The cruelty of Foie Gras....

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:18 am

I've never eaten this stuff and knew that it wasn't available through any 'natural methods', but last night on the news they did a 'piece' about it and the way the Geese were force fed was so shocking that i can't get it out of my head. I'm not one for campaigning, but this practise should be outlawed....it's blatant cruelty of the worst kind..

WARNING - This link contains some awful pictures. Don't look if you're squeamish

http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:24 am

Yeah, its orrible how they treat em, but it does taste beautiful and I like it a lot. Maybe if they could refine the methods somehow to lessen the impact on the birds, I am not sure how that could be done, but if it can be done, it certainly should. Thats my tuppence.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:56 am

Thanks Bez for posting this. I've never eaten fois gras but knowing what suffering the birds endure, I would never do it. More and more people are becoming aware of how fois gras is made and are turning against it, so spread the word! :-6

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:01 am

RedGlitter;543002 wrote: Thanks Bez for posting this. I've never eaten fois gras but knowing what suffering the birds endure, I would never do it. More and more people are becoming aware of how fois gras is made and are turning against it, so spread the word! :-6

I was truly shocked Red....

gadget · Post by **gadget** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:19 am

Bez;542932 wrote: I've never eaten this stuff and knew that it wasn't available through any 'natural methods', but last night on the news they did a 'piece' about it and the way the Geese were force fed was so shocking that i can't get it out of my head. I'm not one for campaigning, but this practise should be outlawed....it's blatant cruelty of the worst kind..

WARNING - This link contains some awful pictures. Don't look if you're squeamish

http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/

:mad:

I have never eaten this so called 'delicacy' and, after watchind the short video in the above link I never will.

It never ceases to amaze me at human kinds ability to cause pain and suffering.

Ban this 'product' immediately!!!

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:22 am

That has made me feel sick, I don't know how these people can sleep at night

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:40 am

I managed about five minutes of it and had to stop listening. Roger Moore always has that effect on me.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:25 am

There's a very simple way to avoid this. Outlaw all force feeding.

Let the ducks be "free range" just like some chickens are.

Foie gras will rise dramatically in price because the livers will be

so much smaller. But those who want to eat it and can still

afford it will still be able to have it.

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:48 am

That is an abomination! I'm so glad that it is banned in the UK, however by selling the produce, the UK is supporting it in a way. The produce itself should also be banned.

Honestly, I'm so upset now I shall have to watch Judge Judy to cheer myself up!

fisher · Post by **fisher** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:57 am

I have never heard of Foie Gras let alone eaten it. After seeing this post I am sure I never will.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:06 am

What Val said! "There's a very simple way to avoid this. Outlaw all force feeding.

Let the ducks be "free range" just like some chickens are.

Foie gras will rise dramatically in price because the livers will be

so much smaller. But those who want to eat it and can still

afford it will still be able to have it."

If everyone knew what's done to raise/slaughter the animals that're eaten in the world, there'd be a LOT more vegetarians! Sometimes I wish everyone had to raise/kill their own food.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:42 am

If I might pose a question... these geese presumably aren't caught wild, they're bred for the industry. If the industry were banned the geese would never be hatched. Is there not a "right to life" argument in favour of these geese which overrides all issues of cruelty?

On a point of information, Foie Gras isn't a matter of "goose liver", an unforced liver tastes quite different. Without forcing there is no way of manufacturing the product at all.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:07 pm

Great God in heaven and you wonder why I no longer find enjoyment

posting around here.

Mr. Ever-the-Contrarian does it nearly every time.

Did I SAY the liver tastes the same? No, I did not. But I have eaten

unforced "foie gras" albeit many years ago.

I'm not going to look at the video again but I believe it said the

geese were slaughtered at around 4 months of age. There IS a

way of "manufacturing" the product, I've seen it and eaten it.

Yes the livers are smaller. Yes the geese are much older. Yes the

livers aren't as fatty. But geese in my experience when presented

with a large amount of quality feed will overeat to a certain

extent. The added expense comes in providing the geese with land

and giving them much longer to mature a "fatty" liver.

Just as a point of information, of course.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:11 pm

valerie;543346 wrote: Did I SAY the liver tastes the same? No, I did not. But I have eaten unforced "foie gras" albeit many years ago.Well, no, you might have eaten goose liver pate perhaps.

"Foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine and its flavour is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver".

It's a simple matter of what the words mean, Val.

