California foie gras ban struck down

[alp227]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Californians can dust off whatever dessert wine goes with foie gras -- a federal judge has struck down the state's ban on the delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of force-fed ducks and geese.

Siding with restaurants and foie gras producers, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson on Wednesday invalidated the two-year-old ban, finding that federal food regulations pre-empt California's ability to outlaw the dish. At least for now, that means the controversial gourmet's delight can go back on the menu.

The ruling came in a longrunning legal battle over the original California law, enacted in 2004 in response to animal rights groups who say that the production of foie gras is inhumane. The U.S. Supreme Court just a few months ago rejected one legal challenge to the law, but Wilson's ruling revives the industry's fight to keep foie gras on California restaurant tables.

Attorney General Kamala Harris' office, which is defending the ban, said only they are "reviewing the ruling." But state lawyers can appeal Wilson's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and also seek a stay of the decision to keep the ban intact while the case unfolds.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27276151/california-foie-gras-ban-struck-down

[Fearless]

1. Gee I wonder what big donor was behind this one.

[former9thward]

38. Federal law trumps state law.

Pretty simple.

[Fearless]

39. And someone needs to bring the case to court. As I said, big money interest.

[branford]

40. The ban was overturned in federal court.

The court held that federal food regulations pre-empt California's ability to outlaw foie gras. It's basic federalism.

[seveneyes]

2. Time for a name change to Grounded stuffed avian entrails post expiration date

Said not the wolf to the mouse.

[nomorenomore08]

19. That would be truth in advertising if nothing else.

[olddots]

3. Oh thank gawd

Muffy and I were beside ourselves not being able to enjoy tortured animal treats with a pricey wine .

[petronius]

4. Interesting, especially in contrast to our egg law that just went into effect

Seems like they're both animal welfare rules...

[Major Nikon]

5. Not exactly

Proposition 2 not only results in the better treatment of livestock, but the quality and safety of the product is increased, while the stress levels of the animals will undoubtedly improve.

There was no such grounds for the foie gras ban. It was never anything more than an appeal to emotion and not even a good one at that. When the city of Chicago looked at the abundantly available evidence, they struck down a similar foie gras ban. There's nothing stressful about foie gras production on domesticated waterfowl. The conditions of factory farm chickens, egg production hens, and feed lot cattle, not so much.

[CreekDog]

11. you and I always argue, and here's yet another reason why:

Modern gavage feeding process

[Major Nikon]

12. Is there supposed to be an argument here?

The same thing is depicted in the video I posted.

[CreekDog]

13. so the force feeding isn't cruel because you posted a video

where two people keep insisting it's not cruel, one of whom, makes money off of it and the other previously made money off of it.

uh huh.

[Major Nikon]

14. It's not cruel because waterfowl anatomy isn't even remotely similar to humans

So trying to ascribe what might be cruel to a human to a waterfowl that has no gag reflex, no airway going through the esophagus, a throat designed to stretch to accommodate large objects, and a liver designed to swell for migration, is no argument at all.

And if you want to put stock in ad hominem, don't forget the groups making such non-arguments against foie gras are generally the same ones that want everyone to be vegans.

If anyone finds a feeding tube to be disturbing, they may not want to look at these images.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[joshcryer]

15. If you ever owned a baby bird, you'd know.

When I got a baby parakeet his mother wasn't feeding him so I read up and instructions told me to get a 5ml syringe and then fill it with crushed up bird pellets and water.

Then literally inject it down his throat. It seemed so terrifying. But he took it like a champ and was all too eager to eat up.

[Major Nikon]

16. I've nursed more birds back to health than I care to count

I was raised on a farm and we always had chickens. At one time as a kid I had about 2 dozen pigeons. My wife has raised finches for years.

Foie gras is produced from domesticated waterfowl and waterfowl are very much different than land birds. They live in different environments, they eat different things, and their anatomy is different. In fact, evolutionary speaking, your parakeet is more different compared to a duck than a human is compared to a lemur.

