Food and Foie Gras and Freedom – Democracy fails again

Years after much of the foie gras brouhaha has subsided, California’s foie gras ban signed into law by Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sept 29, 2004, is about to go into effect, and California’s chefs are pissed. You should be, too.

The question of animal rights and vegetarian or omnivore is less of an issue in this law than its implications for the integrity of our law makers and the protection of personal rights in a society which increasingly values the voice of the most vocal minority activists over empirical science and the greater interest of the public.

Why? I like ducks. What’s wrong with protecting them?

Lots, even neglecting the fact that avian experts at the University of California at Davis clearly determined that Gavage, the process by which the geese are fattened, neither damages nor distresses them – although legislation based on bad science and misrepresentation serves no one.

So what’s wrong with the bill, even if no birds are harmed by gavage? It’s just an elitist dish served by snooty chefs, right?

Again, lots of things.

,For one , the kickoff to the bill was nothing less than an act of vandalism or terrorism if you believe the FBI.  An animal rights group, which never had the courage to put its name to the act,vandalized a new Sonoma restaurant project and the owner’s van and threatened the chef/owner and his family by sending pictures showing his child  inside the home: “We know where to find you.” The chef owner was forced to sent his wife and child back to Europe for their protection and took the loss of the project, not wanting to see the violence escalate.

Not only the restaurateur was threatened, but owners of other small businesses were threatened and harassed. Having expressed my opinion on the subject, I  received numerous “we know where to find you” with veiled threats on my answering machine, as did chefs around the country.  The California Senate validated these criminal actions by ceding to the activists’ demands.

You don’t reward that kind of behavior.  It encourages imitation. Yet John Burton and the California Senate did just that.

It is a bill without a reason – a solution to a problem which does not exist.   It neither improves the ducks quality of live nor protects anyone nor anything from danger or abuse beyond excepting slaughter. If this bill is valid, than any bill banning meat and poultry production, sales and consumption is equally valid. It is the kind of empty and baseless pandering, crowd pleasing legislation which has contributed to California’s current legislative and fiscal dilemmas.

Counting on the reaction with enough media, the activists did not cease their activity but stepped it up  with an aggressive public relations campaign which eventually landed on the desk of outgoing California State Assemblyman John Burton. Burton, pandering to the calls for drastic action,  chose to sponsor the ban as his legacy. The passing vote was a parting gift by his colleagues.

Think of it this way: Instead of giving Burton a gold watch, they gifted  him a restriction of your right to choose what you eat and legitimate businesses’ right to provide services.

But there was overwhelming opinion against foie gras, correct?  Not exactly. There was loud opinion and prestigious opinion.  Informed opinion was missing in action.  Since most Californians had hardly ever heard of foie, they didn’t think much one way or the other. The voices were those of PETA and Pease’s followers,  who took dogma for fact. The law if based on faux science and untruths.

The charge against the small business producing the product in California was vocally supported by Governor Schwarzenegger’s tearful friends and colleagues of the glitterati, among them Paul McCartney, Chrissie Hynde, Kim Basinger, Martin Sheen and Pamela Anderson.

But what’s the harm? Foie gras is an unnecessary luxury, after all. The harm is enormous, considering the legal intrusion into the choices of businesses and consumers practicing ethical policies. It is neither the government’s job nor its right to ban things to which a minority objects based on their general popularity. We don’t need chocolate, Coca Cola, leather belts, the color puce or hip hop, which may offend some people. Their gratuitous nature does not give the government the right to forbid them.

This ban was supported by people I admire including Paul McCarthy and Martin Sheen.

These people are great actors and contribute much to our lives. It’s hard not to love Sheen in the West Wing, but  we did not elect them to office, and I personally resent Bea Arthur’s making law, as she succeeded in doing here. They are not experts in the field of avian science or animal husbandry and apart from their strong feelings have little to say about our governmental processes. California had two actors in the Governor’s Mansion, and each time was a disaster.

Why would you trust actors and show people to sway the course of your state legislation? You wouldn’t let these people tell you  how to drive or what clothes to buy. Why would you let them how to run your state? Or would you — in which case, this piece is way above your pay scale, and you should return to TMZ.

I said forget about the law not being based on facts. Let’s not.  Remember “W” rejecting the “fact based community”?  Think of all the money and lives this country would have saved if he and his had given an ear to reality. The die hard adherents to the foie law also reject facts.

Legislation should be based on facts. The foie ban was based instead on emotion. Despite ample expert evidence presented by veterinarians, avian scientists and the University of California Berkeley contradicting the statements made by animal activists that foie production abuses animals, the Senate passed a bill for appearances, fanned by uninformed sensationalism.  Laws based on emotion and diatribe are poor choices.

The activists ignore or brush off all empirical evidence regarding the process, and the legislature ignores it. The activists are not stupid – they know and they don’t care, but distortion of the truth and misinformation fits their agenda better. Their motivation is based on identity and power issues and demagoguery (I was a minor demagogue once for a short time, and it’s really kind of fun),  rather than a logical concern for rights, reality and truth.

As a matter of fact, the lead figure in the foie battle shows a blatant disregard for “right” and rightness. Bryan Pease who has a history of what he would call Civil disobedience and the rest of us might be more inclined to consider thuggery,  was offered a deal by one of the restaurants being threatened before the passage of the bill. The restaurateur would place a 90 day moratorium on foie gras sales and investigate Pease’s claims, but in return Pease would spend some time working in a soup kitchen to experience something like the real restaurant world and take the trouble to inform himself with the help of the restaurateur regarding the actual facts of the process.

His refusal was not surprising, as Mr Pease certainly has been informed of and apparently doesn’t give a duck’s butt about the facts of the issue. His  campaign would appear to be less about the actual welfare of the birds than than visibility of his cause and the connections and power which inevitably come from this kind of lobbying and outrageous activity.

