SPLIT TOPIC: Fois Gras

The next time somebody posts that they would never become a member of the Food Co-op because they don't want to get scolded by sanctimonious food zealots -- I'm pointing them right to this thread.

Of course I unfortunately can't buy foie gras at the co-op. But at least I've never walked across a smackdown like this at the meat cooler either. Now what do they charge for it at Fairway?

I'm not getting my information from Michael Pollen, but rather my upbringing. I have not read the article you mention, but I'm intruiged, so I might. I have hunted and butchered in my life, but I do not currently do so. I find a lot of this free-range stuff to be a way to make the ultimate consumer of the creature feel better about the knowledge that something actually died for dinner. I mean, it's a bit of a dilemma; wouldn't a creature that's happy want to live and a creature that is miserable at least be receptive to death? And if we say that animals are incapable of telling the difference (I personally don't believe this) isn't the debate about goose liver over right there?

I respect vegetarians, by the way - theirs is a consistent approach which does no harm. I don't eat veal and but rarely foie gras. But I do feel that "free range" (or whatever) is as much for the consumer's feelings as the animal's.

Drano wrote:

I respect vegetarians, by the way - theirs is a consistent approach which does no harm. I don't eat veal and but rarely foie gras. But I do feel that "free range" (or whatever) is as much for the consumer's feelings as the animal's.

I do think it is more complicated than that. As is everything, there are no black and whites. . I agree, on the one hand, "free range" seems like the feel good food and so it looks like typical hypocritical park slopism: "My chicken had a happy life, yum". But why can't we protest factory farming? Do we have to stuff cows full of corn (which they cannot digest) in order to fatten them up faster than is natural (so the company can make a faster profit), make them constantly sick from the corn and overcrowding so that they need antibiotics to keep them alive?. One solution is to give up meat. Another is to accept that by being alive it is at the expense of another life. Maybe we can be a little more thoughtful of that other life. Whether that life is the cow whose steak we eat, or the animal's whose habitat we encroach upon with overpopulation. Maybe we can eat LESS meat, pay a little more for it and raise and slaughter them with a certain amount of respect? And maybe we can be a little less wasteful and try to be a little more sustainable when possible so that our crap isn't spreading all over every inch of green space? I think it all comes down to respecting the earth and respecting the life we share it with.

Kensingtonmom wrote: My complaint is simply *unnecessary* cruelty to animals. First and foremost the way animals are raised, housed, and slaughtered by agri-businesses. Secondly the way fois gras is produced--which is a high end luxury item. It is not a necessity. The world can live without fois gras. Independent farmers can find other ways to make a living besides fois gras. But if I had to choose one issue, over the other, for me it would be agri-businesses. Not only because of the cruelty, but also much of the food is unhealthy for humans (antibiotic usage, hormones and corn feed), and it is bad for the environment to have that many cattle or pigs in one small area etc.

Virtually all cruelty to animals is unnecessary, and "line-drawing" is always going to be somewhat arbitrary. Is killing not cruel? Can you not survive on a vegetarian diet? I mean, if it's such a lead-pipe cinch for all those goose farmers to switch careers, surely a small dietary omission won't involve much sacrifice...

armchair_warrior wrote: save the rain forest and eat a human or a animal today!

I believe the saying is "Save the trees, wipe your a** with an owl."

"kensingtonmom wrote: I guess I am not really sure why anybody is arguing in favor of factory farming??

Although you're clearly not in favor, I think you go on to answer your own question. Basically, it's a necessary evil if we want to keep eating meat whilst living in the manner that we do, that is, as an increasingly urban society. But heck, if you can afford to eat the organic free-range carcass exclusively, go ahead - who knows, maybe enough people will do it and it will effect some sort of long-term change in the farming industry.

Yessh, messed up the quoting. I'll fix it later.

