"How would YOU like to be force fed???"
The fuzzy duckie fans have won for the moment. Foie gras is being banned in California for absolutely misguided reasons. Ducks don't have a throat like YOU. They are waterfowl and can swallow fish whole. The feeding tube to them is total duckgasm. They are going to be your dinner anyway. Paula Wolfert wrote, "I'd rather be a force fed duck than a Zacky chicken". Keller is among the chefs fighting back. So are the guys from Animal and others across the country. We want our duck liver back!
Recommended by Food52
46 Comments
Corn I believe. So no support for whatever theory you're working on. We really don't need the next attack to be on white flour.
Interesting point, Pierino, about cigarettes. Perhaps Bloomberg could ease into it, banning the sale of more than one pack at a time.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2ozz8b6zX1qbo5j9o1_500.png?m
WE say that the Govt shdn't interfere in what the people chose to it as in the Foie gras issue.
BUT
They looked the other way when Fast foods went Rampant & now the healthy food eating population is picking up the tab for those who've brought Diabetes, CHolesterol, & heart trouble upon themselves & need to be medicated for these ailments. & yet, if Washington was to whisper about controlling the FF industry, the paid yes men (I'd prefer using a filthier sounding term for these characters, but will refrain) on K street would incite a media revolt. Does this mean that the rest of us need to keep quiet & pay up?
There are a lot more malpractices going on the Meat & poultry industry that constantly put the consumers at risk for serious health issues.
Foie Gras is hardly a topic worth talking about. If Thomas Keller's existence is on the verge of extinction as a result of this.. then sorry, He fell on the wrong side of Darwins's theory.. too bad..
Of course, this sort of farm is impossible if we want to satiate the masses with foie gras, which means that foie gras is a complete luxury item for a select few, and I doubt very much that we want to get into that discussion.
I disagree with the CA ban on a very basic level. I think it's silly for the government to decide what I can/should eat. I'm a big raw milk advocate, and frankly I think the government has no right to decide that I do not know what's best for me and that raw milk is intrinsically bad. Thus, I feel the same way about foie gras and soft drinks over 16 ounces in size.
HOWEVER, I have poultry of my own, and I know that if I were to try to force a feeding tube down any of their throats, not only would they freak out, they would never trust me again. They would see the tube and go crazy. Birds are not the smartest animals, but they do feel pain and fear. Basically, I think that the way we have come to view and treat livestock is appalling. Animals should be allowed (within reason--for instance, roosters will try to kill one another if in close proximity--I don't believe in letting roosters just go at each other to the death) to do what their instincts tell them to do. Chickens to scratch and peck and flap their wings. Cows to graze. Pigs to root around in the mud.
And I'm no vegetarian. I have killed chickens, ducks, and goats for food, but I have done so quickly and as painlessly as possible, and I have given those animals full lives with the ability to do what they do best.
This is all very idealistic, and I admit that. But the fact that we, people who think of ourselves as moral and ethical, and who are shocked and appalled when others abuse cats, dogs, and horses, can turn a blind eye to what goes on in concentrated animal feeding operations even when we know exactly what goes on, is unbelievable to me. It constitutes animal abuse, and we're okay with that for some reason.
I understand that true, humane meat is very pricey and that most cannot afford it, and there's no way around the fact that this is really awful. That we, as a society, need meat to feel like we're having a real meal. That if you buy plain ol' meat there's a stigma to that. That if you buy grass-fed beef or free-roaming chicken, you're a yuppie or trust-funder. That "good" meat is available only to the few. And that we feel we need to have meat--big pieces of it--as stand-alone components of a meal.
As an aside, the way most people view meat is really ridiculous. Always buying boneless skinless chicken breasts, for instance. Wow, I never knew that they grew chickens with no thighs, wings, legs, or skin! And filet mignon? Don't get me started.
My answer has gone far afield of the foie gras question, but in any case, why are we quibbling about a luxury item when there are so many more important issues to be dealt with (in terms of animal treatment and the way we view meat, but also just in general)? Frankly, who cares? The CA ban is silly, but only a little sillier than treating foie gras as a we-have-our-right-to-luxury-goods-dammit issue.
Pierino, you always know how to ignite the Food52 forums.
To your point about skinless, boneless whatever, it's crazy that some people don't even want to handle food, as in put their fingers on it. It must come in cozy foam packages and so on. I was taking a class in a real restaurant kitchen once where we were handed scallops. Someone two places from my station refused to even touch them. I said "great, I'll take yours" and I did.
