I have listened to a lot of arguments regarding the treatment of ducks and geese in the production of foie gras, and I have to say that I really don't understand the moral dilemma. Animal cruelty is something that I, along with most people, would fully agree is reprehensible, and completely morally wrong. So, with that in mind, I would like to make a case for foie gras.
There is a primary argument that needs to be reconciled before anything else can be discussed. Animals such as chicken, beef, lamb, pigs, game birds, fish and various other forms of game are bred for human consumption. They deserve to be raised in a healthy environment, and treated with respect. For many reasons, a good and healthy animal makes for better food, but at the same time, animals deserve to have dignity and respect shown to them during their lifespan. So, if someone is against consuming animals, that is a different argument as a vegetarian versus a carnivorous person; rather than the ethical treatment of animals that are bred for slaughter.
With this in mind, where does the production of ducks and geese differ from the raising and slaughter of other animals? Two areas that seem to be major stumbling blocks are the force feeding of the animals, and the enlargement of their livers right before they are slaughtered.
Force feeding, a rather disgusting sounding process, is by veterinarian's accounts, creates no physical damage to the animal's throat. That's right, no physical damage. What appears to be a gruesome act of quickly putting a tube down the duck or goose's throat known as 'gavage,' does not cause damage to the animal. Why? Ducks and geese are omnivorous animals, and have throats that expand to allow large food in the manner that a snake would eat their food whole, or in large chunks. So, while we imagine what this might do to our own throat, the fact is there is a completely different physical make-up.
Secondly, ducks and geese have livers that naturally expand during the fall months, in physical preparation for migration. The 'gavage' accentuates the process, fattening ducks for a 12 to 15 day period, and geese for about 15 to 18 days. The ducks and geese are then slaughtered for food, and all parts of the animals are used. The luxurious liver is the prized delicacy, but breast meat and leg meat are also commonly prized.
If you really believe that the processing of these ducks and geese is a cruel practice, then I would suggest that you should stay away from foie gras. Animals raised for slaughter do not have happy endings for the animal, no matter what type.
In speaking with Michael Ginor, co-owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Ferndale New York, he says the ducks come running toward the person with the feed. I have seen abused animals, and that is clearly not a behavior I would expect from one.
As, I believe we become more aware of farming and food production practices in our country, I think it might be more important to look at the respect of the farm for the land and the animals.
I will thoroughly confess to loving foie gras, but I realize this is probably the most controversial food product on the market, and I really would not eat it if I felt something more cruel than the sacrifice of an animal for human consumption took place. I know we live in a society that does not eat animals from snout to tail, and many people avoid the subject of killing animals for consumption.
Foie gras from an ethical and responsible producer is a delicious product. Ethical and responsible are the key words; just as they would be for farmers raising chicken, beef, pigs, fish, game birds, and wild game.
Follow Brad Haskel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/braskel
Meathead Goldwyn: Meat Or No Meat: Tell Us What You Think And Why
http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/wash_post.html
Your point is addressed here:
http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/meaningfullife.html
http://www.veganoutreach.org/howvegan.html
HVFG's violations centered around the contamination of the Middle Mongaup River with fecal and slaughter waste. Of course (as the author says) the production of Foie Gras is essentially no different than the raising of any animal whose body parts we eat, and to single out a single producer for this kind of ethical violation seems somewhat silly given that 27,000 miles of American waterways have been contaminated by dangerous levels of animal feces from small and large farms alike. Nonetheless, to imply that Hudson Valley Foie Gras has provided a "healthy environment" for the animals it raises or the human community that lives around that particular farm is a huge joke.
Local news story:
http://www.cbs6albany.com/articles/ferndale-1273672-act-violations.html
The actual violations seem to be extremely minor, as a $50,000 fine is tiny. Moreover, it was a court settlement that ended an action brought by the Humane Society, which hardly is an objective observer of the foie gras business. There is no mention in the article you cite of "ongoing" violations, or of threats of $25,000/day fines. These no doubt are mentioned in the (uncited) source from which you took the link you did post. But a single fine is the most that opponent of HVFG have to show for years of scrutiny, litigation and harassment, it is no great victory.
I'm not sure that you really want to get into the environmental costs of various kinds of agriculture
We have discovered a serial flagger that circumvented our checks and balances, and as a result, several comments MAY have been deleted when they actually met our comment policy.
We have taken action against this user, and are making changes to the system to prevent such abuses in the future.
In the mean time, we are working to review all deleted comments on this article and republish any that were removed improperly.
We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.
If you have any questions, you can reach the user support team at community-support (at) huffingtonpost (dot) com.
Thanks!
Thanks for looking in to this issue.
I have a few questions I would like to ask you at a time convenient for you. I also have some screenshots I have collected of the rogue flagging operation at work.
I am happy to discuss via email or here.
Sure, you can contact me via the community-support address posted above. One of our user support team will work with whatever information you have.
FWIW, we really do not need any details of the operation here on this article. We feel we have managed to get all the offending accounts in the process of the investigation. However, feel free to send us whatever you have and we can take a look.
Also, one thing I would like to make clear here in open discussion, is that there is a system limitation that makes it SEEM like we are taking a heavy hand in moderation. When a comment is deleted, all replies to that comment (the entire thread) are removed as well. Therefore, if you flag a comment, then reply to it, your reply will be removed if we choose to delete the comment.
