ottawa foodies

I am a food lover, but I find the production of foie gras to be horribly inhumane to state it lightly. What is wrong with us as people when we glorify the mass confinement and force feeding of animals to create a so called "delicacy"? I can only assume that the "fans" of foie gras on this board have never actually been to a foie gras farm. All of the foie gras produced in Canada comes from Quebec and the conditons are sickening. These animals have metal tubes forced down their throat and have a third of their body weight forced into their bodies in about seven seconds. These animals often choke to death, have their esophaguses ruptured, or their stomachs literally explode. Fourteen countries in Europe have banned foie gras as will the state of California in a few years. I think we can all enjoy dining without torturing animals.

careful here... some of your arguments are illogical and inflammatory. Rather than lure people in to listen to what you're saying, it makes people discount you entirely.

#1: "What is wrong with us as people when we glorify the mass confinement and force feeding of animals to create a so called delicacy?"

No one in any of these threads glorified confinement or force feeding. Praising the taste of the end product is not glorifying its production.

#2: "I think we can all enjoy dining without torturing animals."

The act of dining does not torture animals, unless you're eating them alive or they're being killed at your table. The act of producing the ingredients could be interpreted as torturous, but eating the product is not.

If you learn how to construct an intelligent, truthful, and logical argument you will have a much better chance of getting people to pay attention to your message, rather than just writing you off as a loony activist preaching half truths.

Eating the product is paying someone else to do the torture. But the person doing the eating is just as guilty in the matter. I know nothing of this particular food and this is the first I've heard of the matter with regards to it, but the same applies for example to how veal is raised, and most chicken that we all consume. The person doing the consuming is every bit responsible for how it is produced. ESPECIALLY if you buy into market economics which says that if there were no customer then it would not be produced.

For the record I eat lots of things I'm not proud of eating - amongst them mass-produced chicken. But at least I know how it's produced and am willing to admit I'm complicit, and am doing my best to stop doing it.

Thank you for nitpicking at my previous posting ChzPlz. I will take your advice to heart when writing out future arguments. While I may not agree with everything that you wrote I do applaud the fact that you don't dispute the ugly truth about the production methods of foie gras. While a person dining on foie gras may not be actually torturing the animal themselves, they are contributing to it's torture by purchasing the product. So pat yourself on the back. Not only can you type out a witty and arrogant response, but you can also recognize the cruelty involved in the produdtion of foie gras. Kudos.
Undercover footage from foie gras factory farms in Quebec:

www.gan.ca

Sorry, where's the wit? I haven't done enough research on this matter to be well informed enough to have an opinion. All I said was that your argument was poorly developed and inflammatory.

As a former campaign director for multiple environmental organizations, I get quite frustrated when people blow an opportunity to present a truthful and balanced argument.

And I agree with Food&Think - this thread, including my responses, is not a review and does not belong in this section. I'll watch for it in the forums.

What ???? A picture of a tortured dead duck (or goose) on Ottawa Foodies ??

You just wait till Fresh Foodie gets back.

"Being on the internet means the whole world is watching us. We are all diplomats in a way."

.
.
.

.... and Capatin Caper comes out clean on this one .... There are no Foie Gras producers in his Agri-Business Mutual Fund AND He has never tasted Foie Gras .... yet.

(Some day Absinthe, I'll be coming to see ya... some day ... just you wait and see).

...just creating this forum topic for debate and discussion. I have moved all the above posts out of the Comments section and into the Forums.

FF:

Do you mean a picture of a dead duck with it's puke still in it's mouth is OK on Ottawa Foodies but not a picture of a starving child ???

Hmmmmmm...

It's all about context, CC. Surely you understand that.

You were mocking the child. New User 1161 was not mocking the dead duck.

"We live so well because they live so poorly" was not meant to be mocking but to add 'Punch' to my post. Let's see it again : www.ottawafoodies.com

I think New User 1161 was using the dead duck picture to add 'punch' as well.

Bottom line: It's FF's 'sand box' here and whatever FF says .... goes.

Captain C - Who gives a hoot about foie gras or the dead duck (oh oh, all the PETA Quacks are gonna be after me now)

THE BIG NEWS HERE IS

FRESH FOODIE IS BACK !!!

