-
Plunk44hop 05/13/2012 10:20:00 PM
Liberals???? whose propaganda have you been listening to? what makes you blame liberals???
-
04/27/2012 2:46:00 PM
This is life! Don't eat, more for us.
-
04/27/2012 2:44:00 PM
I agree with you. All these animal but kisses needs to get a life.Meat is good.
-
Alvisegiglio 04/12/2012 6:55:00 PM
Ingrid Newkirk is a radical atheist...and NOT a Repulbican. Go read a book!
-
Alvisegiglio 04/12/2012 6:52:00 PM
Sycophant. Don't forget to watch your daily PETA video.
Animal farms don't get more humane than this one.
-
Guest 03/07/2012 12:09:00 AM
Nice Troll Jules.
-
serenity 03/06/2012 11:11:00 PM
are you retarded or can you just not read?
-
Jules 02/26/2012 5:16:00 AM
This article made tears stream down my face. Tomorrow I will begin to find a way to shut these places down. The thought that so many human beings could something like this is sickening. There must have been some serious trauma in these workers' upbringing for them to completely lack any empathy and remorse whatsoever. This human species is seriously flawed
-
S. Hicks 01/27/2012 9:18:00 PM
I agree completely with Mckenzie... My husband and I live on a small farm in rural TN and have begun convertion to a much more "self-sustaining" lifestyle. Starting last year we began hunting, taking ONLY what we'll eat (my family included) for the year (which is usually about 3-4 deer) and decided to raise a few meat animals (a cow, 2 pigs, chicken and a couple turkeys) for a little variety. We have chickens and ducks for egg production and we also plant a very large garden each year as well, which ends up producing enough to freeze/can all we can use for a year and feed half our church to boot. Everything we have is very well cared for, free ranged, fed an organic diet and humanely slaughtered when the time comes. I know some people disagree with eating meat, but those are usually the people who sit in cushy appartments and never have to get their hands dirty. I'd never try to force my chosen lifestyle on them and respect their decisions, as I wish they'd have the courtesy of doing in return. Our lifestyle enables us to know EXACTLY what we're eating and how it was cared for before arriving on our plates, and though it may be harder than taking a drive to the grocery store, we have done nothing but benefit from it.
-
11/29/2011 4:07:00 AM
Yes, clearly the author is lying to you, and clearly every duck farm is exactly the same as every other. Also, I'm sure whoever you talked to had no agenda whatsoever. Thanks!
-
11/16/2011 9:06:00 PM
The head of PETA is Republican moron
-
11/13/2011 5:27:00 AM
Who are we kidding? If only parents everywhere treated their young children well and had the good fortune to keep them away from weirdos, we wouldn't have either belligerent, conspiracy-theory spouting animal-rights activists or abusive, negligent, merciless livestock farmers who mistreat their animals. I've never met a normal person who had the strange energy necessary to vandalize a fine dining restaurant just because they don't like people who eat meat. And I never will.
-
08/09/2011 10:43:00 PM
I've seen articles like this before once or twice; I guess somebody *might* believe them if they had never talked to a person who has worked in the foie gras industry.
-
Chris 08/05/2011 11:30:00 PM
Did you read the article?
-
07/31/2011 10:06:00 AM
I would love to visit this and grab some updates, looking forward for your next article. I find a lot of useful information and your articles are very clear.
-
Gusbramble 07/19/2011 6:38:00 PM
What does this have to do with liberalism?
We need people to stick up for animal rights, just like we need people to stick up for human rights. Not everybody, all the time will be in the right. That's why decision making takes time and research. Sometimes the animal rights activists have it wrong, and often times, greedy "non-liberals?" have it so wrong they not only hurt wildlife, but they also injure people.
-
deer killer 07/09/2011 11:09:00 PM
Blah Blah Blah. It's tasty. I'll eat it anytime anywhere. You liberals all make me sick.
-
Margaret 06/27/2011 12:09:00 AM
The link that works:
http://zaftigvegan.blogspot.com/search?q=foie+gra
-
06/26/2011 6:18:00 AM
If you've ever thought about a heron or a crane swallowing a giant whole fish that flipping around in the bird's neck as it dies, one wouldn't be so quick to compare gavage to the force-feeding of humans. Not the same things. Ducks have neither throats, stomachs, nor a gag reflex. And the tend to gorge naturally during the fall for harsh winters where food is difficult to find.
-
Angieolinger 05/25/2011 2:20:00 AM
I'll never eat foie gras and will openly shame anyone I know that eats duck liver. This is excessive cruelity!