I hope that helps
Comments are sent to the staff moderators when they have accrued a certain number of flags. We review the comment, and typically, if the comment meets our guidelines, we clear all the flags from the comment, If the comment does not meet our guidelines, it is removed. We take cues from our readers on borderline comments. Heavily flagged borderline comments will typically be removed.
An important part of this is that NO COMMENTS ARE REMOVED AUTOMATICALLY. All flagged comments are vetted by a staff moderator prior to removal.
There is a lot of speculation, paranoia and general distrust in the flagging system. To be totally honest, the system works EXTREMELY well in most cases. This was an aberration caused by the offender finding a way around our checks and balances. That hole has now been closed.
The point I am trying to make, is that it can be done humanely. Is everybody doing so? Of course not. Just as you can find what beef is organic and grass-pastured, you can make sure that your foie gras comes from ethically raised animals.
If you want people to listen to you, stop acting like your reality is the only one that matters. This is for both sides of the argument. I love animals and am reducing my intake of meat and being more careful in my consumption. The first step is to be more conscientious. Let me and others take our baby steps in making the world a better place. Treating us as if we are less compassionate and less educated than you, is not only wrong, but demeaning to both you and me. It will also make me stop listening when the world desperately needs these conversations.
You make a very valid point, and I absolutely applaud those baby steps. Understanding the cruelty of factory farming is one thing, but deeply entrenched habits are hard to alter. Let's face it - what could be easier than popping in to any old store or restaurant and buying whatever's available? It takes effort to eat more conscientiously. And ANY step in the direction of doing so is a positive one. After all, two people cutting their consumption of factory-farmed meat in half is the same as one person forswearing it altogether.
If you follow these threads, you'll read a lot of back and forth about the relative merits of eating "humane meat" vs. giving up meat altogether, and there are some interesting points on both sides, but pretty much everyone here unanimously condemns factory farming. This may sometimes make both sides seem judgemental towards those who continue to eat factory-farmed animal products. My advice: see it as a condemnation of the industry and of a culture that promotes indifference to the welfare of animals raised for food - NOT as a condemnation of any individual consumer.
You're right - we need these conversations. Thanks for your post. HB
Let me try a different example. Animals are being bred for testing cosmetics. These animals seem to love the lipstick we put on their skin. Therefore it must be ethical.
No. Bad definition.
I don't agree with thoses sentiments. I don't think treating an animal well during its life and taking care to slaughter it quickly and painlessly shows an indifference to animal suffering. Just the opposite: it shows attention to reducing and eliminationg animal suffering. I find that I can never get past "go" in a discussion with people who reject raising and killing animals for food as categorically immoral or inhumane, because I don't find their categorical rejection using animals for food to be be very helpful in realistically tacking the problems of what I consider to be REAL animal abuse.
As for "real" animal abuse, e.g., the barbaric practice of factory farming, how can we tackle that problem without addressing the basic fact of animal suffering? You would essentially be arguing over degrees of suffering, and it will definitely result in inaction because it is an inconclusive approach. Case in point, this article to which we are responding, the author is actually trying to justify foie gras as humane. The absurdity of the argument lies in its assumptions of animal cruelty.
I just had deja vu. Did we already talk about this?
http://pollan.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/profiles-in-courage-on-animal-welfare/
Could you please stop using the argument that "if people had to raise their own food, they'd go vegan"? It's actually completely false. In fact, I would argue that if YOU had to raise your own food, you would not be vegan. I started raising my own food about ten years ago. At first it creeped me out a bit to realize the chicken on my plate had been walking around my yard one day earlier, but now, I wouldn't have it any other way. The peace of mind that comes from knowing that the animals I eat were treated well and had good lives, along with the peace of mind that comes from knowing I won't have to freak out about the next ground beef or egg recall, is an awesome thing. I feel the same way about the vegetables and fruits that I raise myself. So again, your argument is less than compelling. I agree that people should know where their food comes from, but think if they get educated, it will actually HURT the cause of veganism. Hopefully it will also hurt the industrial system of raising animals, as people begin to search for healthier, more humane sources for their meat and animal products (sorry, "flesh" and "secretions" lol).
In addition to the animals we eat, we also have sheep, chickens and turkeys who live and breed here on our farm, and we definiitely get to know those animals and even give some of them names. Still--they're not pets.
Also I should mention I never get rid of a laying hen--I have some that are many years old and most likely are laying around five eggs a year at this point, lol. We are doing this for fun and for food for the family, so profits are not an issue and we don't have to replace our entire laying flock each year like commercial egg farms do.
In any case, your own position is one of complete integrity, and I don't see how anyone could fail to respect that.
"Racism is completely morally wrong. But..."
"Animal cruelty is completely morally wrong. But....."
I pretty much destroyed, with links and evidence this commentator, Brad whathisname used to defend his love of this Duck Delicacy or Disease...everything he said was WRONG!
But only 1 comment was posted. I was just facting...LOL not a word but something this Brad commenter/clueless duck liver eater needs to learn.
Don't patronize any restaurant that serves this diseased liver!
I posted links before but do your own research.