Bottom line; food is food and I'm not going vegan any time soon.
ATG117, you say you want to understand, so help me understand what isn't convincing:
The American Veterinary Medical Association has done two investigations, delegations toured farms and reviewed the scientific literature and found nothing of concern.
The Canadian government's department of agriculture did the same and declared current practices humane.
Reputable, responsible chefs like Thomas Keller have personally reviewed the practices and have declared them humane.
The New York Times did an investigation of the matter and came up with nothing.
Our own Chef June has related her personal experience.
So on one side you have PETA and a handful of the same ilk making wild claims, but when you actually tour the farms, nothing untoward is found. Just farmers raising flocks of happy birds, trying to make a living.
From the AVMA: "Observations and practical experience shared by…members indicate a minimum of adverse effects on the birds involved." One vet described gavage as "less distressing than taking the rectal temperature of a cat".
When I wrote that sentence above about angry geese I thought that would be the end of the debate. Obviously you've never had that experience and I guess most people haven't (which is a shame that we're not all more in touch with our food).
There's simply no way anyone could get a tube down the bird's throat if they were the least bit upset about it. The commotion would start with an ear-splitting HONK, feathers and clothing would fly in cartoon fashion and when the dust settled, the handler would be missing a finger. Or two. Maybe an eye. (I'm not kidding.)
There is a clear line between fattening animals up to increase our food supply AND intentionally overstuffing animals with levels their bodies cannot handle in order to create an essentially diseased organ that has grown to 10 times its normal size to create a “delicacy”.
I have not seen ducks and geese elbowing one another to the funnel but I have seen a framer hold their head in place with one hand while he put the funnel in the mouth with the other.
Ducks actually have a sort of Pavlovian response to the clang of the feeding funnel. They run to it and try to elbow each other out of the way, or at least they would if they had elbows. Ducks are waterfowl. They are not chickens so they don't just peck at things on the ground---another misconception. You can shove a whole fish down a duck's throat and they might say, "please sir, may I have another?"
The discussion is an attempt to present facts to those who have heard only one side of the issue, the side playing on emotions with charges of cruelty and inhumane treatment of the cute little animals. But the AVMA (U.S.) and the AAFC (Canada) have both recently investigated foie gras production and found no evidence of any harm or even discomfort.
Let me put it a different way: Anyone, and I mean *anyone* who has ever dealt with an angry goose knows without any doubt whatsoever that these animals are not being harmed.
Dismissing foie gras as "unnecessary" is precisely the idea we're supposed to swallow. Because it won't stop there. Politicians are already trying to tell us other foods we can and cannot consume, and in what amounts, based upon equally specious arguments.
Suggested reading material:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/29/MN5A1OA7U6.DTL
Then why the discussion? I'm sure that there will be enterprising livestock farmers that will figure out a way to cut back on the cruel gavage while still getting geese fatted up for their livers..Its not as if Foie gras is a necessary staple for life to go on..
Gavage has been used for thousands of years for the same reasons we don't wait for animals to die of old age before we eat them -- to create a steady, economical supply of high quality food.
Again, one has to get beyond simplistic anthropomorphic perspective to understand. Ducks and geese will eat whatever they can get their beaks on, but only at winter's onset. The urge to eat like that is driven by the same instincts that induce migration and breeding patterns -- completely different from the way humans function. It's not a matter of "feeling full" like for us. They will eat until their crop fills and they can't physically swallow anything more. Gavage just overrides the instinctual timing of that behavior.
Natural? Maybe not. But what of raising food is?
I posted the video link because I think it does speak to how gavage appeals to the natural instincts of duck and geese - particularly since he's starting from the perspective that it is an uncomfortable concept for many people - and that there are alternatives being developed. Whether those alternatives are better/no change is another question!
I stopped watching after hearing that idiot joke about cycling on steroids. What an ass.
Whatever he had to say will be meaningless in the long run anyway as gavage isn't really the issue. There will be an equal number of complaints about the health of the animal with an enlarged liver (like the goose wasn't going to be cooked one way or another) or the unnaturalness of tricking a poor duck into thinking it's winter (like the bird can think).