-
JohnnyTronny1984 05/04/2011 4:05:00 PM
Wrong wrong wrong....and I'm a non vegan. You are right that nobody can tell you what to do. I wonder if you take Lipitor? Anyway, Mr. Dagney Taggart, please explain why a vegan diet is bad for you. I am ALL ears. It would seem you learned your social issues in the office, capitalistic eating. The only excuse I can see is that one does not make enough money to completely control their diet. That is because most animal productions have very large government subsidies. It should cost less to buy plant based materials rather than animal based materials which is a way more intensive process requiring way more resources and effort, but alas, this is not the case.
In closing...all you vegan bashers, consider this...vegans choose to live compassionately in terms of their diets and actions. They would like to prevent pain and suffering, so why attack them? Sure, some are very outspoken, I can see that being frustrating in ways, the point is, this is a way more important issue than people think. People rarely think beyond their tastebuds and stomachs when it comes to food...there is an undeniable horror story playing out to support our current system. And it drives people mad to imagine that they are guilty of being pawns in this twisted game, sharing responsibility. I believe that is why people vegan bash ultimately. A dip in 'innocence self esteem'...your innocence is threatened, better go play the psychology game and react by attempting to debunk and slander veganism. Textbook bullying. How upset one might become when faced with the reality that they are wrong and their beloved traditions are akin to zombies; dead, but somehow still on their feet and lumbering along lifeless with destructive purposes.
NEXT?!?!?
-
JohnnyTronny1984 05/03/2011 12:21:00 AM
Correct!
I sanely support shoving a tube with fat cream down a ducks throat so i can eat its liver. If that's not sanity, then the liberals won. Am I right America?
I'm not a vegetarian, but in time, I wish to become vegan. From all that I have learned, it is part of the 'brighter future' idea. Old long standing traditions that must be washed away for the earth to support 7 plus BILLION humans. You can argue 'humane slaughter and processing' until you are blue in the face. The fact is that with 7 BILLION plus people demanding said products, the demand is soooo strong that there are unavoidable ATROCITIES on a grand scale that will happen 100% guaranteed. We are finding ways to not use oil, this, in the big picture, is all apart of that forward thinking. Vegans do have human concerns; the thought of today's toddlers living as adults in a nearly uninhabitable world ruined by past generations wallets and palettes. Foie gras is a RIDICULOUSLY unnecessary way to provide your body nutrition, the whole point of eating. I'm finished!
-
Kim 03/26/2011 2:16:00 AM
Can you say "sophistry?" Come on, say it with me: Sophistry. I know you can, if you try.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 2:14:00 AM
Aww, was ums widdle worldview challenged by facts? Bloody inconvenient, isn't it.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 2:11:00 AM
The ducks. They gorge naturally when preparing to migrate. It was the Egyptians who first noticed this, before the time of Christ, and who first enjoyed foie gras. And just so you and your fellow travelers will know, there are foie gras farms in France where the ducks and geese are allowed to gorge naturally. Consequently, the slaughter takes place only once a year. The foie gras thus produced is more intensely flavoured, but other than that there is no difference whatever.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 2:06:00 AM
Gee, Bob, Blogspot removed that page, a remedy they almost never resort to. I wonder why?
-
Kim 03/26/2011 2:02:00 AM
Oooh, meat-dot-org, now there's an unbiased site. Here's a clue for you, Evadne: Duck fat actually does raise HDL levels, and can lower LDL levels. But you're too self-satisfied to seek the truth--that would involve admitting you could be consummately wrong--so you just keep on reading those PeTA-sponsored sites that reinforce your world view.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 1:57:00 AM
"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."
Why? This article wasn't about the HSUS. Their tangential involvement was given the incidental attention it deserved.
"After all, the Humane Society has limited resources..."
Yeah. As do Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 1:45:00 AM
Gee, it's tough when one's biased world view is challenged, isn't it?
-
Kim 03/26/2011 1:38:00 AM
Sorry, that's DiGregorio. It has been a long day.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 1:33:00 AM
Congratulations on a brilliant piece of convoluted logic. I'm sure you believe every bit of what you have written, more's the pity. And the only way you would find this even-handed and well-written article valid is if it reinforced your biases.
DiGiorgio can't frame the question properly? Piffle. You simply cannot accept that your preconceived notions could be consummately wrong.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 1:23:00 AM
Actually, duck fat is often likened to olive oil in that it not only does not increase one's LDL levels, it can in fact increase HDL levels. In short, it not only tastes great, it's good for you.
-
Kim 03/26/2011 1:17:00 AM
"People in search of the other side of this story..."
Road apples. This article accurately and dispassionately presents the story of modern foie gras farming; there is no "other side."
