Filed under: Agriculture, Animal Law | Tags: Blogs, Chicago, Commenters, Foie Gras, Lack of Nuanced Debate
The city of Chicago overturned a ban it had previously imposed on foie gras. Nick Fox of the NYT’s “Diner’s Journal” blog had a post on it, where he mentions that:
Monica Davey, the Times’s Chicago bureau chief, says the ban has been a source of embarrassment for the city and the repeal comes as residents have accused officials of trying to micromanage people’s lives, with talk of prohibiting smoking even outside along the lakefront and eliminating transfats from restaurants.
Similarly, many of the comments to the blog post make the same argument, and are cheering Chicago’s overturning of the ban as a victory against so-called “Nanny-State” regulation of behaviors that pose health problems, such as the ever-growing bans on smoking in public places, or New York City’s recent ban on trans-fats in restaurants (the “food police” is mentioned more than once). Some typical comment excerpts:
“These responses are so great. Why can’t liberal people like me be ok with not having the government control our choices? I mean we are the ones who want the choice to smoke pot but we can’t choose the type of liver we want to eat?” (posted by “Mookie” at 5:29)
“My only hope is that one day I can have my foie gras and veal in peace while sucking away on a cigarette right next to you “progressive” individuals.” (posted by Roland at 5:15)
“time for similar nitwits in NYC (led by “clueless on what my principles are and thus cannot affiliate myself to a party” Bloomie) to learn and not Micro Manage!” (posted by “deydey” at 4:57)
“I’m glad our City Council is finally realizing that it’s not our nanny.” (posted by Chris at 4:38 )
But this is the wrong debate, and is conflating two separate issues. The foie gras ban was not pushed for and passed for the reasons that people support smoking and trans-fat bans, which are regulated for the effect they have on the health of the general population. Supporters of the ban wish to eliminate what some people believe to be a food production process that by its very nature (necessarily requiring force-feeding ducks until they get diseased livers ten times their natural size) is inhumane.
There are plenty of sound libertarian arguments against government trying to stop us from hurting ourselves through our choices, but it’s an entirely different issue when the harm is being imposed on others by our choices, which is what the animal activists believe is wrong in this case. Whether or not one believes the harm caused on these ducks and geese is acceptable for our high-end culinary pleasures is, it seems to me, the debate that should be had.
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Well, I think you’ve betrayed your bias, anyway. I’ve done a good bit of reading about foie gras, and I don’t have a problem with it. Among the three major (only?) US producers of foie gras, one index in particular was persuasive: in a study released by an animal rights org (I think it was the Humane Society, but I’m too lazy to look it up), the animal rights people were given total access to the farms, and they determined that the ducks with fully engorged livers (ready to be slaughtered) did not exhibit signs of being any less happy than normal ducks.
On the other hand, foie gras is about as unhealthy for you as food gets. Maybe you could justify a ban for that reason.
Comment by Barzelay May 15, 2008 @ 10:30 amThis past semester I took a seminar in Animal Law, so I’ve done quite a bit of research and thinking on a lot of these issues, myself. Obviously I do have a bias, which you could tell from the tone of my post. But my point stands regardless. I was merely saying that a lot of people (e.g., the commenters I highlighted) were, in my opinion, having the wrong debate.
The people who want to ban foie gras production don’t want to do it because of public health concerns (which is the reason given for smoking, trans fats, etc.), but because they believe it’s inhumane. So when all these people are hollering about a nanny-state micromanaging their behavior, it’s the wrong argument if they want to debate the reasons for passing and upholding such bans.
Like I said in the post, in a lot of cases the libertarian argument against smoking bans, etc. seem quite persuasive to me. But if we’re talking about an issue like this, if they want to argue in libertarian terms they need to augment their debate because the underlying factors are different than those for smoking/trans fat ban debates, since there’s another party involved. Are the ducks/geese harmed in the production of foie gras? If so, is this suffering acceptable given the benefit (delicious, but not “essential” food) we get from the harm we do them?
It’s still a debatable issue in large part because there are some people who don’t think the animals are harmed in the first place (while there are plenty of studies that have come to the exact opposite conclusion, however (see, for instance, the EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare’s report on foie gras)), and some people also think that even if they do suffer, it’s ok to treat them that way, anyway.
So there are plenty of debatable issues on the subject, many of which I have yet to make up my mind about, and I think it’s worthwhile to debate these issues, but it was apparent that a lot of people haven’t really even thought about the core issue too much, because they’re making simplistic statements that completely miss the point of what’s actually at stake.
Comment by nsmallwood May 15, 2008 @ 11:12 amOh, sure. I think your point about the wrong argument is pretty valid. On the other hand, if they framed their “wah! wah! nanny state! blah blah blah!” argument in terms of the free market, they’d still have a valid argument, too:
As long as people are informed, if they choose to consume foie gras, then it’s an indication that we as a society do not mind the practice. If we are outraged, then demand will go down, and then so will production.
Still, that argument would be attackable at many points. And yeah, so is mine: many (probably most) studies have indicated that it is bad for the animals, cruel, etc. Do you think it’s much worse for the animals than factory farming practices of pigs, cows, and chickens? Aside from the final period in their lives, those ducks destined for foie gras live really cushy, pampered lives compared to just about any other animals we’re planning to kill and eat.
In any case, I still would take the side that even if it is somewhat cruel to the animals, I’m okay with it. Foie gras is such fucking yummy stuff. It may be my favorite gourmet food.
Comment by Barzelay May 15, 2008 @ 11:51 amYeah, they could have tried to frame it in those free market terms, but they didn’t, really. I still think they haven’t really thought too deeply about the issue. Plus, if someone is going to base an argument on the idea that whatever the market wants the market should be allowed to provide (and “what the market wants” need not represent what an entire society, or even a majority wants, or even thinks is right) then they should be prepared to live with some pretty shitty results.
And yeah, of course factory farming is way worse, but that was never part of my point, and it doesn’t necessarily follow that because X practice(s) is/are worse than Y practice, then Y practice is therefore fine. Slavery is way worse than sweatshops, but that doesn’t mean that sweatshops are therefore ok.
And yeah, foie gras is delicious. It’s one of my very favorite foods, which I choose to no longer eat.
Comment by nsmallwood May 15, 2008 @ 1:58 pm