DIGG Article: How Foie Gras is Made

I found the following article through DIGG and encourage others to read it and go to the site to DIGG it so more people may find it. The author, Dr. Michael R. Eades, is the best selling author of Protein Power, and health care expert in nutritional science, low carb diets, and other health issues.

I’ve posted a couple of times on foie gras - on both cooking and eating it. In one of the posts I quoted from an article in the International Herald Tribune that I read on the plane coming back from France. At the time this article wasn’t available for linking, but it is now. The journalist who wrote the piece had wondered about how gavage (the force-feeding of ducks and geese) was performed, so he hied himself to the Hudson Valley Foie Gras in New York (where are own foie gras originated) to see for himself.

To animal welfare groups, the obscenity of force-feeding, known by the French word “gavage,” is self-evident. But Ginor and his partner Izzy Yanay, who runs the farm, accuse their critics of anthropomorphism and ignorance of duck anatomy and behavior. They say the practice is as benign as it is ancient, since waterfowl lack a gag reflex and have sturdy throats that easily tolerate grains, grit, stones and inflexible gavage tubes. To understand gavage, they say, is to accept it - as they insist poultry researchers have, after examining birds for signs of undue suffering during gavage and finding none.

I visited Hudson Valley Foie Gras recently, seeing gavage for the first time. I saw no pain or panic in Yanay’s ducks, no quacking or frenzied flapping in the cool, dimly lighted open pens where a young woman with a gavage funnel did her work. The birds submitted matter-of-factly to a 15-inch tube inserted down the throat for about three seconds, delivering about a cup of corn pellets.

The practice, done three times a day for a month, followed by slaughter, seemed neither particularly gentle nor particularly rough. It was unnerving to see the tube going down, and late-stage ducks waddling bulkily in their pens, but no more so than watching the epic gorging at an all-you-can-eat buffet, where morbid obesity is achieved voluntarily, with knife and fork.

Since the International Herald Tribune is owned by the New York Times, and since the New York Times never misses an opportunity to demonize anything that flies in the face of any of the liberal shibboleths - global warming, minimum wage, welfare reform, animal cruelty, etc. - I figured the report had to have been, if anything, hedged toward the anti-gavage. Considering that, it doesn’t look like all that bad a deal for the ducks, especially since it takes only a few seconds, not the all-day force feeding that many would have us believe they endure. In fact, the case could be made that - just as with humans - this carb overload is actually enjoyable.

MD blogged on the situation from her perspective.

But is making ducks obese humane, even if they enjoy it?

Certainly developing a fatty liver isn’t any better for the ducks in the long run than it is for people, but with one clear difference. For ducks, there isn’t a long run. Unlike ducks, people live long lives, potentially get sicker, may become less productive, and surely end up leading more costly lives in terms of the medical burden to themselves, their insurer, or society as the metabolic consequences of fatty liver, insulin resistance, diabetes, and obesity take their toll. For domestic fowl, raised for food, their end is going to be pretty much the same, regardless of the condition of their livers when the ax falls. If they enjoy a bit of corn-gluttony along the way, don’t seem to object to it, aren’t discomfited overmuch by it, then where’s the harm? For me, it’s a treasure and I can say without hesitation that no duck ever guzzled corn in vain whose liver wound up, seared, on my plate.

Also coming from the New York Times is Michael Pollan who has a great piece on how the politicians are creating a smoke screen by going after the only two (politically unconnected) producers of foie gras in this country instead of dealing with the giant factory farms (very politically connected; read: many campaign contributions), which deal much more misery to animals in their keep.

I’m not about to defend foie gras from the legions of righteous animal defenders. But do we have any reason to believe that feeding ducks and geese corn through tubes put down their throats is any more brutal than snipping off tails and beaks? I have not visited either of America’s foie gras farms, but I note that they have invited journalists to visit and see the operations for themselves. (Just try to wangle your way into an industrial chicken or hog facility.) Some of the journalists who have accepted that invitation report that the birds rush over to the farmers at feeding time. Our own visceral revulsion at the prospect of having tubes stuck down our throats may have to do with the fact we have a gag reflex; ducks and geese do not. I seriously doubt you’d ever see pigs rushing over to the man wielding the pliers.

To ban foie gras is symbolic politics at its worst, a way to create the appearance of doing something about a problem that politicians — and, let’s face it, most of us eaters — would rather not confront. So we close down a couple of foie gras farms. (Though the California law gives the farmers till 2012 to desist, which is odd: if force-feeding ducks is really so heinous, then how in good conscience can we abide the practice for six more years?) We brace ourselves for a major change in our eating habits: no more foie gras after 2012. What a sacrifice! And, after patting ourselves on the back for all we’ve done for the animals, we can now, with clear conscience, turn back to our breakfast, ordering bacon and eggs, sunny side up.

