Exactly what is wrong with rich people food? " We call them rich people food" those" rich people who want to be impressed." Darn those rich people who like to eat well.
Lobster used to be for the poor, now not so much.
If people spoke about any race or religion or culture the way you speak of
"rich" people they would be tarred and feathered for breaking an "ism" rule.
Lay off the rich and their food, you say that other organ meats are more enjoyable than go eat a kidney but leave a tasty bit of foie gras a la Bourgogne for me, ( who most definitely is not rich but one who is more unbiased than you).
Lobster used to be for the poor, now not so much.
If people spoke about any race or religion or culture the way you speak of
"rich" people they would be tarred and feathered for breaking an "ism" rule.
Lay off the rich and their food, you say that other organ meats are more enjoyable than go eat a kidney but leave a tasty bit of foie gras a la Bourgogne for me, ( who most definitely is not rich but one who is more unbiased than you).
Baby calves are not allowed here to nurse; fed a powder as we subsidize cheap milk/meat so our cruelty has made a huge karmic debt. India manages to feed 1.2 billion vegetarians. Switzerland recycles every bit of garbage;allows cows to nurse and has no war machine. They give cannabis to prisoners to make peaceful and India in bhang (yogurt lassi) to calm babies crying and help priests meditate. Why can't we follow their cultural progress? Americans are so arrogant no wonder we are hated by rest of world!
How many child sex slaves does India have, child slaves making garments, women raped to death on buses?
Cannabis is turning our children into zombies, and last I heard the California grocery chain Albertsons throws away zero food, so they are as good as the Swiss.
Different ranchers in the U.S. have different standards. In the Sonoma and Napa Valleys farmers raise their animal in a socially conscience way. Yes they do eat them but they don't torture them.
Cannabis is turning our children into zombies, and last I heard the California grocery chain Albertsons throws away zero food, so they are as good as the Swiss.
Different ranchers in the U.S. have different standards. In the Sonoma and Napa Valleys farmers raise their animal in a socially conscience way. Yes they do eat them but they don't torture them.
What you are saying is "only a few animals suffer (compared to other animals in industrialized farming) so let's not over-react..."
Some humans are of the opinion that one animal suffering is one too many.
If we ask the animal, what would they say? If you were the animal, what would you say? How evolved each of us is can be measured by our ability to not simply go on our way, mindlessly, but instead to get wiser with each passing moment we occupy this planet.
How wise are you to say this issue isn't "that important?"
Some humans are of the opinion that one animal suffering is one too many.
If we ask the animal, what would they say? If you were the animal, what would you say? How evolved each of us is can be measured by our ability to not simply go on our way, mindlessly, but instead to get wiser with each passing moment we occupy this planet.
How wise are you to say this issue isn't "that important?"
1
A disappointing article from a man who claims to be one who cares about the cruel use of animals in the food industry. Something is missing from his words: and that is compassion. Disregarding 600,000 is simply callous. I understand your point, but turning away from this issue b/c it doesn't have enough birds suffering is misplaced.
1
Deeply ashamed that my fellow Clark University alum - Mr. Bittman - would take this stance.
It’s interesting that force-feeding ducks for the production of foie is more potent an issue than force-feeding people for various other ‘productions’: Prisoners on hunger strike get force-fed every day in Guantanamo (and many other prisons); anorexics imprisoned in hospitals get force-fed every day in many countries, including the USA; frail older people (or very sick people) whose doctors don’t have the time – or don’t make the time – to ascertain whether or not they can swallow likewise get force-fed, sometimes for months; and there are likely other causes. I met one middle-aged woman who had to shout and stomp to make doctors stop force-feeding her elderly mother (rather than allowing her to eat on her own). “It was disgusting,” she said. “I am from the South of France, and there they have ducks to make the foie gras … the ram tubes down their throats and pour food down them … It was just like that. Disgusting.” Indeed. Retain that as an image: the next time you eat foie, think not only of ducks being force-fed … but of people being force-fed. And then think that ‘we’ – citizens – allow others in our country to do that.
Foie gras, veal, ham and grain fed beef would be best off anyone's plate for simple humanitarian reasons.
Millions and millions of acres of prime agricultural land are being used to grow corn, soy , alfalfa and other crops for domestic and overseas animal feed. Drought, pesticides, fertilizers are hurting the soil, the water, the salmon runs and the local farmers. When do we realize that this huge agri- industry is harmful and that we could all be healthier if we ate less meat. baby steps folks.
Millions and millions of acres of prime agricultural land are being used to grow corn, soy , alfalfa and other crops for domestic and overseas animal feed. Drought, pesticides, fertilizers are hurting the soil, the water, the salmon runs and the local farmers. When do we realize that this huge agri- industry is harmful and that we could all be healthier if we ate less meat. baby steps folks.
Mark, so what you are saying is, if you can't solve the problem of animal cruelty in one fell swoop, then forget about it.
I agree with what you say that it is a very tiny part of the animal cruelty universe. However it's a good place to start the conversation. Just to simply get people to see animals as sentient beings with a right to live is a huge victory. Kind of like the civil rights movement in the '60's when "I AM A MAN" signs were making the point.
I agree with what you say that it is a very tiny part of the animal cruelty universe. However it's a good place to start the conversation. Just to simply get people to see animals as sentient beings with a right to live is a huge victory. Kind of like the civil rights movement in the '60's when "I AM A MAN" signs were making the point.
Offals are not awful. They are sublime.
1
Mark,
If you truly believe when your write, "... you are looking at an industry that produces cruelty on a scale that’s so big and overwhelming few of us can consider it rationally or regularly (.)" how can you continue to develop, print and promote recipes and foods that support that industry??
Even if it is after 6, your support, and that of the thousands who read and follow your advice, keeps the industry humming along regularly produce this large scale cruelty.
If you truly believe when your write, "... you are looking at an industry that produces cruelty on a scale that’s so big and overwhelming few of us can consider it rationally or regularly (.)" how can you continue to develop, print and promote recipes and foods that support that industry??
Even if it is after 6, your support, and that of the thousands who read and follow your advice, keeps the industry humming along regularly produce this large scale cruelty.
2
For people who think - what's the big deal - I say put yourself in their position and then you'll know why its a big deal. Animal cruelty would cease if people would do this one little thing, but sadly so few do. I am so grateful to God that He has let me do this. No meat or dairy products has touched my lips since 1983. You may boast about being beautiful or handsome or intelligent. I can boast of something we can all share in - that's being compassionate.
3
Once I was taking a nap in the back seat of the car, and I woke up from a horrible nightmare but it was real. There was a truck next to us full of animals going to slaughter, and their cries were like those of babies and in my half awake state I could smell their fear. It has been hard to eat meat since then.
1
Foie gras used to be a natural occurrence when the geese would gorge themselves in spring after suffering deprivation through the winter. If slaughtered at just the right time, the liver was naturally fattened. There are still producers in Europe who make foie gras this way: giving the geese only their favorite foods and letting them get fat on their own. Of course, it would only be a seasonal product and much less "efficient," if it was made this way, but no geese or ducks would have to suffer.
Interesting,
Definition of not suffering: being deprived of foods unnecessarily and then fattened unnecessarily so that the animal can be killed and eaten because its liver is "naturally" fattened.
Definition of not suffering: being deprived of foods unnecessarily and then fattened unnecessarily so that the animal can be killed and eaten because its liver is "naturally" fattened.
