed. A million chicks dead in one fell swoop. The point is not foie gras, the point is boneless skinless f***ing chicken breast." (Asterisks added.)



Preach!


----------



## ecchef (May 2, 2012)

mhlee said:


> The point is not foie gras, the point is boneless skinless f***ing chicken breast." (Asterisks added.)



I thought that was Dennis Hopper from Blue Velvet. :scratchhead:


----------



## Craig (May 3, 2012)

mhlee said:


> Of all the chefs who have made statements about this, the best statement, in my opinion, was made by Michael Chiarello. He's quoted as follows:
> 
> "I've also walked into a chicken farm where a million chicks are dead because some idiot mixed the chemical wrong in their feed. A million chicks dead in one fell swoop. The point is not foie gras, the point is boneless skinless f***ing chicken breast." (Asterisks added.)



Why does a million dead chicks make it ok to abuse a duck?


----------



## mano (May 3, 2012)

Craig is right. I say we start a movement, right here, right now:

FREE THE DUCKS!
FREE THE DUCKS!
FREE THE DUCKS!

Enough of quacking the quack, let's waddle the waddle all you lucky duck lovers!


----------



## stereo.pete (May 3, 2012)

I am really glad that Chicago overturned their ban on foie. There's just something so decadent and delicious about foie and brioche served together with some sort of sweet chutney.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 3, 2012)

Craig said:


> Why does a million dead chicks make it ok to abuse a duck?



Agree.


----------



## Craig (May 3, 2012)

mano said:


> Craig is right. I say we start a movement, right here, right now:
> 
> FREE THE DUCKS!
> FREE THE DUCKS!
> ...



I said no such thing. I clearly said when I got involved in this that I don't know enough about how the ducks are treated to say if the ban is merited one way or the other. All I'm saying is bringing up how badly other animals are treated as a reason to strike down the ban is a logical fallacy.


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 3, 2012)

Craig said:


> I said no such thing. I clearly said when I got involved in this that I don't know enough about how the ducks are treated to say if the ban is merited one way or the other. All I'm saying is bringing up how badly other animals are treated as a reason to strike down the ban is a logical fallacy.



Not to mention being incredibly condescending.


----------



## kostantinos (May 3, 2012)

I think the way the goverment regulates food is a greater ridiculous invasion of our freedom of choice. People are free to choose what they eat and why. So suddenly we are worried about duck and the foie gras like we have managed to solve other great falacies of our society? we import baby bottles that contains carcinogenic components in them from our good good china but worry about the three times a day ducks get fed because of centuries old practices?
I see homeless people. There are a lot of homeless people here in Baltimore . I see people going throught the trash to find food sometime .It is not funny that we debate about animals.And thats coming from a guy that was raised in an enviroment where animals were raised like family members.So please understand what i am trying to say. I thinkthe debate is deeper here.
And to set the record straight. I have a problem with an agency that is against cruelty to animals but puts a lot of dogs and cats to sleep . What do you guys know about PETA? Ask someone that leaves in Norfolk and he will tell you .


----------



## cookinstuff (May 3, 2012)

You can't choke waterfowl by shoving something down their throat like you would choke. If you have a sick duck or goose and are nursing it back to health you are supposed to feed it by funneling down the throat. They can still breath while this is happening. The Egyptians noticed long ago that before ducks and geese migrated their livers got incredibly fatty and delicious, so they started feeding them. 

I'm glad in Canada, atleast in Quebec it is part of the culture here so bans like that in California will not happen. Just because Foie is a fad in California to eat, doesn't mean it is in other parts of the world, to a lot of french it is a part of life, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I have seen Geese fed, and they are absolutely more pleasant than chickens on chicken farms. Where it isn't uncommon for dead chicks to be pulled out of cram packed feeding areas daily. People generally have no problem with how their chicken is handled, whether it sits in its own crap all day or if it comes to them with broken bones, but don't force feed my duck! Gonna go cut off a piece of my torchon, everyone in California, you guys can enjoy your chicken and avocado sandwiches, err whole wheat wraps or whatever you put that on .


----------



## Cipcich (May 3, 2012)

Shark fin soup.


