It's very hard to watch the video about foie gras from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and not conclude that you should lay off fatty liver.
You're shown a disheveled duck squeezed into a cage so small that the bird can't open its wings. Disturbingly, it rocks back and forth. You then see an enormous barn full of birds, all of them immobilized in tiny cages. There are graphic shots of birds' festering open sores with rats nibbling at them, some that are dying slowly, and some with holes punched through their necks. We learn that foie gras production has been banned in the United Kingdom, Israel, and Switzerland.
The Humane Society and the ASPCA have also joined PETA to oppose foie gras. They object to the force-feeding process, called "gavage," which entails putting a metal tube down a duck's throat to deliver a large amount of corn-based food that causes the liver to enlarge. The process, animal rights groups say, causes trauma to the duck's esophagus and beak. Also, they say, the enlargement of the liver&-;from six to 10 times the normal size&-;causes the ducks to become deathly ill, struggle to walk and breathe, and vomit up undigested food. At the website of the humane group Farm Sanctuary, a photograph of a healthy, fluffy white duck rescued from a foie gras farm is contrasted with a shot of two ducks in tiny cages, both covered with their own yellow vomit.
"I am disturbed by the rough handling that creates myriad lesions&-;fractured limbs and infections of their feet," says Dr. Holly Cheever, vice president of the New York Humane Society, a veterinarian, and an occasional consultant to PETA. "Pneumonia and esophageal scarring, fungal and bacterial infections, and, in rare cases, the rupture of the liver from excess pressure on a badly swollen organ-not to mention the semi-comatose and seizuring states I have seen in the end stages as the liver fails and the brain can no longer function . . . yet, the feeder will grab a seizuring or semi-comatose bird and force the tube down to continue the process of liver engorgement. Surely you do not need a veterinary affidavit to label this as cruel?" Cheever says that the esophagi are often "blown open" and that the fattened liver becomes profoundly diseased, which causes the birds to die a slow death, beset with seizures and unable to walk.
Groups that oppose the production of foie gras have pushed for city and state bans on the product, sometimes with success, as in California, and sometimes with temporary success, as in Chicago. Meanwhile, various groups continue to hold demonstrations outside restaurants that serve the product, and the Humane Society has brought lawsuits against a local farm.
After watching the gruesome images, it's not hard to understand the legislative concern. No one wants tortured ducks on their watch. After all, we adore ducks-Daffy, Donald, even the Aflac duck-because we find them funny and appealing, much more so than chickens or turkeys.
However, in some cases, legislators have reversed course. In 2007, New York State Assemblyman Michael Benjamin withdrew his name from a proposed bill banning foie gras production in the state after he visited the biggest foie gras farm in the country, Hudson Valley Foie Gras.
What did he see there? Fortunately, Hudson Valley is only about two hours from the city. I figured the only way to know for sure whether foie gras equals torture was to go see it produced for myself. I called a contact at the gourmet food company D'Artagnan, which works closely with Hudson Valley, and asked if I could look around. I'd want to see the force-feeding. And the slaughter. And bring a photographer.
"No problem," came the reply.
In the United States, foie gras production is tiny compared to other animal husbandry. There are four American foie gras farms, and all raise ducks rather than geese, selling not only livers but also breast and leg meat, sausages made with scraps, and down from the feathers. Hudson Valley offers duck testicles and duck tongues, too.
And although Hudson Valley is the biggest foie gras producer in the country, processing 4,000 to 6,000 ducks a week, it raises birds by the traditional model, instead of the industrial one. That means that everything&-;from the egg hatching to the 21-day force-feeding period and the slaughter-happens on the same farm, tended to by the same workers. So I'd be able to see it all.
When I told Cheever that I was visiting Hudson Valley, she said that I'd be witnessing an elaborate cover-up. "With 150 people living on-site, they can cherry-pick out the disastrously sick ducks," she said. She also didn't believe that the farm force-feeds for only 21 days before slaughtering the ducks. "By the end of the third to fourth weeks, their breathing is strained and their limbs may be lame from infection and injury or fractures, but YOU will not see those birds," she wrote to me in an e-mail.
Hudson Valley Foie Gras is not actually in the Hudson Valley, but in a sparsely populated, rather desolate town called Ferndale in the Catskills region. First stop was the home of Marcus Henley, the farm manager at Hudson Valley, who lives with his wife, Sohnnie (pronounced "Shaun-ie"), on 12 acres, with a black cat, a canary, and some koi. Both are from Arkansas. Henley studied science in college, served in the Army, and then started managing poultry farms in 1983. He came to Hudson Valley in 2001.
Man that was a fun read. Not so much the article but all the comments. Here is what I learned. If you eat meat and misspell words or use foul language than obviously your opinion means nothing because your just dumb. If you don't eat meat you can insult people and their intelligence, you can elevate a duck status (his words not mine) to be equal to the life of an enslaved human being, and you can equate being a duck farmer to being a pimp for child sex slaves. I do have a couple of questions though. Why would either side state that so in so expert says blah blah blah and then not even give a source that it came from, there are several replies to go look it up I'm not here to waste my time. Debates (if you can even call this one) are won by facts -indisputable facts- not on this is how I feel. I personally raise ducks - before you start screaming they run around my yard, they have a safe pen at night, and they have a small stream to swim and clean in. With that being said ducks are not all that bright- their funny but not bright. The fact that some one says the only reason that the ducks do not run a feeding time is a survival tactic is just kidding themselves. The fact that you put a duck and a POW on the same level just disgust's me. Just a few more things to stir the pot here. God (yes I believe in an almighty creator not that we came from swamp goo) gave man dominion over the earth and all the creatures. We are not equal to livestock. One last point. Global warming. what does that have to do with this you ask. Well we can tie global warming to everything - and for some reason farming of all types is a favorite. So here is my point. Is there such a thing? You know this how because the news told you so? Where are the facts? Alright this is where all you conspiracy theory people get to get all fired up. For most of my adult life all I have heard about is global warming. The science doesn't support it but we don't let that bother us do we? Seems odd to me that my buddy Al Gore and all his scientist can't come up with data to back their claims but yet they continue. Oh you know how the money hungry farmers are getting rich off animals well the Al Gore's of this world are getting rich off your fear! Good news though. When the current administration completes our conversion to socialism we won't have to argue over what we eat. We can all just go down to the food line and get what they give us. Finally utopia.
It's amazing that there aint more people that follow Eduardo Sousa in spain, and Hudson Valley. I'm really afraid from the production in china.. another foie gras post : http://www.floss.dk/?p=377 Kind regards, Gilbert
Magret, Foie Gras, and anything cooked in duck fat are wonderful. And, in moderation, can be part of a healthful diet. HVFG does a great job. Thanks to them we now have these quality products readily avaiable in the US.
Issues like "eat meat" "don't eat meat", like "pro-life" "pro-choice" are polarized to the extent that there's not much grey area. Either you're for or against, right? So all 100+ of these comments above can pretty much be reduced to the first two, i.e.: Grace on Wed Feb 18, 2009, 11:22:27, says: Some objective reporting, it really would of saved the paper time and money if the farm owners wrote the piece. as it seems they did. to grace on Wed Feb 18, 2009, 12:14:45, says: you just can't stand that the article didn't validate your worldview, right? if you won't take this reporter's word at face value, go do a no-notice at the farm and write a rebuttal piece. As someone who eats meat but could give a duck shit less about foie gras (my standard for "disinterested party")it looks like the pro-foie gras folks prevail here, not for lack of communicative ability on the part of the anti-foie gras people who seem a tad more articulate and debate-savvy but just for the fact that all they have to do is show up at the farm unannounced and see for themselves but seemingly would rather just throw facts and abstractions around rather than do so and see for themselves and, vicariously, for us through vegan-colored lenses. In short: stop arguing and go and see for yourselves if the article was biased or not.
This article is hardly saying that all foie gras production is humane and that everyone everywhere should eat it. This is just a description of the reporter's experience at this particular farm. Go visit, do the research, don't get seduced by pictures you saw in some leaflet. And for pete's sake, if you DO decide you don't support it, please don't run around threatening people and making everyone's lives a little more miserable. Much better to have people out there enjoying good food than getting their kicks with drugs or some other self-destructive thing.
Pretty much nobody wants animals to be mistreated. I am glad they did something about this. Angela Backlinks
liverwurst is cheaper
Foie gras is good food. All good food that comes from animals involves killing the animal; sometimes it also involves fattening up the animal. This is human-centric and brutal - but it tastes good.
The investigative journalism on American fois gras and the associated poultry husbandry practices was one of the finest pieces of food writing I've seen in years. I'm no fan of factory farming, and there are plenty of economic and nutritional reasons to avoid fois gras. But clearly, Hudson Valley is as humane as one could hope of any medium scale poultry operation.
All very true. But it's quite tasty no?
i just read the article. i thought it was really interesting. i do think that with an agenda, it is always possible to edit or manipulate things to show that you are right. i think where true integrity comes in is where you try to report all the information that you know as objectively as possible, without any preconcieved motives; you are simply out to find the truth yourself. i also think that a lot of people are into animal rights and into PETA because it has also become very popular or trendy these days to do so. i think that there are a lot if people who speak vehemently about animal rights but don't really take the time to figure out if the information that they are fed is really true. seriously, if you eat meat or wear leather, you really don't have too much of a right to be picketing outside a restaurant that serves foie gras or blatantly and insensitively blasting your opinions to others about foie. if you believe in the humane treatment of animals, that's great. i would say that most people do. i can't really imagine someone wanting to eat meat from an animal that has been abused or has had an extremely tortuous life. i definitely do think it is important to start thinking more about where your food comes from. i think that it is important to support farms that raise their animals humanely, although i know that this can be expensive at times because if you are a starving student, like me, it's definitely difficult to be shopping at whole foods all the time buying my organic free-range chicken or beef. and it seems, at least with the four foie producers in the u.s. that humane treatment is really not an issue, although granted the author only visited one farm. from the article, it seems that these ducks are treated way better than regular poultry or cattle farms. i guess if you are for veganism or vegetarianism, that is a completely different issue. in that case, i can see how you would view eating meat as wrong, period. i think that PETA people should stress that that is really more their opinion than turning to things like foie gras farms and sensationalizing it in order to help their agenda. i think that foie is an easy target because to someone that really doesn't know about the practice of raising geese, of course they are going to think that an enlarged liver is abnormal or wrong--well, what about enlarged chicken breasts?
