SPLIT TOPIC: Fois Gras

anonymous

Carnivore wrote: know I promised I'd bow out of this one, but I respect you Isa, and I think you deserve a response.
Sentience is self-awareness (and I know Wiki currently says otherwise, but if you look at the talking points for that entry, you'll see that this is hotly debated and has been changed back and forth several times). Do birds really "feel" the way we do, or do they exhibit taxis to avoid harmful stimuli? I don't think anyone knows the answer. You can say that since we don't know we should assume the worst, and that would be reasonable, but it is anthropomorphism to make a blanket claim that birds perceive the world the way we do.

I think anyone who has a pet knows that sentience is not hotly debated. Anyone who has had a pet bird knows they are more then mere nerve cells responding to stimuli. (In fact, African Grey parrots have the IQ of a human 6 year old). Do they perceive the world the way we do? No, but that doesn't diminish their rights to be treated as a living creature with some kind of rights and not just as a raw material . Hey I don't see the world the way you do, and I think you still have rights.

But I don't think that means we can't eat meat, it just means that the means of production should follow humane guidelines. Raising a cow and injecting it with antibiotics daily to stave off the infections that they get from being forced a diet of corn, which they can't digest and crammed into overcrowded conditions seems unnecessarily cruel. --but it is necessary to force the most profits for agribusinesses. So it seems the cruelty is linked to capitalism.

carnivore

Isa wrote: I don't know if birds feel the way we do, but I don't know exactly if feeling "the way we do" is a prerequisite for not harming them. That's why I don't think it is anthropomorphism, even if it is framed that way by lots of animal rights people. I think it is something more akin to empathy. Can we prove that kicking a dog in the gut harms the dog the same way it harms us? No. We can only assume from the way the dog acts and then with the scientific knowledge that we have about the dogs nervous system we could further deduce that it probably does hurt. I am curious as to what animals you feel meet your standards of self awareness. Is it apes? Is it dolphins? Is it octopus? Is it animals that pass the mirror test?

Good points. It almost goes without saying that animals that pass the mirror test are self-aware and shouldn't be eaten (although I'm still a "species-ist" in that I don't think they are equal to humans and should be fair game for medical research). And I don't think anyone who's ok with killing bugs should have a problem with killing crustaceans. Beyond that, who knows. Personally I think reptiles/birds are very far removed from mammals like cats and dogs, so the analogy isn't really apt. There aren't clear answers, and which (if any) animals one chooses to eat should be a decision everyone makes for themselves.

Isa wrote: [quote=Carny]My main issue with the focus on fois gras is that any of the arguments against fois gras would apply equally well to any meat-eating. If geese are truly self-aware, why would it be ok to take their lives for our dinner as long as they weren't overfed along the way?

Well, as a vegan, I'm not going to argue with you there. But as an animal welfare advocate I think it's important that while animals are being used as food they are at least given lives worth living before their slaughter. Many vegans disagree but that's my stance on it.
Fair enough. But although the process of overfeeding itself may be unpleasant, I think that the effects of hepatic steatosis are being exaggerated by those opposed to fois gras, and that most of the ill effects shown in findcate's links are results of confinement, not overfeeding. If you picked any bar in Park Slope last night and followed up the patrons on Monday morning and did ultrasounds on their livers, a large number of them would have evidence of hepatic steatosis. That doesn't mean they're suffering.
Also, in the Tony Bourdain episode I mentioned above, the geese were not confined in the way they're depicted in the site findcate referenced. Maybe it's a difference between Montreal and Hudson Valley fois gras.

carnivore

kensingtonmom wrote: I think anyone who has a pet knows that sentience is not hotly debated. Anyone who has had a pet bird knows they are more then mere nerve cells responding to stimuli. (In fact, African Grey parrots have the IQ of a human 6 year old). Do they perceive the world the way we do? No, but that doesn't diminish their rights to be treated as a living creature with some kind of rights and not just as a raw material . Hey I don't see the world the way you do, and I think you still have rights.

Do you have a reference for the parrot IQ? I was under the impression that dolphins were the only non-primates to have passed the mirror test, and that's well below the ability of a human 6 year old. The rest of your points are well-taken, although I think we all (myself included) need to look at our epistemology here. How do we really know what we "know."

kensingtonmom wrote: But I don't think that means we can't eat meat, it just means that the means of production should follow humane guidelines. Raising a cow and injecting it with antibiotics daily to stave off the infections that they get from being forced a diet of corn, which they can't digest and crammed into overcrowded conditions seems unnecessarily cruel. --but it is necessary to force the most profits for agribusinesses. So it seems the cruelty is linked to capitalism.

It's not just necessary to increase profits. It's necessary to meet the demand for the meat, and to keep the price low enough for everyone to be able to afford it in abundance.

quijibo

i'd bet my left nut that hitler loved foie gras

carnivore

quijibo wrote: i'd bet my left nut that hitler loved foie gras

Not that it's in any way relevant, but wasn't he mostly vegetarian?

anonymous

Carnivore wrote: Do you have a reference for the parrot IQ?

It was on a NOVA special last year on birds and parrots.

Carnivore wrote: It's not just necessary to increase profits. It's necessary to meet the demand for the meat, and to keep the price low enough for everyone to be able to afford it in abundance.

Maybe abundance is the key word. We waste a lot of food in this country. We eat a lot more meat than we need to and throw a lot away. Maybe we don't need to eat meat in abundance--that might cut down on America's obesity problem. I am sure most Fast food burgers would taste the same if they were soy burgers. Our portions of meat and most foods I think are obscene and wasteful.

quijibo

Carnivore wrote: [quote=quijibo]i'd bet my left nut that hitler loved foie gras

Not that it's in any way relevant, but wasn't he mostly vegetarian?
ok. i wikipediaedaedaedaed it.
hitler was vegetarian except he WURVed liver dumplings.
coincidence? i think not...

whyfi

kensingtonmom wrote: I am sure most Fast food burgers would taste the same if they were soy burgers.

