Unsurprisingly, the Chicago foie gras ban has proved to be quite controversial. Much of today's coverage was overwhelmingly against the ban, as if prohibiting the support of cruelty to animals was somehow getting in the way of more important pursuits. Like we can't help people and animals both...
Really, now. Let's not be silly. Unless you're spending 100% of all your waking hours helping people, living on next-to-nothing and giving yourself entirely up to the human race, I don't want to hear about how helping animals interferes with helping humans, especially in the context of foie gras, which is such a snobby, elitist food to begin with.
Fortunately, not all of the criticism focused on this aspect of the ban. Some looked at slippery "slope aspect" of the ban, resulting in much commenting and coverage at sites like SuperVegan. I thought about linking that same piece, but thought better of it at the time, then this came along from Harry Smith:
First it's foie gras and then veal and then chicken, turkey, beef and pork. Really, much of the protein we eat comes not from placid farms, but factories — giant sheds filled with thousands of animals.While the title of Smith's piece alludes to the same "higher priority" arguments as others, I felt he put the "slippery slope" argument forth more succinctly than the others I've read. Additionally I liked that he joins the chorus of voices that recognize a national debate about the inhumane treatment of animals in factory farms is imminent. Clearly it's already here, to some degree, but the Chicago foie gras ban is helping to bring the discussion into the mainstream.
Is this humane? Believe me that argument is coming. And if you don’t love bean curd you’d better start hoarding your ground beef now.
I, for one, will be out there distributing Why Vegan? pamphlets, publishing AAFL, and other projects that will reach the eyes of people ready to join the conversation.
Tags: foie gras | animal cruelty | vegan | vegetarian | factory farms | slippery slope
