Lawsuit Against Fois Gras Company Not Really About Pollution
Labels: HSUS
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)--a (very rich) animal rights group that doesn't spout animal rights ideology but spends tens of millions to promote the agenda--has sued a New York fois gras company for allegedly polluting water. From the story:A federal judge in White Plains, N.Y., began hearings on Wednesday regarding a lawsuit filed against Hudson Valley Foie Gras by The Humane Society of the United States more than a year ago.
The animal rights group alleges that the company, which produces the delicacy made from enlarged goose livers is violating federal water pollution laws by releasing manure and slaughter waste into the Middle Mongaup River in Sullivan County.
But just you wait: As I am writing about now in my book, animal liberationists are working diligently toward changing the law to give individuals--and animals themselves--legal standing in courts to bring cases based on aesthetic upset or moral disagreement with uses of animals. If that happens, Katy bar the door: Thousands of lawsuits will be filed "by animals" against their "oppressors"within a week burying animal industries in litigation and discovery. Never doubt that is the true goal of groups such as HSUS.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:01 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
"The HSUS is after Hudson Valley Fois Gras because it raises geese, overfeeds them to fatten their livers, and slaughters them for meat, including fois gras made from the livers."
I'm glad that you acknowledge the inherent cruelty involved with the production of foie gras.
Besides the extreme cruelty and misery that animals face inside of factory farms, there is also an ecological cost to factory farming. The USDA reports that animals in the US meat industry produce 61 million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human waste - or five tons for every US citizen. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hog, chicken and
cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. Also according to a U.N. report on climate change factory farming is the #1 contributor to green house gases world wide. So HSUS's claims are definitely not baseless by any means.
Wouldn't you rather see animal rights groups address their grievances through legal peaceful methods as opposed to militant illegal tactics?
Dear 123 who: Absolutely, lawsuits are a proper means of seeking redress of grievances. I just wanted it to be clear what the real issue is not the water, but the geese.
Harrassing our ideological enemies through litigation is the American way. But if the suit is frivolous--and I have no idea about this one--a price should be paid.
I am not sure about the cruelty. The necks of geese and ducks aren't like ours and thus feeding them with a tube is not the same as if done to us. Moreover, at least one study I have seen indicated that the birds were not stressed during feeding. They swallow fish whole, for gosh sakes.
The issue is killing and eating meat for animal rights advocates. And I don't think eating meat is immoral nor proper slaughter practices, inhumane. But those in the ARL movement do. And that is where the rubber meets the road.
I just think it's funny how you call on the animal rights movement to condemn illegal action and encourage them to take legal traditional methods of recourse instead. HSUS is an organization which has openly condemned illegal direct action and is working through legal methods, yet you still criticize them. Is it really extremism that you are concerned about? I have a feeling you are the one with alterer motives.
Wesley J. Smith said: I am not sure about the cruelty. The necks of geese and ducks aren't like ours and thus feeding them with a tube is not the same as if done to us. Moreover, at least one study I have seen indicated that the birds were not stressed during feeding. They swallow fish whole, for gosh sakes.
Ducks and geese are force fed three times the amount of food they would normally ingest. This then induces a painful disease in the liver of the animal known as hepatic lipidosis, which forces the liver to swell three times it's average size. The process of forced feeding is so traumatic, and the confinement and conditions on foie gras farms so debilitating, that the pre-slaughter mortality rate for foie gras production is up to 20 times the average rate on other duck factory farms. So your claims that foie gras production is natural and humane is baseless, and yet more proof that you are just another industry shill.
123: I am sure you think everyone who disagrees with you is an industry shill. What a cliche.
You don't read very carefully, either. I said I wasn't sure about the cruelty: I mentioed the neck structure and a study I had seen about the birds not being stressed by the feeding. I don't about whether the livers become painful for the birds or not. I didn't say it was "natural" or humane.
But the point is that HSUS is not interested in water pollution. It wants to drive poultry farmers out of business eventually. And it and its fellow travelers may just do that if they, or animals, ever get standing to sue animal industries. That was the point of the post.
123: After reading your post, I didn't trust it, particularly the part about mortality rate being 20 times higher than a normal water fowl operation. So, I contacted an "industry shill" of my acquaintance and asked if your post was wrong. Here is what he said:
"Most of it. Except for hepatic lipidosis, which is just a medical term for "fat-swollen liver." The rub is that ducks in the wild self-gorge before migration, so it happens to them annually anyway. At the foie gras farms I've visited, the ducks are eager for the bulk-grain feedings. I know of no documentation to support the idea that pre-slaughgter mortality in foie gras production is 20x that of other duck-raising operations. The worst I've seen is 3x (in France), but in the U.S. it's near parity. Ironic, also, that foie gras ducks are universally raised in group-housing or "free range" conditions, which would ordinarily thrill the animal rights crowd. But they will, of course, always find something to carp about. "
That last sentence is certainlyh true.
Wesley J. Smith says: 123 I am sure you think everyone who disagrees with you is an industry shill. What a cliche.
No, I called you an industry shill because that is exactly what you are. You are currently writing a book defending animal industry and demonizing animal rights. You are attempting to cash in on the hysteria surrounding radical AR/Environmentalism, while ignoring the crimes of the meat, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies. It's not that you simply disagree with me, but you have a vested interest in animal industry.
Wesley J. Smith says: I know of no documentation to support the idea that pre-slaughter mortality in foie gras production is 20x that of other duck-raising operations.
The statistics I sighted came from the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. The source for my statistics are much more neutral then your industry friend, who is just repeating industry lies.
Wesley J. Smith said: But the point is that HSUS is not interested in water pollution. It wants to drive poultry farmers out of business eventually.
In March of 2007 Hudson Valley foie gras was fined 30,000 dollars by the Department of Environmental Conservation for violating over 800 water and air pollution laws. These violations directly contribute to the destruction of animal habitat, causing adverse health effects in humans, and decimating fish populations. So yes it is an animal issue and Hudson Valley foie gras should be held accountable.
Effects in humans are an animal issue? You crack me up 123 who.
If they pollute, by all means they should be held accountable. But there are a lot worse polluters than this goose farm and HSUS could care less because they are about animal rights. For them, it is the killing of geese. It is the fois gras. The pollution is the weapon that they are wielding because they can't sue on behalf of the geese (yet). That seems uncontrovertible to me, and indeed, you have applauded the tactic. So, why get upset when I point it out?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home