1
This is like saying "well that pre-school is run by pedophiles but let's just ignore it because there are only 5 kids."
The point, Mr. Bittman, is about people being decent, not about scale or dollars. And it's not just about the welfare of animals, it's about the welfare of the people who have these jobs where day in and day out they are participating in abuse. It either perpetuates the notion that abuse is OK in an abuser or it creates a hopeless and helpless kind of anger in someone who has no better prospects.
How wonderful would it be if meat and animal products cost what they should cost and the people working in the industry were paid well and could be proud of their work because they were taking proper care of their charges and producing a healthy and "conflict-free" food.
The point, Mr. Bittman, is about people being decent, not about scale or dollars. And it's not just about the welfare of animals, it's about the welfare of the people who have these jobs where day in and day out they are participating in abuse. It either perpetuates the notion that abuse is OK in an abuser or it creates a hopeless and helpless kind of anger in someone who has no better prospects.
How wonderful would it be if meat and animal products cost what they should cost and the people working in the industry were paid well and could be proud of their work because they were taking proper care of their charges and producing a healthy and "conflict-free" food.
1
What about all those fish? Raised in crowded fish farms, fed food that is not natural to them. Forced to eat more than they would in the wild. They too are living breathing beings.
Where are the recipes? My favorite is foie gras stuffed beignets. Sublime!
1
First of all, this guy has no clue what he's talking about. Chefs absolutely love foie gras. I know this because I've been married to a Chef for 10 years and most of our friends are Chefs. It is the most delectable of the organ meats.
Secondly, ducks and geese are not human and they have much different physiologies that allow them to be water animals that can survive in the wild. They fatten themselves up, including their livers, every year for migration. This is the reason foie gras exists in the first place. The two farms in the United States give their animals free range to socialize, walk, relax, etc. This is an exponentially better quality of life than any factory farm animals. They get fed 3 times a day, and typically run for their chance to eat.
There are so many other reasons that this should be a non-issue. If you are a vegan and don't want to eat meat, that's fine, but if you single out one type of meat over others, this is really the last one that should be on the list. I realize attacking tiny farms is much easier because they don't have the funds to fight back, but going after the farms that keep their animals living in their own filth with broken legs and the inability to turn around in their tiny cages is where the priorities should lie. These are the people that need to change. Not tiny farms that treat their livestock as living, breathing, feeling animals.
Secondly, ducks and geese are not human and they have much different physiologies that allow them to be water animals that can survive in the wild. They fatten themselves up, including their livers, every year for migration. This is the reason foie gras exists in the first place. The two farms in the United States give their animals free range to socialize, walk, relax, etc. This is an exponentially better quality of life than any factory farm animals. They get fed 3 times a day, and typically run for their chance to eat.
There are so many other reasons that this should be a non-issue. If you are a vegan and don't want to eat meat, that's fine, but if you single out one type of meat over others, this is really the last one that should be on the list. I realize attacking tiny farms is much easier because they don't have the funds to fight back, but going after the farms that keep their animals living in their own filth with broken legs and the inability to turn around in their tiny cages is where the priorities should lie. These are the people that need to change. Not tiny farms that treat their livestock as living, breathing, feeling animals.
3
How can so many commenters miss the "big" point that Mr. Bittman appears to be trying to make? The way we produce all meats and some fish is, objectively, cruel. It seems his point is that we had better start looking at how much meat we eat, whether steak, chicken or the controversial foie gras, and begin to understand that our American diet must change. Do I eat meat? Yes. I love a seared foie gras or a grilled New York strip--probably once year for the foie gras and no more than 10 for the steak. It just isn't that hard to eat mostly vegetables, legumes, grains, tofu and other substitutes for our government-subsidized, inexpensive meat. If more Americans would try to reduce meat and increase the other components of the plate (a la Dan Barber in The Third Plate), we could help the health of our people and maybe begin to save our environment, at the same time we could reduce cruelty to animals and fish.
7
I wonder if there is also an element of anti-elitist populism in the anti-foie gras movement? Do some people who rail against foie gras enjoy their backyard barbecued hamburger?
1
Illogical to say 600,000 ducks amounts to "a few thousand". And, as well, proposing that a duck is equivalent to a chicken is the same as believing that a buckeye might be a superior football player.
There is a wonderful line in the Nuremberg Trials that I think addresses the issue nicely. The Burt Lancaster character is saying that while he sentenced to death a man who was innocent but didn't believe it could "come to this" e.g. the Holocaust, Spencer Tracy in his answer says that the first time he sentenced a man to death that he know was innocent that he really did know "it would come tho this".
So you say "the market in the United States involves just under 600,000 animals per year." so that would appear to me to be 600,000 too many, because tomorrow it might be 6 million. At what point do we say NO? If we torture one animal is it forgivable JUST because it is one? If you believe it is cruel, than it is cruel. It can't be philosophized away by throwing numbers around. When an innocent person dies in state custody it is a crime against all mankind. We have gotten to be so "immune" to so many things that we are perilously close to becoming barbarians again.
Yes, we need to eat, and that involves the slaughter of animals, but it doesn't necessarily make it better or right. We are using a Clinton kind of argument about what your definition of torture is.
So you say "the market in the United States involves just under 600,000 animals per year." so that would appear to me to be 600,000 too many, because tomorrow it might be 6 million. At what point do we say NO? If we torture one animal is it forgivable JUST because it is one? If you believe it is cruel, than it is cruel. It can't be philosophized away by throwing numbers around. When an innocent person dies in state custody it is a crime against all mankind. We have gotten to be so "immune" to so many things that we are perilously close to becoming barbarians again.
Yes, we need to eat, and that involves the slaughter of animals, but it doesn't necessarily make it better or right. We are using a Clinton kind of argument about what your definition of torture is.
1
Mark Bittman just doesn't get it. Foie gras is every bit as delicious as it's made out to be. The idea of it being "rich people food" is silly. It's not any more pricey than other appetizers at a French restaurant. Unless he means to say that French restaurants are for rich snobs, because foie gras is such a classic of french cuisine.
2
Yes, the way we produce meat in this country is disgusting. Just as disgusting as those extreme food-eating contests. How gross is it to watch a human being stuff themselves with hot dogs or chicken wings in the name of a "contest". Just as gross as it is to force-feed a duck for the sake of a piece of liver.
4
For moral reasons, I stopped eating meat and poultry of any kind about 6 months ago, as well as dairy, and I eat fish (like sardines, low on the food chain) two or three times a week. I don't eat fake meat -- just other good, real food (no "junk"). I've never felt better in my life. I'll never go back to eating meat.
1
*news flash* Fish are animals. They feel pain, just like chickens or cows or people. Where did you ever get the idea that the flesh of a fish isn't "meat"?
2
I agree that it’s important to keep perspective, and to that end refute most vigorously the canard that foie gras is rich people’s food. I am hardly rich, and I enjoy it a few times a year.
1
It may not require a financial statement to purchase it, but most of the working people I know would gag if you told them the bite of meat they were chewing on was costing them 50 dollars or more a pound. More evidence of a nation divided?
1
I haven't looked at all the comments, but I've noticed one interesting category - the people who say "No, it isn't about food snobs at all - I myself find it totally scrumptious!" To complete the argument, you would have to go on to demonstrate that you yourself aren't a food snob - that may not be as self-evident as you think.
