Decanter World Wine AwardsCalifornia chefs consider foie gras ban challenge
- Sunday 23 October 2011
Image: Philafoodie
California passed law SB1520 in 2004 banning force feeding of any bird, effectively outlawing foie gras, which is produced by ‘speed feeding’ geese and ducks via a special tube.
The law has an eight-year lead time and comes into effect in July 2012; how to deal with it was being discussed by a group of farmers and restaurateurs who met in San Francisco last week.
One route the group considered is to challenge the law as violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because it interferes with interstate and foreign commerce.
This defence worked in Chicago, where a law prohibiting restaurants from serving foie gras was repealed in 2008.
For all that the American foie gras industry is minute – there is only one producer in California – opposition is heartfelt.
Restaurateurs feel it is misguided. It prohibits choice, they say, and misses an opportunity for California to set a standard on foie gras production.
‘By banning foie gras…the state abdicated any opportunity to influence the industry,’ Mark Pastore, owner of San Francisco restaurant Incanto told the San Francisco Chronicle. The state could have set ‘a gobal standard’ on how it is produced, he said.
At the same time, opponents say the wording of the law is too loose - it defines force-feeding as any process that ‘causes the bird to consume more food’ than it would ‘voluntarily while foraging’ - and could set a precedent for other meat industries.
One chef, Daniel Scherotter of Palio d’Asti in San Francisco, said that any animal bred in captivity is force fed by that definition.
Foie gras polarises opinion even within the fine dining world. Chicago chef Charlie Trotter, for example, banned it from his kitchens in 2005, while renowned figures like Raymond Blanc of Oxfordshire’s Le Manoir Aux Quat’ Saisons, and Jean-Christophe Novelli vowed never to bow to pressure.
Worldwide, Israel is committed to a ban and several European countries - including Germany, Luxembourg and Italy – have outlawed force feeding.
Decanter’s consultant food editor, Fiona Beckett, originally a fan, said she would never eat foie gras again after visiting an artisanal farm in the seat of foie gras, Gers in Southern France.
In a Decanter feature she agreed the process did not seem cruel – birds are fed pellets via non-invasive tubes – and that ‘the ducks seem unstressed, positively greedy’.
But, she went on, ‘is it right to fatten a creature to the extent that it can’t walk for the sake of a luxury product we don’t need? Foie gras lover though I’ve been, I can no longer accept that it is. After my visit, contrary to all my expectations, I’ve decided I won’t eat it any more.’
Have your say!
Neil
October 30 22:05
As an ex-vegetarian, all meat production is equally in-humane. If you eat any part of an animal, accept that there are elements of it's 'production' that may cause distress to the animal. To suggest that there may be acceptable degrees of distress is typical of mankind who wants to eat 'humane' meat... surely this is completely hypocritical?
Nedim C. Buyukmihci, V.M.D.
October 30 15:15
I am a veterinarian experienced with farmed animals. The manner in which foie gras is produced is contrary to the welfare and well-being of the animals. Ducks are housed without adequate water in which to submerge themselves or clean their entire body. This is an important well-being issue for aquatic birds. The birds suffer during the ‘feeding' process. A stomach tube is forcibly inserted into the esophagus and a large amount of food is forced into the bird. This is done with great haste, leading to injury to some birds, including tearing of the esophagus, crop or stomach. Because it may not occur often is not a sufficient defense. The overfeeding leads to liver enlargement and malfunction, causing chronic metabolic dysfunction and illness. Birds used in this industry, therefore, are subjected to extremely inhumane conditions and suffer greatly. No compassionate or rational person should be supporting this industry. The product produced is not essential for human life or nourishment. When comparing the privation these animals endure to the many humane food choices available, foie gras reflects human indulgence at its worst. People are not permitted to engage in many activities that cause others to suffer - robbery, rape, property destruction, cruelty to cats and dogs and so forth. Banning the sale of something that causes others to suffer, foie gras in this case, is not fundamentally different from any other law designed to prevent suffering in non-human animals or people. Nedim C. Buyukmihci, V.M.D., Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Medicine, University of California
AnimalsTasteGreat
October 26 04:43
Have you seen how they raise chickens in the U.S.???? They can't even walk because their breasts are too big! Here we go again, let CA pass another law, we are too stupid to make our own discussions, have the government do it for us.
David
October 25 17:03
@Panos
I would argue that the current methods are humane when done correctly. As far as I know, the 2 US farms are among the best and most humane.
Ducks have neither a gag reflex nor chewing capabilities. In other words, they swallow things whole.
When tube fed at a moderate pace, it may be discomforting, but nothing close to torture, as some claim.