I personally don't see anything wrong with foie gras or veal at all. The reason we are slaughtering all these animals are because we have evolved enough to be able to domesticate animals for our use. Why should we care about cruelty to a different species? I mean,if humans were being caged and force fed to be eventually eaten then I would see something wrong with it. But now, since most humans and omnivores and we have evolved enough to domesticate animals, I feel that there is no problem of doing what we want to any animals. Such as dog, pigeon, and veal (all which I had a privileged to eat when I was living in the PRC).
WOW! Are you people all really that gruesome and insensitive and cynical?! Good grief, am I glad to NOT know you! Why on earth would you defend such a hideous action as Foie Gras unless you are getting a kick back from it somehow? Are we supposed to be shocked that you are so insensitive, well I am shocked, do you feel better now?? You should be ashamed!
Is Foie Gras torture? Gee, is chopping human fingers off at the knuckle with no anesthesia torture? Is lashing bare skin torture? Is it torture to read the comments by some of these diabolical minds? The answer to all of these is unequivacally YES! The only person who would not think it is torturous is someone who thinks it more important to satisfy their lavish gluttony than to listen to their conscience, IF they have one!
NYVegan you really are a douchebag. And full of hot air. No one cares what you think. Now for a nice heaping pile of foie gras.
I board my horse at a little family-run stable with a pond. The owners keep ducks as pets, and increase the flock every few years by getting new ducklings. They are raised outside (when they are old enough to stay warm and dry on their own), cared for and protected, but some of them just don't make it. Why? I'm not sure, but as these little guys are free-range, it's probably not from diseases resulting from confinement - and that's counting the few who are picked off by a fox or hawk or bald eagle. As to the force-feeding issue, the barn also has geese. Big, fat, white geese who have made themselves unable to fly. The ducks are almost as bad - the owner had to issue a moratorium on anyone giving them horse feed as a treat and cleaning up any spilled feed, because they were all getting so obese. My point? I've been around these birds for three years, and they all seem to be natural gluttons. How you can force-feed something that will voluntarily eat until it can't fly is beyond me.
Torture is reading the infantile comments on this message board. Foie gras is delicious, nothing compares to it. Those who dislike the method of producing it, should adopt a duck. Besides, real torture would be to let the birds die of hunger, slowly. Here we have the exact opposite, we give them extra food. Have a problem with the tube ? Very Freudian, I wouldn't mention that if I was you. Magret, is delicious, so is confit, but the prize goes to the liver. Everything should be eaten in animals, liver, kidneys ( with mustard, simply divine )sweetbreads of course, the heart,brains ( in black butter, panned, heavenly !) even the intestines are used in good restaurants . Trying to impose childish views on others by preventing them from eating what they desire smells like stalinism. Israel banned it ? Well, move there.
On a totally different note: A letter was published in response to this article by someone who lives near the farm and does not like the fact that the manure produced by the ducks is used in nearby farms on the feilds as fertilizer. I also live in the area and notice when the fields have been fertilized (usually in the fall) because of the strong smell of amonia that is released by the manure. Duck manure is used in some areas but other sources such as cows from the local dairy farms are more common. It usually takes a couple of weeks for the smell to dissipate. However, to me this is a good sign. Manure has been used for millenia as fertilizer and is part of the biodynamic process necessary for organic farming. Chemical fertilizers are much more dangerous and damaging to the ecology of the land. My partner and I do organic farming and have requested that Hudson Vally Foie Gras share some of their manure with us for our gardens. They have been very helpful and the results are that our soil is greatly enriched and the yeilds from the gardens have increased substantially.
Arco: You have once again managed to completely miss the point, and you rebut only part of my rebuttal while ignoring the balance, while offering no evidence to the contrary. My rebuttal to DiGregorio’s conclusion did not rest on the legal status of the practice, or on the letter containing the signatures of 224 animal welfare and animal rights groups asking the ASPCA to stop the practice. It was much simpler. It consisted of showing that she was (1) making an incredulous claim and (2) she failed to support that claim with evidence. This test of her claim is critical, because DiGregorio is not a “authoritative source”, and her claim is so extraordinary that it demands extraordinary proof. She is not an investigative reporter, a zoologist, an animal behaviorist, a vet, or an ethicist. She consulted with a vet before the visit, but as I explained earlier, she (apparently) did not investigate the vet’s key claims during her visit. Instead of bringing a vet, she brought a photographer. Now, if you suspected that your puppy or kitten was sick, would you want someone who spoke to a vet to show up at your door with a photographer to determine whether or not the animal was actually sick? Think about it: DiGregorio claims that the production of foie gras is not cruel, and that there is such a thing as humanely-raised veal! She has quite a task before her to prove that she is not delusional. Further (as I noted in an earlier comment), DiGregorio could not even frame the question properly, so she had little hope of deriving a valid answer to the proper question. The strength of her conclusion is a function the quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori probability of the claim being supported. My rebuttal to her conclusion included the observation that the a priori probability of the claim being supported was exceedingly low. When enlightened people look at the practice closely, they find it to be horrific. No, foie gras production has not been outlawed everywhere. But neither has pedophilia or cannibalism. What we do find is that where the abhorrent practices are uncovered (e.g., California and New York, because that is where it is made in the US), the community tends to respond by proposing legislation to stop it. Why doesn’t it always respond? As Karl Polanyi notes in “The Great Transformation”, “Instead of economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system”. In other words, moral values are often subverted by profit seekers. That should be obvious to anyone who wasn’t in a coma over the last eight years. That is why slavery was not outlawed in the US until 1865. That is why the foie gras production was moved from Israel after it was banned there – the producers simply found another home for their horrific business, just as heroin dealers will find new fields in which to grow poppies once the police discover their old fields. That the practice is cruel is obvious. The ducks are treated as factors of production in an economic machine so people can eat their livers. If someone kept a puppy or kitten in the dark and force fed it, then slit it’s throat at the age of two months to eat its liver, that person would undeniably be cruel to an animal. But when a lot of people are cruel to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is often condoned and, once sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people. Foie gras producers take ducklings away from their mothers, raise them in near darkness except in the 2-3 weeks of force feeding, increasing their weight by 50% during forced feeding, they don’t give these waterfowl access to water in which to swim, and then they slaughter them at the age of 2-3 months (thus cutting their lives short by 10-15 years) by hanging them upside down and cutting their throats. To some, foie gras is a mouthful of flesh. To ducks, it is their life itself. All animals love life and fear death, and one cannot eat their flesh without violence and oppression. Consumers of foie gras are complicit in the cruel practice – they are eating the product of misery. Again, if parents treated a child as Hudson Valley treats ducklings, they would be tossed in jail for life and movie studios would fight for the right to depict the horrors. But with ducklings, it’s business as usual. Why is it not similarly cruel with ducklings? Ducks are sentient creatures. As Charles Darwin said, “The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery”. Yes, it could be more cruel. As evil as he was, even Hannibal Lecter could have been depicted as more cruel, but that doesn’t mean that he was not cruel; likewise, the production of foie gras, cruel as it is, could always be (and often has been) more cruel. But don’t confuse a “failure to maximize cruelty” with “humane treatment”. As women, slaves, children, nonhuman animals, ethnic minorities, gays and others have witnessed through the ages, domination has always appeared natural to those who could exercise it. Often, that domination has been endorsed by the legal code created by those who exercise the dominance. But that doesn’t mean that the practices aren’t cruel. Not only did DiGregorio fail to properly frame the question, she offered a conclusion that, if applied to infants, puppies or kittens, clearly would not be accepted. Then she fails to explain why we should accept the conclusion for ducklings. Further, she offers no evidence to support her conclusion – she merely describes the practices and her perception of the ducks’ physical states as if they were inanimate objects in a toy duck factory. **************** If you replace the word “duckling” with “puppy”, “kitten” or “infant” in her story, you will see that she is coldly describing something horrific. But when some readers value certain sentient creatures (e.g., puppies) more than others (e.g., ducklings) and call the practice “commerce”, they convince themselves that it is not cruel. That is delusional. **************** DiGregorio has failed to properly frame the question, she offers an incredulous conclusion, her reporting consists only of superficial observations of the physical state of the ducklings and the process, and she fails to provide evidence to her claim that practices that are clearly cruel when applied to infants, puppies and kittens are not abusive when applied to ducklings. Shameful that the Village Voice considered this worthy of publication.
Hungry in Texas on Sunday: "...I took the time to open-mindedly READ your article. It helped that I didn't have an agenda or opinion one way or another before I read your piece, unlike many of the commenting crusaders." Hungry in Texas on Tuesday: "you fucking idiots" "PETAphiles" "Are you a complete idiot?" "You are misguided, stupid, and have a completely illogical viewpoint of life and lives."
If anyone believes that being force fed huge amounts of food through a metal pipe that's shoved down your throat, several times a day, is not torture-I have a bridge that I'd like to sell you.