Foie gras (whole, not pate) is indeed delicious but if I never ate it again, I’d mourn less than if I were told that I will never again taste a donut, fries, pasta or an egg cream (all of which have been verboten to me for two years and counting). Out of curiosity, I bought a minuscule Alba truffle last month when it was on sale--I smelled it more than I tasted it. Again, no need to buy any more. But caviar? Surely you know that the species of sturgeon that produce Osetra are now sustainably farmed domestically, and their roe is cheaper than the endangered Caspian or Uzbek “real thing;” and that hackleback and paddlefish produce a roe that is as satisfying as sevruga for a tiny fraction of the cost. Again, caviar (even salmon roe for five bucks an ounce at the Russian deli) is a nonessential luxury, but can enhance a dish immeasurably.
I remain a carnivore, but eat free-range, grass-fed-and-finished meat, poultry and eggs whenever I can find them. If I do come across foie gras from a non-gavaged duck or goose, and I can afford it, I’m not going to turn it down on principle any more than I’ll become a vegan (so long as I’m under doctors’ orders to remain low-carb).
I remain a carnivore, but eat free-range, grass-fed-and-finished meat, poultry and eggs whenever I can find them. If I do come across foie gras from a non-gavaged duck or goose, and I can afford it, I’m not going to turn it down on principle any more than I’ll become a vegan (so long as I’m under doctors’ orders to remain low-carb).
2
I do think we need to find a middle ground between cruelty and efficiency. That being said:
This is a dog-eat-dog world, if you don’t like it, talk to God about it. Humans are omnivores. What we do to animals is no worse than what animals do to animals. What people tend to forget is that we are part of nature, no better or worse than a puma. The only grounds on which one might challenge this statement is religious—that one thinks humans have special “moral” responsibility. Look at the way we kill each other. If we kill chickens, I am, honestly, not that concerned. The 20,000 or so people that starved to death today, I am concerned about.
This is a dog-eat-dog world, if you don’t like it, talk to God about it. Humans are omnivores. What we do to animals is no worse than what animals do to animals. What people tend to forget is that we are part of nature, no better or worse than a puma. The only grounds on which one might challenge this statement is religious—that one thinks humans have special “moral” responsibility. Look at the way we kill each other. If we kill chickens, I am, honestly, not that concerned. The 20,000 or so people that starved to death today, I am concerned about.
4
If we are truly "no worse" than other species, and we are so immoral that we let "20,000" people starve to death "today," then there should be no such crime as "murder." Killing another human being would be a "sport," or perhaps a "harvest," in the "dog-eat-dog" world. But we do make distinctions. And we willingly assume moral obligations such as the avoidance of cruelty and caring for those who are weaker and more vulnerable. Those too cavalier to care tend to perpetrate evil, whether actively or passively.
3
It is not so much THAT we kill animals, as HOW we kill them -- or more accurately, how they live before we kill them.
The puma who kills its prey does not incarcerate it in small cages before it kills it. It does not force it to eat food to which its digestive system is not adapted. It does not force it to lie in its own waste.
These things we do, and because we have the immense power to do these things, we also have the immense responsibility to examine and evaluate these things that we do. Yes, we do have a "moral" responsibility, because of this great power that we possess.
The puma who kills its prey does not incarcerate it in small cages before it kills it. It does not force it to eat food to which its digestive system is not adapted. It does not force it to lie in its own waste.
These things we do, and because we have the immense power to do these things, we also have the immense responsibility to examine and evaluate these things that we do. Yes, we do have a "moral" responsibility, because of this great power that we possess.
2
Many proponents of animal welfare are concerned with our modern farming practices and the lack of regulation and or the lack of enforcement of regulation such that abuse and cruelty exist on a regular basis both where the animals are raised and at the slaughterhouses. People have their heads stuck in the sand on this one. But sticking your head in the sand doesn't mean it isn't happening. The conversation is not always about the fact that animals are killed but how they are raised and how they are killed. I would rather get eaten by lion in the wild than be subjected to our farming system. Lions have no issue other than eating, so they get right to the point. People on the other hand bring their baggage to their work.
Dear Mr. Bittman,
Thank you so much for your insightful writing and videos. I've learned a lot from you and really appreciate the work you do.
But ... I have to disagree with you on the taste of Foie Gras. I am far from a food snob (I hit fast food burgers too much, for example) so what attracts me to goose/duck liver is the incredible taste. The pate form holds no interest for
me but a seared on the outside sweet fat on the inside chunk of fg is simply heaven. You don't think much of it, which I totally respect. In this case just be careful about projecting that opinion onto others. A lot of us love the stuff on its merits, unimpressed by what foodies and snooties (or even legendary NYT columnists) think.
All the best.
Thank you so much for your insightful writing and videos. I've learned a lot from you and really appreciate the work you do.
But ... I have to disagree with you on the taste of Foie Gras. I am far from a food snob (I hit fast food burgers too much, for example) so what attracts me to goose/duck liver is the incredible taste. The pate form holds no interest for
me but a seared on the outside sweet fat on the inside chunk of fg is simply heaven. You don't think much of it, which I totally respect. In this case just be careful about projecting that opinion onto others. A lot of us love the stuff on its merits, unimpressed by what foodies and snooties (or even legendary NYT columnists) think.
All the best.
3
For all those who claim the geese love to overeat and that forcing a tube down its throat isn't cruel, I suggest googling ' frois gras, geese' and watch some of the videos, look at some of the images, and ask yourself if you would like to be housed in cement and steel enclosures , forced to stand in your own feces and urine all day, with no access to light or room to move, only to wait for the worker to stuff this tube down your throat. I suggest that this is extremely cruel and no amount of rationalization will change this fact.
2
The amazing thing is that this non-issue gets so much attention. It's akin to the fixation in certain quarters with the unborn...and complete indifference to the plight of millions of real live babies all over the world. And the obsession with cartoonists in regions that don't even have clean water to drink. Looks like any escape from reality will do as long as it works.
3
I visited a foie gras farm in France and observed the feeding. As soon as we entered the barn, all the ducks came rushing over, pushing and shoving each other in order to get fed first. They loved it. So how is this inhumane? Where was the suffering? Those who go on and on about how cruel foie gras production is simply don't know what they are talking about. Try visiting a cattle feed lot.
5
This isn't France though. This is Merica.
1
Mr. Bitterman, you are VERY wrong. I eat foie gras because I LOVE it! A cold
terrine of foie gras is a dish I prize and enjoy every bite of. We recently had to
have it mailed to us from Oregon in a plain brown wrapper overnight so I could make a terrine for myself & husband for NY and our Anniversary. We sat home alone and ate it all and we are not "rich snobs". We lived in Europe where we ate it frequently and I took a couple cooking courses to learn to prepare it. We visited goose farms in Dordogne & saw the geese run hungrily to the farmers wife who force fed them,. They did not seem unhappy at all.
Instead of putting down so forcefully those whose taste is different from yours,
just admit that different people enjoy different things and should be allowed to!!!
terrine of foie gras is a dish I prize and enjoy every bite of. We recently had to
have it mailed to us from Oregon in a plain brown wrapper overnight so I could make a terrine for myself & husband for NY and our Anniversary. We sat home alone and ate it all and we are not "rich snobs". We lived in Europe where we ate it frequently and I took a couple cooking courses to learn to prepare it. We visited goose farms in Dordogne & saw the geese run hungrily to the farmers wife who force fed them,. They did not seem unhappy at all.