----------



## Deckhand (May 3, 2012)

cookinstuff said:


> You can't choke waterfowl by shoving something down their throat like you would choke. If you have a sick duck or goose and are nursing it back to health you are supposed to feed it by funneling down the throat. They can still breath while this is happening. The Egyptians noticed long ago that before ducks and geese migrated their livers got incredibly fatty and delicious, so they started feeding them.
> 
> I'm glad in Canada, atleast in Quebec it is part of the culture here so bans like that in California will not happen. Just because Foie is a fad in California to eat, doesn't mean it is in other parts of the world, to a lot of french it is a part of life, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I have seen Geese fed, and they are absolutely more pleasant than chickens on chicken farms. Where it isn't uncommon for dead chicks to be pulled out of cram packed feeding areas daily. People generally have no problem with how their chicken is handled, whether it sits in its own crap all day or if it comes to them with broken bones, but don't force feed my duck! Gonna go cut off a piece of my torchon, everyone in California, you guys can enjoy your chicken and avocado sandwiches, err whole wheat wraps or whatever you put that on .



I was going to respond in French, and not so nice words. Instead, I will refrain and say your statement about California eating habits is inflammatory and very incorrect. I for one don't appreciate government reducing rights of individuals anywhere in the world never mind where I live here in California.


----------



## SpikeC (May 3, 2012)

Here in Portland our chickens have first names and get massages and cappuccinos with their croissants.


----------



## dough (May 3, 2012)

really enjoyed the ted talk post. i really want to try that guys duck now... ya i guess the liver too but the rest of the duck is also very tasty im sure. i never was into foie gras. it is always too rich for me perhaps Eduardo Sousa's foie is that much better but something tells me i will always be a breast and leg kinda guy.


----------



## Crothcipt (May 3, 2012)

http://gameandgarden.com/author/stacy/
http://groups.google.com/group/soc....read/thread/7feb149559184777/803c158e9e292fd4

went looking for some things that the pita people would think that feeding a duck in a "humane" way would satisfy them. But instead I really didn't find that would be even considered a 
compromise. The second link is what some people have been doing since the ban was put into effect. I didn't find out anything new or conclusive on the second link.


----------



## Cipcich (May 3, 2012)

"Shark fin soup" was obviously a too cryptic observation. Is there no dietary practice sufficiently cruel and wasteful to justify government intervention, or does "freedom" cover whatever we do?


----------



## ThEoRy (May 3, 2012)

SpikeC said:


> Here in Portland our chickens have first names and get massages and cappuccinos with their croissants.



Was he a friendly chicken, did he have a lot of little chicken friends?


----------



## apicius9 (May 4, 2012)

As someone working in public health, I am all for government regulation in the context of food and nutrition. But that mostly means regulating the food industry that sells us cheap crap with sugar in it and spends billions to make us think we like the stuff... Unfortunately, it not only seems easier to get votes from the unknowing public for 'rescuing' poor little geese and ducks and get to the 'elitists' who eat this 'decadent' stuff, it's also a good way to distract from the bribaries and 'lobbying' money that flows into politics from the food industry... (and if that is too political, please feel free to delete it...).

That said, I am sure there are some foie gras producers who abuse and mistreat their animals, but this is the exception whereas it is the tolerated standard in farming chicken, cattle, and pigs - as was mentioned before. I have been to the Alsace numerous times and talked to people there, and I was convinced that small scale production of foie gras is easily within my personal set of ethics about what I eat and what I don't eat. Shark fins, btw, are not. Consequently, I have eaten quite a bit of f.g. when in the Alsace... 

In any case, supporting small farmers, entering the markets with cleanly produced, seasonal and regional products is a great movement. I think we here as food aficionados may still see this more clearly than the general population, I just hope that this will get better in the future. 

Stefan


----------



## tk59 (May 4, 2012)

Cipcich said:


> "Shark fin soup" was obviously a too cryptic observation. Is there no dietary practice sufficiently cruel and wasteful to justify government intervention, or does "freedom" cover whatever we do?


No. That wasn't too cryptic at all. Hunting sharks to extinction (not to mention throwing them finless back into the ocean) is definitely something I have a hard time swallowing (figuratively speaking) regardless of the purpose.


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 4, 2012)

ThEoRy said:


> Was he a friendly chicken, did he have a lot of little chicken friends?



Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I had the same question.


----------



## SpikeC (May 4, 2012)

He was president of his cluckturnity.


----------



## add (May 4, 2012)

_*shrugs*_


As long as that funnel is already in there... how 'bout they get rewarded with a beer bong chaser?


----------



## Deckhand (May 4, 2012)

Starting to sound like beer can chicken.


----------



## brainsausage (May 4, 2012)

add said:


> _*shrugs*_
> 
> 
> As long as that funnel is already in there... how 'bout they get rewarded with a beer bong chaser?



S**t-faced foie sounds delicious!


