AP PHOTO/M. SPENCER GREEN
Exit
goose’s liver is lusted after by chefs
and diners for its rich, singular
flavor and versatility on the plate
for everything from hot dogs to
ice cream. Despite its limited production (compared to the no-less
controversial factory farming of
beef, chicken and pork), foie gras
has been a common rallying cry for
animal rights and vegetarian activists across the world. Like many of
the world’s most coveted ingredients, foie gras suffers from a bit of
an ethical foible: the force-feeding
required to enlarge the duck or
goose’s liver in the final 2-3 weeks
of its life (“foie gras” is, after all,
French for “fat liver”).
The key question is whether
the process, called “gavage,” of
putting a tube down the animal’s
throat rises to the level of actual
animal cruelty. Foie defenders
will tell you that gavage is almost second-nature to ducks and
geese, whose bodies happen to be
built to seasonally gorge themselves to prepare for migration.
Their esophagi expand easily and
they lack a gag reflex, so the process isn’t as uncomfortable — if
it’s uncomfortable at all — as we
might be led to believe. Foie opponents contend that the practice,
FOOD
which swells the animals’ livers to
many times their normal size, is
inherently inhumane.
At least 14 countries now have
some sort of foie gras ban on
the books, though most of these
only target its production — not
possession or consumption —
through laws banning force-feeding as part of larger animal cruelty
measures. The two exceptions to
this are Chicago’s short-lived ban
and California’s impending law,
which not only prohibits foie gras
production but also bars shops
and restaurants from selling it.
It’s the closest thing to a scorched
earth victory foie gras opponents
might ever see.
See the timeline below for a
brief history of these measures.
HUFFINGTON
06.17.12
Above,
salt-cured
foie gras at
Cyrano’s in
Chicago. The
city repealed
its ban in
2008.