Instead of putting down so forcefully those whose taste is different from yours,
just admit that different people enjoy different things and should be allowed to!!!
5
Would never want to intentionally eat an animal that has suffered. And yes, many of the mass produced factory farms do not treat animals well. However, as a consumer I put in the extra effort and cost to search for organic humanely raised meat, often local. All of these ducks are force fed until they are sick and unable to move. It’s unconscionable. There are alternatives if you’re a stickler for fatty duck liver and cannot do without it. It’s called “faux gras”
2
My grandfather, Forrest Mills lived for many years in Vernon France which is a stones throw from Monet's house and gardens at Giverny. Just after World WarII I visited his home for the first time and spent a day watching the process of "Gavage" or the force feeding of the their Toulouse Geese and Mulard ducks being fed a variety of grains including corn wheat and wild grasses that were so plentiful just after the war. I remember clearly how the ducks and geese were almost trained to follow the caretaker as he prepared for the feeding by banging on the feeding buckets filled with kitchen scraps and the grains not knowing their fate of fattening their livers for what had been the custom in these parts for hundreds of years resulting in the most delicious Foie Gras in Vernon. During the occupation our family fled to England and the United States to avoid being sent to the concentration camps but our family farm remained in the hands of our trusted overseer a Monsieur Claverie who continued the Foie Gras process until my grandfather returned in 1946. It was well known fact that unknowingly, our farm provided the Fuhrer himself with the finest Jewish chopped duck liver or Foie Gras hand produced from a Jewish farm confiscated by his Nazi thugs during the war. We continue this hand feeding until this very day.
4
Thank you for further dispelling the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian (allegedly his way of imitating the Roman Legions).
After the war was over and my family returned to Vernon we would laugh at the thought that Hitler had been enjoying our Jewish Chopped Goose Liver in the guise of Pate de Foie Gras. An inventory of food stuffs taken by the allies at the close of the war indicated a large amount of foie gras, Russian caviar , crates of truffles and other luxuries found in the storehouses near his bunker. the inventory of these items can be found in the United states War college archives.
1
I find it odd that Mr. Bittman does not mention the forcing of animals to become cannibals-- forced to eat their own kind -- ground into their feed. It is not even an issue of "cruelty"; it is an horrific atrocity inflicted on innocent creatures with no choice but to become cannibals.
Joy to you meat-eaters who revel in your disgusting pleasures at the expense of everything decent of "human" about humankind. Why not eat *your* own kind if you think eating dead flesh is so great, and a little suffering is no big deal? I truly would love to see it. You are what you eat, right?
Joy to you meat-eaters who revel in your disgusting pleasures at the expense of everything decent of "human" about humankind. Why not eat *your* own kind if you think eating dead flesh is so great, and a little suffering is no big deal? I truly would love to see it. You are what you eat, right?
2
You're wrong, Mr. Bittman, though it's nice to keep things in perspective, it is important to say a few thousand ducks and geese do matter. An appeal to worse problems is not an valid argument... If you deem the practice bad, and deflecting won't change that.
1
I don't care about whether you like Foie Gras or not and I don't know how the geese are raised in the U.S. but I visited a couple of Foie Gras farms in eastern France last fall and those birds live a pretty decent life compared to almost all birds(chickens, turkeys etc) raised in the U. S. They were free to run around in large fields, looked very healthy and even the feeding did not look uncomfortable.
6
We can argue about the taste and texture of food animals but we have to understand that our human intervention has rendered most of the food animals unhealthy. The goose liver that is Foie Gras is cerotic, the marbled muscle tissue of beef cattle is unhealthy and our fowl is sickly as well.
We don't like fowl that tastes like fowl, we don't like yellow fat and un-marbled muscle tissue that works better in braises and stews (with significant flavor of its own) than under the broiler.
Little wonder that we are not healthy either. You are what you eat.
We don't like fowl that tastes like fowl, we don't like yellow fat and un-marbled muscle tissue that works better in braises and stews (with significant flavor of its own) than under the broiler.
Little wonder that we are not healthy either. You are what you eat.
I'm just not convinced cruelty is involved in the making of foie gras, at least when you're talking about artisanal small production farms. You can talk about tubes going down throats and force-feedings, but ducks have unique physiological adaptations where the process just doesn't pose harm or discomfort as it is being made out.
The real gauge is to observe the behavior of the ducks. Feedings take seconds twice daily, and afterwards, the ducks seem like their usual selves. There's no sign of stress nor pain. And it's no surprise that the biggest defenders are those who are closest to the producer and have actually seen for themselves how the product is made: chefs.
It's an easy issue for the animal liberation movement because people don't know much about the process. They record some "under-cover" video of the worst they can find in the middle of a third world farm, edit out the defensible parts, and present it as "what really goes on." But what really goes on is much ado about nothing. There's an understandable emotional reaction that people have when they hear of force-feeding. The reality is pretty tame.
Foie gras has been stigmatized as being part of the cruel process of farming due to our understandable mistrust of food. But there are real horrors going on in industrial farming, and this is just not the same thing.
The real gauge is to observe the behavior of the ducks. Feedings take seconds twice daily, and afterwards, the ducks seem like their usual selves. There's no sign of stress nor pain. And it's no surprise that the biggest defenders are those who are closest to the producer and have actually seen for themselves how the product is made: chefs.
It's an easy issue for the animal liberation movement because people don't know much about the process. They record some "under-cover" video of the worst they can find in the middle of a third world farm, edit out the defensible parts, and present it as "what really goes on." But what really goes on is much ado about nothing. There's an understandable emotional reaction that people have when they hear of force-feeding. The reality is pretty tame.
Foie gras has been stigmatized as being part of the cruel process of farming due to our understandable mistrust of food. But there are real horrors going on in industrial farming, and this is just not the same thing.
3
Of course,
It is a well know fact that human overeating stresses the liver and increases the probability of early bad health and death from this vital organ. I would advise, our species to protect our own livers.
It is a well know fact that human overeating stresses the liver and increases the probability of early bad health and death from this vital organ. I would advise, our species to protect our own livers.
I agree with Mark that foie gras is a relatively small part of the overall problem with factory or commercial farming, but what better way to start reforming such an industry than with something small.
As a food service industry veteran (catering), I can't help but profess a love for fine foods-including foie. However, one need not look past both its production, and the production of other luxury food items such as Kopi Luwak/Civet Coffee which has a a horrendous track record of animal cruelty in the production process. Never mind that it's at the apex for most coffee enthusiasts', the sheer facts of how it's derived should instantly turn any reasonable person off from purchasing it. Ultimately, people will like what they like and eat what they want. The discussion needs to move to the mainstream before we can make even incremental progress on badly needed reforms to the agri-business industry.
http://world.time.com/2013/10/02/the-worlds-most-expensive-coffee-is-a-c...
As a food service industry veteran (catering), I can't help but profess a love for fine foods-including foie. However, one need not look past both its production, and the production of other luxury food items such as Kopi Luwak/Civet Coffee which has a a horrendous track record of animal cruelty in the production process. Never mind that it's at the apex for most coffee enthusiasts', the sheer facts of how it's derived should instantly turn any reasonable person off from purchasing it. Ultimately, people will like what they like and eat what they want. The discussion needs to move to the mainstream before we can make even incremental progress on badly needed reforms to the agri-business industry.
http://world.time.com/2013/10/02/the-worlds-most-expensive-coffee-is-a-c...