So inquiring minds want to know... are you with us in real life or cyber life?

PS... We missed you :-(

Right On F&T !!

PETA = People Eating Tastey Animals

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Caribou aaaaaaaarrrrhhhh.....

I like tasty animals

CC: I know you're still a little bitter about that and I'd like to clarify my perspective. Your accompanying rhetorical question: "How does Captain Caper sleep at night?" came across as particularly insensitive to the plight of the starving child. After all, you do sleep most nights, don't you? The implication was that you don't give a hoot (a quack?) about those who live so poorly. Fine, you'd be entitled to that view, but out of respect for the child in your photo I removed him from your post.

And sure, this is technically my sandbox, but I feel a moral obligation to ensure that everyone is treated fairly. That's why I'm willing to harp on about this until you understand why I did what I did. :-)

Food&Think: I'm back in Ottawa from Portugal and am slowly catching up with everything. I'll likely share a couple food photos in the coming week or so once I have organized things.

I get it now.... It's all to do with misinterpertation.

That's one of the internets problems... inflection, body language etc. is lost in cyberspace and those things are a big portion of how we humanoids comminicate.

..... Bitterness fading ..... bitterness .... gone !!!

Time to move on.

I know this Ottawa Foodie is looking forward to any Portugal Food Porn from your vacation.

Bacalhau, cozido à portuguesa, frango de churrasco, and carne de porco à alentejana. etc etc. and for the wines ....Vinho Verde, Vinho Alvarinho, Vinho do Douro, Vinho do Alentejo, Vinho do Dão, Vinho da Bairrada .... and I've had many a Dão. mmmmmmmmm.

Oh, I am SO jealous !!

I do eat Foie Gras. And I am aware of the issues raised. I have heard another perspective from some farmers and from someone on this board who used to be involved with a Foie Gras farm. They have a slightly different perspective.

At the end of the day, we all make our personal judgements and we have to live with them.

[ED: subsequent portions of this post have been removed by request of the author]

I'm a fan of yours medicinejar, but that was totally an ad hominem argument...

Pete, in hindsight you are right.... and perhaps its worth taking my post down. Feel free to do so FF. [ED: I have taken down the portions you requested]

But having said that, I do find that "preaching" is not a good thing and I try to avoid it.

Anyway, I will not object if the post is deleted as its always a good to try to avoid the arguments that happen on so many boards.

cheers

First, to be forthright, I am a foie gras lover and consumer.

I feel strongly that we should try our utmost to produce animal products with best efforts to minimize animal suffering. I have been to foie gras farms (in France not Quebec), and like anything, there are plenty of examples in this particular industry which directly contradicts the shock footage provided above. The ducks/geese live their lives normally up until the last two weeks of life. Then they are force fed. They also waddle over to the farmer when it comes time for the force feeding. Perhaps my experiences are outliers, I haven't been to every foie gras farm to ascertain the ultimate truth.

That being said, I will start worrying about the treatment of the Earth's animals when I have no more concerns about the treatment of the Earth's people. In my books we have more pressing concerns. Domesticated animals have been raised for purely one reason.

I have to agree with Tracinho on this one. Whether it's arguing for more ethical treatment of geese, chickens, or the seeds that become the tomatoes I will eat for dinner tonight, I am more concerned about the treatment of Earth's people, and there is only so much room for activism from one person. That does not mean that I will turn a blind eye and be unaware. I am as aware as I can be, given the number of hours in a day. I try, when possible, to eat as ethically as possible, not only for the animals' health, but for mine. However, given the choice between saving suffering animals, and suffering humans facing genocide and poverty, I'll help the people thanks.

