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.
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:
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:
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.