1
As I am sure Mark Bittman understands, the production of meat and dairy products to feed a nation of 300M is of necessity carried out on an industrial scale. Is this cruel? Yes, in the sense that the struggle for existence is and always has been cruel. Those who can afford it will, on occasion, enjoy pate de foie gras. Those less fortunate or more squeamish, will indulge in a delicious soy paste concocted by Mr. Bittman. Lest anyone think that I am insensitive to the cruelty of meat production, I still remember with horror being forced to wring the necks of chickens that my mother had fed on table scraps.
I find foie gras absolutely delicious. Some of my most memorable meals (I can remember meals from 50 yrs ago in detail), included seared foie gras.
I also eat chicken on a weekly basis, pork occasionally (I'm longing to make Julia Child's fabulous casserole-roasted pork loin with veggies), red meat rarely (not for any philosophical reason - I just try to avoid the fat in a great hamburger and who roasts a beef tenderloin for one!), fish every week or so, and tons of beans, lentils and various rices (wild rice in the winter). Also, lots of eggs, usually in the form of an omelet, year around. I also adore cheese.
I refuse to get caught up in the latest eating fads or to turn a meal into a political statement. I love good food, try to eat in ways that I won't regain anymore weight that I lost than I already have (hard to do at age 71), and eat a variety of foods, according to season. In August, I live on homegrown tomatoes, orange flesh melons, peaches, fresh figs, berries etc. In the winter, I crave dried fruits and citrus fruits.
I disagree with you that there are better organ meats. I adore calves liver but it's virtually impossible to buy in my town, even from a meat market, order sweetbreads whenever I find them on a menu. Brains are okay and I've yet to eat a kidney I liked.
When I can find it at a restaurant, game is my choice in the winter; some form of shell fish in the summer. I have no idea how the lobster or the scallops are treated. Nor do I care.
I also eat chicken on a weekly basis, pork occasionally (I'm longing to make Julia Child's fabulous casserole-roasted pork loin with veggies), red meat rarely (not for any philosophical reason - I just try to avoid the fat in a great hamburger and who roasts a beef tenderloin for one!), fish every week or so, and tons of beans, lentils and various rices (wild rice in the winter). Also, lots of eggs, usually in the form of an omelet, year around. I also adore cheese.
I refuse to get caught up in the latest eating fads or to turn a meal into a political statement. I love good food, try to eat in ways that I won't regain anymore weight that I lost than I already have (hard to do at age 71), and eat a variety of foods, according to season. In August, I live on homegrown tomatoes, orange flesh melons, peaches, fresh figs, berries etc. In the winter, I crave dried fruits and citrus fruits.
I disagree with you that there are better organ meats. I adore calves liver but it's virtually impossible to buy in my town, even from a meat market, order sweetbreads whenever I find them on a menu. Brains are okay and I've yet to eat a kidney I liked.
When I can find it at a restaurant, game is my choice in the winter; some form of shell fish in the summer. I have no idea how the lobster or the scallops are treated. Nor do I care.
4
Well, if the Buddhists are right, you will care in a future incarnation when you are being boiled alive. But until then, enjoy!
1
The "gavage" of ducks and geese is perfectly natural. Humans observed them gorging themselves before they flew off on their long winter migrations to southern climes. When they ate them at that time of year they figured out why they were so delicious, especially the livers, and proceeded to replicate the process. It is really much less cruel than most industrial meat and poultry production.
7
What we humans won't do for our gastronomic pleasure even when we understand the suffering involved to bring it to our plates. Inhumane treatment by meat producers is on a continuum from things like foie gras (also now banned veal crates) to those happy mythical cows frolicking in grass pastures until, of course, when they go to slaughter. If ducks are so insignificant, then why can't we just leave them be and draw the line somewhere past this animal cruelty. If the entire meat producing industry is cruel, why should we throw up our hands and open our mouths instead of stopping at this known inhumane treatment? Are our tastes so spoiled now we will knowingly demand foie gras with a side of cruelty? Apparently for some the answer is "yes."
2
Foie gras is an important issue because it is a food product that is obtained by subjecting living creatures to unconscionably cruel treatment. Of course it should be unlawful to treat any living creature in such a manner, no matter what the purpose.
If we humans wish to consume animal products, we at least can have laws that protect animals from living conditions and production practices that are tantamount to torture. A good place to start would be with foie gras, since its production is spectacularly cruel and morally indefensible. Another step in the right direction would be to ban the traditional method of making veal.
Yes, industrial rearing of poultry and beef the world over must be reformed. In the meantime, singling out the worst kinds of cruelty for an immediate ban is important, not insignificant.
It is too bad that the California ban was overturned.
For example, it is already possible to buy "free-range" poultry and beef.
If we humans wish to consume animal products, we at least can have laws that protect animals from living conditions and production practices that are tantamount to torture. A good place to start would be with foie gras, since its production is spectacularly cruel and morally indefensible. Another step in the right direction would be to ban the traditional method of making veal.
Yes, industrial rearing of poultry and beef the world over must be reformed. In the meantime, singling out the worst kinds of cruelty for an immediate ban is important, not insignificant.
It is too bad that the California ban was overturned.
For example, it is already possible to buy "free-range" poultry and beef.
4
A radical idea in the interest of human health: adoption of a Mediterranean diet that prepares meals with with less meat, but tastier, like prosciutto, Spanish ham, etc. And improve our heart health too!
A radical idea in the interest of livestock health: vertical farming/ greenhouses are being tested for agriculture. Why not vertical livestock yards? The animals will have more space and nice views too! I imagine something like Safdie's Habitat http://www.archdaily.com/404803/ad-classics-habitat-67-moshe-safdie/
where there are outdoor pens where the livestock can get a bit of fresh air and sun. The hens will lay much more nutritious eggs and the quality of the meat will be higher (think Kobe beef). And the animals will be respected during their brief lives.
A radical idea for wildlife: Less land used for livestock and less meat consumed means there is a bit more room for our stressed and declining wildlife. Habitat loss is really taking a toll. Let's get creative and make a better planet for the next generation!
A radical idea in the interest of livestock health: vertical farming/ greenhouses are being tested for agriculture. Why not vertical livestock yards? The animals will have more space and nice views too! I imagine something like Safdie's Habitat http://www.archdaily.com/404803/ad-classics-habitat-67-moshe-safdie/
where there are outdoor pens where the livestock can get a bit of fresh air and sun. The hens will lay much more nutritious eggs and the quality of the meat will be higher (think Kobe beef). And the animals will be respected during their brief lives.
A radical idea for wildlife: Less land used for livestock and less meat consumed means there is a bit more room for our stressed and declining wildlife. Habitat loss is really taking a toll. Let's get creative and make a better planet for the next generation!
2
So, 600,000 animals undergoing cruel force-feeding every year to produce foie gras is statistically "insignificant"? 600,000 is almost exactly the current population of Washington DC. So if something unspeakably cruel were to happen to Washington DC's 600,000 residents, would you say no problemo--things are worse in Baltimore?!