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_s_surprising_foie_gras_parable.html
As for the government, these are the same politicians responsible for the economic messes of their cities and states who struggle with concepts far easier to comprehend like "don't spend more than you make". They hope taking on issues like this will make them appear as though they are doing something at the capital besides eating their lunches and spending our money. I don't expect that's going to change anytime soon either.
The people leading these emotional attacks also believe that eating animals is unacceptable. Foie gras is simply a subset of the larger issue and I wouldn't expect a meeting of the minds to ever occur.
Remove the anthropomorphism and emotion and the entire picture changes:
Ducks and geese don't have a gag reflex like we do and they have a crop (an enlarged portion of the esophagus) in which they routinely store food for later digestion. To these birds, the feeding tube is nothing more than a fish and process is nothing but a free meal.
So now, tardily, chefs, farmers, lovers of foie gras, and others of moderate persuasion are scurrying to catch up in the education of the American eater, so they will have at least another side to this story. Ducks/geese are not built like humans. In fact, they overeat of their own volition -- and have done so since time immemorial -- in preparation for their migrations. If you've ever been on a farm and had the opportunity to scratch a duck's throat (much like scratching a dog's belly), they open their mouths looking for a handout! Gavage doesn't hurt them, and on the farms I'm familiar with, they are free to roam and are treated like poultry royalty. No pens, electronic probes, etc....
One would certainly think a state legislature had better things to legislate than gavage....
This is not ok.
Even if we are to argue that they don’t mind being over fed, or even like it, I’m sure they mind the funnel and the restriction, lack of freedom and the all around unnaturalness of it all. Yes, maybe there are bigger issues to tackle but there is no way that this is humane.
"About 50% of supermarket bought poultry is contaminated with fecal matter. This, according to a recent report by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).
Poultry was purchased from 15 grocery chains in 10 cities across the country and sent to a lab for testing. The presence of e. coli bacteria serves as a marker for the presence of fecal matter. Before we share the results, you should know that PCRM is an animal rights group, which strongly supports vegetarianism, and it definitely has an agenda here. Regardless, the results of a simple lab test, by a reputable third part lab, are nothing short of revolting.
About half of the chicken samples (48%), tested positive for chicken shit!
Poultry was purchased at Safeway, Kroger, HEB, Publix, Ralphs and others. Cities sampled include Miami, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, Chicago, and Washington DC. Antibiotic free chicken did not fare better then conventionally raised chicken. Organic chicken was not sampled.
The tests found the presence of e coli. According to PCRM:
E. coli is a specific indicator of fecal contamination and is used by slaughter and processing plants to check for fecal contamination of food products and water, following USDA requirements.
Most chickens grown for slaughter live in very tight quarters where they
defecate on themselves and one another and commonly stand in feces. Feces are also present in intestines at the time of slaughter. As a result, feces are common in poultry farms, transport vehicles, and slaughter plants.
Slaughterhouses process as many as 140 chickens PER MINUTE. The USDA requires testing just one out 22,000 chickens slaughtered for e. coli. It’s a wonder that only half end up contaminated.
Needless to say, you should heat your chicken to a minimum of 165 degrees Farenheit to make sure that the the e. coli has died.
Anyone grilling today?"
only meat products can ever have e coli? did you know that many of the strains found on fruits and vegetables are actually more virulent than that found in meat?
you've got e coli right now, living in your own gut. so does everyone else. all warm blooded mammals do.
those boogeyman big farms and processors you rant about at least have USDA inspectors, when "boutique" farms like one very famous one in a shock-you-mentary I won't name intentionally raises only 20k birds for slaughter a year so they can AVOID having a USDA inspector. oh, and they process their birds out in the open, with cats grabbing bites when they can- I've seen this personally. I woudl much rather have my factory processed birds from a cleaner facility, thanks.
I eat a lot of eggs (and meat and fish and dairy) - I'm chronically anemic and need animal protein derived iron and B12- and I've only gotten salmonella one. guess where it came from? peanut butter! yep, another all veg product!
so enough with the scare tactics already. I'm not about to take eating advice from a group of so called "experts" who barely have any physicians on their "physicians' committee" and who call cheese "dairy crack- the worst form of the milk drug"
if you don't like it, don't eat it but for the lovepete, enough already with the big scary boogeyman 'organic fertilizer' you're trying to sell!
And I take it the other parts of the duck that encased the engorged liver - thighs, breast, frames, fat - won't be banned, right? Effective legislatin' there, CA.