NYVegan: I have a bit of a different analysis. We stand on the street corner together and a car passes. A priori, you say, this is a red car because the side we see is red and thus, by inference, a priori, the other side is red. I am sorry, but when I have seen the other side and it is red, I will agree, a posteriori, that we have seen a red car. I am sure. You are employing sophistry, a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. By your logic, a priori, last time I looked there were 231 countries in the world. Foie gras production is allowed in about 215. There are 50 states in the US. Foie gras production is allowed in all of them until 2012. Then still acceptable in 49. A priori, foie gras production is an accepted form of animal agriculture (just ducky) except in the limited, manipulated cases mentioned below. There are groups that have taken a position that is not alright to eat meat. However they perceive the world, they set out to change it, with the stated goal of a meatless world. If you look around for the low hanging fruit, foie gras is logical. It is small part of animal agriculture, globally. Also, people, without understanding duck physiology, are disturbed by the image of the tube in the esophagus. We start out in the liberal countries of the EU. Although it should be noted that one of Adolf Hitler’s first acts when he assumed leadership of Germany was to enact animal welfare laws, including the abolition of foie gras. So you go to a country and say, “Please ban foie gras farming.” “Do we make it here?” “No, and we will not ask that it be banned from restaurants.” At this early stage, no one was affected. The French producers didn’t get it and actually thought this was not a bad thing, as it eliminated potential competition without affecting sales. The country was able to satisfy a minority constituency without injury to others. Now we go to a second country. Not only does the same situation exist, but we have established a precedent. This goes on for many years, in the case of foie gras, about 40. Then, we come to Israel and California. Your argument, a priori foie gras is cruel because production has been banned in many countries, now has considerable weight, which is also working against a very tiny segment of animal agriculture. It is a beautiful, effective strategy and is the primary model for animal rights legislation: get it passed where it does not affect anyone, then use the a priori argument down the road. Even so, in California you leave out the part where there were enough votes in the California Agriculture Committee to stop the legislation there. But the small California foie gras producer, who would have been out of business due to animal rights related lawsuits, cut a deal where he signed off on the legislation as long he was protected from lawsuits, which is indeed in the language of the legislation. In Israel, the foie gras processor did not contest the court case. The result was the movement of the entire volume of foie gras production to Hungary, complete with religious personnel. Foie gras is produced there at a lower cost. The Israeli protective tariffs on foie gras imports were removed, as there was no more farming to protect. The farmers were hurt, but the processors gained and no ducks were saved. A few points: activist claims led to the police visit to Commonwealth; I don’t know about 223 groups petitioning the ASPCA but I do know ASPCA investigated Hudson Valley Foie Gras in 1995, concluding the birds seemed to be in good condition and autopsy of a bird from the farm “did not show evidence of either disease or physical injury associated with inhumane treatment”; that a duck may live 20 years in the wild is a nice example of the extreme right of the bell-shaped curve of life: one of us is the oldest person in the world but most of us will not last so long. A priori is misleading, arm-chair sophistry in your analysis of foie gras. DiGregario goes for the a posteriori, which I applaud. There have been enough of these visits, going back in time, and if you agree that “you can’t fool all the people all the time” (which you cannot), that I would say, a priori, that the visits are representative of foie gras farming. I don’t add evidence. I support the a posteriori evidence provided by DeGregario, ASPCA and many others.
And you expect to be taken seriously with your foul language and insults? Would it be fair to judge all meat eaters in Texas on the basis of your message board temper tantrum? I think you're the one who needs to grow up!
Wow. This is why 98% of the meat-eating population doesn't take vegans, PETAphiles, and even vegetarians seriously. PETA had an ad campaign comparing irresponsible and cruel dispositions of animals to the Holocaust. Excuse me? Now this idiot actually compares duck farming to child sex slavery? Are you a complete idiot? No wonder omnivores don't take you fucking idiots seriously. Telling me that animals shouldn't be harmed or mistreated makes sense. Comparing ducks, pigs, chickens, and cattle to children and other human beings is the height of ignorance and will get you no where. You are misguided, stupid, and have a completely illogical viewpoint of life and lives. Grow up! "Gosh, what responsible journalism. Good thing she notified the duck killers ahead of time. Next I suggest that the Village Voice should do an investigative piece on child sex slavery; because, you know, we have heard a lot from people protesting that sort of thing. In order to get "unbiased" coverage, the journalist covering it will preferably be a child rapist himself, or at least someone who regularly appreciates the sensory pleasures afforded by a well-run bordello specializing in child sex slavery. Oh, and be sure to phone the bordello ahead of time, and let them know that you doing some "serious investigative journalism" -- so, you know, they have a chance to hide the dead bodies and whatnot."
Thank you for the well researched article. Unfortunately, the only thing missing is discussing if apples or pears best accompany a fatty piece of warm foie gras. Mmmm. THe best. You PETA folks and others of the animal loving ilk REALLY need to get a life.
I live nearby this farm and have seen their operation first-hand. It is a well-run farm and, by the standards of industrial livestock production, very humane. I find the bickering over Temple Grandin's qualifications and Sarah DiGregorio's intent embarrasing to read. The arrogance and certainty of many of these commentators undermines any sense that they might be trying to get at a higher truth. If one believes that "meat is murder" probably nothing will sway you. I would suggest that, if people want to protest mistreatment of animals, their time would be much better spent picketing the many huge operations in the US that manufacture meat. Purdue and Tyson are obvious examples for poultry and their infractions are well documented. To target a small farm that has a good record is simply a waste of time. Also, why target a local restaurant which features responsibly harvested products? Fast food joints represent irresponsible food culture on every level: They encourage unhealthy eating habits, spur mega-industrial agricultural capacity and further distance the act of eating from its source. McDonald's and its kin are the ground zero of animal cruelty.
Gosh, what responsible journalism. Good thing she notified the duck killers ahead of time. Next I suggest that the Village Voice should do an investigative piece on child sex slavery; because, you know, we have heard a lot from people protesting that sort of thing. In order to get "unbiased" coverage, the journalist covering it will preferably be a child rapist himself, or at least someone who regularly appreciates the sensory pleasures afforded by a well-run bordello specializing in child sex slavery. Oh, and be sure to phone the bordello ahead of time, and let them know that you doing some "serious investigative journalism" -- so, you know, they have a chance to hide the dead bodies and whatnot.
What a great piece of investigative journalism! I'm sure CNN is not knocking down your door, Ms. Digregorio. A duck kept out of water is a tortured duck. This is why ducks are called waterfowl. Notice the word water? Yes, they need water to swim in just to live a healthy life. That's what the webbed feet are for, Ms. Digregorio. A duck that is forced to live without water would be like a chicken who is forced to sit in a pool of water all day, every day. Perhaps you would not see anything wrong with that either. According to you, a duck is not suffering after having a metal pipe shoved down his throat and force fed a huge amount of food. What would a duck have to do? Would he have to turn in to a cartoon character and start speaking like daffy duck before you'd realize maybe that he'd much rather be swimming in a pond than force fed at a factory farm?
Dear Ms.. DiGregario: You have opened my eyes; I always thought that force feeding a bird until his or her liver was 10 times the normal size was painful and stressful for the birds, but you have shown me that the birds lead wonderful lives. The owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras cares so much about the birds that he provides them with condo-like comfy homes, where they spend idyllic days, happily waiting for their turn to have metal pipes shoved down their throats and large amounts of mash forced into their stomachs. This is such a wonderful life, and the only thing that is more fun for the birds is when they go to slaughter. And of course you were shown the actual way that the birds are raised, why would a man who has made his fortune producing foie gras, try to misrepresent how the birds are treated?
Arco: The same test I suggested for DiGregorio’s article applies to your comments: The strength of a conclusion is a function the quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori probability of the claim being supported. You claim that the production of foie gras is not cruel. Here is evidence to support the claim that it is: The laws of at least fourteen countries include language that prohibits force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras. The European Union, which has already imposed a ban on veal crates and gestation crates, is considering a ban on foie gras that would outlaw cruel foie gras production in 15 European countries. In August 2003, the Israeli Supreme Court issued a 39-page decision declaring foie gras production to be contrary to the country's animal protection laws. In issuing his opinion, Judge Strasberg-Cohen stated: “There is no real controversy with respect to the fact that the practice of force-feeding causes suffering to the geese . . . the goose is prevented from eating freely and is forcefully fed several times a day with high energy food and in quantity far above is physiological requirements. The process… is violent and harmful [causing] a degenerative disease in the goose's liver and enlargement of the liver up to ten times its normal size. There is no controversy that without the injury to the goose liver, it is not possible, at present, to produce goose liver.” California has chosen to ban the production and sale of foie gras in that state. The bill makes the practice of force-feeding ducks and geese illegal by 2012, and also “bans the sale of the cruel product”. The evidence is clearly in support of the claim that the production of foie gras is cruel. But that is obvious to a casual observer: the ducklings are immediately taken from their mothers; the birds are kept in the dark for most of their lives; they are not allowed access to water for swimming; they show a natural aversion to forced feeding (hence the name of the practice); they are hung upside down while their throats are cut open, and their lives are cut short by 10-15 years. Again, this is reminiscent of “Silence of the Lambs”. If parents treated a child as Hudson Valley treats ducks, they would be tossed in jail for life and movie studios would fight for the right to depict the horrors. But with ducks, it’s business as usual. George Bernard Shaw explained why DiGregario took the position she did: “Cruelty must be whitewashed by a moral excuse, and pretense of reluctance.” This cannot be defined as anything but cruel. Yes, it could be more cruel. As evil as he was, even Hannibal Lecter could have been depicted as more cruel, but that doesn’t mean that he was not cruel; likewise, the production of foie gras, cruel as it is, could always be (and often has been) more cruel. But don’t confuse a “failure to maximize cruelty” with “humane treatment”. So your conclusion has an exceedingly low a priori probability of being true. Now, let’s review your evidence: . . . Wait, you haven’t provided any! None. Zip. Imagine a trial attorney showing up in court without evidence. But why try to defend the indefensible? So the a priori probability is exceedingly low and you have no evidence to back up your claim. But you try a distraction: you offer ad hominem attacks and flawed rebuttals to my criticisms of DiGregario’s poor reporting. OK, let’s address those. The police raided Commonwealth in April, 1992. That was 17 years ago, not “about 25 years ago” as you stated. You claim that “All investigations found no basis for the claims of the activist groups.” Activist groups didn’t raid Commonwealth – the police did. A quick check shows that, in 1995, PETA sent a letter co-signed by 223 animal protection groups to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) to encourage that organization to take action. New York state legislators have introduced bills since that time that would prohibit force-feeding for foie gras production, but that the powerful farm lobby has so far prevented a ban. Of course there is mortality in any farm – we needn’t see a prepared statement for that. Did DiGregario seek to confirm the mortality figures offered by Hudson Valley (not as a result of slaughter)? Apparently not. Did she ask to see the birds who died before they were “production ready?” Apparently not. But I am quite sure that more than a single bird would be in that group. Yes, the author spoke with several people for the article. Most of whom were quite supportive of the industry, and many of whom (not surprisingly) profited directly from it. She did speak with Dr. Cheever, vice president of the New York Humane Society, who offered DiGregario insights on the darker side of her upcoming visit. DiGregario was writing her seminal piece on the industry, and concluded that it is not a cruel industry, yet she failed to investigate Dr. Cheever’s claims that the worst would be hidden during the visit, instead taking the assertions made by the farm at face value. Did she speak with any workers at the local watering hole after their shift ended? Apparently not. Did she speak with the legislators who support a ban? Apparently not. Regarding the lifespan of wild ducks, they have been found to live more than 20 years, as confirmed by leg bands placed for identification. Further, the (unsubstantiated) claim that life is brutal and short is not a defense in killing them. Life today is brutal and short for humans in various regions of the globe – but to offer that as justification for killing and eating them would have one labeled as a sociopath. In short, I have done my homework, as have other critics of the foie gras industry. My a priori claim is that the industry is cruel. That is confirmed by others from around the world, and I have offered evidence and logic to support that (rather obvious) claim. I used to eat meat until I stopped my own denials regarding the harm to animals, and I expanded the circle of ethics beyond race, gender, age and sexual preference to include species. If you pull back the curtain, you will come to the same conclusion. Professor Tom Regan sums it up well: “But what is wrong isn't the pain, isn't the suffering, isn't the deprivation. These compound what's wrong. Sometimes — often — they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals — as our resources — the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable. Why worry about their loneliness, their pain, their death? Since animals exist for us, to benefit us in one way or another, what harms them really doesn't matter — or matters only if it starts to bother us, makes us feel a trifle uneasy when we eat our veal escallop, for example.”