----------



## Adagimp (May 4, 2012)

Foie gras production is pretty small potatoes compared to all the other cruelty that goes on in the food production industry of this country, but it's cruelty none-the-less. I think that any instance of unnecessary harm perpetrated against the animals humans raise for food ought to be outlawed and punishable under the law to help deter farmers from engaging in cruel practices that are economically advantageous.


----------



## Adagimp (May 4, 2012)

kostantinos said:


> I think the way the goverment regulates food is a greater ridiculous invasion of our freedom of choice. People are free to choose what they eat and why.



I assume you meant people *should* be free to choose what they eat and why, but then I wonder what you might think about a person who chose to eat another person or the living property (pets, food animals and produce) of someone else without that person's consent? Or what about a person who chooses to torture animals before he or she eats the animals?


----------



## stevenStefano (May 4, 2012)

Perhaps they could give some of them beer, and some of them Cointrea and that sort of thing to further make foie gras a delicacy with different variations?


----------



## brainsausage (May 4, 2012)

stevenStefano said:


> Perhaps they could give some of them beer, and some of them Cointrea and that sort of thing to further make foie gras a delicacy with different variations?



+1


----------



## Cipcich (May 4, 2012)

This is, after all, America, where corporations are people, and animals aren't . . .


----------



## brainsausage (May 4, 2012)

Cipcich said:


> This is, after all, America, where corporations are people, and animals aren't . . .



Define a person?


----------



## echerub (May 4, 2012)

Corporations are legal persons. Not sure what the precise definition is, but you need to be a person to own property - and corporations can own property


----------



## Cipcich (May 4, 2012)

tk59 said:


> No. That wasn't too cryptic at all. Hunting sharks to extinction (not to mention throwing them finless back into the ocean) is definitely something I have a hard time swallowing (figuratively speaking) regardless of the purpose.



Clearly, finning sharks is an despicable practice, whether to make soup or sport. That's why I chose the example. But you've ducked the question. Is your, or my, personal aversion to a practice enough, or does it indeed justify government intervention. As I believe you asked, where's the line, and who decides? Is there _nothing_ that warrants an infringement on personal freedom?


----------



## tk59 (May 4, 2012)

It may be dispicable to me or you but I don't know that it isn't just a product of the culture we chose to embrace and I didn't mean to duck the question. I don't have an answer. It doesn't change the fact that I don't want anybody telling me what I'm allowed to eat or otherwise infringing on my personal freedom, as you put it. Sorry.


----------



## Cipcich (May 5, 2012)

OK. Fair enough.


----------



## Johnny.B.Good (May 5, 2012)

I asked my father what he thinks about this ban over cocktails tonight (he is a good cook, fairly adventurous eater, and well enough off financially to eat in restaurants that would have foi gras on the menu). He was under the impression the ban was already in place, and while he says he enjoys it (and doesn't care too much about the well being of ducks or geese). He said that no animal should be harmed unnecessarily, though he admitted to not knowing much about how foie gras is produced. Like TK, he also doesn't think the government should get too deeply involved in legislating what we can and cannot eat. However, when I asked him how he would feel about seeing English Springer Spaniels on the menu (his dog Willy is about his favorite thing on earth) he had to admit that he would not like it and would not be in favor of that. So I don't know. Not a clear cut issue I guess (perhaps it would be for me if I knew more about it). Unfortunately for ducks and geese, they just don't have the personality of dogs or horses (for example). Personality counts. In a perfect world I would not want to see any animal suffer unnecessarily, but...I need eggs (for example) and don't want to pay 3x the price unless it's absolutely necessary.


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

tk59 said:


> It may be dispicable to me or you but I don't know that it isn't just a product of the culture we chose to embrace and I didn't mean to duck the question. I don't have an answer. It doesn't change the fact that I don't want anybody telling me what I'm allowed to eat or otherwise infringing on my personal freedom, as you put it. Sorry.



Completely understandable that you don't want other people telling you how you ought to live or eat, but having one's cake and eating it too is not often an option. Governmental paternalism is an unfortunate necessity in a country filled with imperfect people and even if some folks would be ok to live their lives without some regulatory body telling them what they can or cannot do, there are plenty of folks who need to be told.


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 5, 2012)

Eh, Government is created to determine and manage how people treat people. Not ducks.

They aren't doing anything that is damaging to society or the economy, it's a moral issue. Vote with your dollars, eat it or don't.


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

Johnny.B.Good said:


> In a perfect world I would not want to see any animal suffer unnecessarily, but...I need eggs (for example) and don't want to pay 3x the price unless it's absolutely necessary.



