Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Foie Gras: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World's Fiercest Food Fight

By Bruce Friedrich, AlterNet. Posted July 2, 2009.


Although some people still attempt to justify foie gras production, science backs up common sense: It's foul.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The battle over fatty duck liver (aka, foie gras) rages on-fueled in part by Chicago Tribune writer Mark Caro's compelling new book, The Foie Gras Wars: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World's Fiercest Food Fight.

Although some people still attempt to justify foie gras production, science backs up common sense: Shoving pipes down birds' throat several times a day and pumping them so full of food that their livers become diseased and balloon up is detrimental to their health. One of the foie gras farmers in Caro's book uses the metaphor of an Olympic athlete to explain the force feeding process -- normal ducks just eat, but these ducks EAT. But the metaphor breaks down in that these ducks are not super-ducks, they haven't been in training, and their bodies can't take the Olympic expectations. Imagine taking an inactive population and forcing them to run marathons -- that's a fair metaphor.

To whit, Caro cites a meta-study (by the European Union's Scientific Committee on Animal Health) showing that death rates during force feeding skyrocket by 10 to 20 times; imagine any process that causes a population's death rate to be 1000 to 2000 percent greater than normal. Of course, every animal is in misery for the entire horrid ordeal.

According to scientific studies, the birds who don't die suffer from impaired liver function, skeletal disorders, and other serious illnesses. Many become so sick they can barely move. Carcasses show wing fractures and severe tissue damage to the throat muscles.

Caro's book is a fun, fast-paced, personality driven look at the foie gras industry. He is fair -- in terms of personalities -- to both sides. What the book is not, disappointingly, is a review of the scientific evidence regarding foie gras production. In fact, Caro talks to very few scientists, and to not one of the many poultry experts who have studied and then condemned foie gras production as cruel. And beyond the one reference to the fact that 10-20 times as many ducks die during force feeding than would die normally, he completely ignores the ample scientific indictment of the foie gras industry.

For example, Dr. Ian Duncan, a consultant to the Canadian government and poultry industry who literally wrote the poultry regulations in Canada, explains that "[f]orce feeding quickly results in birds that are obese and in a pathological state, called hepatic lipidosis or fatty liver disease. There is no doubt, that in this pathological state, the birds will feel very ill."

Dr. Duncan further explains that the regular insertion of a feeding tube damages the birds' esophagi, which exacerbates the painfulness of each force feeding, and that "[t] he birds' obesity will lead to myriad other problems from skeletal disorders to difficulties in coping with heat stress, and all of which are accompanied by feelings of malaise."

Dr. Christine Nicol, a consultant to the British poultry industry and government, and a professor at the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol, says, "My view on the production of foie gras is clear and supported by biological evidence. This practice causes unacceptable suffering....It causes pain during and as a consequence of the force feeding, feelings of malaise as the body struggles to cope with extreme nutrient imbalance, and distress due to the forceful handling. The most extreme distress is caused by loss of control of the birds' most basic homeostatic regulation [survival] mechanism as their hunger control system is over-ridden."

In other words: All the birds are sick, vast numbers to the point of death. And it's these scientific facts that explain why every reputable animal protection group in the world, including many that do not advocate vegetarianism, condemns foie gras as cruel, from the RSPCA to the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) to the Humane Society of the United States to (of course) PETA.

Some in the foie gras industry have argued that foie gras is a target of convenience, asking why animal groups don't go after chicken farms, as one example. This shows a lack of research (or intentional deceit): Every group that is actively opposed to foie gras is even more actively opposed to modern poultry farming. But the fact that you condemn one practice as horribly abusive should not give a pass to another one (imagine if we applied this standard to human rights causes). It's the proverbial straw man, and while it makes sense for the industry to use this argument, it's disappointing to see reputable journalists parroting it.

No one who professes to care about animal welfare can defend forcing pipes down birds' throats two or three times a day and pumping up to 4 pounds of grain and fat into their stomachs until their livers enlarge to ten times their natural size (livers expand from about 70 grams to about 700 grams-or more, as well-documented by Caro).