Actually some of us have been to foie gras farms and production facilities and so can offer firsthand commentary, not secondhand rhetoric. Before the gavage the ducks are kept in spotlessly clean conditions and treated very well. As to the force feeding it is a natural tendency of ducks(and geese) to force feed themselves in fact their throats are lined with a very tough membrane that helps them to digest their feed. When the tube is being brought along for the gavage the ducks actually move towards it. You may not like it 1161 but these ducks are treated better than the factory chickens used in most supermarkets and fast food outlets. I for one as a chef won't use provimi veal because of the conditions they are raised in, but having been to the foie farm and being able to make an informed decision I will continue to consume foie. If you have more questions there is an excellent article in the citizen a couple of years ago where Ron Eade took a bunch of chefs to a foie gras farm. And last 1161 I hope you are ultra careful about your dining and shopping habits and don't consume any third world sweatshop produced foods or goods, remember people who live in glass houses....

medicinejar, I didn't think your post was all that bad, so I'd prefer to leave it in place for continuity. If you don't want it there I can always pull out the naughty bits and/or mark it as dubious.

Anyway, I think you were just trying to say something like, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stoves." ;-)

Bruce, I read something quite similar in Martin Picard's Aupied de cochon cookbook, basically stating that they are force fed for literally minutes of their entire lives, over a period of 2 weeks. I'm not a big eater of fois gras, but I don't find its production completely outrageous.

What a red herring! "Given the choice between ...". There doesn't have to be a choice. We can all do both. Behaving as though it's a choice between A and B is a complete and total red herring to divert attention.

Though it does seems as though the whole issue is a red herring in and of itself, at least for the farm Bruce was at.

EDIT : www.iep.utm.edu

Zym - Sorry I have to agree with LWB, because I don't see the world so black & white as you do... not everyone has the time and energy to do everything, somethings have to be put aside in favour of others... this alas is known as "making a choice" albeit conscious or not.

I have come to realize over time (and I truly think this is something that comes with age) as I've gotten older that I cannot (nor should I) judge people because of the choices they make. They make choices based on their circumstances, culture, upbringing, whatever. I may not agree with their choices, but it is their's to make... its called FREE WILL. I've also come to relize that I am but one drop in the ocean of the world... although it is highly commendable to think one can save the world (especially from itself) in the end when all is said and done, one can only save oneself. Everyone makes choices that other's may not agree with, and sometimes we have to make decisions that we ourselves wish we didn't (hard decisions are part of life)... but in the end one has to be able to sleep at night... and that I can do.

And for me that means I can't really be too concerned about how a duck is fed, when if all along the duck was destined for a table anyways. (And oh ya for the record, ducks and geese are much like pigs, they will naturally eat & eat until they are gorged). It is just that someone discovered that "fattened" fowl produce a delicacy named foie gras so now the feed is introduced in such a way as to be most effective... I don't hear anyone complaining about the size of their Easter Hams, and those poor obese hogs!

First of all, I'm no longer talking about ducks for fois gras, I'm talking in general. I personally believe Bruce's experience and question whether or not there really is an issue with this particular item. But there are without question millions of seriously mistreated animals in the world, destined for our tables. Mistreated so we can eat them.

"not everyone has the time and energy to do everything" - this is also a red herring (might I suggest taking a good reading of that definition?). Nobody is asking anyone to take time or energy to do anything.

If humans are being mistreated somewhere, and we are informed of it, what do we do about it? Directly, just about the only thing anyone can do is get involved in some form of activism as alluded to above. This is more time and energy than most people are willing to devote. Myself included.

If animals are being mistreated somewhere, and we are informed of it, what do we do about it? Well, if we were previously consuming those products, there is something we can very easily do about it - stop consuming them. Where is the "time and energy" in that? Saying that there is time and energy involved in doing it is as stated, nothing but a red herring. Because there is none of either involved.

So seeing to it that animals are not mistreated is actually far, far easier than seeing to it that humans are not. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

And I do try my best not to judge people because of their choices. But do not confuse that with judging the choices themselves. 2 different things.

"when if all along the duck was destined for a table anyways" is yet another red herring. This statement would give us complete license to do whatever we want to animals just because we're going to eat them anyway. Sorry, but I don't even think you really believe that.

