|
James Bond vs. Foie Gras People around the world have spoken out against the cruelty of foie gras. In 2004, California passed a law banning the sale and production of foie gras, effective in 2012. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI denounced force-feeding as being in violation of Biblical principles, and foie gras production has been outlawed in the U.K., Germany, the Czech Republic, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, and Israel. From SuperChefBlog: Meanwhile, British celebrity chef Rick Stein OBE is getting hammered on his side of the Atlantic, too, for not coming down clearly and strongly enough against the French-devised evil of gavage. Recently, n his BBC Two TV series French Odyssey he stated that gavage was no worse than keeping battery hens. In response to criticism, Chef Stein clarified last Friday on BBC Radio 4: I really like foie gras and I imagine there are much more cruel things to be seen in British farming... I am not saying we should fail to disapprove about what the French are doing with their geese and ducks but maybe we should start not turning a blind eye to what goes on in our own farms... I think there are a lot of intensive farming practices in this country, and in France of course, that are more cruel than that... I was shocked by what I saw, but all I am saying is 'Let's clean up our own back yard first'. In all the hubbub, superchefblog wonders aloud: has anyone seen The Meatrix lately?
From Chicago Tribune: Foie gras ban, we hardly knew ye By Phil Vettel This fight was never about the foie gras. Last week, the Chicago City Council repealed its foie gras ban. Chefs hailed the action as a victory for personal choice and a repudiation of the nanny state. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals called it a craven capitulation to special interests. And Ald. Joe Moore (49th), who sponsored the 2006 ban, called it an outrageous display of old-time Boss politics. I think the ban was repealed because people were laughing at us. From the day the law was passed--bundled into an omnibus bill and approved via voice vote--local chefs began crying foul. Obviously, some French chefs had their Gallic shorts in a knot because an integral piece of their culinary history was being singled out, its production labeled as being inherently more cruel and inhumane than the way pigs, chickens and other dinner-plate-bound animals meet their doom. But most chefs I spoke to expressed unconcern with foie gras, per se. Their objection--and this was voiced by chefs who rarely if ever served foie gras--was that the City Council was telling them what they could and could not cook. Chefs wondered aloud what might be next--veal? lobster?--on the City Council's list of Thou Shalt Nots.One way to galvanize an artistic=2 0community--and make no mistake, Chicago's fine-dining chefs qualify--is to whisper the word censorship. Or, in the case of the foie gras ban, to practically scream it. And one way to drum up interest in an item is to tell the people they can't have it. In the four months in 2006 between the date the foie gras ban was passed (April 26) and when it went into effect (Aug. 22), restaurants reported a surge in foie gras sales. Whether liver-loving Chicagoans were loading up on a dish that was about to disappear, or curious diners were ordering the dish to see what the fuss was about, restaurants such as Cyrano's Bistrot & Wine Bar claimed to be selling foie gras like never before. Chefs organizing legal challenges to the ordinance hosted well-attended foie gras fundraisers. And then the ban went into effect, and things really got silly. Restaurant owners--and the customers who supported them--wasted no time finding creative ways around the law. I had an especially luscious "chicken liver terrine" at Cyrano's, har-de-har-har. Copperblue managed to source duck liver that tasted suspiciously wonderful; the owner maintained that it had come from naturally fed ducks, and who was qualified to dispute it? (Here's a hint: A 6-pound duck will not produce a 2-pound liver without outside assistance.) Bin 36 offered a premium-priced salad of figs, apricots and honey, "and the foie gras torchon is on us." That's what the menu said. The restaurant wasn't selling foie gras, it was selling a salad and giving away the liver. When the Health Department inspectors arrived at Bin 36 and decided that this transparent bit of legerdemain passed muster, declining to issue a citation, the battle was over. Basically, anyone who wanted to serve foie gras did so. Not that I blame the Health Department. When your main mission is to prevent food-borne illness, how much time do you want to spend rounding up duck-liver scofflaws, especially when your boss' boss' boss (that would be the mayor) has publicly decried the City Council's action as "the silliest thing they've ever done"? So foie gras became a banned substance that was readily available to anyone who wanted it, abetted by an agency that had little time, or appetite, for enforcement. And to be honest, that's really where I expected matters to rest. I predicted that this "don't ask, don't tell" status would remain for the foreseeable future. It allowed the animal-rights people their victory and let the City Council claim the high road while inconveniencing a few chefs just a bit (and foie gras-seeking customers not at all). What I didn't fully appreciate is how embarrassing this ordinance was for certain city leaders, and how badly they wanted it to go away. Ald. Bernard Stone (50th) quickly recanted his support of the ban, saying, "Anybody who=2 0has traveled anywhere in this country knows that people are just laughing their heads off at us." The foie gras ban became a joke on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report." TV food personality and author Anthony Bourdain, never at a loss for a cutting comment, said in an interview that the ban made Chicago look like "some stupid cow town." And a city trying to become an Olympic destination doesn't want to look like a stupid cow town. If ever the aldermen truly supported the ethical issues of foie gras production, and I suspect that support was weak at best, it quickly disappeared in a flurry of snickers (not the candy bar). Some aldermen claimed not to have realized what they were voting for back in 2006. (Which is very likely true; omnibus bills typically contain routine matters and aldermen rarely give them a second glance.) Chicago Chefs for Choice, an ad hoc organization opposed to the ban, provided a couple of experts to rebut the claims that force-feeding (which is how duck and goose livers become engorged) was cruel and painful, and that was all the convincing some aldermen needed. So Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) crafted a repeal, and Wednesday the mayor--over Moore's loud and repeated demands for discussion and debate--brought it immediately to a vote. The vote to repeal was 37-6. Chicago's foie gras law--dubious in its support, sporadic in its enforcement and mocked by a nation--died almost as quickly as it was passed. And if there's a lesson here, it's that you don't get rid of something you don't like by banning it. You tax it. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Phil Vettel is the Tribune's restaurant critic.