Biological facts -- which have been completely lacking from a few recent articles defending the industry -- show beyond any doubt that foie gras production is cruel. Kind people are duty bound to oppose it.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: animal rights, foie gras, duck

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I agree!
Posted by: Mimi2133 on Jul 2, 2009 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is absolutely no justification for the continued production and distribution of such an inherently cruel product. Fifteen countries, including the UK, have already banned its production.

It is not sold in any UK supermarkets and has been banned by Waitrose, House of Fraser, Harvey Nichols, and even the Prince of Wales.

The European Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare catalogs a long list of ways in which foie gras production is inherently abusive and therefore concludes that “The only recommendation the Committee can properly make is that force-feeding of ducks and geese should stop and this could be best achieved by the prohibition of the production, importation, distribution and sale of foie gras.”

Please do not support this horrendous industry by buying foie gras.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I agree! Posted by: Libsrule
Neutralising the argument
Posted by: vrdolyak on Jul 2, 2009 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a fascinating review of what sounds like a deeply unsatisfactory book. Bruce Friedrich's summary of the evidence of the welfare impact on birds seems rock solid and surely there's no real question that this product is as ethically unacceptable to decent people as blood diamonds or the most irresponsibly produced palm oil. Those who would defend it have tried the time-honoured technique of "casting doubt" on the scientific evidence, as those who profit from fossil fuels or tobacco have long found useful, but no objective analysis can conclude anything other than that animals suffer terribly to "produce" this luxury consumer item.

If Friedrich has been fair to it (and my guess is he has), what sounds interesting about Caro's book is that it attempts to cast a pretty simple ethical issue in terms of sociological or even psychological analysis. The question is what "motivates" the players and what does it tells us about these interesting individuals - those who attempt to change the world and those who resist? This is not uncommon - any vegetarian will tell you that people often seek to account for our choice by identifying a psychological quirk or flaw - rebellion, sentimentality about animals, misanthropy - which leads us to it. To the extent that vegetarianism (or any kind of committed, progressive lifestyle) is a minority activity this is understandable but it also serves to turn the focus away from majority behaviour onto the "deviants". So instead of asking "why would compassionate, progressive people support the livestock industry?" or "why would people who oppose torture support vivisection?", the question becomes a reinforcement of the status quo. Clever.

In the case of foie gras, there may be another element. Many compassionate people do oppose it but they can then reassure themselves that they are taking the sensible middle ground between callous, self-indulgent foie gras consumers and lunatic extremists like PETA. Well, reason doesn't necessarily lie in the "middle ground". Winston Churchill once said something to the effect of "there's no virtue in taking the middle position between the firemen and the fire". We're all extremists when it comes to moral issues such as rape, slavery or racism. The fact that PETA have an absolutist view on the consumption of animals doesn't make them wrong by definition and any rational, objective analysis of the issues actually shows them to be right. Foie gras is utterly morally unacceptable but recognising that doesn't mean that your moral sensitivities are correctly attuned. Indeed, it's easy to condemn things we don't want to do. If we like consuming the products of "regular" chicken production or other forms of livestock farming, we'll cling to any excuse that makes them seem acceptable, just as defenders of foie gras do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Neutralising the argument Posted by: vrdolyak
What a Waste of Time
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 2, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Chicago and I am soooooooooo sick of hearing about his issue. I would not eat it and could not afford it anyway. But with all that is going on in the world, this issue's 15 minutes of fame was over long ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a Waste of Time Posted by: laceymatthews63
» RE: What a Waste of Time Posted by: Bezukhov
I can't eat it
Posted by: MT512 on Jul 2, 2009 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've had foie gras once I think. "Goose liver pate? Sounds OK, I'll try it." And it was good. Yum.

Later I learned that it wasn't simply smashed up goose livers, and how they force feed the birds to the bursting point. With that knowledge, I can no longer eat it. It's not that good.

