SF Chronicle Columnist Gets It Right on Foie Gras
Think of the animal rights movement as predators that threaten an entire herd: All the animals are under threat but it is the weak, stragglers, or isolated that face the most concerted attack.
Thus, while all animal research facilities are under threat, Huntingdon Life Sciences is the most vilified and its contractors and service providers most subjected to ancillary targeting. Why HLS? It was weakened, when years ago, a British television program showed a puppy being abused at a HLS facility. (Those responsible were fired and prosecuted, and properly so. Management had a turn over, and despite repeated attempts to pin further charges of abuse on HLS, to my knowledge, all have proved unfounded.) But that video set HLS apart, and it has been subjected to an unremitting and sometimes violent campaign to drive it out of business ever since. Activists know that if they can destroy HLS, no animal using industry is safe.
Similarly, all food industries are hated by animal rights activists, but steak and KFC is too popular to drive out of business or get politicians to ban. But foie gras, a specialty food made from overfeeding ducks and geese before slaughter to fatten their livers, is not a big part of most people's diets and so pressure on liberal politicians can lead to legal bans, as will take effect in CA beginning a few years from now. In San Francisco, liberal Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi (who I know and like from having worked with him during the Nader 2000 Presidential Campaign) wants SF to "commend" restaurants that refuse to serve foie gras. Not that big a deal as these matters go, but San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer and columnist Caille Millner (who is a colleague of Secondhand Smokette and a family friend) hits the nail on the head about the illogic of the anti-foie gras craze. From her column:
That squares with my research for my upcoming book (out in the fall).It's an easy issue - say "the geese" (even though nearly all foie gras is made from duck now) "have a tube put down their throats so that they can be force-fed," and people shudder. Most people are prone to anthropomorphize, so they imagine how horrible it would be to have a tube shoved down their own throat (ducks do not have voice boxes or gag reflexes; they breathe through their tongues) and agree that it's a horrible process that must be stopped. San Francisco's leadership was the latest to hop on this bandwagon, passing a "commendation" for local restaurants that remove foie gras from their menus.
Never mind that there are only three foie gras producers in the United States, all small farms that are paragons of humane treatment compared to our country's countless factory farms. "We were the first farm to use a humane auditor," said Rick Bishop, animal welfare officer for Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Ferndale, N.Y. "If you're a good farmer, you'll do this in a way that doesn't cause any distress to the ducks. We've always fought misinformation by having an open-door policy at our farm. Anyone who wants to see what we're doing is welcome to visit and observe at any step of the process." All three foie gras farms in the United States use open pens for their ducks and have very low mortality rates.
Animal rights activists are trying to destroy the foie gras industry, not because it is cruel or causes terrible suffering to the birds. They want to destroy it because in the view of the movement, "Meat is murder." Thus, the entire herd is under threat but foie gras is a straggler, and so it is being specially targeted in the hopes that it will set a precedent for the eventual ban on other meat products which activists want none of us to be able to consume.


11 Comments:
The Village Voice had a great article about this, specifically profiling Hudson Valley Foie Gras, in February: http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-02-18/news/is-foie-gras-torture/.
I consider their attacks on fur wearers to be in the same mode. Obviously anyone wearing a leather coat or leather shoes is just as "guilty" of wearing animal skin. Wealthy women in furs are a much less sympathetic target than a less wealthy person wearing leather.
Safer, too. They don't splash red paint on leather-wearing bikers at a Harley ralley, do they?
Any kind of "factory farming" should be opposed, and not just be "animal rights activists". Whether it's meat for KFC or duck liver pate, naturally farming techniques are more humane and result in tastier product.
I recall reading about a farm (somewhere) that uses a natural method for fois gras. Rather than force feeding, they let the geese (or ducks) graze on the land. They naturally gorge themselves with high fat fruits like figs and olives, and within a few months are ready to be slaughtered. For some reason, that just sounds better than fois gras from a duck force-fed a high fat corn product.
How can force-feeding be a "natural" form of farming? That doesn't make sense...
The animal rights movement is not a predator, and it is not preying the weakest of the herd. It is fighting a difficult battle and doing the best it can on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves at all, in a humane cause. If non-human animals did not have rights, they would not deserve humane treatment.
The animal rights movement is not a predator, and it is not preying the weakest of the herd. It is fighting a difficult battle and doing the best it can on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves at all, in a humane cause. If non-human animals did not have rights, they would not deserve humane treatment.
The animal rights movement is not a predator, and it is not preying the weakest of the herd. It is fighting a difficult battle and doing the best it can on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves at all, in a humane cause. If non-human animals did not have rights, they would not deserve humane treatment.
The animal rights movement is not a predator, and it is not preying the weakest of the herd. It is fighting a difficult battle and doing the best it can on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves at all, in a humane cause. If non-human animals did not have rights, they would not deserve humane treatment.
The animal rights movement is not a predator, and it is not preying the weakest of the herd. It is fighting a difficult battle and doing the best it can on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves at all, in a humane cause. If non-human animals did not have rights, they would not deserve humane treatment.
Ianthe: Those in the movement who go beyond persuasion to coersion are predators and criminals, some terrorists. That is the point.
Animals are sentient beings and deserve to be treated with compassion and respect. I personally choose not to eat meat; but fois gras is not the problem! In a perfect world, no one, human or animal, would ever suffer. However, given that people will probably want to eat meat for the forseeable future, the focus should be on the factory farms that not only perpetrate horrifying abuses upon animals, but threaten the world's food supply with unsound environmental practices. Pick your battles, animal rights movement!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home