-
Sugarbabylove 02/22/2011 2:24:00 PM
Some people want to know, some people don't. As a french man I used to eat foie gras but when I realized that it was an extreme torture on animals, I stopped. There are many lies about that industry, but these lies come from people who want to make money, not people who work for free to protest against that industry. Just see and make your opinion : http://www.stopgavage.com/videos.php
-
Alex 02/04/2011 9:13:00 AM
...Actually, that blog post was terrible and exemplifies poor debating.
It ignores all of the takes from experts like Dr. Grandin and members of Cornell Vet (arguably the best veterinary school in the country, and some would say- world) in favor of simply harping on the fact that the author interviewed a chef who said that protesters were behaving disrespectfully outside of his restaurant- as if badmouthing protesters were the focus and content of the piece.
The author of that blog then goes on to take it personally ("Because I AM a protester!") and- ignoring any and all opinion that doesn't come from the ASPCA or PETA- fill the post with buzzwords, hyperbole, and faulty logic.
It's pretty much an example of how to NOT make a rebuttal.
-
Sardine 01/02/2011 4:36:00 PM
I saw a television program where young activists claimed that lobsters are tortured by being cooked alive. It seems to me that the actions against foie gras are of the same stock: "luxury food is bad". Nobody seems to pity poor man's food, like sardines, that suffocate after being caught.
-
Russ 11/15/2010 11:35:00 PM
I do not think that NYVEGAN knows what "a priori" means or at least is using it incorrectly.
Also, of course NYVEGAN can give a logically consistent argument and show how everyone who disagrees is incorrect as she is setting the parameters and definition for what constitutes an argument and how to define cruelty.
I would venture to guess that NYVEGAN and I share different definitions of what constitutes cruelty to animals and the merit of any particular argument on whether or not foie gras is cruel is determined by which of a myriad of definitions is used.
Also, I do not think I am being presumptuous when I say I am pretty sure NYVEGAN is a Vegan and thus for some reason and in some way opposed to all yummy animal based food. This type of biased opinion ought never to be used when making a decision. This is the reason that parents of rape victims are not allowed to decide the punishment for the criminal.
Reading a vegan’s ideas on whether or not foie gras is cruel (more so than, say, chicken breast) is like asking a Klan member what they think of Michael Jordan. My guess is that, for the most part, an objective and sane opinion will be impossible.
-
Dagney_Taggart 04/02/2010 9:47:00 AM
Finally, an article that describes what really happens, not the horror stories and staged pictures from HSUS, PeTA, et al. I have just ordered some of this wonderful product for the holiday. If you find eating meat disagreeable, then don't eat it. But you have NO RIGHT to dictate to me what I can eat. I didn't get to the top of the food chain to exist on vegetables, and a vegan diet isn't good for you anyway.
-
Joe 04/02/2010 9:42:00 AM
This is a wonderful article, well-balanced and accurate. I have seen ducks fed in this way, and most of them ran TO the person doing the feeding. HSUS needs to tend to that RICO lawsuit against them, and watch that Charity Navigator rating going down! Check it out on HumaneWatch.org.
-
Mark 03/23/2010 4:17:00 AM
People in search of the other side of this story can find an excellent rebuttal at zaftigvegan.blogspot.com/2009/02/ducking-truth.html.
-
El1 03/19/2010 11:11:00 AM
While I don't think that the ducks life is ideal, it seems good enough for me. I wouldn't buy foie gras from a "cruel" farm, but this seems fine, even if a bit harsher than described.
It's a matter of opinion in this case, and I see both sides.
Which side am I one.... Let's just say I have a hankering for some foie gras, and will probably pick some up this weekend.
-
FB 02/26/2010 8:42:00 AM
NYVegan:
THANK YOU for your comments. I have copied and shared with hundreds of friends. Brilliantly stated!
-
Flavia Bellu 02/26/2010 8:28:00 AM
Comments that condone and rationalize the torture of animals --- for any reason, not only consumption --- are comments made by callous, ignorant, self-serving, narcissistic, cruel, thoughtless, and in many cases evil people. Cruelty in any form, for any reason, can always be rationalized. Humans are clever at rationalizing ANYTHING.
Someone who enjoys raping and torturing children can (and do, routinely) rationalize their behavior with remarks like : "They liked it" or "I'm really a nice guy". This doesn't mean that the rest of us stand aside and say, "Hey, whatever floats your boat, man."
There are laws enacted and upheld to protect children and to hold accountable people who do this. And before these laws are enacted and upheld, we gather, first in twos, then fours, then dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands, etc, to say :"This is wrong. This hurts those who cannot defend themselves. This must stop."
We have free will. Some humans choose to be cruel. It's a choice. And they rationaize it ("it tastes good," "I like it," "screw you, I'll do what I want", and other such brilliant statements.)
Then there are those of us with awareness, compassion, soberness of thought and a sense of responsibility toward our animal brethren, and we too, can choose to behave however we like.