Someday I hope to become a full-fledged vegetarian, or at least a pescatarian (fish eater). It's a goal...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I can't eat it Posted by: Old Skeptic
» RE: I can't eat it Posted by: MT512
foie gras de canard
Posted by: Scott Griffith on Jul 2, 2009 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Summer is the journalistic silly season. What could be more silly than the half-ignorant, band-wagon posturings of a crowd of outraged Anglo-Saxons on the subject of good food? First, unlike ours, the throats of ducks and geese are near tubes; think of vacuum cleaners. Second, as any witness of proper gavage (over-feeding) will testify, the birds, far from having to be forced, actually fight among themselves in their eagerness to be the next in line; they love it. In their gratitude they produce for us one of the most delicious foods we know, the fatty part of which, by the way, bears no nutritional comparison with, say, the egregious beef fat so widely and unhealthily consumed in the US and Britain. Let these misguided folk leave good cuisine to those better-informed on the subject and concentrate their energies on deserving subjects, such as genetically-modified crops, injected growth hormones, antibiotic feed supplements and similar threats to human health.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: foie gras de canard Posted by: MT512
» RE: foie gras de canard Posted by: Rungle
» RE: foie gras de canard Posted by: maxfactor
Everyone can help fight this cruel industry
Posted by: ramsey on Jul 2, 2009 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By going vegetarian, of course! And by speaking with the manager of any restaurant or store that supplies foie gras. Explain to them the cruelty involved in its production.

Visit: http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cruelty
Posted by: MMF25 on Jul 2, 2009 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most foie gras comes from ducks crammed into warehouses where they spend their entire miserable lives, their skin rubbed raw by intensive confinement. They are terrified and in pain when workers shove funnels down their throats and force food into their small bodies. Producing foie gras is cruel. Your moment of pleasure is a lifetime of misery and torture for another living being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What if the victims were cats or dogs?
Posted by: Lucy P on Jul 2, 2009 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ducks and geese who are abused and killed to make foie gras suffer, feel pain, and want to live just as much as our beloved cats and dogs do. No one would stand for the abuse ducks and geese on foie gras farms are subjected to if the victims were cats or dogs. No animal deserves to suffer like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dems are generally more supportive of animal issues
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 2, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kathleen Marquardt, founded Putting People First, an anti-animal rights group. In her 1993 book, Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, she says:

"The real agenda of this movement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people—to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medications or die."

Identical assertions could have been made about the abolition of human slavery, the crusade to end child labor, the liberation of concentration camp prisoners from Nazi physicians or an end to the experimentation upon black humans by white humans.

Marquardt writes that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) "now encourages vegetarianism, the banning of fur, and the eventual end to all animal research, not just ‘cruel’ animal research." Marquardt writes that the Humane Society now supports vegetarianism.

According to Marquardt, "The typical animal rights activist is a white woman making about $30,000 a year. She is most likely a schoolteacher, nurse, or government worker. She usually has a college degree or even an advanced degree, is in her thirties or forties, and lives in a city."

Marquardt cites studies indicating that animal rights activists tend to identify with liberal causes such as feminism and environmentalism. "Every year," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so." It is not surprising, therefore, that Marquardt reports that "Most activists share a bias against Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundations."

According to Marquardt, the "political clout" of the animal rights movement "is surprisingly bipartisan. But most of the leading politicians working with the animal rights movement are liberal Democrats." Marquardt makes mention of Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Nevada Congressman Jim Bilbray, Charlie Rose of North Carolina, Tom Lantos and Gerry Studds.

Marquardt admits, however, that "some Republicans are animal rightists, too. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas often supports animal rights causes—except, of course, those pertaining to cattle, a major business in Kansas. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire was a founder of the Congressional Friends of Animals. Bob Dornan of California, one of the most conservative House members, is an animal rights advocate—he cosponsored legislation banning the use of animals in testing cosmetics and received a PETA award. And Manhattan Congressman Bill Green promoted legislation that would have shut down over 90 million acres of federal land to hunting, fishing, and trapping."