mckenzie: "...working class, shit-kicking, Montana punk rock cowboy like myself ..." LAME! Why don't you join The Village People, then maybe you'll be able to afford that $2,000 a month rent.
Arco, I think it's fair to assume from your detailed comments that you're more intimately connected to the foie gras issue than the casual reader of the Village Voice. I assume NYVegan is an animal rights activist, so it might help put your comments in context if we knew how and why you're so familiar with such an esoteric subject.
Or is that conscience? Either way, I'm looking forward to it.
Amy-I think it was pointed out that ducks are not people. As for NYVegan: The police raid on Commonwealth occured about 25 years ago. Three panels of experts were empowered to investigate by a state judge, the local DA and the governor. This was followed by another investigation by the ASPCA. All investigations found no basis for the claims of the activist groups. The latest sponsor of a bill to ban foie gras production in New York withdrew support for his own bill after visting a foie gras farm. The New York State pathologist found issues in an autopsy of a dead bird taken from a foie gras farm. I read a statement from the farm saying that there is some mortality in any animal population, including human. Given, a dead bird died for some reason. Extrapolating the health of the flock from an autopsy would be the same as extrapolating the health of your town by reports from the coroner. It is a complete misrepresentation. The author may not have had a veterinarian at hand, but she spoke with several, discussed in the article. All of whom, except Dr. Grandin, had direct experience and observation of foie gras farming. Foie gras is not "undeniably" cruel, as many repected scientists and veterinarians do deny. Cutting short their lives by 10-15 years? You must live in the city with no experience with populations in the wild. Life is generally short and brutal for prey animals (ducks). Maybe half avoid starvation or predators in the first year. Else ducks would fill the world. Of course these ducks, or chickens or cows, are killed for food. We get it that you don't like that. DiGregario seems to have penetrated the issue well, that these ducks are reasonably treated farm animals, raised and killed for food. You have not done the same work. If you tried, you are certainly biased. You have an agenda and are not pleased that her work does not validate your position. You have fallen far short of meeting the requirements to validate your claims. We respect your Vegan position. Don't eat foie gras or any other meat. With the evidence at hand, I'll be stopping in for my foie gras and enjoy in good conscious. Arco
Of course it's torture. No one could ever justify doing this with a human being.
Great article. I really enjoy it, and thought it was thorough and balanced. I've been wondering about exactly the issues addressed here. Thanks!
Ms. DiGregorio’s article ends with her conclusion that Hudson Valley does not “abuse ducks” in its production of foie gras. Is that a fair conclusion? The strength of a conclusion is a function the quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori probability of the claim being supported. If I were to claim that the sun will not rise tomorrow, you would no doubt find that hard to believe unless it had happened before, and I would be hard pressed to offer any evidence to support my claim that it will happen tomorrow. So you would be right to disregard my claim. Let’s apply the latter part of this test first to DiGregorio’s claim: what is the a priori probability that the production of foie gras is a humane process? Foie gras production has been banned in nations such as some members of the European Union, Turkey, and Israel because of the force-feeding process. One veterinarian who accompanied the police on a raid of Hudson Valley Foie Gras (then known as Commonwealth Enterprises), noted, "Many of the ducks...were lame or unable to walk without using their wings for support. Some ducks moved by pushing their bodies along the floor." The same veterinarian said, "All of the birds in the force-feeding area had dirty, ragged, incomplete plumage, yet none were attempting to preen. Only severely stressed or ill ducks allow their plumage to deteriorate to [such a] degree. A New York state wildlife pathologist who examined ducks from Commonwealth expressed horror at the birds' "greatly enlarged livers, the product of overfeeding by force (livers are easily torn by even minor trauma)" and at one duck's "laceration of the liver with hemorrhage into the body cavity." He went on to say, "This type of treatment and farming of waterfowl is outside the acceptable norms of agriculture and sane treatment of animals." So it would appear that Ms. DiGregorio’s claim that Hudson Valley doesn’t “abuse ducks” is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Now let’s see if she provides such evidence to support her claim. A range of the measures used in welfare assessment are indicators of health. These include clinical signs of disease and anatomical, physiological and immunological signs that the individual is having difficulty in coping with its environment or is failing to cope. Some clinical signs that force fed birds exhibit which are not seen in birds feeding naturally include: loose feces, “wet neck”, increased time spent sitting and less time carrying out active behaviors, aversion to the feeding process, increased incidence of bone fractures and liver lesions at the slaughterhouse. Of these, Ms. DiGregorio noted only the condition of the feathers of force-fed ducks and she claimed that ducks did not resist the force feeding process once they were physically restrained by the leg of the person forcing the food down the ducks’ throats(!). Did the ducks wander over to the feeding station voluntarily? No. Would they eat voluntarily? No, that’s why they were restrained, and that why it’s called “forced feeding”. Did she inspect the bones of the slaughtered ducks for fractures caused during abusive handling at slaughter? Apparently not. The author is clearly not an animal behaviorist, a vet or a zoologist (for example, she refers to baby ducks as “chicks” not “ducklings”). She later admits that she is a layperson. Did she bring a vet along to provide his expert opinion? No, she brought a photographer. She mentions a PETA video showing earlier evidence of abuse at that facility, but then fails to investigate the underlying complaints discovered in that earlier visit, including tumor-like lumps caused by force-feeding in some ducks' throats, and workers’ routine carrying of ducks by their necks, “causing them to choke and defecate in distress.” Did she inspect the ducks’ necks for lumps? Did she review the ducks’ feet for signs of inflammation? Did she test for pathogenic microorganisms? Did she inspect the livers for lesions? Or would she even know what to look for? She inspected an esophagus or two, but she was handed some to inspect, and she certainly “inspected” only a small sample set. Did she notice behaviors unique to stressed ducklings, not seen in the wild? DiGregorio is not an investigative reporter. She asked to view the facility, presumably on the farm’s schedule, not an unannounced spot inspection, and she was accompanied by the Hudson Valley marketing director. DiGregorio is also clearly not an ethicist. She thinks that taking ducklings away from their mothers, raising them in near darkness except in the 2-3 weeks of force feeding, increasing their weight by 50% during forced feeding, not giving these waterfowl access to water in which to swim, and slaughtering them at the age of 2-3 months (thus cutting their lives short by 10-15 years) does not qualify as “abuse”. She supports “humanely-raised” veal (there’s an oxymoron) and cage-free eggs (a practice where male chicks are still “expendable” and end up in gruesome deaths within a day of their birth), and claims that she can buy “humanely-raised chicken(s)”. In fact, DiGregorio was unable to even pose her key question properly. She asks “Is foie gras torture?”. Torture is often defined as the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. Further, foie gras is the fatted liver of a goose or a duck. So the semantically absurd question she posed is, literally, this: “Is the fatted liver of waterfowl the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce or to afford sadistic pleasure?” The proper questions are “Is the production of foie gras cruel to geese and ducks? Does it cause the animals to suffer?” The answers to these questions are, undeniably, “Yes”. Would she allow a loved one to undergo that same treatment that Hudson Valley forces on the baby ducklings? The movie “Silence of the Lambs” comes to mind, and it is hard to find a more evil film villain than Hannibal Lecter. Then why is it not abusive when those acts are directed toward another species? Our culture works in many ways to dampen sensitivity to the many horrors we impose on nonhuman animals. DiGregorio has fallen far short of meeting the requirements to validate her claim. In fact, DiGregorio has demonstrated only that she is willing to further dampen our sensitivity to these horrors. I would expect such treatment in an industry trade pub, but certainly not in the Village Voice, a paper known for it’s evocative insights and sensitivity to oppressed parties of all races, genders, sexual preferences and, often, species.