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:12 pm

That really is horrible, but you know, they raise cows and chickens and fatten them up just to kill them too, right?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:15 pm

Yes, Sweet, they do, and often in horribly over-crowded conditions. Veal calves, for example, are often kept in squeeze-cages, so their muscles don't develop and create tough flesh.

Here in California, there's a series of humorous and very charming commercials involving dairy cattle standing in huge green fields. The reality is that dairy cattle are generally held in bare pens.

As I said, I've often wished people really KNEW how their food is obtained.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:19 pm

Lulu2;543351 wrote: Yes, Sweet, they do, and often in horribly over-crowded conditions. Veal calves, for example, are often kept in squeeze-cages, so their muscles don't develop and create tough flesh.

Here in California, there's a series of humorous and very charming commercials involving dairy cattle standing in huge green fields. The reality is that dairy cattle are generally held in bare pens.

As I said, I've often wished people really KNEW how their food is obtained.

I'd lose weight very quickly! I don't eat a lot of meat and my daughter always relates meat to the animal, she's been like that since she was about 6.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:23 pm

Your daughter has a big heart! All animals eat, of course, and even our nearest relatives occasionally eat a small amount of meat.

The problem is in the cruel, mindlessly uncaring way we raise/slaughter animals. I'm happy to see the attention that's being paid to this issue and delighted to see children being raised to care.

Vegetarians have far fewer health problems than those who are into heavily carnivorous diets.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:23 pm

The video really is somewhat one-sided in its selection of the foie gras goose lifecycle.The geese or ducks used in foie gras production are generally free range for the first 12 weeks, feeding on grasses that toughen the oesophagus. While still free roaming they are gradually introduced to a high starch diet that by itself leads to about half of the enlarged liver's size. The next feeding phase, which the French call gavage or finition d'engraissement, or "completion of fattening", involves forced daily ingestion of controlled amounts of feed for 12 to 15 days with ducks and for 15 to 18 days with geese. During this phase ducks are usually fed twice daily while geese are fed up to 4 times daily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras

The "factory" phase shown in the video is the final two to three week period prior to slaughter. I don't think that's made particularly clear (for which read "mentioned at all").

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:25 pm

Some would give up eating many things if they saw the preparation that goes into killing the birds & animals that we routinely eat.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:25 pm

Suzy, when/why did you begin a diet of little meat? I'll bet most of us were raised on a "meat heavy" meal plan.

Lon...absolutely right!

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:28 pm

spot;543360 wrote: The video really is somewhat one-sided in its selection of the foie gras goose lifecycle.The geese or ducks used in foie gras production are generally free range for the first 12 weeks, feeding on grasses that toughen the oesophagus. While still free roaming they are gradually introduced to a high starch diet that by itself leads to about half of the enlarged liver's size. The next feeding phase, which the French call gavage or finition d'engraissement, or "completion of fattening", involves forced daily ingestion of controlled amounts of feed for 12 to 15 days with ducks and for 15 to 18 days with geese. During this phase ducks are usually fed twice daily while geese are fed up to 4 times daily.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras

The "factory" phase shown in the video is the final two to three week period prior to slaughter. I don't think that's made particularly clear (for which read "mentioned at all").

It's still really horrible, even 1 day is a day too much IMO.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:31 pm

Lulu2;543365 wrote: Suzy, when/why did you begin a diet of little meat? I'll bet most of us were raised on a "meat heavy" meal plan.

Lon...absolutely right!

When I was younger my brother used to make the animal noises of whatever meat my mum had cooked, it put me off big time. I eat a little chicken but stick to quorn mince and veggie sausages, I still cook meat for Jim and Sam, but I can't handle it and Jim has to cut it if it needs cooking.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:33 pm

There is enough to eat on this planet. It's not like humans would suffer if we didn't eat goose livers :rolleyes:

It is a product of a sick and decadent society.

btw, the right to life argument is really weak, spot.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:34 pm

SuzyB;543369 wrote: It's still really horrible, even 1 day is a day too much IMO.

Then, as I said, the ducks and geese involved would never live at all. Just like the pigs and sheep in the English countryside wouldn't if we stopped eating them and paying for the meat they produce.

Pigs used to be force-fed to produce a similar product, by the way. That seems to have fallen by the wayside in recent years.

Force-feeding ducks and geese seems to go back at least four thousand years, historically.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:35 pm

koan;543375 wrote: There is enough to eat on this planet. It's not like humans would suffer if we didn't eat goose livers :rolleyes:

It is a product of a sick and decadent society.

btw, the right to life argument is really weak, spot.

