- Journal Gazette and Times-Courier: Mayor Daley signs onto repeal of foie gras ban (E. Illinois)
- The Charlotte Observer | Carolina Living: Foie gras flap offers us food for thought
- Morning Sentinel via MaineToday.com | Letters: Foie gras argument doesn't include all facts (please register to comment)
- Men's Vogue: Stuffed Animals
While not everyone's ready for the discussion yet, it's good that many people are thinking more about where their food comes from and what's acceptable. For instance, though in his article for Men's Vogue Jeffrey Steingarten ultimately comes down on the side of continuing to eat it, he also says that the type of production he feels is defensible amounts to less than 20 percent of French foie gras (where it is a historic specialty), and an "indeterminate amount of foie gras in America." One gets the impression that it's not a remarkable number. Overall, he comes down rather hard on industrialized food production, on grounds of both cruelty and quality, remarking that the meat spead on pizza and burger buns is not worthy of all that cruelty, and that the finer foods require a higher standard of care. Being a high-falutin' foodie and all, it's worth it to him, and fair enough that these types of animal products cost so much more money.
He's one of those who, in categorizing three types of eaters, thinks extreme those who shun all animal products on the basis that their exploitation is immoral, while simultaneously holding a completely fallacious view of how "milking a cow or taking honey from a hive" is such a modest activity. That said, he is surprised by those that feel any amount of animal suffering is fine, because we're at the top of the food chain (as if it hasn't been entirely subverted for years now). Steingarten comes down somewhere in the middle, toward the welfare end of the spectrum, and is suspicious of "welfare groups" trying to outlaw foie gras, because he knows their ultimate goal is abolition of all animal exploitation. Much like Omnivore's Dilemma author, Michael Pollan, Steingarten believes
When we buy the flesh of a mammal, bird, or fish in a restaurant or food shop, we are an agent in the slaughter of another living thing. We are taking life. This is a serious act, not a casual one. But our purpose is not survival or even sustenance; most of us can live comfortably without eating meat. No, our goal is pleasure, pure sensory pleasure. We chew on the succulent muscle of a steer, crunch through the crackling skin of a pig or turkey, suck out the marrow from the shin of a calf. If we are willing to kill for our pleasure, shouldn't we also be willing to force-feed ducks for our pleasure? It all depends on how much pain and distress we cause.
Although they neglected to nominate me for sainthood in the last go-around, I do try to follow a few modest practices. I don't eat animals that were raised or slaughtered chemically or inhumanely, preferring animals that grew up in pastures and fields, were cared for individually and by hand, and were not given growth hormones or unnecessary antibiotics. I don't eat veal from anemic calves confined in the darkness of a crate that keeps their meat desirably pale. I haven't eaten supermarket pork for the past ten years, except at important Southern BBQ events. Or eggs laid by battery hens. Or chickens on growth hormones raised by the thousands on the floors of barns covered with several weeks of their own waste—except when they have been fried by an incontestable master. I don't eat meat that doesn't matter—crumbled onto a pizza or scattered over a slimy salad or cooked to cardboard grayness and wedged between two buns. Meat and fowl of the highest quality are extremely expensive, and so I can't afford a great quantity of them. This cuts down on the volume of slaughter for which I'm responsible, as does my attempt not to waste animal flesh. That is how I've made my peace with slaughter.
Despite what you or I might think, even this level of respect toward animals is rare, though a growing phenomenon. The idea that everyone would move their diets in this direction is currently about as plausible as everyone going vegetarian, much less vegan, so it's better than where we're at. The problem is that this view still supports the notion that, as long as we avoid egregious, institutionalized cruelty, we can still do what we want with animals, which is a very oppressive point of view.
All the same, I welcome the outspoken voices of omnivorous eaters like Steingarten, Pollan and others. They join the chorus of voices raising awareness of our food and where it comes from, and imploring eaters to avoid industrialized foods, which is a huge step in many ways, despite the fact that animals are still reared and slaughtered in the process. While not everyone is going to go veg after hearing all these cries, no one will be able to claim ignorance at this rate, and everyone will have to make an informed decision about what they choose to eat.
If the foie gras ban is repealed, the greatest thing to have come out of this is a national awareness of the cruelty inherent in the modern diet, and an alteration in people's food choices. The greatest irony would be if foie gras consumption goes down anyway, along with other animal foods, as people demand less inhumane animal products, eat fewer of them, and maybe even decide to vote with their dollars and withdraw all support for industries that traffic in the lives of sentient, feeling creatures.Labels: animal law, foie gras