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. And if a picture is worth a thousand, then a video ought to be worth about ten million. One of my readers alerted me to the fact that the iconoclastic chef Anthony Bourdain had a segment on the making of foie gras on his television show. I looked on YouTube, and, sure enough, there it was buried deep within dozens and dozens of film clips showing the alleged cruelty of the procedure.

(For the video, see Foie Gras for the Holidays with Anthony Bourdain.)

After you watch the Bourdain video, take a look at a few of the others. You’ll notice that they make the gavage process last much longer than it actually does - at least this was the case with the half dozen or so I watched. To paraphrase one of the cable news networks: I report, you decide.

Esquire Visits the Farm

John Mariani, of Esquire magazine, made a visit to Hudson Valley Foie Gras recently.

His findings were similar to the findings of everyone else who bothers to take a tour of the farm: "I didn't see any of this suffering those crazies are screaming on and on about...Ducks raised for foie gras production are treated as well as (and probably better than) most animals in the food chain."

Yet another unbiased report of a visit to a foie gras farm. In the article Mariani even mentions how others can go about getting a tour of the farm. Try it. Chances are you'll find the same thing he did: foie gras is produced humanely.

More Details on Supporting Legal Foie in Philly

For more details on tomorrow's anti-protest, see PhilaFoodie: What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander .

Philly Foie Needs Your Help!

Philly fans of foie gras unite! This Saturday December 8th, Philly foie fans are planning a protest. An anti-protest.

This Saturday, Hugs for Puppies and Professionals Against Foie Gras will be holding a "No Foie Gras Gala" to fund raise. The event starts at 6 p.m. at the Ethical Society on Rittenhouse Square. The groups, lobbying for a city ban on the delicacy, will host Jack Kelly, Gene Bauer and other animals rights activists. The menu will include a variety of vegan appetizers.

Hugs For Puppies has made a name for itself loudly protesting outside Philly restaurants selling foie gras. City-Councilman Kelly would like to see foie gras banned. This is a call to fans of foie gras in Philly to give those zealots a taste of their own medicine! Show up on Saturday to help keep foie gras legal in Philadelphia.

Anti-Foie Politics Don't Pay

UPDATE: Unfortunately, Kelly won his re-election bid in Philly. But his narrow victory should send a message: The public does not want to be bullied around their own dinner tables!

On Tuesday, two of foie gras' legislative enemies were up for re-election. Barring any recount changes, both legislators lost.

Michael Panter, a New Jersey Democrat, lost his bid for re-election as Assemblyman for the 12th District. Panter introduced legislation a year ago which would have banned the production, distribution, and sale of foie gras in New Jersey.

This would have hit the area, including New York City, quite hard - in the wallet and in the mouth. New Jersey is home to D'Artagnan, one of the nation's premier sellers of foie gras and other high-end foods. Panter's bill could have put the 120-employee, New Jersey-based D'Artagnan out of business. Such a move would have outraged chefs, food lovers, and consumer choice advocates across the tri-state area and beyond.

Jack Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, lost his bid for re-election as a Philadelphia City Councilor. Kelly planned to introduce a bill to ban the sale of foie gras next year. This sparked a raging controversy including media wars, injunctions, and lots of screaming. At the time of this posting, this election is extremely close and while it appears Kelly has lost his seat, absentee ballots will be added in and official results could take as long as two weeks to be announced. (Cross your fingers.)

For now, they're gone.

Of course, I can't say for sure that the legislators' silly ideas on banning food became their downfalls, but I can speculate. I am proud of the people of New Jersey and Philadelphia for taking a stand against an activist minority and supporting the freedom of choice.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity...and Foie!

Fire at Hudson Valley Foie Gras

Late in the evening of October 30, a tragic fire raged through a barn at Hudson Valley Foie Gras.

The barn housed 11,000 breeder ducks, all of which perished in the fire. Thankfully, no humans were hurt.

Both PETA and Farm Sanctuary have swooped like vultures, releasing statements full of misinformation and propaganda. One criticism is that there were too many ducks confined in too small a space. This is absolutely untrue. I'd like to print Michael Ginor's refutation of this claim (made originally here):

"As a co-owner and co-founder of Hudson Valley Foie Gras I would like to thank Mr. Ruhlman for his well wishes and for placing his sympathy with the ducks, where they belong. We are very saddened by the fact that birds, that we so carefully and attentively care for, perished in this fire. These ducks were in a carefully maintained breeding barn and not a "storage facility" as has been somehow misreported. This was a relatively large barn, approximately 60,000 square feet in size. A "factory farming" type of operation would squeeze 40,000 ducks into such a space. "Humane" growing guidelines suggest 3 square feet per duck, allowing for about 20,000 ducks in such a coop. Hudson Valley utilized the space for 11,000 ducks allowing about twice the suggested space per bird. I am profoundly confused by the allegation of any inhumanity involved with this unfortunate event or the suggestion that these ducks were unkindly treated in any way."