I get a dozen eggs every week from a small chicken farm (they had about 100 birds when I last visited in February) for 5 dollars in AZ and when I'm home in Missouri I get a dozen for 4 dollars from a similar sized farm. A dozen eggs from intensively raised hens costs about 1.80. The extra 2-3.20 dollars seems a paltry sum to pay to insure that the chickens aren't subjected to the horrible practices of beak searing, caged living, intensive housing and male chick slaughter. That's one less latte a week to promote lives worth living for laying hens.


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

BurkeCutlery said:


> Eh, Government is created to determine and manage how people treat people. Not ducks.
> 
> They aren't doing anything that is damaging to society or the economy, it's a moral issue. Vote with your dollars, eat it or don't.



Morality has no bearing on society or the economy? Where do you think many of our most important laws come from? I would also question the claim that government is created to regulate how people treat people, and even if that is the reason that Gov. was created that is no longer its only valid purpose (see conservation, animal cruelty laws, air quality laws and so on).


----------



## Johnny.B.Good (May 5, 2012)

Adagimp said:


> I get a dozen eggs every week from a small chicken farm (they had about 100 birds when I last visited in February) for 5 dollars in AZ and when I'm home in Missouri I get a dozen for 4 dollars from a similar sized farm. A dozen eggs from intensively raised hens costs about 1.80. The extra 2-3.20 dollars seems a paltry sum to pay to insure that the chickens aren't subjected to the horrible practices of beak searing, caged living, intensive housing and male chick slaughter. That's one less latte a week to promote lives worth living for laying hens.



Maybe eggs are a bad example. I love them and they are cheap. If farm fresh eggs are as good as people say (perhaps I should go find some at a farmer's market and find out), I probably wouldn't mind paying the difference.


----------



## Andrew H (May 5, 2012)

Johnny.B.Good said:


> Maybe eggs are a bad example. I love them and they are cheap. If farm fresh eggs are as good as people say (perhaps I should go find some at a farmer's market and find out), I probably wouldn't mind paying the difference.



I lost my picture of the same thing but here's a good reason why you should get out to your farmer's market:


----------



## Johnny.B.Good (May 5, 2012)

I'll look into it.


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

Johnny.B.Good said:


> Maybe eggs are a bad example. I love them and they are cheap. If farm fresh eggs are as good as people say (perhaps I should go find some at a farmer's market and find out), I probably wouldn't mind paying the difference.



And I didn't mean to come off as chastising as that reply ended up reading. I applaud your questioning of the food production system and wanted to pass along some information about how to purchase ethical eggs without breaking the bank. I wish, for the sake of the animals, the other ethical animal food products were similarly as cheap.


----------



## Johnny.B.Good (May 5, 2012)

Adagimp said:


> And I didn't mean to come off as chastising as that reply ended up reading. I applaud your questioning of the food production system and wanted to pass along some information about how to purchase ethical eggs without breaking the bank. I wish, for the sake of the animals, the other ethical animal food products were similarly as cheap.



I wasn't offended by your reply in the least; were farm fresh eggs readily available at $5 dozen I'm sure I would happily pay the difference (there are farmer's markets all over the Bay Area, but I rarely if ever make the effort to attend them). Then again, I make a decent living and don't have a family to feed, so whether I pay $2 a dozen or $5 dozen makes almost no difference to me (as it would for a larger family living paycheck to paycheck). Plus it's my understanding that there is a real difference between farm fresh eggs and those one typically finds in a supermarket. Sorry to take the conversation from foie gras to eggs!


----------



## apicius9 (May 5, 2012)

I have almost given up eating eggs because once you have gotten used to fresh organic eggs (which are hard to find here), it's really hard to go back to supermarket eggs. And it's one of the easier statements you can make, especially if you find a local source. I really still sometimes miss the farmers market in Marburg, Germany, where I lived before moving to Hawaii. Local meats and sausages from butchers who personally knew the pigs, ham that tastes like ham, farm fresh eggs (chicken always, sometimes duck eggs), fresh organic free range chickens, ducks, rabbits etc., rillettes, goose prosciutto, duck fat, pork schmaltz, so many good things, and all from local farmers. I guess that many countries in Europe are a bit ahead of the US when it comes to the availability of such products. 

Stefan


----------



## SameGuy (May 5, 2012)

We should be allowed to continue producing foie-gras if the deplorable conditions imposed on the rest of our food herd as a result of intensive agriculture are also allowed to continue... Isn't this somewhat analogous to the pro-marijuana lobby's position that alcohol is far more dangerous and yet it remains legal?