One issue not yet mentioned is the very real fact that eating an organ that filters toxins, produces fats, and creates urine should probably never be eaten. Yuck. As an omnivore who hunts or slaughters 75% of my consumed meat (and buys the rest from local producers through my co-op), I can say with conscience that I know where my meat comes from and the life it lives. Whether or not you eat meat is inconsequential, however I do believe that if you cannot kill an animal yourself you have no right to eat meat. At least when I 'murder' a deer or elk I value its life and am thankful for its sacrifice so that my family can eat. I suppose my debate is limited as pretty much no working class, shit-kicking, Montana punk rock cowboy like myself will ever have the money to go off sipping expensive wine and living in $2000 a month flats in Manhattan arguing about animal welfare while never having been outside the monkey-hive... Oh and by the way I do eat veggies as well. They are tasty. I raise a garden and sustain myself as much as I can. More than I can say for most vegans who get their processed soy monoculture filth from slash and burn sources in Brazil...how big is YOUR footprint?
I'm so sorry Pete Puma, english is my fourth language and far from my favorite. Had I written what I wanted to say in my mother tongue, you wouldn't have understood a single word. But reading your response, I see that you did understand everything I wrote.
It seems to me that the confinement in wire-bottomed cages and force-feeding would be enough to outrage anyone concerned with the best welfare of animals. This is why organic standards prohibit confinement of animals in areas that do not allow for natural behaviors. Ducks are waterfowl, as much as farmers try to deny this by keeping them indoors on wood shavings. Removing them from their native habitat can't be good. It's just not natural at all. When we raise other animals for food conscientiously we attempt to provide them with a natural-type habitat where they can do what comes natural to them. This 21-day confinement is as far removed from that as a battery cage. Then to top it off with force-feeding? Harsh. Also, seeing these photos doesn't make me think that this was any sort of farming I would support. These ducks are completely filthy when slaughtered. You can see their undersides are dirty and discolored, probably because they can't adequately clean themselves due to their obesity. Many animals are able to get up and walk away from abuse. That doesn't mean that the situation is not abusive. Anyone concerned with animals and their quality of life can see that this process is not good. And something like foie gras can be easily avoided. It's completely unnecessary, which is probably the best reason for avoiding it.
Lemmy Nothor: "howler," "speach," "vegies," "completely worned out..." Hay jeenyus if eye wuz yoo I wood ley offf tha boooz, buttur, egz, meete and druggz cuz yoo kant spel and yooo dontt mayke no sents.
Bravo -- I have to admit I cringed a little to see the Village Voice doing an article on foie gras. But what a pleasant surprise to find that the reporting actually cut through the sanctimonious nonsense that we're usually force-fed with respect to this topic. One hopes that the Humane Society and whoever else is bringing trivial lawsuits would be smacked with penalties and forced to compensate the farmers' legal expenses.
Ms. DiGregorio, First, I really enjoyed your article. Coming from a middle-income Texas family, I was never offered and have never tried foie gras. In fact, I've hadn't given it any thought until today. The spread you described - duck confit, smoked duck breast, deviled duck eggs, duck prosciutto, torchon of foie gras, and foie gras butter - peaked my interest, and I can't wait to have a taste of one or more of these delicacies in the future (way in the future, as they're probably pretty pricey), but only if I buy American! Sounds like the real culprits of inhumane treatment are European and Canadian duck farmers. Second, please ignore the animal rights nuts who simply refuse to find satisfaction in anything less than a vegan world. They will fault your reporting to no end because you were thoughtful and truthful but, ultimately, didn't declare that those ducks were tortured and that foie gras is evil. Truly, the End Times are near! Lastly, I look forward to reading more of your articles in the future. I stumbled across this link on the Dallas Observer page and am glad I took the time to open-mindedly READ your article. It helped that I didn't have an agenda or opinion one way or another before I read your piece, unlike many of the commenting crusaders.
Evadne...your heart breaking pleas don't cause a ripple in this world. When people put their nose in my plate, or their fingers, I cut them off. You can scream and howler all you want, in a thousand years if the human race is still around, foie gras will still be eaten. Unless of course if duck aren't around anymore. Free speach....go ahead. What do I care ? I have many friends that think eating vegies is so cool and hip. Strangely enough, when I invite them to eat at my house, I cook what they like to eat. But when I go eat at their house, never do they have the good manners of cooking something that I would like to eat. Truth is, vegies are very ill mannered....just read all the posts on this thread. They are ready to kill anyone that would like to indulge in foie gras, or a fat juicy steak. You see, to me barbarism is killing an animal, and leaving it to rot. When I kill , there is no waste, as I surely have a lot more respect for these animals than any vegie I ever met. Nothing goes to waste in my system . As for what I said concerning bad cholesterol....I will stick to my guns. I also eat tons of butter, 15 eggs a week, lots of wine, and beer, and I consume cigarettes, weed, hash, cocaine, and I also enjoy sex. When I die, I want my liver, lungs, kidneys, and all the rest to be completely worned out...
the language of this article is disgustingly biased and pointedly bad journalism. "smells woodsy from the fluffy sawdust", "cheeps and toddles around the warm room", "eases the tube down the birds throat". this isnt pat the fucking bunny here, please.
Its very amusing how people like Evadne think that they've really delivered the death blow argument against meat eating by dragging out an example of a cute and cuddly animal being slaughtered for food. As if we'll all collectively smack our cheeks Culkin-like and beg forgivenes for our cruel cruel ways. Many of us don't have a problem with using dogs for food. Or cats or rabbits for that matter. I've eaten dog in Korea, it was delicious. It's irrelevant how cuddly the animal in question was. Your (and many others here) irrational, emotional arguments have no consequence and serve merely to make you look a sentimental fool. All that matters is whether the animal was killed humanely (no prolonged suffering) and whether it is sentient to the point of self-awareness (rational arguments against eating dolphins, chimps and the like can be made convincingly on such grounds).
It's not a terrible article. The reporter did a pretty thorough job -- but, yes, somewhat one-sided. There should have been an attempt to contact and interview people from the Humane Society, rather than just mention them in connection to a lawsuit. After all, the Humane Society has limited resources and doesn't go around filing lawsuits for the fun of it. As to whether or not foie gras is torture....I don't know. But it IS unnecesary -- a luxury item. There are PLENTY of other pates out there, if one wants them. (They all bear an equal resemblance to cat food.) I don't feel good about eating an animal that's been force-fed and slaughtered young. So I don't eat foie gras. I don't feel good about eating a calf that's been tied up for the whole of its short and miserable life. So I don't eat veal. I don't feel good about raising an animal just so a rich person can show off. So I avoid fur and places that sell them. People have to eat. But they can have standards. And one DOES wonder: if there WEREN'T humane laws and groups like the ASPCA looking over their shoulder, would foie gras producers treat their animals as well as they do?
what a benign bunch of bs.
Thanks for the recipe, Lemmy Nothor. Dog meat has also been consumed by humans for thousands of years. I guess if people don't like how it's produced or don't care to eat it, they should give up their right to free speech and just don't buy it. You can also turn the dog's fur into a coat. Then again, does the longtime practice of barbarism justify its continued practice in the 21st century? And you're wrong about cholesterol. The human body has absolutely no need for dietary cholesterol. We're primates, and a primate's body makes all the cholesterol that it needs. Any that comes from food is excess and potentially harmful. You don't know what you're talking about if you think that the cholesterol in a duck is all high-density lipoprotein (HDL). If people want to raise their serum HDL levels ("good cholesterol"), they should eat a diet high in soluble fiber, avoid trans fat and stay away from cholesterol-laden foods like foie gras. MEAT.org
Foie gras has been produced for human consumption for the past 2.500 years. The Egyptians discovered it. If people don't like the way it is produced, or don't care to eat some of it, I can understand their point of views. I strongly suggest that they don't buy it. On the other hand, I have this recipe that I indulge in, at least twice a year. Askk your favorite butcher for his best, aged if available, filet mignon. No thin slice,please.....a 4 inch thick slab is needed here. With a very thin, sharp knife that you insert in the center of the piece, you need to carve the inside of the meat, making sure that the opening never gets larger than the knife....what you do is create an inner pocket inside that wonderful piece of meat. Then, you need to fill that entire space with foie gras....get duck, it is much tastier. Around 40 to 50 grams is more than enough. Maybe less. You then grill on very hight heat the piece of meat until a little burnt...you need to seal the juices...so turn it around a few times until it is perfectly sealed all around. In a pre heated oven you place this gift from the gods...no more than 6 to 8 minutes.... You have opened a wonderful bottle of wine a few hours ahead ( Anything BUT Sauternes with this !! )...skip all vegetables, here they are not needed...go straight for the jugular. The foie will have melted slightly, and when you cut the meat, it should flow out....go ahead, enjoy. One more thing....don't worry about any harmful cholesterol...duck fat contains only the good cholesterol, none of the bad stuff. You'll live longer, and than me for the rest of your days.