Just because there is cruelty in factory farming, doesn't mean we can't try to uphold some level of basic humane treatment. to do otherwise is like saying that since some public schools are failing, we should give up eliminate standards for all public schools.

slaughter may be necessary evil in the meat industry, but torture isn't. tossing injured cows who are immobilized aside without food, water, or veterinary care so that they can slowly lie there and die because you're not required by law to euthanize them is not humane. neither is chaining it by the neck to a truck to drag it out of the way. remember when kfc made the evening news with videos of their workers smashing chickens against walls at their plants? people don't eat crated veal in europe, we eat it here--why? why do we have to raise calves that way, so that when they are eventually brought to slaughter their are crippled and can't even stand up and their legs crumple when they try to walk?

if more people took action, we wouldn't be raising animals that way. it's not a necessary evil, it's a balance of consumer pressure and economics. if people don't try to make a difference, things will just get worse--factory farms have no level of decency, and in general they aren't concerned with your safety or the environment, either.

consider this article from the washington post:

" 'They Die Piece by Piece' - The Washington Post"

by Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
______________________

It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was “second-legger,” a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.

The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren’t.

“They blink. They make noises,” he said softly. “The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around.” Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. “They die,” said Moreno, “piece by piece.”

Under a 23-year-old federal law, slaughtered cattle and hogs first must be “stunned” — rendered insensible to pain — with a blow to the head or an electric shock. But at overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with cruel consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses, ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated es-tablishments such as the sprawling IBP Inc. plant here where Moreno works.

“In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis,” said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. “I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve talked to other veterinarians. They feel it’s out of control.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the treatment of animals in meat plants, but enforcement of the law varies dramatically. While a few plants have been forced to halt pro-duction for a few hours because of al-leged animal cruelty, such sanctions are rare.

For example, the government took no action against a Texas beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations that included chopping hooves off live cattle. In another case, agency supervisors failed to take action on multiple complaints of animal cruelty at a Florida beef plant and fired an animal health technician for reporting the problems. The dismissal letter sent to the technician, Tim Walker, said his dislosure had “irreparably damaged” the agency’s relations with the packing plant.

“I complained to everyone — I said, ‘Lookit, they’re skinning live cows in there,’ “ Walker said. “Always it was the same answer: ‘We know it’s true. But there’s nothing we can do about it.’ ”

In the past three years, a new meat inspection system that shifted responsibility to industry has made it harder to catch and report cruelty problems, some federal inspectors say. Under the new system, implemented in 1998, the agency no longer tracks the number of humane-slaughter violations its inspectors find each year.

Some inspectors are so frustrated they’re asking outsiders for help: The inspectors’ union joined with the Humane Farming Association last spring and urged Washington state authori-ties to crack down on alleged animal abuse at the IBP plant in Pasco. In a statement, IBP said problems described by workers in its Washington state plant “do not accurately represent the way we operate our plants. We take the issue of proper livestock handling very seriously.”

But the union complained that new government policies and faster production speeds at the plant had “significantly hampered our ability to ensure compliance.”

“Privatization of meat inspection has meant a quiet death to the already meager enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act,” said Gail Eisnitz of the Humane Farming Association, a group that advocates better treatment of farm animals. “USDA isn’t simply relinquishing its humane-slaughter oversight to the meat industry, but is — without the knowledge and consent of Congress — abandoning this function altogether.”

The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service, which is responsible for meat inspection, says it has not relaxed its oversight. In January, the agency ordered a review of 100 slaughterhouses. An FSIS memo reminded its 7,600 inspectors they had an “obligation to ensure compliance” with humane-handling laws.

The review comes as pressure grows on both industry and regulators to improve conditions for the 155 million cattle, hogs, horses and sheep slaughtered each year. McDonald’s and Burger King have been subject to boycotts by animal rights groups protesting mistreatment of livestock.

As a result, two years ago McDonald’s began requiring suppliers to abide by the American Meat Institute’s Good Management Practices for Animal Handling and Stunning. The company also began conducting annual audits of meat plants. Industry groups acknowledge that sloppy killing has tangible consequences for consumers as well as company profits. Fear and pain cause animals to produce hormones that damage meat and cost companies tens of millions of dollars a year in discarded product, according to industry estimates. Industry officials say they also recognize an ethical imperative to treat animals with compassion. Clearly, not all plants have gotten the message.

eggcream wrote: haha reactionaries who hang on to outdated ideas...and who keeps winning elections?