So clearly, the ducks were living better than do animals in any other poultry rearing operation I know of.

My deepest sympathies go out to the farmers. Those who cared for these ducks will feel their loss most deeply.

Thankfully, it appears the business and the quality of the foie gras will not be affected, due to an alternative supplier of eggs.

Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?

I've been taking an informal poll.
I'm asking everyone I know, "Do you support animal rights?"
Everyone wavers a bit at first - unsure of where I'm going.
They want to know, "What do you mean?"
I respond with, "You know, animal rights."
"Well, yes," they all say.

Wrong answer.

Too many of us do not know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. My surveyed friends, all wool-wearing, meat-eating, leather-sporting, zoo-going, pet-owning animal lovers, thought I was talking about animal welfare. The difference between rights and welfare may seem frivolously semantic, but I assure you, it is not. The difference is so important because organizations like Farm Sanctuary (FS), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are counting on a majority of their contributors and supporters to be ignorant of that difference. FS and HSUS do not want you to know what "animals rights" really means.

Those who believe that animals can contribute to human welfare (by providing food, fiber, work, companionship, entertainment, or by serving for biomedical research or education) believe that humans have moral obligations to protect the welfare or provide for the well-being of animals.

Animal rights philosophy is diametrically opposed to the concept of animal welfare. The animal rights philosophy is opposed to any use of animals, holding that animals should have the same "rights" as humans.

Despite the public's rejection of animal rights as determined by evaluating its own use of animals, animal rights philosophy is a dominant factor in popular culture. This disconnect is caused in part because many people, like the friends I surveyed, don't understand the true beliefs and goals of the animal rights movement.

Rights

The animal rights philosophy is radical, abolitionist, emotional, and uninformed.

The philosophy argues that there is no morally relevant difference between humans and other animals. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA, "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Michael Fox, of HSUS has said, "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect." (Okay, I'm feeling sorry for this man's poor kid.)

Proponents of animal rights reject all animal use, all traditional relationships with animals, no matter how humane. They support laws and regulations which prohibit the the use of animals as in the raising of livestock for food and clothing, petting zoos, hunting, life saving medical research, circuses, pet-ownership, rodeos, and even in disability assistance like the use of seeing-eye dogs.

When the interests of humans and animals come in conflict, animal rights advocates put animals first. PETA founder, Newkirk said, "Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." (It bears noting here that advances in human medicine arrived at through animal research usually carry an equivalent benefit to veterinary medicine. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and other animal welfare groups monitor conditions in laboratories and support legislation for humane conditions, but do not call for an end to laboratory research on animals.)

Animal rights supporters believe that violence, misinformation, and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals. Arson, vandalism, and assault are common tactics used by underground animal rights groups to further the cause. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which have been classified as terrorist by the FBI, routinely use criminal activities.

Welfare

Animal welfare philosophy is moderate, revisionist, reasoned, and informed.

Because we recognize that some animals are capable of having interests or suffering, we have evolved culturally to respect those interests. Those who love, respect, use and raise animals believe that humans can and should interact with animals in a variety of ways, but that the interaction should include provisions for the proper care for all animals involved.

Animal welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) describes animal welfare as a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia. Animal welfare also means that animals experience no unnecessary suffering in providing for human needs.

Animal welfare groups use scientific evidence (see my sidebar links on animal welfare aspects of foie gras production) in which to base animal care and handling guidelines.

Animal welfare makes sense for animal raisers. Farm animals are raised in an environment that reduces stress and recognizes the science-based behavioral, physiological, and psychological needs of each species. An animal held in an environment that creates undue stress will not thrive, reducing productivity for the farmer. Farmers know that cared-for livestock animals produce more and better products. The same is true for biomedical work, disability services, and animal entertainment.

A Shared Earth

The animal welfare philosophy recognizes the interdependence of life between animals, humans, and our shared environment. Its belief in stewardship of species and individual animals embraces a human connection to the Earth through interaction with animals.

The animal rights philosophy separates the destiny of humans from the destiny of animals while the movement shows it cares nothing for the Earth. Barbara Biel, animal rights activist, said, "The animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos, and circuses."

The rest of us don't strive to save endangered species, wilderness preserves, or coral reefs because they have rights. Rather, we place value in these rare systems because our own moral laws teach us to protect our environment.

Animal welfare supporters work to enrich and celebrate human/animal interactions in an atmosphere of concern for animal well-being; animal rights proponents work for the day when human life will be impoverished because we can no longer enjoy the company of non-human animals.

For more information, read:

Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare

Animal Rights, Animal Welfare: Which Is It?