[nomorenomore08]

20. You certainly seem to have more expertise than anyone else on this thread.

So I'm inclined to believe you when you say that the "suffering" is exaggerated. But I really don't know.

[Major Nikon]

27. There's plenty of youtube videos of the process

The birds are clearly under no stress, which is easy enough for anyone to identify. They line up for the feeding. Ducks and geese are actually quite intelligent compared to other birds. If the practice was actually cruel it would be easy to tell. Even if you watch the obviously exaggerated PETA video you can't tell the birds are under any stress.

[CreekDog]

29. Expertise in getting you to discount what you see?

In a way.

[Nihil]

23. Factory farming is bad regardless of which species is involved

If you want your foie gras so much, buy free range - it has been available for years.
Free range foie gras obviously costs more as it is more expensive to produce but I'm
sure that discerning consumers would not notice the small uplift for the sake of having
a clear conscience about the geese gaining an enlarged liver naturally.

If, on the other hand, you just want to defend factory farming then don't try to twist the
truth about gavage - e.g., the difference between having a goose *choose* to feed from
it and one having to be held & forced to overfeed from it - or about the liver's capacity
or about the reason that nature does this once a year after several months of foraging
whereas factory farmers exaggerate the liver in only 18 days of force-feeding.


Two timely articles to give different views on this, both of which make some very good points:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/is-it-ever-ok-to-eat-foie-gras-6289019.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/9180985/Is-there-too-much-fuss-about-foie-gras.html

[Major Nikon]

25. It's pretty hard to defend or support anything with vague definitions

"factory farming" means pretty much whatever one wants it to mean. "free range" is little better and does not insure humane treatment. In the US it only means animals have access to outside conditions for no specified length of time and doesn't even insure they actually do take advantage of those conditions. I'm sure there's exceptions, but foie gras is a high priced item and as such the birds receive far better treatment than pretty much all other livestock fowl, which increases the quality of the product. It's not as if there's a market for low quality foie gras. Stress has a detrimental effect on the liver, so why would any producer marketing a high end, high quality niche item want to degrade their product when there is a negative cost benefit to doing so?

The first web site you linked very much twists the truth in a number of ways. It exaggerates how the gavage is used. It assumes the practice is "cruel" without any cited empirical evidence or professional opinions (the AMA has specifically refused to classify it as such). It describes some methods as "ethical" or not in the absence of any sort of legal or industry standards, which even they admit is meaningless. It refers to livers as "diseased" without any defined pathology. It claims "the bird will probably suffer respiratory problems" again without any cited pathology.

[rpannier]

24. You ought to find someone other than that guy to defend your

position.
I've seen him interviewed several times
He uses BS analogies to defend his position, like the CNN interview where he criticized vegetarians by claiming they go to these remote areas and when they're offered this wonderful food by the locals they turn it down saying, "I'm a vegan."
Yet, he provided no facts to back up his claim
He made a similar claim about eating dog, yet it's a fact here in Korea that they string the dog up and let it slowly choke to death because they claim the fear makes the meat taste better
The guy is disingenuous at best

[Major Nikon]

28. You can read what the AVMA has to say about it

They offer a very balanced review of the subject.

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Documents/foie_gras_bgnd.pdf

[rpannier]

31. Cool. Thanks I will read

[petronius]

34. But I don't think that's what the court was addressing in this decision - it wasn't

a question of whether of not gavage is humane, or whether or not the prohibition was based on a solid scientific reasoning. Rather, the question was whether the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act preempted the state legislation - this court found that it did.

However, it appears to me that the Egg Products Inspection Act contains some similar language with respect to jurisdiction and preemption. Specifically:

1052. State or local regulation
(a) Prohibition against additional or different requirements than Federal requirements relating to premises, facilities, and operations at official plants; authority to impose recordkeeping and related requirements consistent with Federal requirements

Requirements within the scope of this chapter with respect to premises, facilities, and operations of any official plant which are in addition to or different than those made under this chapter may not be imposed by any State or local jurisdiction except that any such jurisdiction may impose recordkeeping and other requirements within the scope of section 1040 of this title, if consistent therewith, with respect to any such plant.

(b) Prohibition against additional or different standards than Federal standards of quality, etc., or requiring labeling to show area of production or origin; authority to require name, address, and license number of processor or packer on containers; prohibition against additional or different requirements than Federal requirements relating to labeling, packaging or ingredients; authority to prevent distribution of violative articles; validity of nonconflicting laws

For eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, (1) no State or local jurisdiction may require the use of standards of quality, condition, weight, quantity, or grade which are in addition to or different from the official Federal standards,...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title21/html/USCODE-2011-title21-chap15-sec1037.htm

I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I do find it confusing that the federal law would preempt in one case but not the other...

[Major Nikon]

35. It's actually two different things

States may impose regulations on the conditions of livestock produced in their states. Many states do so and have for years. This is not the same as an outright ban on an entire ingredient regardless of where it is produced. The state of California was not trying to impose additional conditions on domesticated waterfowl, they were trying to ban an entire ingredient by saying it could not be sold if produced by force feeding. In other words, California was threatening out of state producers with prosecution if they sold their products in California. So California is free to impose conditions of livestock treatment for livestock produced in California. They are not free to do so in other states as a condition of sale in California for products that are federally regulated.

[petronius]

36. I'm not really seeing that much of a distinction: it sounds like in both cases CA

is banning an entire ingredient (foie gras or shell eggs) if it's produced using a particular method (force feeding or battery cages). And in both cases CA is imposing the restriction on products produced both in state and imported...

[Major Nikon]

37. The egg issue is a bit more complex

The original voter referendum law did not seek to regulate out of state egg producers. A companion bill, not passed by voter referendum but rather by the state legislature, followed and does seek to regulate out of state egg production. It's also being challenged in federal court.

[LeftyMom]

8. Shark fins are also banned here.

But that might fall under trade in endangered wildlife or something.

[Major Nikon]

17. Some species are very much threatened

But the main reason shark finning is banned is because hunters harvest the fins and leave the shark to die a slow death.

[LeftyMom]

18. I'm aware. California already had bans on hunting many species of sharks.

The ban on serving or trading shark fins/ shark fin soup was instituted a few years ago.

Sadly I'm not aware of a similar federal rule. There should be one.

[nomorenomore08]

21. Exactly. Whatever one's stance on eating meat, it's hard to justify discarding nearly the entire

animal - especially when that in itself involves unnecessary suffering.

[Rhiannon12866]

6. Yikes! What does it take??

[Coventina]

7. Boo!

[Xolodno]

9. Wasn't much of a ban anyway.....

...you could still get it, if you knew the right private restaurant owners and/or chefs.

Only...then it was more of an "exclusive foodie club" and more expensive.

[Xithras]

30. It wasn't even that hard.

The law only banned SELLING the meat. A number of restaurants dodged the law by giving it away as a "free gift". Dish X didn't "include" foie gras, but if you ordered it the chef would add it as a "bonus". Nod nod, wink wink.

Many law enforcement agencies didn't even bother enforcing it, simply because the loopholes were so big that they made the law nearly unenforceable. In many other counties, enforcement fell to already understaffed health departments and even ANIMAL CONTROL agencies, who pretty much said that they'd only be citing restaurants if foie gras sales were found during other inspections. Reports and complaints specifically about foie gras were ignored.

It was an incredibly ineffective law.

[Xolodno]

33. Funny thing is....

I never tried it until about a week before the ban. It was good....but not something I would go out my way for. If I was with some friends who were asking for it, I would have it....but, by myself....nope.

[SoapBox]

10. Boo is right...

Really? The 1%er's just can't live without this nasty shit?

And the way it's made?

I really want some Koch Brother types to be restrained and force fed...just so they can see what it's like.

[nomorenomore08]

22. I've never had it, but isn't it supposed to be a lot "funkier" tasting than other types of pate?

Ethical issues aside, I think I'll pass just for that reason.

[Renew Deal]

26. foie gras is delicious

[onecent]

32. We live in a sick society!