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 5, 2012)

Adagimp said:


> Morality has no bearing on society or the economy? Where do you think many of our most important laws come from? I would also question the claim that government is created to regulate how people treat people, and even if that is the reason that Gov. was created that is no longer its only valid purpose (see conservation, animal cruelty laws, air quality laws and so on).



Air quality and pollution problems are property rights violations, and enforceable Conservation laws are for the sake of the public welfare. Government can't effectively regulate how we treat animals we privately own.

You argue as if any government has ever had any lasting success at regulating morality. I'm not suggesting an ethos, I'm pointing out the obvious.

Of course morality has a BEARING on society, I never suggested it didn't. The problem is that there is no way to conclusively regulate whether the bearing is positive or negative. And Foie Gras is not damaging the economy, or society. It's helping both by being profitable and delicious.


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 5, 2012)

I should add that I would never eat Foie Gras from a force fed duck. It's not humane; and the ducks' calm demeanor that cooks and journalists cite is not what they think it is. I was raised with lots of fowl around, and I know what they are talking about. To a human, it would look like a calm, placid bird, the same way that a nervous dog looks peppy and happy to most people.


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

BurkeCutlery said:


> Air quality and pollution problems are property rights violations, and enforceable Conservation laws are for the sake of the public welfare. Government can't effectively regulate how we treat animals we privately own.
> 
> You argue as if any government has ever had any lasting success at regulating morality. I'm not suggesting an ethos, I'm pointing out the obvious.
> 
> Of course morality has a BEARING on society, I never suggested it didn't. The problem is that there is no way to conclusively regulate whether the bearing is positive or negative. And Foie Gras is not damaging the economy, or society. It's helping both by being profitable and delicious.



"Air quality and pollution problems are property rights violations, and enforceable Conservation laws are for the sake of the public welfare." - Are you sure about these claims? http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/caa.html & http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/protection.cfm

Are you admitting that government has a legitimate role to play in managing/regulating more than just the ways in which people treat other people, but then asserting that if the government cannot *effectively* regulate something that it should not? Just because a regulation is not effective doesn't mean that there should be no regulation. Also, what evidence do you have to support the claim that the government cannot effectively regulate how we treat animals we privately own? Animal cruelty charges seem as effective as any other law, think of the Michael Vick case and how many more possible cases like it are prevented due to animal cruelty laws, at regulating instances of animal cruelty.

I don't think that governments have had much success at regulating all aspects of morality, but they have certainly had success at regulating some aspects of it. Laws against murder, rape, incest, stealing, assault and so on are all based on the acceptance of certain moral principles and while the law isn't 100% effective at deterring imperfect people from perpetrating these immoral acts I would hardly claim that the law was unsuccessful in regulating some aspects of morality. 

"They aren't doing anything that is damaging to society or the economy, it's a moral issue." - This reads to me like you're claiming that moral issues can have no bearing on society or the economy. 

I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that "... there is no way to conclusively regulate whether the bearing is positive or negative." Are you questioning whether positive or negative impact can be regulated? Or are you claiming that we have no way of conclusively determining if the impact is positive or negative?

I would argue that food production practices that promote animal cruelty are damaging to society and I'd also take issue with a political view that limited government intervention to only cases involving damage to the economy or society, as your 2nd to last sentence seems to suggest.


----------



## bprescot (May 5, 2012)

Wow! I'm super late to the party it seems. Just a couple points that occur to me, though I don't mean to necessarily fan the flames too much higher. There is only one major producer in California (Sonoma Foie Gras) but there are really only four major producers in all of the US, and the Sonoma facility isn't small. Which means the ban on production is targeted at only one place... So the argument that it's logical that the funds promised in the bill wouldn't be provided because it's only one factory... Seems very faulty all around, you know? 

With that said, I'm not sure what a study could possibly conclude. I don't know what to look for to see if a goose or duck is so distressed by a practice that it becomes inhumane. They probably don't run towards the feeding tube, but I'm pretty sure animals in the rest of our food industry don't run towards their own bits of unpleasantness (chickens to their small cramped cages, cows into crowded feed lots, etc.). If all of that is in-humane than sure, they shouldn't be used to excuse each other, they should all just be banned. But I don't see that happening any time soon, and it does seem to me that there needs to be some equivalency in regulating similar industries. As for the force feeding... I know that ramming a tube down my throat and pumping food in my stomach would seriously suck, whether it harmed me or not, but I think that it's a relatively mild treatment compared with boiling chickens alive before plucking, beak seering, etc. If those other practices are fine from the government's perspective why single out foie? I think the thing that sets Foie Gras apart is simply the fact that it is a luxury item that relatively few people in this country can afford to enjoy. If it were as cheap and ubiquitous as boneless chicken there is NO way this law would have been passed.