The vast majority of meat-eaters refuse to eat foie gras because of the cruelty (and expense!) involved. Undercover investigations of Hudson Valley Foie Gras have shown that pain and suffering are inherent to foie gras production. It's very clear that Ms. DiGregorio had no intention of writing a balanced piece. I wish she could have spent just one day as a duck on the foie gras farm before using her writing talents to defend the indefensible. http://www.gourmetcruelty.com/inv.php
“The birds clustered on one side of the pen, but didn’t show nearly as much aversion to humans as the nine-week-olds we had just seen did - the older ducks seemed less alarmed by humans, which is hard to reconcile with if they were being tortured.” Does anyone else get the feeling that Ms. DiGregorio failed to consider the bird’s-eye-view. These innocent creatures are forced into a painful act that poisons their bodies on a daily basis. They are trapped in a cubicle with no natural light, and as feeding is a mandatory ritual, no efforts succeed in dodging the metal tube repeatedly shoved into their stomachs. Think about it. From a captive duck’s perspective, why prolong a losing battle? Just because a certain duck succumbs to this life-sentence of punishment, it doesn’t make him content. More importantly, it doesn’t make it right. POWS, death-row inmates, and even victims of the Holocaust expressed the same behavior in captivity. The general aim of torture and imprisonment is rooted in the emotional and psychological undermining of the victim…in this case, a guiltless duck or goose. Their minds simply adapt to abuse in order to survive a seemingly hopeless cause – exactly as humans do. Village Voice assigned a reporter that undoubtedly accepts the barbaric belief that people transcend moral responsibility for crimes against other creatures. To think that she toured a factory farm - she witnessed unprovoked grief and the slitting of throats - and then she ethically justified these acts in the name of a snobbish dinner. Frankly that is hard to reconcile.
it's really not that complicated. if there's even a chance that pain, suffering or inhumane treatment of a sentient being could be involved in a luxury item like foie gras, fur, etc., why the debate? just take the high road and consider something other than your own satisfaction.
OMG! Bob, I just read that blog entry you posted and was about to comment that EVERY BODY should read it! It had me kind of bothered though. I didn't realize that the writer left so much out until I read that girl's blog.
Nancy, My daughter is a vegetarian and though I'm not, I know that with meat-eating being one of the leading reasons for global warming, it's irresponsible of me not to at least change SOME of my behavior of meat intake. So saying that it's their issue is not really true. It's the issue of the animals who are egregiously treated and slaughtered, in a MUCH different way than the history you speak of. With 10 billion farm animals killed each year for food, it is truly out of hand. And regarding your comment about activists who fight for foie gras to end, what's to say that they DON'T also fight for other animal issues? Seems pretty presumptuous to me. Foie gras production is especially bad, just like veal and fur, and that's probably why activists fight for it. But many activists I know fight for animal rights, as well as human rights, immigrant rights, homeless people rights, you name it. I sometimes wonder what people who talk badly of activists are actually doing themselves to create social change. Lastly, my daughter just forwarded me this blog, which is a retort on this article. I strongly recommend that you read it: http://zaftigvegan.blogspot.com/2009/02/ducking-truth.html.
I'm sick of people yammering on about the cruelty of fois gras. First off, if you're vegan or vegetarian and have a problem with all meat in general, that's your issue. Say what you will, but as a staunch omnivore, I will never agree with you. Farm animals such as cows, chickens, ducks and pigs would not survive if we did not raise them for the specific purpose of being our food. It's a unique evolutionary relationship borne out of the modernization of human civilization from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies. Secondly, if you're an omnivore that still thinks fois gras is cruel, I dare you to take a closer look at how your beloved beef, chickens and pork are being raised in the U.S. Then compare it to these ducks' lives. Grossly different. And lastly, why put waste all this money and energy on a sector of farming that is the tiniest of fractions of the global diet? Fois gras production worldwide averages about 47 million pounds. Beef production in the U.S. ALONE is almost 27 BILLION pounds. Want to support a good animal cause? Vastly change beef consumption, which is highly affecting our planet in terms of energy, oil, health and global warming. There's a cause that will see results, not just satisfy some gross morality for morality's sake.
The production of foie gras is inherently inhumane and unnatural. If it were in fact natural and normal for a duck to gorge himself in this way, then there would be no need for handlers to shove inflexible metal tubes down a duck's throat filled with enough food to enlarge his stomach to up to 30% of his body weight...and repeat this process several times daily. This is the equivalent of feeding a 200 pound man 60 pounds of food per meal. While it's true that ducks in their natural habitat may eat larger amounts of food prior to migrating long distances, ducks raised for foie gras never get the chance to spread their wings and fly. Their lives revolve around an endless, invasive cycle of force feeding in an environment that has little resemblance to that of which they should be enjoying. And contrary to what Mr. Henley from the Hudson Valley Foie Gras farm may think, a litle extra wire mesh here and there has never added a 'level of complexity to their environment' that they wouldn't rather see replaced with the living, natural world outside those farm doors. For a more balanced perspective, why weren't foie gras protesters, Farm Sanctuary, or Peta interviewed for this article, as they WERE referenced by Ms. DiGregario but not spoken to directly? I have seen these animal advocates that Mr. Brassel speaks of (NOT decked out in Uggs and leather jackets)and they were extremely peaceful and respectful. Those in the animal rights community do have the right, and an obligation to inform consumers of, well, what they are consuming! Why weren't the restaurants who HAVE chosen to take foie gras off their menus in response to public disapproval interviewed? There are now many vegetarian pates available that won't leave "tortured ducks on your watch." Keep in mind, even the Henley's (the owners of HVFG) are vegetarian. Perhaps they know something you don't know Ms. DiGregorio..Just food for thought.
The production of foie gras is inherently inhumane and unnatural. If it were in fact natural and normal for a duck to gorge himself in this way, then there would be no need for handlers to shove inflexible metal tubes down a duck's throat filled with enough food to enlarge his stomach to up to 30% of his body weight...and repeat this process several times daily. This is the equivalent of feeding a 200 pound man 60 pounds of food per meal. While it's true that ducks in their natural habitat may eat larger amounts of food prior to migrating long distances, ducks raised for foie gras never get the chance to spread their wings and fly. Their lives revolve around an endless, invasive cycle of force feeding in an environment that has little resemblance to that of which they should be enjoying. And contrary to what Mr. Henley from the Hudson Valley Foie Gras farm may think, a litle extra wire mesh here and there has never added a 'level of complexity to their environment' that they wouldn't rather see replaced with the living, natural world outside those farm doors. For a more balanced perspective, why weren't foie gras protesters, Farm Sanctuary, or Peta interviewed for this article, as they WERE referenced by Ms. DiGregario but not spoken to directly? I have seen these animal advocates that Mr. Brassel speaks of (NOT decked out in Uggs and leather jackets)and they were extremely peaceful and respectful. Those in the animal rights community do have the right, and an obligation to inform consumers of, well, what they are consuming! Why weren't the restaurants who HAVE chosen to take foie gras off their menus in response to public disapproval interviewed? There are now many vegetarian pates available that won't leave "tortured ducks on your watch." Keep in mind, even the Henley's (the owners of HVFG) are vegetarian. Perhaps they know something you don't know Ms. DiGregorio..Just food for thought.
The question is, is foie gras food? I think if you look up 'offal' in your picture dictionary, you find a depiction of a duck's liver that couldn't sustain a duck's life a day or two more. And, of course, the other question is, who in hell came up with this idea in the first place?
It's cool that this particular factory seems to be treating it's animals reasonably well. But if it didn't have the animal welfare people on its back would that still be true? Even if the folks who run most farms don't have evil intentions toward their animals, the profit motive in industrialized farming is the same as any other mass production -- they'll cut costs and maximize profits wherever they can get away with it. So farms and slaughter houses *should* be under enhanced scrutiny. If they don't want it to come from activists they should support it coming from the government or other certification groups (eg. a "humanely raised" certification). Personally I am happy to pay more for animal products that come from humane sources.
so wait. Are you people mad because the author was "uncritical" (see above) or biased and paid off by the Foie industry. Perhaps you are upset because her finding do not jive with your preconceived notions.
The author seems to have become confused about the question she is asking and the appropriate means of answering it. The appropriate way of determining whether or not a practice is torture is not to find a single instance of that practice from which to draw a sweeping generalization. At the very least, the author should be willing to acknowledge that foie gras production is not homogeneous and that, just as the videos she so quickly dismissed are not complete portrayals of reality, neither is a one-day guided tour. The author seems to be confused between activism and journalism, acting much like PETA but on the opposite pole. To discuss something that is literally called "force-feeding" an animal in a completely uncritical (uncritical meaning without analysis, not without criticism) fashion is to miss the point entirely. It is obvious that this woman is just another rich person who can't give up her fatty liver and wants to justify it with anecdotal fantasy.
I think this story was planted by the so-called "Center for Consumer Freedom," a restaurant industry front group that makes some strikingly similar statements about foie gras, PETA and the Humane Society. As someone else mentioned, they have a link to this article on their website. Some "articles" that I've seen are pretty much reprints of CCF press releases, but those are usually in second-rate college newspapers, not the Village Voice! An editor should investigate. ConsumerDeception.com
As far as this article goes...this woman was obviously paid off...She strongly implies that the videos done by PETA were fraudulent...I wonder...how could that be? How can one falsify video footage?! Being VERY familiar with this issue, I can definitely and conclusively say that this article is a load of malarky! And then the whole bit about the "Poor owner who cannot afford better facilities because of the Humane Society's lawsuit against him.." That is just SUCH a transparent attempt to demonize the Humane Society along with other Animal Welfare groups while making the Foie Gras people seem victimized and deserving of our sympathy. This reporter was definitely paid off by the Foie Gras Industry!
As far as this article goes...this woman was obviously paid off...She strongly implies that the videos done by PETA were fraudulent...I wonder...how could that be? How can one falsify video footage?! Being VERY familiar with this issue, I can definitely and conclusively say that this article is a load of malarky! And then the whole bit about the "Poor owner who cannot afford better facilities because of the Humane Society's lawsuit against him.." That is just SUCH a transparent attempt to demonize the Humane Society along with other Animal Welfare groups while making the Foie Gras people seem victimized and deserving of our sympathy. This reporter was definitely paid off by the Foie Gras Industry!
