RSS format
Updates via email
Foie Gras: Too High a Price?
Foie gras (French for “fat liver”), the enlarged liver of a duck or goose, is a food currently inciting much controversy. It is produced through the force-feeding of large quantities of grain to the bird, a process usually referred to by the French term gavage. Historically, foie gras was produced from geese; most today comes from ducks. Although foie gras is prized by many gourmets, it has been singled out, like fur and veal, by animal rights activists and some consumers as a product of unnecessary and offensive cruelty.
The small handful of foie gras producers in the United States have voiced the objection that undue attention is focused on their industry. Whereas some 1,200 ducks are slaughtered daily, with an annual production of 400 tons of foie gras, the country’s poultry producers are responsible for many more animal deaths: millions of chickens are slaughtered every day. The treatment of ducks and geese used for foie gras, producers say, hardly compares in cruelty to the treatment of chickens on “factory farms,” the deplorable nature of which has been well documented. The objection to foie gras centres on gavage, which is necessary to the production of a fatty liver.
A foie gras duck (or goose) is bred specially, and, beginning when the bird is 8 to 12 weeks old, it is force-fed several pounds of cornmeal two or three times per day through a long metal tube inserted in its throat. The ducks are confined to cages so small that they cannot spread their wings or turn around. The gavage continues for several weeks, at which point the liver has increased to many times its natural size, and the bird is slaughtered. Producers maintain that because ducks and geese do not have a gag reflex and are used to swallowing their food whole, gavage does not cause trauma. In response, animal rights activist cite reports showing that the forcible overfeeding results in severe distress to the animals, injuries such as esophageal wounds, and death from ruptured livers. Further, critics point out, the engorgement of the birds’ livers—the intended result of gavage—is a pathological response to the overfeeding. Once the animal’s liver has been enlarged to the intended extent, its health has been severely compromised, and it would not be able to survive long beyond the date of its scheduled slaughter in any case.
More than a dozen countries, mostly in Europe, have banned the production of foie gras. In the United States in 2006, the Chicago City Council outlawed its sale in restaurants and retail stores, and the state of California passed a law, to take effect in 2012, that will ban the production and sale of foie gras from force-fed birds. Other US cities, including New York, Philadelphia, and San Diego, were considering similar bans (San Diego’s would take effect before the statewide ban in 2012), as were the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
In Chicago reaction to the ban was mixed, and even some supporters wondered whether it would be enforceable. Critics, including restaurant industry representatives and some city council members, complained that the city had become a “laughingstock,” and Mayor Daley himself, over whose veto the measure was passed, dismissed it as the “silliest” ordinance the city had ever adopted. Some restaurants ignored the ban or tried to skirt it by serving foie gras for free with the purchase of other menu items (the ban applied specifically to the sale, not the serving, of foie gras). The first citation for violation of the ban was issued in February 2007, to a restaurant openly selling (and advertising) foie-gras-laced hot dogs.
Opponents of laws against foie gras have argued that they constitute unjustified interference by government in the personal decisions of individuals. It is no business of government, they say, to tell people what they should or should not eat. Supporters counter that, when the personal decisions of individuals result in continuous and extreme suffering for thousands of harmless creatures—and particularly when the benefit their pain produces (a good tasting but unhealthy food that most people cannot afford) is paltry in comparison—it is right for government to get involved. In Chicago, Alderman Joe Moore, who proposed the city’s ban on foie gras, said, “Our laws are a reflection of our society’s values, and our culture does not condone the torture of small innocent animals.”
—L. Murray
Image: A worker force-feeds a Moulard duck at a California foie gras farm; Eric Risberg/AP
To Learn More:
- New York magazine article, “Does a Duck Have a Soul?: How Foie Gras Became the New Fur”
- PETA factsheet, “The Pain Behind Foie Gras”
- Anti-foie-gras site from Farm Sanctuary
How Can I Help?
Books We Like
Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy
Matthew Scully (2002)
Whether or not one believes that humans exist in a hierarchy above animals, we do wield power over the rest of the animal kingdom. Matthew Scully examines this relationship and what the power of “dominion” means.