----------



## SameGuy (May 5, 2012)

bprescot said:


> If those other practices are fine from the government's perspective why single out foie?I think the thing that sets Foie Gras apart is simply the fact that it is a luxury item that relatively few people in this country can afford to enjoy. If it were as cheap and ubiquitous as boneless chicken there is NO way this law would have been passed.


This position has been stated many, many times (including in this thread). I happen to agree. Every so often, those in power pander to the 99%. Unfortunately, the 99 is often oblivious to that fact that the Nanny-State is yet again pulling the wool over their eyes. The agri-business lobby is not involved in foie-gras production, that's what it boils down to. Can you say "subsidized ethanol production"? ADM, Cargill and Monsanto knew you could.


----------



## bprescot (May 5, 2012)

You're right, and my apologies if I made it sound like I thought I was coming up with some new observation. My point was only that I personally don't have a stance on the humanity of treatment or not. I could go either way. The part of the bill that I find objectionable is the targetting an industry because it's easy and politically safe while leaving the truly egregious practices alone. It's political hypocrisy and creates an unbalanced set of rules and principles. 

I've had foie and enjoyed it, but wouldn't go out of my way for it if I had to be honest. It can be nice, but it doesn't crack my top 30 of favorite foods. So even if the ban applied Nationwide rather than just CA I wouldn't really care from a practical standpoint. It's the ingenuousness and lack of balance in the bill I find troubling.


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 5, 2012)

Adagimp, we appear to be having two different conversations. You are talking about the United States in 2012, and I'm talking about Government in general and how it relates to morally questionable farming practices. 

You seem to think there is a direct comparison between incest(which, if voluntary, is the only strictly moral issue you cited) and theft, and that theft is regulated as a moral issue. Go to the police and tell them that someone stole a beloved family treasure from your front yard--a wooden bird house your granddad made. Cry a lot. Then go drop off a written statement on your lunch break telling them that someone stole your second new car. Which one you think is going to get the follow up? The birdhouse theft is far more morally reprehensible, yet due to its tiny financial value, its not worth the time.

I wasn't saying it doesn't do anything to society morally--it might make you as a bystander feel bad, dealing with that is a moral imperative. I think I elucidated it clearly that I was saying it doesn't DAMAGE society or the economy. Nobody is losing their job, staying awake all night out of fear, or dying because of Foie Gras. It just makes you feel bad for a duck. The simplicity of the problem does not invalidate it, but it is inconsequential to anyone but you.

I am not married to the United States rule of law. I do not believe that because something is legal, or existent, that it is right or justified. It seems that you don't see it that way, which is fine, but we are not having the same conversation.

The discussion was about where the line gets drawn--there is no line. It is one way or the other. You accept risk, or you accept tyranny. Anything else is just a gradual progression, a constant push-pull one way or the other, there is no alternative where we have total individual freedom and complete safety. The problem with trying to live between the two is that it has never, and will never, be agreed upon where the balance is. Some feel it's ok to give up some rights for certain securities, others do not. Nobody will ever agree on this. You think it is OK to have the government tell someone how to run their business in order to prevent pollution(tyranny), others do not want to give up that right, and will take the chances that the environment will suffer(risk). I think the government should not be authorized to determine who deserves to be executed(tyranny), but I have to accept that what comes with that is a less-than-final consequence system, creates a vacuum for revenge crimes, and a lasting social burden(risk).

I was saying that history has shown over and over that regulation of moral acts does nothing to stop them. It may make them less visible, or even deter some of them, but prohibition simply creates speakeasies. People who are going to eat Foie Gras will eat it whenever the opportunity meets the desire, and if it is not legal, it only creates a problem for opportunity, and the desire remains. Someone will fill that void, as demand grows and supply is squelched and the product becomes so lucrative it is worth the risk in trade for financial rewards. This is why we have drug dealers, pimps, slave traders, gang members, etc etc. The key is to decrease desire for those things--the desire to do drugs, have sex with prostitutes, steal things we want, and eat fattened duck livers.

The question of what the government should do about it's ineffective prevention of child abuse, rape, and torture are far more valid and pressing points than whether or not people should be allowed to treat ducks badly. This is what I was getting at--government has unsuccessfully regulated human treatment, why should we move on to the ducks? We can just reduce demand for the ducks, and then people will stop making money on it. You might get outvoted, but that is the risk you accept to avoid tyranny.


----------



## Andrew H (May 5, 2012)

Slow down there guys. I don't think foie production requires a deep look into the human ethos and government's role in protecting the morality of a society. There are already laws that regulate the minimum conditions needed for animals raised for slaughter in this country. They are designed, in theory, to not only protect the end consumer from disease but also to provide a certain quality of life for the animal. Is it a better life than most of these ducks have? No, probably not. But I don't see the relationship between the two. If it's easier to stop some cruelty, rather than a much larger portion of it, I say go for it.

By the way if foie gras was called fat liver here in the U.S. I'm guessing it wouldn't be quite so popular.


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

"Adagimp, we appear to be having two different conversations. You are talking about the United States in 2012, and I'm talking about Government in general and how it relates to morally questionable farming practices." - *I assumed that since the topic was about a Foie Gras ban in the US and since you referenced the particular ban not being damaging to society or the economy that we were talking about the US. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the governments, farming practices and moralities of every single nation in the world to engage in a meaningful discussion of the ways in which "Government" relates to morally questionable farming practices for any nation but the US.  *

You seem to think there is a direct comparison between incest(which, if voluntary, is the only strictly moral issue you cited) and theft, and that theft is regulated as a moral issue. Go to the police and tell them that someone stole a beloved family treasure from your front yard--a wooden bird house your granddad made. Cry a lot. Then go drop off a written statement on your lunch break telling them that someone stole your second new car. Which one you think is going to get the follow up? The birdhouse theft is far more morally reprehensible, yet due to its tiny financial value, its not worth the time.
-*Where do you think the idea that you ought to be compensated in some way for having something stolen came from? Better yet ask yourself why you shouldn't steal and let me know if your answer isn't rooted in morality. Incest and theft are different crimes to be sure, and are actually enforced by the law to different degrees depending on the severity of the consequences (at least in the US), but that doesn't mean both aren't the product of morality. (Note rooted in morality or being based on moral principles does not mean that the law strictly parallels morality) *

I wasn't saying it doesn't do anything to society morally--it might make you as a bystander feel bad, dealing with that is a moral imperative. I think I elucidated it clearly that I was saying it doesn't DAMAGE society or the economy. Nobody is losing their job, staying awake all night out of fear, or dying because of Foie Gras. It just makes you feel bad for a duck. The simplicity of the problem does not invalidate it, but it is inconsequential to anyone but you. - *I'm the only one that thinks that the cruelty of Foie Gras production is inconsequential? Quite a few people think this issue is more than inconsequential and given the number of people who "feel bad for the duck" (which seems like some sort harm to me) I would argue that Foie Gras production is actually damaging to society. Losing one's job, losing sleep, or dying don't seem to be the only ways in which people can be damaged/harmed. *

I am not married to the United States rule of law. I do not believe that because something is legal, or existent, that it is right or justified. It seems that you don't see it that way, which is fine, but we are not having the same conversation. - *I'm not a legal moralist either, but I assumed that you, like most people, would take little issue with laws against murder, rape, incest (though maybe I should have left this one out in hindsight because of the reasons behind incest laws), theft and assault. If laws against these types of activities aren't justified, then I'm not sure any laws are. 
*
The discussion was about where the line gets drawn--there is no line. It is one way or the other. You accept risk, or you accept tyranny. Anything else is just a gradual progression, a constant push-pull one way or the other, there is no alternative where we have total individual freedom and complete safety. The problem with trying to live between the two is that it has never, and will never, be agreed upon where the balance is. Some feel it's ok to give up some rights for certain securities, others do not. Nobody will ever agree on this. You think it is OK to have the government tell someone how to run their business in order to prevent pollution(tyranny), others do not want to give up that right, and will take the chances that the environment will suffer(risk). I think the government should not be authorized to determine who deserves to be executed(tyranny), but I have to accept that what comes with that is a less-than-final consequence system, creates a vacuum for revenge crimes, and a lasting social burden(risk). - *I agree that people strongly disagree about government intervention vs. personal freedom, but why does that mean no lines can be drawn? Why can't I accept that some things are simply too risky given psychological tendencies and physical laws and draw a line there, but also accept that other things pose so little threat that no line be drawn?*

I was saying that history has shown over and over that regulation of moral acts does nothing to stop them. It may make them less visible, or even deter some of them, but prohibition simply creates speakeasies. People who are going to eat Foie Gras will eat it whenever the opportunity meets the desire, and if it is not legal, it only creates a problem for opportunity, and the desire remains. Someone will fill that void, as demand grows and supply is squelched and the product becomes so lucrative it is worth the risk in trade for financial rewards. This is why we have drug dealers, pimps, slave traders, gang members, etc etc. The key is to decrease desire for those things--the desire to do drugs, have sex with prostitutes, steal things we want, and eat fattened duck livers. - *First sentence here is clearly hyperbole and this paragraph overall seems rather defeatist and hyperbolic. Do you think that we ought not to regulate anything if some people just aren't going to abide by the regulation? I completely agree that one way in which harmful activities can be reduced is to decrease the desire to do those activities. One way to decrease desires is to point out some harmful consequences of the action which might include harsh legal punishment. *

The question of what the government should do about it's ineffective prevention of child abuse, rape, and torture are far more valid and pressing points than whether or not people should be allowed to treat ducks badly. This is what I was getting at--government has unsuccessfully regulated human treatment, why should we move on to the ducks? We can just reduce demand for the ducks, and then people will stop making money on it. You might get outvoted, but that is the risk you accept to avoid tyranny.
- *You think we need to fix all the human-only problems first before moving onto animal issues and I disagree. People haven't figured out how to get people to treat one another morally, but why should that prevent us from addressing cases in which animals are not treated morally? If the living room and the bedroom of a house were both on fire, and lots of people were available to help put out the fires, then why should one fire take absolute priority?*


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

Andrew H said:


> Slow down there guys. I don't think foie production requires a deep look into the human ethos and government's role in protecting the morality of a society. There are already laws that regulate the minimum conditions needed for animals raised for slaughter in this country. They are designed, in theory, to not only protect the end consumer from disease but also to provide a certain quality of life for the animal. Is it a better life than most of these ducks have? No, probably not. But I don't see the relationship between the two. If it's easier to stop some cruelty, rather than a much larger portion of it, I say go for it.
> 
> By the way if foie gras was called fat liver here in the U.S. I'm guessing it wouldn't be quite so popular.



The inconsistency between legal protection from cruelty for non-farm animals on one hand and farm animals on the other really is mind boggling.


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 5, 2012)

Yeah, we really are having different conversations. Sorry about that.


----------



## Andrew H (May 5, 2012)

Adagimp said:


> The inconsistency between legal protection from cruelty for non-farm animals on one hand and farm animals on the other really is mind boggling.



I'm with you on that.


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

BurkeCutlery said:


> Yeah, we really are having different conversations. Sorry about that.



No need for apologies. I don't think our conversations were so dissonant that we were talking past one another, rather it seems that we were trying to make and address slightly different points.


----------



## SpikeC (May 5, 2012)

Fer cryin' out loud! What kinda lame flame war are you guys runnin' here?


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

SpikeC said:


> Fer cryin' out loud! What kinda lame flame war are you guys runnin' here?



Flame war? I thought our argument was rather controlled and noticeably lacking in the ad hominen attacks so typical of forum flaming.


----------



## SpikeC (May 5, 2012)

My point exactaly!


----------



## Adagimp (May 5, 2012)

SpikeC said:


> My point exactaly!



Ah I see that I missed the "lame" part of the first post. Well played sir. :doublethumbsup:


----------



## Eamon Burke (May 5, 2012)

SpikeC said:


> Fer cryin' out loud! What kinda lame flame war are you guys runnin' here?



Sorry Spike, I'll try harder, you loser.


----------



## brainsausage (May 5, 2012)

BurkeCutlery said:


> Sorry Spike, I'll try harder, you loser.



Political conversations are always more fun when you work in a kitchen


----------



## SpikeC (May 5, 2012)

:biggrin:


----------



## JBroida (May 6, 2012)

dont know if this has already been posted here, but i enjoyed reading it today

http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-02-18/news/is-foie-gras-torture/


----------



## Deckhand (May 7, 2012)

Interesting article.


----------



## DK chef (May 12, 2012)

we use Foie Gras from Spain, its humane and taste great, no harm done to the animals

this is how we plate them


----------



## AFKitchenknivesguy (May 12, 2012)

DK chef said:


> we use Foie Gras from Spain, its human and taste great, no harm done to the animals
> 
> this is how we plate them



I truly hope you meant humane :scared4:


----------



## DK chef (May 12, 2012)

AFKitchenknivesguy said:


> I truly hope you meant humane :scared4:



haha  yes i sure did,


----------



## Deckhand (May 12, 2012)

Soylent green is people!!!


----------



## WildBoar (May 12, 2012)

DK chef said:


> ...no harm done to the animals...


What, did they poop out their livers? I thought the, uhm, acquisition of said livers was known to harm the animals :biggrin:


----------