"Amazed," I'm a bit amazed myself that so many readers are so entrenched in foie gras research. But many of the pro-foie gras comments are likely being written by a restaurant industry front group, which has a link to this story, which it praises, on its web site. It's a notorious "astroturf" organization that flames message boards. I wish the Village Voice showed the city of origin of these posters. Message boards that do often have a disproportionate number of anti-animal welfare comments from the DC area, where the front group is based. BermanExposed.org
Two things of note in these comments. Firstly, the 'nay-sayers' are attacking the messengers, the reporter, scientific sources, people who gave awards to the scientific sources, etc. Secondly, the 'pro-liver' comments are generally pointing towards published data and studies that show this industry is not cruel and is worlds away from the european abuses.
using the c-word eh? way to go sport
For course she didn't see it, she didn't look for it. This cunt wrote this piece to justify the cruelty. all the village voice will be put in the trash this week
FREE THE SEA KITTENS!!!!!!!!!
Some people like to eat dogs. Can we expect this objective journalist to write an ad, I mean article about the humane production of dog meat?
Rupert must have written this article. Wow.
why is it a biased report whenever you don't agree? hmmm... i think she did a nice job reporting and if you do think she is biased and you know, or think you know differently, show up and see for yourself.
Do ya'll know that geese and ducks are the most vicious a**holes in the avian world. I just cant muster up any humane feelings for them. Delicious.
Wow, we have a plethora of village idiots posting to this message board (who know little more about this topic than Dick Cheney does about shooting a firearm). Foe grass is a reprehensible comestible, as bad as veal. Indulging on animal flesh has turned off many-a-quixotic-thinker, from George Bernard Shaw to Oscar Wilde to Albert Einstein. But hey, I imagine the people posting to this message board defending the deplorable foe grass industry are more perspicacious than they were! http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/
Jas-I love it when people go on about facts and figures and credibility and consistently misspell the subject. Fois means time. Foie means liver. The journalist did her work. You, however...
Apparently these anti-foie gras commenters have never heard of the food chain. When I grow up, I want to go to Bovine University
Apparently these anti-foie gras commenters have never heard of the food chain. When I grow up, I want to go to Bovine University
I'd rather be a Hudson Valley duck than a Perdue chicken.
yes yes vadim let us not draw focus away from the real point. And that real point is the the true aim of animal rights group-- a pure vegan and vegetarian soeciety. AINT gonna happen. Please do fight for animal welfare and like Temple Grandin fight for better lives for livestock. This is a winning battle. You and I (also you and all meat eating people) have this difference at the base our dissagreements-I think it's ok to eat meat, and you do not. I dare say that neither of us will be swayed to other side. I do think that we can both agree making the lives of animal who will become food for people as good as possible is a goal that is realistic and if not to the extreme you would like--admirable.
Dude, first let me stress that I don't speak for an entire movement. That said, the only reason you see it as a disservice is because you probably see the comparison as a lowering of the status of humans rather than, as I see it, a lifting of animals' status. I am not equating animals with people, nor am I equating the atrocities we inflict on either group, but I am equating the pain from each group's point of view. To inflict suffering -- when it's so easy to prevent -- is wrong by all accounts. Incidentally, there are those within the black civil-right community (some of whom have the last name "King") who have drawn similar connections between how we treated slaves and animals. All that aside, let's not draw the focus away here from the main point, which is that ducks raised for foie gras are needlessly suffering and dying -- even on what is presented here as Old MacDonald's perfect farm.
Vadim you are doing yourself and your movement a GREAT disservice by comparing "black slaves" to livestock. Sorry to say but the slavery of human beings is not comparable to raising animals for food. what a false and offensive metaphor
Since everything at Hudson Valley was so bucolic up at hudson Valley Foie Gras, including the humble humanity of the slaughtering process, I wonder why they had to use a cartoon for the front cover? Daffy Duck never really suffers so we can laugh and take it all light when he gets hurt on TV! I wish they had used the photo of the poor sickened ducks hanging upside down from hooks while their throats are slashed. What, too awful?
I am not an animal rights activist, nor am I a vegan. But I've actually passed these very activists you talked about -- the ones who protested in front of Knife & Fork. They were nothing but professional, friendly, and communicative. I spoke with one young man for a moment (a vegan, as his shirt said, so I wonder where this chef came up with his misinformation about Uggs and leather jackets?) and he handed me a leaflet. He was well-spoken and informative, and I wonder why the author of this article did not interview him, or other protestors? Wouldn't that make for a much more fair and accurate article? This was an ingredient in the article that was missing, and I'd imagine the only people who would miss THAT would be people who are too blind to see beyond their bad habits. Yes, foie gras tastes good, but that doesn't mean we should eat it. That's the dangerous disconnect, I think. It is a product that has been outlawed in over a dozen countries. My husband's colleague tried to pick some up at Whole Foods for a dinner party, but Whole Foods doesn't sell it on ethical grounds. Doesn't that say something? As for the article, I can see through it, particularly after reading previous anti-vegan-food articles by this same "journalist."
Is anyone else reading this thinking this seems like EXTREMELY lazy 'journalism'? (I feels sort of like a high school term paper that someone waited until the last minute to write & then just crapped together whatever was easiest to fit a pre-determined point). I should know! I've written plenty just like it in my day, but never were they published in the Village Voice!
I have three main problems with this article: 1. Just think about it: how can foie gras or veal ever be humane? Humane implies "tenderness, compassion, and sympathy" according to dictionary.com. How can that be interpreted as force-feeding? Also, to say that gorging is a natural process and that thus force-feeding is not that bad is paradoxical, because if it were that natural then there would be no need for force-feeding. 2. The article was very one-sided. 80% of it was devoted to one person's visit to one particular farm. While taking quotes that mock animal rights activists, the writer did not bother to actually talk to animal rights activists to see why they feel as strongly as they do. Speaking as someone who is not sure why there is so much debate on this topic, I would have loved to hear views from the animal rights activists. 3. The writer seems to be a layperson on animal health. While it is admirable that she consulted Cheever before going to the farm, I don't understand why she didn't take Cheever along. Wouldn't the article have been fortified if the observations were backed by a scientist?
Quark; I'm glad you seem concerned about animal welfare. However, to your point that you raise: What is 150 years ago, someone had said: "I'm convinced black-slave advocates would accomplish far more on behalf of the slaves they seek to protect if they would get it through their heads that we're never all going to give up slavery. Their goal should be making sure that black people used for labor live the best lives possible." As was mentioned earlier, times change and ideals change, and, thankfully, so do our practices.
Let me also point out that the farm's mortality rate, according to the farm -- for whatever that's worth -- is 5 percent. Let's do the math: 4,000 to 6,000 ducks a week are "processed" (a polite term, indeed). So an average of, say 260,000 ducks a year are killed. Therefore, about 13,000 ducks never even make it to slaughter. Why is that? Are we to assume that this 5 percent -- these 13,000 ducks -- die of natural causes? If this farm were such a wonderland for the ducks, given that they are already killed WAY before the time they'd die naturally, why do 5 percent not even make it to a mere 15 weeks? These birds die as a result of the conditions in which they are kept and the methods by which they are treated. If it is OK to have this as an acceptable rate of mortality -- and if 5 percent seems reasonable -- then ask yourself: What should we tolerate when it comes to mortality with, say, airplane disasters. If 5 percent sounds high, perhaps we can accept a mere 1 percent. After all, it's Ok to have 1 in 100 people die on a plane, right?
Kudos to the VV for this informative article. It's sad that animal rights advocates harrass legit farms like Hudson Valley instead of focusing on the ones that really employ inhumane practices. I'm convinced animal rights advocates would accomplish far more on behalf of the animals they seek to protect if they would get it through their heads that we're never all going to become vegans or vegetarians. Their goal should be making sure that animals killed for food live the best lives possible before slaughter...otherwise they're just fighting a losing battle.
Dude, I don't need to scour for organizations that oppose Grandin. It's worth keeping in mind that many organizations have said nothing about her -- perhaps because they don't want to publicize their disagreements with her, since doing so takes away from the rightful focus on animal protection. But, again, Grandin earns lots of money consulting for the livestock industry. Let's not pretend she's an impartial third-party. Also, here's a behind the scenes look at the farm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJDZm1bgVA
this is typical anti-semitic reporting by the village voice. for some reason, the only "slaughterhouses" it seems to report on are those owned by Jewish businessmen. One would think Jews are responsible for all the evil towards animals in this world based upon the reportings in this anti-semitic newspaper. i hope the ADL finds out about this.
Vadim please. some concrete actual examples of reputable organizations that have legitimate beefs (haha) with Temple Grandin's work. please
A quick point about Temple Grandin; She is hardly universally respected. This is someone who claims that her autism enables her the unique ability to feel as animals do. Wow, who knew autism was a prerequisite to being an animal-welfare expert. Grandin has also made millions consulting for the livestock industry. Certainly, credibility becomes suspect when the individual charged with improving animal welfare receives paychecks from businesses for whom humane treatment isn't exactly their top priority. And given that DiGregorio herslef states that she is no bird expert (she's not autistic, after all), she's really in no position to judge the ducks' treatment and behavior. Additionally, how does DiGregorio know for a fact that she saw everything on the farm? This was not journalism; this was an advertisement for foie gras. I expect more from The Village Voice. Finally, there will always be some activists who may act unruly and employ threatening tactics. Such individuals are in the minority though. The vast, vast majority of people who care about animals do not wish disease on people or threaten violence.
"If hanging puppies by their ears and cutting off their paws produced the most fantastic meat imaginable, I wouldn't eat it and neither would you." I do not agree with the above sentence because we all know that anything that produced the "most fantastic meat imaginable" would be eaten by the same carnivores that eat something as gross as Foie Gras.
Goddamn liberal media -- always looking at things as they are instead of merely parroting an established point-of-view. Also, Dude, Maria, get a room!
This is a tremendously fair, well-written, and well-researched piece. DiGregorio talked to foie opponents, looked exactly where they told her to look, and found... humane practices. And great food.
So obvious that there are people who just wait for any opportunity to belittle folks who deign to care about something beyond their own schemes and appetites. That is so destructive! The last thing we need is more negative energy and antagonism just because.