"France is the leading producer and consumer of foie gras. The country produced 18,450 tonnes of foie gras in 2005 (75% of estimated total world production of 23,500 tonnes) of which 96% was duck liver and the rest goose. Consumption of foie gras in France totalled 19,000 tonnes in 2005 [1]. 30,000 people are involved in the industry with 90% residing in the Périgord (Dordogne) and Midi-Pyrénées régions in the southwest, as well as in the east (Alsace). The European Union recognizes the foie gras produced according to traditional farming methods (label rouge) in southwestern France with a geographical indication of provenance.

Hungary is the world's second-largest producer of foie gras and the largest exporter (the country exported 1,920 tonnes of goose foie gras in 2005). France is the principal market for Hungarian foie gras which is mainly exported raw. French companies spice, process or cook the foie gras so that it can be sold as a French product for the domestic market or for export [2]. An estimated 30,000 Hungarian goose farmers are dependent on the foie gras industry [3].

Bulgaria produced 1,500 tonnes of foie gras in 2005 [4].

Québec also has a thriving foie gras industry. Many Canadian chefs use Québec foie gras as a demonstration of national pride."

Uhm what is your point? That Europeans eat foie gras so it must be right? That because George Bush won the election, his policies must be right? Not all traditions need to be kept

Here's the good news. You still have until 2012 to enjoy Seared Artisan Foie Gras with citrus compote, vanilla, crouton and essencia reduction at Michael's in Santa Monica. Bon Appétit.

Drano wrote: S'why it's best to leave politics out of discussions where they don't really belong. Because of K-mom's gratuitous little stinger this conversation is probably going to take a whole different direction.

Split Topic: Party Politics, anyone?

Edit for bonus knowledge: Fois gras still needs 19 countries to pull ahead of Cannibal ferox

You are right. It was a stinger but maybe not totally gratuituous. One of the biggest supporters of agri-business is the oil companies. Who are the biggest supporters of the oil companies? The republican party. There is a link, although of course I meant it as a stinger to backward thinking republicans.

Last summer we went to visit Farm Sanctuary. I just figured we would take our kids to see some farm animals upstate. The people who run it are definitely fanatics but within their fanatacism there is a truth to be told (Paul McCartney is a big benefactor of this place). The farm animals have all been rescued from various factory farms and such. They give you a tour and show you how the big industry farming works and everyone left depressed and sad. I mean big fat steak eating mini van driving cliché american tourists left wondering what to do and whether to continue to eat meat or what. I think this is a movement that is slowly catching on and laws are eventually going to be passed to make the treatment of farm animals humane. That is all.

WhyFi wrote: [quote=findcate]i think it was eggcream, and not k-mom, who brought up politics...even though it wasn't really relevant...

No, this came about 10 posts before eggcream's one and only post, and it's quoted within eggcream's post -

kensingtonmom wrote: Sadly there are always reactionaries who hang on to outdated ideas and don't have much imagination or empathy. Guess that is why there will always be a republican party.

I fessed up already about my comment. Do we need an inquisition?

kensingtonmom wrote: I fessed up already about my comment. Do we need an inquisition?

We don't need an inquisition, but evidently we do need someone to point out the facts a little more bluntly. Her finger-pointing came 8 minutes after you fessed up - what's wrong with me pointing that out?

kensingtonmom wrote:
But there are certain cruel practices that are easily given up such as avoiding fois gras and not wearing a fur coat. Some things are just no brainers if you believe animals (our food) have some kind of rights.

um, near as i can tell, wearing fur is probably better for the environment than wearing thinsulate, down wrapped in nylon, primaloft, or any other synthetic...but i guess that's a different thread.

on the topic of this thread, i would like to give another point in favor of free-range, antibiotic-free, other feel-good hyphen-having meat: it tastes better.

Isa wrote: [quote=Carnivore]I believe that sentience is a relative thing.

But sentience is well defined. It's the ability to feel. Birds have sensory organs that allow them to feel, they have a central nervous system. I don't think that dismissing it as anthropomorphism is a fair argument, because then why not toss all animal welfare laws out the window?

So if you're saying "tough titties" to the birds that's one thing, but dismissing their sentience or the cruelty of it (cruelty is well defined, too) is unfair.
I know I promised I'd bow out of this one, but I respect you Isa, and 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.
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?