Zym - i think by referring to "choices" we are (or at least I was) trying to delicately say that animal comfort is low on our list of concerns facing the modern world. Again, I have to reiterate that I do feel that we should steadfastly avoid things that are blatantly exploitive, like live skinning, cosmetic testing, abhorrent farm conditions, growth hormone therapy, the list of horrors can go on and on. But I personally can't help but believe that domestic animals are raised for eating, and have been since prehistoric times. Should we be devoting a smaller proportion of diet to them? I believe so...but I digress and am going off topic..haha

Tracinho, sounds like you and I agree a lot more than you think. I can't disagree with anything you've said. I'll just reiterate that just because domestic animals are raised for eating, does not mean we can treat them any way we like.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... Foie Gras !!

Someday ...maybe I'll have enough sheckel's together to try this 'controversial' food.

Now I'm off to have some (seal) flipper pie for supper.

Click Here ---> en.wikipedia.org <--- Click There

Oh and one final thing.

"Free Will" is yet another red herring. Sorry, but one is not allowed to trumpet this as justification for anything and everything that one wishes to do. Surely that is evident in and of itself. But just in case it is not, there are countless examples of things which used to be justified by some misguided notion of what "free will" means, but no longer are. Smoking in many places being one example. Riding in a car without a seatbelt being another. Society outright rejects that as a blanket argument.

Just as there are many example of things today where we look back 30 years and say "what the heck were we thinking in allowing that?", I believe in 100 years our ancestors will look back at us in the same manner, at many of the things we tell ourselves today are simple matters of "free will"

You mean I have to wear a seatbelt, while in a car, now ?

.... and I can't chew khat, in Canada, now ? see ---> www.ottawafoodies.com <---

What's the next freedom they are going to take away from me ?

Yeeesh .... What's this world coming too ?? ( I better not answer that.)

Zym - Ah yes, but that which was perfectly legal in one time (or acceptable) but isn't in this time, doesn't mean that those who chose to do / partake were wrong... it just means they made a choice (free will) to do so based on the INFORMATION / KNOWLEDGE that they had at the time. For us to now to look back from our spot in time now and criticize them is arrogant, and so it is to criticize anyone today to make decisions we ourselves may not agree with... as long as cigarettes are not a "banned substance" and it is legal to smoke there will be some who chose to exercise their free will to do so. Same goes with something like foie gras, today it is fair game, if someone chooses to consume it is their choice... they get to weigh the ethical issues for themselves (free will).

I think what Food&Think was trying to get at isthat she won't judge others' choices on account of free will. Not that free will is cause for these things, because we all have our own skeltons to answer to.

As for me, I didn't ran for my statement to be so black and white either, but rather there are only 24 hours in a day with which to save the world. I don't think animals should be made to suffer and I don't think that domestication gives humans carte blanche to torture them... But I also think that there are countless social atrocities that need to be stopped, and I have been making that my active priority.

Frankly, it does take time and effort in order to become informed and change peoples' habits, including one's own, and that's where the matter of choices comes in.

NOTE: This was written on my iPhone, hence the poor punctuation and typos.

F&T, I know it doesn't mean they were wrong at the time and that they were just making the best decisions they could with the information on hand. In fact, it's important that you are the one who said this. Which we'll get to in a moment.

I think I see what you are saying : if something is legal, that's all we have to worry about. "Legal == Fair Game". There are of course entire full year philosophy courses based on those words, but for the moment I'll ignore that completely. Because I want to get back to your own words.

I'll continue on with what I think is your argument - everyone makes their own ethical choices "based on the INFORMATION / KNOWLEDGE that they [have] at the time", and this is all that matters. Fair enough. Let's assume you are right. I'm not necessarily saying you are, I'm just saying let's assume this to be the case for the sake of what I have further to say on the matter. For the sake of my argument, I will assume you are right. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I believe that most people today are not the least bit aware of the potential moral/ethical issues around the food they eat. Which is why under the right circumstances, I like to bring these issues to their attention. And honestly, I cannot think of a better place than a website dedicated to food.

So now further to my point and your words "based on the INFORMATION / KNOWLEDGE that they [have] at the time". What happens when that person who was previously ignorant to the truth of the situation, becomes aware of that truth? What happens when the person who had no idea how incredibly inhumanely their food was treated, gets presented with undeniable evidence that it's been so treated?