What fun opportunities to laugh about the cruelty and exploitation in our society! Unfortunately our homocentric relationship with the natural, be it plants or wildlife is about to cost us big time as we have finally come to realize the gigantic toll the meat industry is taking on the planet. I can see that some take pride in hedonism but those people are not admirable. They are overly selfish, insensitive and ignorant.
I was also disappointed by this article. The cruelty is what makes the foie gras taste so good! Hudson farms is clearly putting out an inferior product. But seriously, with the size of our population and the demand there is for meat, the "cruel" practice of raising animals in close captivity to face eventual slaughter is not going to go away, no matter how riled up a small, active minority get. As a meat lover and also an animal lover (contradiction of terms perhaps, but isn't life made up of similar contrasts?), I would certainly like to know that the animals I eat are not suffering unnecessarily. But I'm also enough of a realist to know that there will be some suffering - whether it's not seeing the sky, flying, roaming free or the final, terrifying moments of life as the axe/knife descends. That's the price they pay for being lower on the food chain in our overpopulated, hungry world.
This is it Dude. I commented on the one-sidedness of the article and I have responded many times to you but you don;t read the points I make so enough. The writer does not have to be vegan; I SAID " should have been neutral (i.e. has never tried or neither likes nor dislikes foie gras). I said that in my original comment. I also did not quote PETA, I disputed their position on Dr. Grandin. If you're interested in the issue, comment on the issue. Don't waste time on little old me. I'm just one woman and I got stuff to do other than finding footnotes for you. I know the animal rights community and you can do a tiuny bit of googling on your own to find groups/ individuals who don't endorse her ideas so if you have that need to know whot ehy are because you are genuinely curious, get to it! Hints: IDA, Last Chance for Animals, Compassion over Killing (now HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, Farm Animal Reform Movement, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Gary Francione, Animal Defense League...on and on and on...
H. Hud - Hudson Valley Foie gras is one of only 3 Foie farms in the US. So please retract my friend Marie I think that stating her bias up front this author, an avowed meat and foie eater gave quite a nuanced and point by point personal journal of a visit to a foie farm. That's what I think. Take it or leave it. It seems that you are bringing your own biases to the article not the other way around
H. Hud - Hudson Valley Foie gras is one of only 3 Foie farms in the US. So please retract my friend Marie I think that stating her bias up front this author, an avowed meat and foie eater gave quite a nuanced and point by point personal journal of a visit to a foie farm. That's what I think. Take it or leave it. It seems that you are bringing your own biases to the article not the other way around
Marie Does a writer have to be vegan in order for her work to be considered "unbiased" by you? It seems to me that at the core of many activists attacks on any sort of journalism on Foie is the idea that humans should not be eating meat. The author was upfront about her bias, and the article can be taken with that grain of salt. Also please provide me with concrete examples of Temple Grandin's work not being respected. Please. I am waiting...FO' REAL. I aint "dissin," What was that all about anyways?
Listen Dude, I know PETA awarded her- I mentioned that in my comment. I, along with many others, disagree with that. It's unfortunate that they have put themselves in the position of getting portrayed by some 3 degree of separation formula or whatever as endorsing something they absolutely condemn. But don't put that on me. I express an all-around disappointment in the article, okay? Are you Grandin's boyfriend or something? Do you genuinely not believe that there are those out there who disagree with her? Speak your piece about he article- I'm interested.
This isn't reporting, but rather a press release written with style and a dutiful "I did my homework and contacted the Humane Society" checklist. Ultimately it doesn't investigate very much. This is one farm out of hundreds around the country and it's silly to base analysis of an industry on five hours at one farm. The farm CAN forever use it as good PR, however. The Voice used to have senior editors who really read and edited and asked for more reporting, and a research department full of associate editors who would have flagged this story's failure to answer its own title because they were smart and concerned about the product. Oh well....
The HSUS has indeed changed and addresses issues of the food animal industry much differently than it used to. Why are there still factory farms full of battery cages, penned animals and unimaginable suffering among the helpless? Because advocating for and protecting the powerless (still got child abuse, still got genocide, still got sex slaves) is an uphill battle that some believe themselves all the better for ridiculing. Prop. 2 in California was controversial within the animal rights community for the same reason Temple Grandin is controversial: most animal protection activists (including the entire leadership at HSUS) wish humane "living" could be the goal not "humane" slaughter. Fortunately, that message is powerful and timely and the ranks of vegans grow all the time. I'm sorry you disliked my tone but I believe the points I made regarding the biased nature of the article remain.
Also Marie, is this recent enough for you? 2004 PETA Proggy awards. This is how Grandin is described on Peta's website: Visionary Winner: Dr. Temple Grandin Renowned animal scientist Dr. Temple Grandin doesn't seem like the sort of person who would receive PETA's Proggy Award. An associate professor of animal science at Colorado State University, Dr. Grandin consults with the livestock industry and the American Meat Institute on the design of slaughterhouses! However, Dr. Grandin's improvements to animal-handling systems found in slaughterhouses have decreased the amount of fear and pain that animals experience in their final hours, and she is widely considered the world's leading expert on the welfare of cattle and pigs. Recently, following a PETA undercover investigation, Dr. Grandin's expertise was instrumental in securing significant improvements in the treatment of animals at AgriProcessors, the world's largest glatt kosher slaughterhouse. Noting that incompetent kosher slaughterers and shoddy quality control at AgriProcessors are giving shechitah a bad name, Dr. Grandin said about the abuses at AgriProcessors, "I thought it was the most disgusting thing I'd ever seen. I couldn't believe it. I've been in at least 30 other kosher slaughter plants, and I had never ever seen that kind of procedure done before." I belive i's spelled BLADOW!
Now Marie why the "Go Ax an1" and "Fo' Real"? strange and I am not just here to diss, just to defend Temple Grandin whose work is in fact universally respected. Please show some concrete examples of where people of merit do disagree with her Also if times have changed a "l'il bit" then why do we still have factory farming and caged pultry? and puppy mills? Listen PETA, the humane soceity et al are all non pofits who must make as much noise and lobby for as much money as they can possibly get. So to assume that their motives are aleays totally true is a bit naive...fo' real. word.
Long time ago dude. Different ideas prevail today, dude, l'il bit more enlightenment, l'il bit more compassion, l'il bit more savvy 'bout the trues cost of food. Feel the change bro'. Is the HSUS same as it was way back? Naw! Go Ax any1...for real, yo btw, got an opinion on the issue or u just here to dis' and what not?
because it is food. raised more humanely then most food in your local grocery store. This sounds like PETA's version of a WMD witch hunt.
I just can't believe that there was no question as to whether it is not cruel to bring hundreds of thousands of living things into the world with the sole intention of physically exploiting them for 3 weeks and then killing them for money. I mean, you didn't even momentarily raise the question...
to Marie just a note Trmple Grandin received in 2001, the Joseph Wood Krutch Medal from.....The Humane Society of the United States pshaw indeed
Well, the conclusions reached here are no surprise at all. Ms. DiGregorio has, in previous columns, conveyed quite a bit of derision for vegetarian cuisine and has previously noted her love of foie gras. A writer with a neutral opinion on foie gras (i.e. has not eaten it or neither likes nor dislikes it) should undoubtedly have been selected for this piece. Please note, Temple Grandin's hypotheses are not "universally" respected. Explore, if you will, whether an organization even as mainstream as the Humane Society of the United States genuinely endorses her ideas, hmmm? Not to mention those groups even more closely geared toward protecting animals in the food industry such as Farm Sanctuary and the Farm Animal Reform Movement. PETA is not the only voice for animals, after all! As to whether peaceful but lively protests outside of Knife + Fork featured threats of bodily harm? If such things were expressed, Brassel should have called the police but he didn't, presumably because they weren't. I have been an activist for some unpopular issues- including animal protection- but not just- for a long time now and I have not heard or seen such things although we always get accused somehow. As most of us learned in grade school, those who don't like you might lie and spread rumors! Right? Mom told us not to pay any attention to that... Finally, were the protesters wearing leather? All of the animal protection activists I know wear pleather. It's warm and stylish and I bet that's what they were wearing! But hey, no need to find out by investigating. Who ever said a journalist shouldn't jump to hasty conclusions? Pshaw!
Grace is right. I approached this piece anticipating a balanced look at a very complex and pressing issue: the dimensions of cruelty/humanity in our use of animals for luxury goods. I have to say, I came away thinking what an inferior piece of investigative journalism this was. Ms. DiGregorio presents an almost entirely one-sided argument in favor of foie gras- lending, by way of Dr. Cheever, only the briefest of lip service to the positions held by the anti-foie gras movement. She spoke to not a single leader or expert in he animal protection community! She portrayed protesters as menacing, violent and hypocritical but did not bother to get comments or insight from a single one of them either! I can barely believe the paper would publish a piece so laden with unconfirmed hearsay from interested parties like the owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras and the chef of a foie gras serving restaurant. Please work harder at this whole journalism thing in the future, Ms. DiGregorio.
you just can't stand that the article didn't validate your worldview, right? if you won't take this reporter's word at face value, go do a no-notice at the farm and write a rebuttal piece.
Some objective reporting, it really would of saved the paper time and money if the farm owners wrote the piece. as it seems they did.
What about the oysters? No one cares about the oysters!
*indicates required fields. Please enable browser cookies before filling out this form. All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking Add Comment, you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.
Comments may take a few minutes to process and appear on the site. Please do not click the "Add Comment" button again while your comment is being added.
Webster HallNew York, NY |
Spotted PigNew York, NY |
Cupcake CaféNew York, NY |
Corner BistroNew York, NY |
Schiller's Liquor BarNew York, NY |
Gramercy TavernNew York, NY |
carl 12/30/2009 12:41:33 PM
Foie Gras is yummy. Hippies are smelly.