The meat industry is predicated on cruelty and suffering. The abuse of even one animal is too much, let alone 600,000 or millions or billions every year. You have to be a deliberately callous, selfish, and oblivious human to eat meat--the perfect mindless consumer.
The meat industry is predicated on cruelty and suffering. The abuse of even one animal is too much, let alone 600,000 or millions or billions every year. You have to be a deliberately callous, selfish, and oblivious human to eat meat--the perfect mindless consumer.
13
To eat meat, you must close your eyes to the cruelty of the industry.
1
Statistically insignificant compared to the hundreds of millions of chickens and cows dying to feed humans, yes. He's right.
I object to ALL breeding, use, abuse, mutilation, killing, dismembering and consumption of our fellow sentient beings. Farmed animals are intelligent, emotional, social beings who should not be regarded as commodities or resources. Humans should not be engaged in the forced ejaculation, insemination and removal of mother's milk of other beings; these practices constitute institutionalized sexual abuse. Might does not make right, and our fellow beings must be respected and protected from intentional harm. As a matter of justice, the interests of other species on this planet deserve equal consideration. Their interests in living, and in not having suffering and torture inflicted upon them, surely outweigh the fleeting palate pleasure of those who would degrade and kill them just because they like how they taste.
8
I am SOOO GLAD that someone has finally printed an article that points out the cruel treatment of other livestock and chickens is on a higher scale than force feeding the geese. One just has to watch "Food Inc" to see that. When they banned Foie Gras in 2012, it was so hypocritical not to have gone after banning meats from other industries. Thank you for saying that!!! And I'm glad they revoked the law. And let's not get started on banning all you can eat restaurants and how people are "force feeding" themselves, and being cruel to their own bodies.....
2
This reminds of people who say "why bother with animal cruelty issues when there are children being abused", as if ignoring the one will help the other. Cruelty is cruelty, and while yes, we need to work on the bigger issues in the animal food industry, this practice doesn't need to exist and should be recognized for what it is.
15
Ok. Foie gras involves "mistreating" 600,000 birds per year. Thanksgiving involves the drawn-out torture of, say, 50,000,000 birds per year. Read about how turkeys are "engineered" for bigger beasts to the point they can't even stand up. Arguing against foie gras is the ultimate hypocrisy.
2
This I don't understand. If a a neighborhood kid goes in for torturing cats, should I say "meh, whatever" because puppy mills mistreat more animals"? Ending the force-feeding of geese is not, for sure, going to end all animal cruelty. but it's a place to start.
1
absolutely another reason to do away with the "phony thanksgiving" holiday and go back to eating yams. Commerce has ruined them all anyway. It is not likely that many really know about the 1st Thanksgiving.
It's not hypocrisy at all if you refuse to be involved in the torture of the turkeys as well, and to object to that torture as well.
1
I remember seeing the geese in France FORCE fed for the first time. It was sickening. Especially when farmers in Spain were able to produce the same results without the cruelty. I have hunted and fished and grown my own all my life; I believe that everything has a season. It is my responsibility to do a little violence as possible. The truth is a humanely raised animal has a much better life than it's counter point in the wild. Death for a wild animal is far more violent and ugly than a responsible hunters bullet or a humanely raised raised animal who is killed and slaughtered in a compassionate way. If you must have your silly chopped goose liver, at least buy it from some one who understands that when an animal gives it life to feed you, at the very least you can do it pay it that respect.
15
I notice that most all of the readers' comments are from vegetarian people. We all need to be tolerant of each other's tastes and preferences in food, weather is good for you or not, or good practices or not. I agree with Mark on the singling out the raising of one species over the much larger industry raising cattle, poultry etc. (remember "Food , Inc."?). They are all "inhumane" practices if you want to call it that. After all, what's more "inhumane" than killing an animal and eating it?
1
Wish I could post some pictures here. "After all, what's more "inhumane" than killing an animal and eating it?"
How about turning it loose in 'Nature' to starve or be ripped to pieces by predators? I have been present for any number of "natural" deaths. They are neither swift, painless nor merciful.
I supervise the slaughter of my farm's meat goats in order to be able to assure customers that the animals die instantly, without pain or fear. Before that moment, they are in family groups, outdoors or in shelter, well-fed and watered.
Meat is going to be raised and eaten. If it will get the doctrinaire vegans and vegetarians off their moral high horse, think: if ethical people all quit eating meat, producers would have no incentive to treat animals well. Use your buying power (and yes, pay a little more - which you will save in health and environmental costs) to let them know it matters to you.
How about turning it loose in 'Nature' to starve or be ripped to pieces by predators? I have been present for any number of "natural" deaths. They are neither swift, painless nor merciful.
I supervise the slaughter of my farm's meat goats in order to be able to assure customers that the animals die instantly, without pain or fear. Before that moment, they are in family groups, outdoors or in shelter, well-fed and watered.
Meat is going to be raised and eaten. If it will get the doctrinaire vegans and vegetarians off their moral high horse, think: if ethical people all quit eating meat, producers would have no incentive to treat animals well. Use your buying power (and yes, pay a little more - which you will save in health and environmental costs) to let them know it matters to you.
1
I wish all animals farmers had the kind of concern for their animals but they don't and there is no way for consumers to be ensured that cradle to grave treatment was humane.
What makes fois gras different is that there is no uncruel alternative way to produce it.!!
1
Is it a nonissue in overfeeding geese or ducks by torturing them in the process?
3
Everyone in the U.S. is entitled (so far), to their likes & dislikes.
One can make an appointment @ http://www.hudsonvalleyfoiegras.com/ and see the process for oneself.
I would tend to value the opinion of someone who has done so, more than someone who has not done so.
One can make an appointment @ http://www.hudsonvalleyfoiegras.com/ and see the process for oneself.
I would tend to value the opinion of someone who has done so, more than someone who has not done so.
2
The abuses inflicted on chickens, cows, and other animals raised for food on an industrial scale are indeed atrocious, but that doesn’t make it any less atrocious to force-feed ducks and geese until their livers become diseased and bloated. Foie gras is egregious cruelty inflicted on animals for something that none of us need to eat, and it should be outlawed.
9
The banning of foie gras is just one step, of many, that should be taken. Why are you opposed to progress?
9
I grew up on a farm.
So I have seen one day old male calves of Dairy cattle at the animal auctions. Female calves grow up to produce an incredible amount of milk...Males? Don't need many bulls to fertilize those cows. Little guys barely able to stand up, stumbling around, bawling for their mothers! Then bought and kept in tight cages as this produces the whitest, most tender veal. Same with "spring lambs"--separated at birth from their moms.
I have seen the calves who weren't sold simply left to die in the backs of cattle vans. Ranchers talking over the final "mews" of these dying calves already covered by flies. I was always horrified, while others thought I was nuts for thinking that animals had feelings!
Forced feeding has NOTHING on how veal is produced, gestation crates for pigs, and slaughter of minks, seals, sable---Just WHEN did real fur come back in "Vogue?"
So I have seen one day old male calves of Dairy cattle at the animal auctions. Female calves grow up to produce an incredible amount of milk...Males? Don't need many bulls to fertilize those cows. Little guys barely able to stand up, stumbling around, bawling for their mothers! Then bought and kept in tight cages as this produces the whitest, most tender veal. Same with "spring lambs"--separated at birth from their moms.