No. They wouldn't. Not even a good soy burger satisfies my meat cravings. And yes, I've eaten plenty o' soy burgers.

Man, what I wouldn't do for a Culver's in Brooklyn right now...

anonymous

WhyFi wrote: [quote=kensingtonmom]I am sure most Fast food burgers would taste the same if they were soy burgers.

No. They wouldn't. Not even a good soy burger satisfies my meat cravings. And yes, I've eaten plenty o' soy burgers.

I actually meant like a MacDonalds or Burger King where the meat is a tasteless square of grease soaked cardboard and it is really all the other stuff you taste. I admit, a really good burger is delicious, hence my whole dilemma loving animals and loving meat!

whyfi

kensingtonmom wrote: I actually meant like a MacDonalds or Burger King where the meat is a tasteless square of grease soaked cardboard and it is really all the other stuff you taste. I admit, a really good burger is delicious, hence my whole dilemma loving animals and loving meat!

I still get the occasional QPw/C craving... And BK makes great burgers, but I've been sorely disappointed every time I've eaten at one in NYC.

anonymous

Carnivore wrote: [quote=quijibo]i'd bet my left nut that hitler loved foie gras

Not that it's in any way relevant, but wasn't he mostly vegetarian?

From what I understand he could use the nut.

drano

kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Do you have a reference for the parrot IQ?

It was on a NOVA special last year on birds and parrots.

Are we talking about a smart 6 year-old or a stupid one? I'm going to have to dig around and see how they came up with that - I know some people with some parrots that aren't close, at least from my casual observations. But maybe their parrots are really dumb for parrots.

isa

Carnivore wrote:
Good points. It almost goes without saying that animals that pass the mirror test are self-aware and shouldn't be eaten (although I'm still a "species-ist" in that I don't think they are equal to humans and should be fair game for medical research). And I don't think anyone who's ok with killing bugs should have a problem with killing crustaceans. Beyond that, who knows. Personally I think reptiles/birds are very far removed from mammals like cats and dogs, so the analogy isn't really apt.

The analogy is valid because dogs, however far removed from birds they are, are still not humans. I was using it illustrate empathetic tendencies we have towards non-humans and why they are not anthropomorphic. I wasn't comparing birds physiology to that of dogs and cats. BUT. Birds display plenty of intelligence and capacity for learned behavior. I get the feeling that you probably have seen lots of documentaries, like those of David Attenborough, that demonstrate this. I don't know if you put any stock in intelligence when it comes to deciding what you'll eat but just throwing that out there.

Carnivore wrote:
There aren't clear answers, and which (if any) animals one chooses to eat should be a decision everyone makes for themselves.

So you are arguing against animal welfare laws in general or just the animals that you see as food? Again, it sounds like "tough titties for the geese" or for anything that isn't human and I won't argue against that if that's your position. I think there need to be laws that protect animals from cruelty and that these laws have to be written by humans because they can't write them themsleves. I would prefer to live in an anarchist society where people are making decisions that benefit people, animals, the environment but you know. Oh well. You know people.

Carny wrote:
Fair enough. But although the process of overfeeding itself may be unpleasant, I think that the effects of hepatic steatosis are being exaggerated by those opposed to fois gras, and that most of the ill effects shown in findcate's links are results of confinement, not overfeeding. If you picked any bar in Park Slope last night and followed up the patrons on Monday morning and did ultrasounds on their livers, a large number of them would have evidence of hepatic steatosis. That doesn't mean they're suffering.

First of all, everyone in Park Slope is suffering, you know that. I'll come back to all the other points in a bit, I'm being yelled at right now. And PS don't mention Anthony Bourdain's name around me. Show some common decency!

isa

C-vore wrote: But although the process of overfeeding itself may be unpleasant, I think that the effects of hepatic steatosis are being exaggerated by those opposed to fois gras, and that most of the ill effects shown in findcate's links are results of confinement, not overfeeding. If you picked any bar in Park Slope last night and followed up the patrons on Monday morning and did ultrasounds on their livers, a large number of them would have evidence of hepatic steatosis. That doesn't mean they're suffering.

The reports of steatosis weren't performed by the opponents of foie grois, it is being banned because research has found it to be cruel. On what grounds are you disputing the studies? Anthony Bourdain is not the most trustworthy source on animal cruelty.

Feelings are produced in the frontal lobe, birds have all the requisite neurobiology, that implies that they have self awareness. What the denizens of Park Slope do to their own livers is their choice, it's doubtful that what is going on with their livers is anywhere near to scale what a goose is experiencing.

carnivore

Isa wrote: The reports of steatosis weren't performed by the opponents of foie grois, it is being banned because research has found it to be cruel. On what grounds are you disputing the studies? Anthony Bourdain is not the most trustworthy source on animal cruelty.

What studies are you talking about? The only stuff I've seen mentioned or linked to in this thread were opinions of various vets. An opinion isn't a study. And although Tony Bourdain may be on one end of the scale in terms of animal rights, I suspect that the vets mentioned above aren't exactly impartial observers, but rather activists with a specific agenda and an opinion that preceded anything their statements are based on. I'm not even sure what kind of study one would do to prove "cruelty" because it's more of a philosophical and ethical endpoint than an objective scientific one. Maybe PET scans obtained while the geese were force fed? I think most people use the "I know it when I see it" definition, which is certainly valid, but isn't really scientific. I also think that some of the vets are inappropriately using their clout as scientists to couch what is essentially a philisophical question in scientific terms.