Now again, I'm no longer talking about fois gras. I'm talking in general terms here. I believe that each and every one of us can think of a concrete example where an animal is inhumanely treated so that people can eat it. So I believe that it is without question that these situations do exist. I think that this is something that any fair and objective person would have to agree to, even if we would not necessarily all agree to the same circumstances as being inhumane.

So now we've established that without question there are circumstances where animals are treated inhumanely so that people can eat them. And in your own words, it is OK for them to do so (and I'll paraphrase you) "as long as they don't know about the inhumane treatment".

So when the inhumane treatment is brought to that person's attention, and they continue to consume the food, how would you characterize that situation? Are they still right in doing so?

Sorry to interrupt this thread, but I remember reading about "ethical" foie where farmers have adopted rubber feeding tubes for the gavage instead of steel ones in an effort to avoid rupturing/damaging the throat/esophagus (confirmed on Wiki, google it yourself). I guess this practice is eliminating one of the points of contention of foie production? (though I'm still not sure that this would satisfy a PETA'ite) Just an FYI.

"Free Will" is yet another red herring.

And I should add that "Free Willy" is a somewhat largish, black and white herring...

Zym - Ok, I see your point. But, I don't have to agree (See: FREE WILL). What you might call inhumane another might not. What PETA for example has decided is inhumane another culture (and in particular the one doing the act doesn't see it that way). So many examples come to mind here... foie gras, the seal hunt, eating dog, how animals are slaughtered, etc. Why then if the act is legal in that culture, does an outside group such as PETA get to dictate that what is being done is wrong? This is the part I have a problem with. I don't like people who get on their soapboxes and dictate what others can do in regards to food (or many other issues), when what the others are doing is perfectly accepted in their cultures.

That doesn't mean that one's mind can't be changed thru education (or time).

But "when the inhumane treatment is brought to that person's attention, and they continue to consume the food, how would you characterize the situation? Are they still right in doing so?".

That is up to the individual... as I said if it is acceptable in their culture or legal, then they get to make their own choices.... FREE WILL. We don't live in a communist state, everyone in Canada can make these types of ethical choices for themselves, like I said earlier, it is all about what you and your conscience are able to sleep with at the end of the day.

When it comes to a food item (for the sake of argument say foie gras) if I choose to eat it well and good, if I don't that is fine too. If someone else does that is their choice. And just because I don't agree doesn't mean I get to jump on a soapbox and tell them they are wrong. That is just plain rude.

BTW, IMO we can stop whipping this dead horse now... You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I live my life one way, you live yours another, and I respect that. As I said earlier at this point in my life I don't have the time or energy to be an activist on these types of issues, I instead have "chosen" to focus on issues in my life that I believe are more important to my reality.

"Zym - Ok, I see your point."

Based on the whole rest of what you wrote, I'm afraid you don't in the least. In fact, I do believe it flew right over your head. But that's OK, I'll stop now.

Zym - No problem, as obviously you missed mine in paragraph 5.

i don't want to paraphrase or misrepresent F&T, but perhaps a refinement of her position and a minor counter to your position (Zym) is that ethical systems are historically and culturally bound, and as such, definitions of [in]humane treatment are themselves contextual and evolving. Put slightly differently, questions of humane treatment may not even be part of the decision making process (in certain historical contexts). Presenting what you think of as "undeniable" evidence can (quite rationally) be met w/ indifference in other (cultural / historical) contexts.

I did qualify this as a "minor" counter. I'm grudgingly walking into this thread with my own convictions as a vegetarian, so in day-to-day practice, i probably tread closer to your own (Zym's) perspective. But, i do think there's some validity teasing out what (in theory) could be valid threads in the cultural-relativism camps, as well.

And, most of all, i'm wiping away tears recalling that spot in the movie when that big ole herring jumped to his freedom. The greatest movie of all time!

Inhumanely = In Humane = Not Human ... So to be humane, one would treat animals as we would treat humans ....meaning 'The Golden Rule' (treat others as you would want them to treat you) should hold true.

So do humans treat animals like humans ? ... I think not.

And to look at the reverse situation ... Do humans treat humans like animals ? yes ... e.g. A Tazer(copyright) is a cattle prod for humans.

Hope this makes some sense ... it's 1:40am