Couldn't agree more Koan

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:36 pm

SUZY "When I was younger my brother used to make the animal noises of whatever meat my mum had cooked, it put me off big time."

:D So...you've your brother to thank? Was he wanting your share, too? I can't remember when I realized that I'd been cooking meat for other people, but if I were able to cook just for myself, I'd favor cheese or eggs.

Do you know that quorn is only recently available here in the States? We have many, MANY options of soy "meats," etc...but quorn's fairly new to us. We also have many specialty markets which cater to semi-vegetarians, vegetarians or vegans.

People are thinking more about health and animal rights than ever before. There's also the realization that we 'waste' millions of acres of land to raise feed to support the beef industry. We COULD be using that land for other purposes, or even (gasp) allow it to remain as uncut forest.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:37 pm

spot;543377 wrote: Then, as I said, the ducks and geese involved would never live at all. Just like the pigs and sheep in the English countryside wouldn't if we stopped eating them and paying for the meat they produce.

Pigs used to be force-fed to produce a similar product, by the way. That seems to have fallen by the wayside in recent years.

Force-feeding ducks and geese seems to go back at least four thousand years, historically.

Is that living Spot? Being force fed then killed, they are really missing out on the pleasures of life

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:39 pm

spot;543377 wrote: Then, as I said, the ducks and geese involved would never live at all. Just like the pigs and sheep in the English countryside wouldn't if we stopped eating them and paying for the meat they produce.

Pigs used to be force-fed to produce a similar product, by the way. That seems to have fallen by the wayside in recent years.

Force-feeding ducks and geese seems to go back at least four thousand years, historically.

So, to you, a practice becomes legitimate because it has history? That seems a little too bookwormish. I hope you don't make all your moral decisions the same way.

Usually giving life to something means you are responsible for its well being. If you are saying giving life to a creature means you have the right to torture and kill it then we have a larger scale argument at hand.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:48 pm

I have edited this post simply because I feel it contained material that was inappropiate for

the very serious nature of this thread.

I know Spot partially quoted the original content, but I can't do anything about that.

My sincere apologies to Bez.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:56 pm

valerie;543390 wrote: You know frick all about what I've eaten, SPOT. It's a simple matter

of you having to have the last word in all your finest semantic

pompous verbosity.

You mentioned eating unforced "foie gras" earlier, which you'll find is a contradiction - no such product exists in Europe. Might it be a consequence of America's lax laws concerning the labelling of food products? European legislation differs from that in the US, as for example in the enforced mention of Genetically Modified ingredients.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:05 pm

koan;543383 wrote: So, to you, a practice becomes legitimate because it has history? That seems a little too bookwormish. I hope you don't make all your moral decisions the same way.

Usually giving life to something means you are responsible for its well being. If you are saying giving life to a creature means you have the right to torture and kill it then we have a larger scale argument at hand.

I mentioned the extent of the history because you were talking of the practice as "a product of a sick and decadent society". By all means say that humankind has been sick and decadent for that long, but if you do then that's humanity for you, not just a single society.

The killing of farmed animals has been criticized as torture by many PETA-enthusiasts. All farmed mammals are stunned and then bled to death while hanging, alive but (usually) unconscious, by their heels with their throats slit. I'd suggest that force-feeding is another step away from cruelty-free farming, but only a step and not a difference in kind. Is there no "right", as you put it, to kill farmed animals?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:07 pm

BEZ~

See how great this is? There are a bunch of people just on this board who weren't aware of fois gras or weren't aware of the suffering behind making it and now they know. All because of your post and link. Imagine how many you could reach by email, posters, etc! I'm really glad to see another animal issue on the board. Thanks Bez! :-6

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:09 pm

Spot, maybe your question wasn't for me, but I don't think anyone has a "right" to kill any animal for food. Perhaps if they are starving to death they may have a loophole but that is all. And certainly not a "right" because the animals are mass produced.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:15 pm

RedGlitter;543403 wrote: Spot, maybe your question wasn't for me, but I don't think anyone has a "right" to kill any animal for food. Perhaps if they are starving to death they may have a loophole but that is all. And certainly not a "right" because the animals are mass produced.
Then why do you have a right to kill broccoli for food or bleed a tree of its sap for syrup? Just because we cant hear lettuce scream when we shred it doent mean it doesnt make any noise.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:22 pm

RedGlitter;543403 wrote: Spot, maybe your question wasn't for me, but I don't think anyone has a "right" to kill any animal for food. Perhaps if they are starving to death they may have a loophole but that is all. And certainly not a "right" because the animals are mass produced.

I have an immense and genuine respect for those principled people who argue passionately against the commercial farming of animals. I'm not quite sure what they think their pets will eat if they win their struggle, but that's a question for the future. Maybe they'll neuter all their cats and dogs and move on to domestic-bred tortoises instead.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:23 pm

spot;543401 wrote: I mentioned the extent of the history because you were talking of the practice as "a product of a sick and decadent society". By all means say that humankind has been sick and decadent for that long, but if you do then that's humanity for you, not just a single society.

The killing of farmed animals has been criticized as torture by many PETA-enthusiasts. All farmed mammals are stunned and then bled to death while hanging, alive but (usually) unconscious, by their heels with their throats slit. I'd suggest that force-feeding is another step away from cruelty-free farming, but only a step and not a difference in kind. Is there no "right", as you put it, to kill farmed animals?

The decision to create a delicacy through damaging a creatures organ is decadent. If that practice was developed thousands of years ago and survived until today then the society that developed it was decadent and, by the time anyone stopped to think about what was being done in the later societies then they had become decadent as well. And yes, human societies have continued the tradition of becoming sick and decadent.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned with how animals are killed. The basic problem, as I see it, relates not to the issue of whether we should all be vegetarians but to the overpopulation problem. We've got a lot more mouths to feed and need to develop ways of increasing food supply if we are going to continue increasing or maintaining our current life expectancies. It is time consuming endeavour to go into the damage that is done to people by consuming animals pumped full of steroids and whether or not their flesh is tainted by fear by the way they are slaughtered. The whole organic movement has put out a ton of literature on how the flesh of the animals is tainted and why. It's just a matter of which books you read sometimes.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:37 pm

koan;543414 wrote: The decision to create a delicacy through damaging a creatures organ is decadent.Then I'll give you another example, that being the bovine udder. All that milk, cheese and butter the Western world gets through is a consequence of an organ so inflated that cows die if left unmilked, an organ so overworked and distended that the US allows the animal to be kept on permanent antibiotics to hold back the inevitable infections there (which you glanced upon in your second paragraph). Unlike the ducks and geese suffering for three weeks prior to slaughter, cows put up this with and carry their problem around with them for years. Does this also fall into the decadent category of producing "a delicacy through damaging a creatures organ"?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:46 pm

spot;543425 wrote: Then I'll give you another example, that being the bovine udder. All that milk, cheese and butter the Western world gets through is a consequence of an organ so inflated that cows die if left unmilked, an organ so overworked and distended that the US allows the animal to be kept on permanent antibiotics to hold back the inevitable infections there (which you glanced upon in your second paragraph). Unlike the ducks and geese suffering for three weeks prior to slaughter, cows put up this with and carry their problem around with them for years. Does this also fall into the decadent category of producing "a delicacy through damaging a creatures organ"?

Then the world consumes too much cheese. I, for one, would be better off if cheese was less available and I'm doing my part by not drinking milk. The "fix" of giving them antibiotics has extremely negative results that hardly make up for keeping the milk bacteria free. It is, again, decadence. And decadence contributes to downfall.

That still doesn't justify claiming that it is a "good thing" that the geese and ducks are being tortured or that it is justified. The facts seem to point at none of it being justified. If you say what you mean, it leads to less confusion and fewer ridiculous statements.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:55 pm

koan;543432 wrote: That still doesn't justify claiming that it is a "good thing" that the geese and ducks are being tortured or that it is justified. The facts seem to point at none of it being justified. If you say what you mean, it leads to less confusion and fewer ridiculous statements.You are, of course, quite right. I've merely tried to show that the video is unreasonably biased and propagandist, that there's less of a difference between the practice shown and commercial farming in general, and that criticizing one without holding the other to an equivalent account is unreasonable. There's a difference of degree but not a difference of type in all of these methods, to label one torture and the others benign is an unrealistic convenience on the part of the pressure groups involved which doesn't bear examination.

I'd happily sign up to "none of it being justified". People should realize the consequence of banning commercial farming of animals before they go that far though, especially if they keep pets. I have yet to see even the most spineless of lapdogs restricted to a diet of tofu, quorn and water.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:02 pm

spot;543441 wrote: You are, of course, quite right. I've merely tried to show that the video is unreasonably biased and propagandist, that there's less of a difference between the practice shown and commercial farming in general, and that criticizing one without holding the other to an equivalent account is unreasonable. There's a difference of degree but not a difference of type in all of these methods, to label one torture and the others benign is an unrealistic convenience on the part of the pressure groups involved which doesn't bear examination.

I'd happily sign up to "none of it being justified". People should realize the consequence of banning commercial farming of animals before they go that far though, especially if they keep pets. I have yet to see even the most spineless of lapdogs restricted to a diet of tofu, quorn and water.

I usually catch your sarcasm. It was lost this time. Perhaps because I heard your arguments first hand and there was no hint of it in the lengthy statements that were offered by way of explanation. I'm happy to accept that you were being sarcastic and meet you in agreement that the entire commercial farming and food production industry is mired in trouble breeding trouble.

The overpopulation problem is one to which we currently have no solution. It overwhelms most people shortly into the discussion.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:09 pm

I still havent been told why no one has a problem taking a plants life for food.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:09 pm

YZGI;543405 wrote: Then why do you have a right to kill broccoli for food or bleed a tree of its sap for syrup? Just because we cant hear lettuce scream when we shred it doent mean it doesnt make any noise.

come on people , can you at least debate wise guys point with the respect it deserves....:-3

oh you have ok carry on

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:11 pm

YZGI;543454 wrote: I still havent been told why no one has a problem taking a plants life for food.

I'm all for euthanasia. Allowing the vegetables to die is a good start to reducing overpopulation. :wah:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:16 pm

koan;543457 wrote: I'm all for euthanasia. Allowing the vegetables to die is a good start to reducing overpopulation. :wah:

Jimbo, I think she just insulted you.:rolleyes:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:29 pm

YZGI;543463 wrote: Jimbo, I think she just insulted you.:rolleyes:

your damn right she did buddy:mad:

and as soon as i work out how , i'll be giving her a piece of my mind ... but not too much coz i dont have a lot to spare..

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:50 am

Here's my viewpoint.

1. Most modern industrial farming involves copious amounts of animal cruelty, copious, millions of animals die every day, in quite horrible ways, in cold nasty factories to feed you lot, and its done from the perspective of economy not animal welfare. Thats the real animal rights issue of our times, not side issues like foxes, lab testing, fois gras, etc etc (OK these are real moral issues that urban people feel strongly about, and I can respect that if not agree with it, but they are small cheese in relation to what is happening to give them their lifestyles they so love).

Currently, we are fishing the seas dry, and destroying our own land habitats, wiping out species at a rate of knots, causing our climate to change irrevocably and living in complete denial about it based on religious nonsense and unenlightened economic self-interest, we are tarmacking over our countryside, replacing fields, dells, rivers, woods, grasslands, seashores, with urban wastelands of shopping centres, regimented housing, waste-grounds, roads, and the associated paraphernalia of modern life, we are eating rubbish food made out of the most disgusting things, packed with chemicals, we are lacing our environment and river systems with increasing amounts of chemicals, and again killing off ecosystems, we are addicted to lifestyles in which we demand the right to be as selfish as possible, do whatever we want, and have no practical concept of the impact that our regimented, suburban, pseudo-TV-culture lives have on the real environment out there where these animals that people pretend to love so much actually live and die, I'm sorry but its a joke.

I can't understand why people who ignore all of these actual issues and the true impact we have on our land and its animals (we have always has an impact BTW, there was no utopia, ever), can then get so worked up about things like bullfighting, and fois gras, hunting, etc, which are things that come from cultures that were infinitely more connected with real life on the land than our own urbanized, ironic, shallow, infantile culture is as present, it makes me laugh. Sorry.

:-5

That doesn't mean I agree or take pleasure in things that involve gross cruelty to animals either, so don't pin me with that one, but i am not all starry eyed about such things either, and I am not a vegetarian because I like meat and fish, so I eat these fellas anyway, so you know, you have to be aware of what the impact of what you are doing really has around you.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:13 am

Just so. When I was a lad, me and my mates used to sit on the wall of the local slaughterhouse and watch the inward delivery herded through the pens. Nobody back then pretended that the animals weren't terrified of what was about to happen, they were often walking through streams of blood and hearing the bolt-guns firing and the screams from inside the barn. All these local yards were closed eventually. That doesn't mean the terror's stopped.