We choice to not be cruel to animals, and choose to not eat them. Many of us also choose to not support the use of any animal products at all, and pay attention to whether we have products in our home that contain animal products, and do not buy or support the production of these items.
Those of us who are aware of this atrocity and the immense stupidity and waste of the use of animals for ANY purpose can, do and should stand up and be counted. Speak your truth. Change comes from action.
-
carl 12/30/2009 11:41:00 PM
Foie Gras is yummy. Hippies are smelly.
-
lafnatu 12/18/2009 11:38:00 AM
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.
-
Gilbert Brown 11/03/2009 3:22:00 PM
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
-
Randy 07/29/2009 10:07:00 PM
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.
-
rock 04/05/2009 7:42:00 AM
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.
-
Jon 03/28/2009 6:13:00 AM
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.
-
Angela 03/25/2009 12:39:00 PM
Pretty much nobody wants animals to be mistreated. I am glad they did something about this.
Angela
Backlinks
-
Hadley V.Baxendale 03/14/2009 12:24:00 AM
liverwurst is cheaper
-
Paco 03/07/2009 2:52:00 PM
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.
-
Ben Shomshor 03/05/2009 9:35:00 AM
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.
-
Nonplussed 03/03/2009 8:28:00 PM
All very true.
But it's quite tasty no?
-
bel 03/03/2009 9:23:00 AM
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?
-
Allen 02/27/2009 8:05:00 PM
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).
-
Bellanimal 02/26/2009 5:37:00 AM
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!
-
luvaduck 02/26/2009 5:18:00 AM
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!
-
eatingFOIEGRAS 02/26/2009 12:59:00 AM
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.
-
Horsegrrl 02/25/2009 11:46:00 PM
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.
-
Sweetbreads 02/25/2009 8:12:00 PM
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.
-
Roger 02/25/2009 7:41:00 PM
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.
-
NYVegan 02/25/2009 7:23:00 PM
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.
-
Erik C. 02/25/2009 7:43:00 AM
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."
-
Teru 02/25/2009 7:37:00 AM
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.
-
Arco 02/25/2009 7:10:00 AM
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.
-
Aldo 02/25/2009 6:55:00 AM
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!
-
Hungry in Texas 02/25/2009 5:55:00 AM
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."
-
Tom 02/25/2009 4:51:00 AM
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.
-
Roger 02/25/2009 2:55:00 AM
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.
-
Dee 02/25/2009 2:33:00 AM
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.
-
Joanne 02/25/2009 12:51:00 AM
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?
-
Terry 02/24/2009 8:32:00 PM
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?
-
NYVegan 02/24/2009 8:04:00 PM
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.�
-
Heather 02/24/2009 4:18:00 PM
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.
-
Marilyn 02/24/2009 10:40:00 AM
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.
-
Arco 02/24/2009 8:49:00 AM
Or is that conscience? Either way, I'm looking forward to it.
-
Arco 02/24/2009 8:40:00 AM
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
-
Amy 02/24/2009 7:04:00 AM
Of course it's torture. No one could ever justify doing this with a human being.
-
Robert Johnson 02/24/2009 1:11:00 AM
Great article. I really enjoy it, and thought it was thorough and balanced. I've been wondering about exactly the issues addressed here. Thanks!
-
NYVegan 02/24/2009 12:17:00 AM
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.
-
mckenzie 02/23/2009 6:42:00 PM
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?
-
Lemmy Nothor 02/23/2009 11:58:00 AM
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.
-
Glenn 02/23/2009 9:33:00 AM
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.
-
Pete Puma 02/23/2009 3:37:00 AM
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.
-
Ralph 02/22/2009 10:38:00 PM
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.
-
Hungry in Texas 02/22/2009 8:53:00 PM
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.
-
Lemmy Nothor 02/22/2009 4:36:00 PM
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...
-
leeann 02/22/2009 3:11:00 PM
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.
-
Rochelle 02/22/2009 4:28:00 AM
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?
-
Blake 02/22/2009 4:28:00 AM
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).
-
tisIsaidthefly 02/22/2009 1:56:00 AM
what a benign bunch of bs.
-
Evadne 02/22/2009 1:54:00 AM
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
-
Lemmy Nothor 02/21/2009 7:04:00 PM
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.
-
Julie 02/21/2009 12:16:00 PM
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
-
Adrianne Prettyman 02/21/2009 10:23:00 AM
�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.
-
valerie 02/21/2009 8:45:00 AM
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.
-
Katie 02/21/2009 8:16:00 AM
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.
-
Bob 02/21/2009 8:07:00 AM
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.
-
Nancy 02/21/2009 12:54:00 AM
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.