I have seen the calves who weren't sold simply left to die in the backs of cattle vans. Ranchers talking over the final "mews" of these dying calves already covered by flies. I was always horrified, while others thought I was nuts for thinking that animals had feelings!
Forced feeding has NOTHING on how veal is produced, gestation crates for pigs, and slaughter of minks, seals, sable---Just WHEN did real fur come back in "Vogue?"
18
Thank you for this heartbreaking glimpse into the back story of animal production. These horrors are well hidden from most consumers eyes. And the animal production industry wants it that way, hence the "ag-gag" laws being passed in many meat-producing states. I firmly believe if more people saw the cruelty and suffering that these animals undergo, they would give up meat. And the planet would be a better place for it.
But I won't hold my breath!
But I won't hold my breath!
4
Yet again, Mr. Bittman is talking through his head. Please go back to writing about something you know about like your recipe for fried eggs over pasta!
4
Dear Mark Bittman, Thank you!
2
Mark: Where will our protein come from if not industrial farming? Are we suddenly going to return to the days of family farms and buying at farm stands? In a country of 300 million people, that is clearly not an option. Not to mention the food we export.
1
People don't need as much protein to be healthy as the meat industry suggests. Even the federal government abandoned the "4 food groups" -heavy on the meat and dairy- framework that many of us grew up on and had drilled into our heads. In the US many people would be healthier if they ate less meat and more of their protein came from plant based protein. But it's not an either / or (factory farming or farm stands) proposition. Surely we could reduce the stuff that's bad for us, bad for animals and bad for the planet in our food production. The problem is a lack of a sense of urgency --thus no pressing need to devote time, effort, energy and funds to innovation. Laws to protect the health of animals and the health of the general public-- by restricting horrible practices-- can create that sense of urgency that could produce an amazing solution that no one's thought of or that's been ignored.
3
As a vegan of many years in excellent health, I get my protein from the same place that elephants, gorillas, and the farmed animals you are eating do - from plants. In this journal article, Kaiser Permanente recommends eating a plant-based diet for better health: http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html
I wish people would concern themselves as much with the workers who toil in factory farms and are injured, maimed and killed at alarmingly high rates. Factory farming is well-known for employment policies and work places that abuse the most vulnerable working men and women in our society. We should be addressing this before we concern ourselves with ducks who are coddled in the lap of luxury in comparison.
2
We do concern ourselves. We are addressing this. One does not preclude the other. It's all part of the same repulsive system.
1
Then, of course, there's our ancestral chopped chicken liver mixed with schmaltz; both now considered unhealthy, but both really inexpensive. Done right, it's a cholesterol and taste bomb. Once in a while I'll go for it, with few worries about geese or food snobs.
Actually, I've never worried about either.
Actually, I've never worried about either.
Chicken liver with schmaltz is anything but unhealthy. Chicken livers are full of nutrients, and schmaltz is primarily composed of monounsaturated fats (like those found in olive oil). All the latest nutrition research has exonerated natural fats like schmaltz, and found trans-fats an vegetable oils high in omega-6 FAs to be the real problems. And dietary cholesterol has little bearing on serum cholesterol levels.
So eat that liver and schmaltz and enjoy!
So eat that liver and schmaltz and enjoy!
4
Simple solution: let the geese and ducks range free to stuff themselves. Farmers in Spain are raising geese along with pigs that are also ranged free. They've also won awards in France for their foie gras.
6
I am much more concerned about the number of obese humans in America than I am about the number of obese geese.
1
And what about the conditions for so many agricultural workers around the country?
1
If we change agricultural practices, especially by eliminating the ones that are viciously cruel to non-human animals, we change the working conditions of agricultural workers for the better.
1
"If we change agricultural practices, especially by eliminating the ones that are viciously cruel to non-human animals, we change the working conditions of agricultural workers for the better."
We can certainly hope so. One of the reasons industrial agriculture is so competitive is that, whether producing animal or vegetable products, it has an advantage of economies of scale. This inevitably leads to safety lapses, quality control issues, poor working wages, and often poor living conditions.
Supporting local, small-scale farms (again, both animal and vegetable products) can mitigate this to some degree. But people have to be willing to effect change with their pocketbooks, and that may mean paying more, or sourcing foods from somewhere besides the supermarket.
We can certainly hope so. One of the reasons industrial agriculture is so competitive is that, whether producing animal or vegetable products, it has an advantage of economies of scale. This inevitably leads to safety lapses, quality control issues, poor working wages, and often poor living conditions.
Supporting local, small-scale farms (again, both animal and vegetable products) can mitigate this to some degree. But people have to be willing to effect change with their pocketbooks, and that may mean paying more, or sourcing foods from somewhere besides the supermarket.
1
I know that we just feed cattle antibiotics to keep them alive despite the damage to their digestive system, just long enough to fatten them up before we kill them. That use of antibiotics endangers humans too, but we just do it anyways. And do you know why? It is not necessary to be cruel. It is just cheaper. 'The lack of money is the root of all evil'.
2
I have never had foie gras, but was not an advocate of the ban. So I only followed the issue from afar. Yet, Mr. Bittman's articles echo my own questions as a Californian. Is a foie-gras ban really just a balm to make us feel better about the fact we derive a great deal of epicurean pleasure made possible by slaughtering animals?
I've always been a bit baffled by a certain dissonance: the American habit of consuming large amounts of meat products made possible by assembly line style meat production, contrasted with a self-image as animal lovers.
A few years ago in Bakersfield, California, a local man (apparently mentally ill) was charged with animal cruelty (a felony in California) because he ate a cat (already dead, a road kill.) The prosecutors, the judge, the jury, were all in an uproar at this man's depravity, despite the fact he did not kill the cat.
This attitude startled me, because Bakersfield people were some of the biggest carnivores I have ever seen. Hunting was a common pastime, with a strong "kill-it-and-grill-it" mentality. A garden salad might be the only dish without meat you might find in a restaurant, and a couple of hours up the Interstate 5 was a huge factory-style cattle ranch.
It seems to me we are caught up in wanting it both ways. We want to maintain our culinary pleasures, but want to think of ourselves as humane animal-lovers.
I've always been a bit baffled by a certain dissonance: the American habit of consuming large amounts of meat products made possible by assembly line style meat production, contrasted with a self-image as animal lovers.
A few years ago in Bakersfield, California, a local man (apparently mentally ill) was charged with animal cruelty (a felony in California) because he ate a cat (already dead, a road kill.) The prosecutors, the judge, the jury, were all in an uproar at this man's depravity, despite the fact he did not kill the cat.
This attitude startled me, because Bakersfield people were some of the biggest carnivores I have ever seen. Hunting was a common pastime, with a strong "kill-it-and-grill-it" mentality. A garden salad might be the only dish without meat you might find in a restaurant, and a couple of hours up the Interstate 5 was a huge factory-style cattle ranch.
It seems to me we are caught up in wanting it both ways. We want to maintain our culinary pleasures, but want to think of ourselves as humane animal-lovers.
8
"contrasted with a self-image as animal lovers. "
I'm afraid that is all that it is--self image, I'd hate to count all the animals that I pass while driving that have been run over by vehicles in places where there shouldn't be any vehicles. cats, dogs, squirrels, birds, you name it. The animal-loving California disappeared many years ago.