Readers who do not believe that animals should or do have legal or moral rights will regardless find much that resonates in Dominion. A Christian conservative, Scully treats the human relationship to animals as a responsibility to protect and respect God’s creation. His book is equally rooted in a deep empathy for animals. Scully considers what wise, merciful stewardship is. Dominion reports on practices such as hunting safaris, whaling, and factory farming. On the perceived triviality of concerning oneself with foie gras ducks, he says, “If moral seriousness is the standard, I for one would rather be standing between a duck and a knife than going to the mat in angry defense of a table treat.” Vivid examples and commonsense thinking are two of Dominion’s strengths.
Scully also, however, assumes the primacy of humans’ status over that of animals throughout. With his commitment to the legitimacy of humankind’s “dominion,” this can make his interest in animal welfare seem paternalistic. Even given that quibble, Dominion adds a valuable dimension to the animal rights literature.
—L. Murray
December 11th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Kudos to you for depicting, honestly, the sad and cruel truth about the production of foie gras. This inhumane practice solely exists to adorn the plates of a wealthy few. It is shameful that such a barbaric practice still exists in today’s world.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Thanks for putting this up. What people need to realize is that the food might be good, but is it worth the life of a living creature? How would you feel being force fed tons of grain just to know that pretty soon, you will be savagely slaughtered and your liver would be fed to a bunch of sick minded people, who ENJOY eating you innerds. This is beyond comprehension. I can hardly believe that this barbaric and brainless act is still being done in the world. I agree with Marjorie Ramos on this topic. It is a shameless act that should be stopped. People do not understand it because they have never seen pictures of it. I bet if the world saw this picture, they would raise riots about it. However, the world is too obsessed in the current affairs of brainless morons like Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. If only mankind could step up and realize what is right and wrong. Im afraid that might NEVER happen as hard as intellegent people may try. Thanks.
-Chloe Weeks
March 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I really appreciated this article, since most of the articles I’ve read against foie gras turn into emotional rants. I never really considered foie gras until Chicago banned it, I don’t think many people did. So after some researching, including your article, it does seem that this issue is about going after the 3 foie gras producers because it is a lot easier that going after the entire poultry industry in this country. Like one woman said in the NY Times articles “baby steps”. You have help me make my decision about the subject.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
[…] Rebuttal: well, veal and foie gras production are pretty inhumane. It’s good the HSUS is targeting those. […]
February 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Within my experience life is here to enjoy, now some may say that to enjoy that life at the expense of others is enjoying it at too high a cost. Since it would seem that alot of what has already been said here is in favor of these ill-fated ducks I will agree to disagree. Personally, Foie Gras is one of, if not my very favorite food. The suffering these ducks go through is of little or no concern to me so long as they make it onto my plate at my local French restaurant and taste good. This they do and I thank all of those who make them for me. I do not beleive in any god in a traditional sense, I beleive the same energy flows through all things and all will balance itself out in the end as all becomes one. As long as ducks don’t become extinct (which they are far from doing) I don’t really care how much they suffer. Doing this is far from a Barbaric act, and it is impossible that such a thing would happen to humanity. If aliens came I doubt they would see a need to do such a thing to us (as aliens are surely the only thing with enough power to enslave us so.) And just to get to our galaxy they would have to travel far enough that their bodies would have evolved beyond human form. As nature stands for us as of yet, we are at the top of the food chain and therefore may eat what we wish however we want. Animals rarely if ever feel sympathy to an animal of the opposite species, and the last time I checked humans were animals. So if you’ve somehow evolved past the rest of humanity please tell me how you did it…but until then, let me eat my foie gras.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
“Yummy Ducks,” you are a sick-minded fool! Why shouldn’t you care if animals suffer?! And you ought to know, that when a predaceous animal kills another for food, it is a simple bite to the neck, not a lifetime of agony! And let me guess - the only reason you don’t want ducks to go extinct is so you won’t run out of foie gras, right? And the so-called ‘rest of humanity’ is a bit more sympathetic, unlike weirdos like you.