You should be concerned about this bill, furthermore, because it was passed quickly in an atmosphere of sensationalism and threats, it is a piece of political expediency by politicians who in pursuit of their own pandering engendered personal advantage and short term favor played away your rights?

“RIGHTS?”  You ask.  Why do I need the right to eat foie gras? That’s for rich people, and I am not sleeping in a tent in front of City Hall or Wall Street to support that lot of sodding thieves?

Umhh…well, yes you are, because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. (sorry).  Discriminating against people you don’t like or care about can easily lead to discrimination against people you do, including yourself.  Vocal and unprincipled activists supported by throngs of the well-meaning followers with limited critical thinking abilities can get a lot of things banned. This kind of legislation was once called blue laws, and they may still exist in some places less evolved than the great State of California. No drinking on Sunday and the like.  False morality posing as factual concern inevitably results in repression of somebody.

There are a lot of people these days who take offense at cars. With the same tactics they could force you to use your lousy public transportation system.  Ideologues in China made everyone wear the same dreary Mao suits (not mention imprisoning and killing quite a few).  You and I do not want the most vocal groups to tyrannize us and to limit our options.  It doesn’t matter if they are members of the Christian Right effectively making homosexuality illegal through their emotionally contagious aversion to sodomy, Environmentalists striving to ban cars in cities or food groups forbidding the sale of corn syrup (which despite the fact that it sounds like a good idea is not). In our system we don’t want the mob with the biggest stones pushing the rest of us around, and that’s what happened here.

In short, what has happened to California is mob rule. Small, loud mob. Big stones. It’s bad policy.

Chicago went through a similar process and eventually passed a ban on fatty goose liver with just about the same  machinations, plus one vegan alderman seeking reelection. Fortunately Mayor Chris Daly was not particularly moved and eventually convinced the more level headed of his political colleagues to reverse the decision, calling it Hogwash.

Finally, the entire process was cowardly in that it targeted not those who one could logically accuse of mistreating their animals, but one small business without the money to fight back, but which feeling they were right,  went into debt trying. Had there been any integrity whatsoever in Pease’s avowed desire to better the lot of animals, Tyson chicken rather than an immigrant duck farmer who cared about his livestock would have been in the process and won.  The animal activists are bullies. I don’t know about you, but I hate being bullied.

So what do you do if you think this is a bad idea?

For one thing,  do your civic duty and bang on your Congressman’s door. Sweet talk your Senator or Representative. “You Sir/Madam,  I know, weren’t part of this stupidity, and I am sure you have the intelligence to reverse it, bless your heart.”

For another,  inform yourself. Learn the facts.

The Artisan Farmers’ website provides ample, highly credible information on the process, including an informative video by Anthony Bordaine statements by veterinarians and testimonies to the California State Senate rejecting claims that foie production harms fowl.

Sign the Artisan Farmers’ Alliance petition to reverse the law.

So, what if you are still not comfortable eating foie gras? Don’t. It is not going to become a fast food item any time soon. It’s production requires great care of the animals and costs accordingly. Like so many cholesterol laden innards, it’s hardly health food. Choose the heirloom tomato salad instead, knowing that I and those who share my opinion of your right to determine what goes on your own plate will not sit beside you and preach that you should not be eating tomatoes because tomato pickers are exposed to pesticides.  Keep those standards you feel necessary for your own integrity and let others keep theirs.

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Food and Foie Gras and Freedom – Democracy fails again

  1. Chef Dan says:

    Well, the real problem is not just Ms. X’s feelings on the subject, or her sentiments about a feeding apparatus used by Animal Rescue, or the self-proclaimed intellectual superiority that gives her the right to take away my choice and decide for me and my customers what is the right choice. After all, she clearly knows better than those with actual information on the subject, as you point out, hell, she doesn’t even think information is relevant.

    The problem is that the issue here is poorly written legislation. The problem is that the legislation, as written, allows a wayward dog catcher to shut down Thanksgiving, to free the gazillion chickens in the state of California and allow them to graze in the wild. Since Ms. White is clearly unable to address the legislation on its merits, she can hardly be considered serious. Dangerous, yes, serious, no.

    Her position that we don’t NEED foie gras, that it’s a luxury and should therefore be banned is an interesting position in a free society. Maybe she should confine her diet to beans and rice, water and Total breakfast cereal (sans milk, of course) before taking that position for everyone else.

    I have to say, when her right wing ideological opposite numbers come and take away her right to control her body because of an apparatus, because of the sanctity of human life (instead of the feeding style of a duck bound for slaughter), and because choosing to be childless but risking children by having unprotected sex is a luxury and we don’t need it, I will not be there to argue for her.

    What’s wrong with America is that everyone wants the government to leave them alone, but regulate their neighbor.

  2. jll says:

    The following retort from an online conversation about foie summarizing the points in this blog ended with this comment in support of the foie ban. It explains to some extent how the ban was able to be passed in the first place:

    “Well said, however irrelevant to my point, we don’t need foie. It’s a luxury, not a necessity. You can tell me all the veterinary and historical facts you want, it doesn’t matter, it’s not a necessary practice to sustain life, foie is nothing more then a status symbol, just like an over priced car. You don’t really need but it looks good and you like the way you feel when you buy/ order it. Don’t you think there are some things we can let go of? Perhaps not be so glutinous and have to consume everything that walks, swims or flies (except in the ducks used for the purpose of making foie, that is)?.”

    In other words, I don’t like it and you don’t need it, therefor a law banning it is perfectly correct. Now I hope you are able to see the error in this (il)logic, but if not, it’s back to Alice’s teaparty with you.

Leave a Reply