From the New Tork Times: September 15, 2005 A Chicago Alderman's Proposal to Ban Foie Gras Stirs Up a Debate By GRETCHEN RUETHLING CHICAGO, Sept. 14 -This city is considering a proposal to trim fatty goose and duck livers from the menus of Chicago restaurants, stirring debate over whether it has a right to tell people what they can put on their plates. "Our laws are a reflection of our culture," said Joe Moore, an alderman who has proposed banning the sale of foie gras in the city , as he addressed the council's health committee on Tuesday. "Our culture does not condone the torture of innocent and defenseless creatures. And we as a society believe all God's creatures should be treated humanely." Foie gras, which means "fatty liver" in French and is most commonly served in upscale restaurants, is produced by force-feeding grain to ducks and geese several times a day through a pipe that is inserted in their throats, causing their livers to expand up to 10 times their normal size within weeks. Charlie Trotter, the celebrity chef whose restaurant here bears his name,
quietly stopped serving the dish four years ago after he visited foie gras farms
and was appalled at how it was produced. His decision made newspaper headlines
in March and inspired Mr. Moore's proposal, which could be voted on by the end
of the year. "I never wanted to become the de facto poster boy for the no foie
gras movement," Mr. Trotter said. The proposal follows a unanimous vote in the
State Senate to ban force-feeding birds for the production of foie gras in
Illinois. It will be considered by the House next year. Last year, California
banned th e production and sale of foie gras starting in 2012, and legislation
regulating it has been introduced in New York, Massachusetts and Oregon. Kenneth Dickerman for The New York Times “Foie gras has been around since the age of cuisine. Some animals are raised
for food. They’re raised to die.”
Kenneth Dickerman for The New York Times “Our culture does not condone the torture of innocent and defenseless
creatures.”
Marcus Henley, operations manager for Hudson Valley Foie Gras in New York, one of three foie gras producers in the country, said that the birds were not treated cruelly and that scientific evidence showed they did not suffer. "The anthropomorphism makes this a very easy sell," Mr. Henley said of the bans. Although Mr. Trotter, 46, stopped serving foie gras, he questioned the government's role in banning it, saying the decision should be left up to consumers and business owners. "It's pretty soon going to be legislated to death, and pretty soon we won't need to think because the government will think for us," Mr. Trotter said. Rick Tramonto, 43, a well-known Chicago chef at the restaurant Tru, called the proposed ban a travesty and said he wondered where the line would be drawn because other animals, like chickens, were mistreated. "Foie gras has been around since the age of cuisine," Mr. Tramonto said. "Some animals are raised for food. They're raised to die." Last spring, Mr. Tramonto and Mr. Trotter got into a name-calling spat over the matter. Mr. Tramonto was quoted in The Chicago Tribune as calling Mr. Trotter hypocritical for selling other animal products but not foie gras. Mr. Trotter, in turn, told the newspaper that Mr. Tramonto was not "the smartest guy on the block." Both men said on Tuesday that the disagreement was blown out of proportion and that they respected each other's opinions. "I think we both regretted sort of getting dragged into the mud," Mr. Trotter said. "The real sto ry is to eat or not to eat foie gras." Other Chicago restaurant owners that serve foie gras agreed that restaurants and consumers should be able to make their own decisions. "I don't think it's really something that the city should be choosing for everyone," said Stephanie Izard, chef and owner of Scylla, one of at least 16 Chicago restaurants that serve foie gras. "Lezlie Keebler, a managing partner at Chestnut Grill and Wine Bar, said she would prefer not to sell it but does because it is popular. "I tell my chefs, you have to serve things people want to eat, not things you want them to eat," Ms. Keebler said. Some foie gras defenders argue that regulation is a slippery slope. "Government should not regulate how a farmer produces something," said John Hawkins, news service director for the Illinois Farm Bureau, which opposed the state legislation. "It would set a precedent." But Holly Cheever, a veterinarian in Guilderland, N.Y., who spoke at the Chicago hearing, said she thought the city should "take a stand against such outrageous and heinous cruelty" by banning the sale of foie gras. "Even in the worst cases," Ms. Cheever said, referring to treatment of other animals for food production, "nothing touches this in terms of the cruelty involved." Colleen McShane, president of the Illinois Restaurant Association, said the group planned to speak against the ban at the next City Hall hearing, which could be held as early as next month. "The government should not be telling us what to put on our menus unless it's a health issue," Ms. McShane said. |