Marquardt states further that "Although he’s not an elected official, a conservative political figure who, surprisingly, is on the other side is G. Gordon Liddy, author Will and a key figure in the 1972 Watergate uproar. When I went on Liddy’s radio show, he and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk greeted each other with hugs and kisses and lots of warm words.

"With allies in both political parties and across the ideological spectrum," concludes Marquardt, "the animal rights movement has been able to score some great successes, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More to torture than force-feeding
Posted by: laceymatthews63 on Jul 2, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a friend who has two rescued ducks and what she (and I) never stopped to think about before is that ducks are water birds. They NEED water, not just to drink, but to live in. When these ducks first came to my friend, their eyes were red and itchy because they had not had access to water in the pen they had been kept in. After being provided with a kiddie pool to swim in, she noticed that they immediately bathed their eyes, and the redness quickly went away.

Ducks raised for foie gras, or just plain meat, are kept in sheds--they never go anywhere near water. Imagine how torturous that must be for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Foie Gras Is Vile
Posted by: ESloan222 on Jul 2, 2009 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's no wonder that foie gras has been banned in California, Costco recently stopped selling it, and three Dutch hotel chains now refuse to serve it. Decent people are opposed to foie gras production; even the Pope has spoken out against it. Hopefully it will soon be outlawed everywhere--it's an inhumane over-indulgence that we can all do without.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It`s really delicious...
Posted by: maxfactor on Jul 2, 2009 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and there really is no difference to how the majority of poultry is treated in factories all over and especially in the US.

My favourite recipe, 1/4 piece of duck or gooseliver per person. More liver will ruin the experience - trust me. Heat a tiny bit of quality french olive oil, dissolve a tiny amount of fleur de sel, heat the oil in a broadpan. Once hot drop the liver, flip after 10 seconds, take out after another 10 seconds. Serve on a bed of chilled wet tasty greens (no sauce) and a sliver of vin cuit.
Repeat after a couple of months - it is a very intense experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh forgot!
Posted by: maxfactor on Jul 2, 2009 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do not overheat the olive oil it is a sin to your tastebuds - it does not go as far up as your genetically engineered corn oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what the hell
Posted by: xmvince on Jul 2, 2009 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never heard of this shit.

Sounds really cruel though and should definitely be banned! animals have emotions and feelings as well - they may not be as complex as ours but that doesn't give us ANY right to torture them like this!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yehadut
Posted by: yehadut on Jul 2, 2009 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cruelty of foie gras is so well covered, it's a wonder anyone's still eating it. Who out there has so little decency? Are there still people unaware of how cruel it is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Foie Gras is an abomination
Posted by: ClaudineMe on Jul 3, 2009 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no excuse for animal abuse. Decent people cannot find reasons to continue eating this delicacy of suffering. The horror, the horror...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Kammerer
Posted by: aloevera on Jul 3, 2009 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Anthony Bourdain noted, torturing something by making it eat too much? Haven't these people ever been to Texas? He also was right on to note that if people want to protest something eaten by so few, they should really refocus on Kentucky Fried Chicken to do some real damage to the industrial food production model.

The geese walk over to the tube, open up and accept the extra cups of grain, and their livers get fatter, and the people that like to eat filter eat it and pate themselves on the back for their great taste and connouiseuring ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SICK!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: wireup on Jul 4, 2009 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely, human beings have to be the sickest, cruelest species on this planet, bar none. period!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to solve the problem
Posted by: tokerdesigner on Jul 5, 2009 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time to get busy finding a way to clone goose liver (lab meat delicacies inc.) so the whole business can proceed without abusing a single live animal on the hoof so to speak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sex
Posted by: sex on Jul 6, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JHEHRU FIGURE OUT IT Q
Posted by: ruruben on Jul 7, 2009 1:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MKV to AVI ,Professionally convert your mkv files to avi format, other popular video and audio format supported

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement