The New York Times posted an interesting article yesterday about the law-breaking, foie-gras-serving restaurateurs of Chicago. The Windy City is the first in the U.S. to ban the selling of this "fatty liver", though it appears California will ban its production and the "sale of the product when made from force fed birds" by 2012.
For the most part (and pomp aside), I agree with Grant DePorter of Harry Caray's Restaurant. From the NYTimes article:
We really don’t think the City Council should decide what Chicagoans eat. What’s next? Some other city outlaws brussels sprouts? Another outlaws chicken? Another, green beans?The idea of any city's council outlawing what is ingested by its citizens seems absurd*. Banning the production of foods produced by cruel practices, however, is a whole different matter. I don't think we could get very far talking about cruel treatment of brussels sprouts or green beans, but many would argue that the treatment of fish, chickens, pigs and cattle is rather cruel, indeed. So who wins? I personally have never had foie gras. Looking at that shot of the foie gras pizza at Connie's Pizza piques my interest, for sure. Let's be honest: that looks tasty. And Neil Finn and Jerry Stout couldn't be happier about it! (Not to be confused with Neil Finn of Crowded House who went on to have a rather prolific solo career.) Maybe my curiosity resides in my Bulgarian heritage -- that's 2000 years of foie gras production, apparently. Seriously though, the images of foie gras farms and production practices (not for the faint of heart!!) certainly move me to want to ban its production. For that matter, is there any foie gras produced by not force-feeding fowl? (And if so, can it even be called "foie gras" in that instance, or just paté?) Is there a wonderful pond where ducks/geese/the like are allowed to roam and eat to their gullets' content, becoming obese over a nice, leisurely lifespan? I can't seem to find any evidence of that. But of course sites like GoVeg.com and the International Vegetarian Union -- those which promote the switch to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle -- post the most horrifying evidence of cruelty. These terrible images are juxtaposed with images of "happy" animals, and it's this kind of anthropomorphising that frustrates me. Like the caption under image 3.4: "Far away from horror of breeding and slaughterhouses, the joy of living appears on the face of the animals." (clicking will take you to a gallery of animal pictures, some of which innocuous, others gruesome). This could very well be true, but this is a hollow argument against animal cruelty. These animals aren't being respected, period. I am incredibly disturbed by an image of a goose with a pipe shoved down its throat whether or not the bird happens to remind me of my favorite cartoon character. Pictures of adorable hatchlings might get me in the cutie-bone, but the most convincing argument for the banning of cruel farming practices is that which holds us accountable for our treatment of these animals; that we would (hopefully) want to reasonably and respectfully treat anything whose life we end in order to continue our own. There should be a certain amount of gratitude and reverence in such harvesting and consumption. As far as I can tell, NO Foie Gras.org's mission is to end the cruel treatment of these birds, without any pull towards the vegetarian or vegan communities. (No direct or obvious pull, anyway.) But I digress. I am torn with the Chicago case. In no way should the food I put into my body be dictated by any "governing body" but my own. But if you ban its production, isn't that just indirectly banning your consuption of that food? Almost, except let's face it: even if there was a national ban on something like foie gras, it is still being produced all over the world and there would be ways, if I really, really wanted to eat it, to get it in my belly. And that would be of my own rebellious volition. *Or, let's make that common place and have City Councils nationwide ban the ingestion of fast food. That would solve a lot of our nation's health problems, and fast.
I disagree with you about the banning of foie gras. If you know something is produced unethically as a matter of course, it is a moral and righteous decision to disallow its consumption. For example--and I use this example with some hesitation--it is illegal for individuals to kill people (outside self-defense and war). Snuff films (though none have ever been made, apparently), are illegal. According to your thinking, the purchase and viewing of such a category of film should not be made illegal.
Your arguments regarding the unethical production of other foods are red herrings. It is not a question of anthropomorphizing animals. These animals are suffering; there is not need to put a human face on it.
For what it's worth, the years I was a vegetarian, I was so for ethical reasons. I believe the production of animal products in the world is unnecessarily cruel and the production of animal products is cruel because it is economical to do so. Foie gras cannot be made except by causing the suffering of animals. Veal is much the same. However, meat and other animal products can be made less cruelly, especially if the life of the livestock animal is not so greatly restricted.
You can argue until the cows come home (ha ha), but there are degrees of cruelty in dealing with animals that are important to keep in mind. Not all breeding, raising, and slaughtering are the same and making them so just because we are talking about non-human animals is blindness.
I first read about this on the Chicago Tribune website.
I've had Foie Gras before. The first time I ever tried it I had no idea what it was. 2nd time was at a dinner party and I didn't want to be rude by refusing. Frankly it tastes awful. And it's not something I'd choose to eat regularly (or at all really).
While I can see the point of the ban, I would think Chicago has more important issues to tackle, and I wonder how much of this isn't just smoke screen to distract attention from some of the mayor's past political scandals (Hired truck scandal, City Hiring Scandal... etc).
Having said all that, If I were to presume based on your support of the Foie Gras Ban- you would also support a tobacco smoking ban in restaurants as well... Would I be correct??
msq:
I'll start by saying I'm a bit worried that maybe my writing betrays me. Perhaps I am too tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure my main points were spelled out in my post nor were my personal opinions.
I was ready to agree with you hands-down about the snuff analogy, but there is one snag: foie gras is already in production. It is certainly true that snuff films do not apparently exist and if the day comes when they do, they would certainly be illegal. Foie gras, on the other hand, is a deeply-rooted tradition for many cultures. To stop the practice of its consumption will be a difficult undertaking, but it leads me to a point that I'm afraid I didn't make at all.
The main purpose of my post was to discuss the idea of banning people from consumption, specifically, eating. This is the kink. Tell someone he cannot kill another human being, and most everyone would agree that, besides extenuating circumstances, this is a reasonable restraint. But to tell someone he is not allowed to eat, you are taking away something that is considered an inalienable right -- humans must eat to live, but they do not have to kill other humans (or other animals, ultimately) to live. I'm not talking about the foie gras so much as I'm talking about the intake of food and the restriction of that by a governing force.
The foie gras ban demonstrates this very clearly. Look at the restaurant owners and diners in Chicago. By making, selling and eating the foie gras, they gave their City Council a big "F-You". And that's my second point: banning the consumption of foie gras, albeit based on a very sound reasons as it is produced in an unethical manner, does not stop it from being produced. It may over time, but it's not getting to the root of the problem. The production needs to stop first. The consumption will follow. Trying to do it the other way around just seems to cause people to behave badly. You said:
That was exactly my point. I am frustrated that so many organizations (particularly those motivated not just to promote vegetarian/vegan lifestyles, but to impose them) try to get people to jump on their bandwagons by putting a human face on it. I thought I made that clear here:
I don't think the solution is to put a human face on it. And I think they are being irresponsible. Though likely most foie gras production is in fact inhumane, they are not trying to research and promote folks who are treating animals respectfully and encourage consumers like you and me to steer our purchases that way.
In terms of the anthropomorphizing, that's why I gave a nod to nofoiegras.org, as they don't seem to do that but rather own up to the fact that these animals are being maltreated, and personally
Hmm. And I made a mistake with the title, but I can't take it back. I was going for the "fwah" sound as in "for the birds" as in pro-bird, but instead it came out as "for the birds" as in, "[this is] for the birds", undercutting the subject matter with respect to the cruel treatment of these fowl. That's not what I meant at all.
Also, I agree with you that
Totally. My fear is that imposing bans such as the one in Chicago will treat all of these matters in a similar light, or will propel further legislation to do so. Again, that is why I think the ban should not have been the first step to take, but rather to make the actual farming and harvesting of foie gras illegal.
TrvlnMn:
You may want to refer to the comment I made to msq above because I'm actually not supporting the ban. In short, I am saying that instead of banning consumption of foie gras, the ban should be on the farming practices in which cruel treatment of these fowl is being used for the production of foie gras.
To answer your question about smoking, I think it is reasonable to impose a smoking ban in restaurants as smoking impinges upon other patrons in an uncontrollable manner.