I'm afraid that is all that it is--self image, I'd hate to count all the animals that I pass while driving that have been run over by vehicles in places where there shouldn't be any vehicles. cats, dogs, squirrels, birds, you name it. The animal-loving California disappeared many years ago.
Didn't read all 220 comments, sorry if this was mentioned already. Dan Barber attempted to raise "humane" foie in NY like the stuff he discovered in Spain. There was an interview on This American Life about the attempt which failed; http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/452/poultry-slam-....
I don't think bans are the answer. I love foie gras as well. I feel part of the solution is to tax it, use that tax as a grant of sorts to help come up with ways to raise foie without the controversialness of it as done by the Spain producer. It can be done, just more effort needs to be put towards finding out the right formula. That is if we cared about making it less controversial. I don't.
The ban apparently helped introduce backyard foie in California that uses methods that the industry have long curtailed in attempt to appease to animal activist groups. It goes for a premium as it apparently tastes better than that of Hudson and others. I've tried the Spain foie, and many others. The Spain foie is pretty good but the best I've had was produced in Brittany. I'm not about to stop having foie because of some morally obsessed activists. If a global ban were to occur, I'd be happy to purchase backyard foie. I may even attempt to get my hands on the product being raised in CA.
On a rather amusing note, I own a Hudson Valley Foie Gras baseball cap that I wear whenever I go to Whole Foods. The looks = priceless.
I don't think bans are the answer. I love foie gras as well. I feel part of the solution is to tax it, use that tax as a grant of sorts to help come up with ways to raise foie without the controversialness of it as done by the Spain producer. It can be done, just more effort needs to be put towards finding out the right formula. That is if we cared about making it less controversial. I don't.
The ban apparently helped introduce backyard foie in California that uses methods that the industry have long curtailed in attempt to appease to animal activist groups. It goes for a premium as it apparently tastes better than that of Hudson and others. I've tried the Spain foie, and many others. The Spain foie is pretty good but the best I've had was produced in Brittany. I'm not about to stop having foie because of some morally obsessed activists. If a global ban were to occur, I'd be happy to purchase backyard foie. I may even attempt to get my hands on the product being raised in CA.
On a rather amusing note, I own a Hudson Valley Foie Gras baseball cap that I wear whenever I go to Whole Foods. The looks = priceless.
4
"I am not an extremist (activist/vegan) but I do hope & believe that one day people will look back at our era with disgust at how humans once considered themselves to be the only animal deserving the right to a life free from intentional harm."
This is a rather peculiar statement. First, animals don't have the level of cognitive processing to consider whether other animals "deserve" anything. Second, animals behave according to survival instincts, meaning that while they may not ruminate over the ethics of eating prey, carnivorous and omnivorous animals will eat other animals, and rather intentionally so.
That said, we should work to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) animal suffering in the food production system. This should be a common goal of compassionate consumers, whatever their dietary preference. And as several commenters have noted, contra the OP, there are ways to raise geese and ducks for foie gras without inhumane methods: the birds naturally fatten their livers seasonally before long migrations, and they will happily consume enough to fatten the livers (painlessly) if an abundance of food is available.
This is a rather peculiar statement. First, animals don't have the level of cognitive processing to consider whether other animals "deserve" anything. Second, animals behave according to survival instincts, meaning that while they may not ruminate over the ethics of eating prey, carnivorous and omnivorous animals will eat other animals, and rather intentionally so.
That said, we should work to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) animal suffering in the food production system. This should be a common goal of compassionate consumers, whatever their dietary preference. And as several commenters have noted, contra the OP, there are ways to raise geese and ducks for foie gras without inhumane methods: the birds naturally fatten their livers seasonally before long migrations, and they will happily consume enough to fatten the livers (painlessly) if an abundance of food is available.
1
"I can only hope that evolution, which has favored large brains and altruism, will eventually rid the world of neanderthals like you."
I don't think altruism is an evolutionary trait. It's something taught by society not bred in. This is sort of good news for you MM because this means it moves quicker than say ridding of wisdom teeth evolutionary wise. Evolution takes a great deal of time so for altruism to thrive via that of evolution it would be a while. Socially, it's something that is challenged. Personally I feel we have al to much of ethics, altruism and compassion in society. Both my parents were vegans. My mom went to Woodstock and explored the country via train hopping. My dad was anti-war but drafted to serve in Vietnam which further brought out leftist ideals. Being brought up in a vegan home with the push on altruism seemed to push me away from this, Not out of rebellion of parents, I love them very much but the being brought up with it and questioning its worth. Rules too often get in the way and prevent innovation, change. We spend too much time harping on issues that really have little to no impact besides their symbolism.
Back to what I quoted of you. So your ideal is that everyone blindly follow what society determines and never disagrees. Otherwise those of us who do disagree fall into the category "neanderthals." You are equally as bad as the terrorist in France, "how dare you disagree we me!"
I don't think altruism is an evolutionary trait. It's something taught by society not bred in. This is sort of good news for you MM because this means it moves quicker than say ridding of wisdom teeth evolutionary wise. Evolution takes a great deal of time so for altruism to thrive via that of evolution it would be a while. Socially, it's something that is challenged. Personally I feel we have al to much of ethics, altruism and compassion in society. Both my parents were vegans. My mom went to Woodstock and explored the country via train hopping. My dad was anti-war but drafted to serve in Vietnam which further brought out leftist ideals. Being brought up in a vegan home with the push on altruism seemed to push me away from this, Not out of rebellion of parents, I love them very much but the being brought up with it and questioning its worth. Rules too often get in the way and prevent innovation, change. We spend too much time harping on issues that really have little to no impact besides their symbolism.
Back to what I quoted of you. So your ideal is that everyone blindly follow what society determines and never disagrees. Otherwise those of us who do disagree fall into the category "neanderthals." You are equally as bad as the terrorist in France, "how dare you disagree we me!"
James Kling, "And as several commenters have noted, contra the OP, there are ways to raise geese and ducks for foie gras without inhumane methods"
Did you listen to the podcast I linked in the original post? It's about Dan Barber's experience attempting to recreate the Spain foie. Indeed it's possible and I mention a tax is necessary on the one product to provide grants to encourage producers to raise in the non-suffering way. For me though, it's not that I'm not saying it's impossible, that it just failed for Dan Barber. More research is needed. For me though, I don't really care. The backyard foie is better because it's fattier due to treatments that are used that have long been phased out which do me the livers fattier. Indeed probably the best foie I've had is commercially produced and that is from Brittany. I have had the non-force fed foie from Spain that Dan Barber talks about (Bittman links the TED talk.) It's good, not as good honestly..a bit hyped probably due to it's ethicalness.
Nonetheless, I'm not arguing that it's not possible to raise them without force feeding. It is possible, and that's what I argue about the tax on the force fed to grow the supply of the non-force fed. The only thing I mention is that for me, this is a non-issue. I just don't care. To me, someone who has foie gras rather often (I do go to the gym 3-5 hours a day, 7 days a week)..I do notice the difference in flavor and texture.
Did you listen to the podcast I linked in the original post? It's about Dan Barber's experience attempting to recreate the Spain foie. Indeed it's possible and I mention a tax is necessary on the one product to provide grants to encourage producers to raise in the non-suffering way. For me though, it's not that I'm not saying it's impossible, that it just failed for Dan Barber. More research is needed. For me though, I don't really care. The backyard foie is better because it's fattier due to treatments that are used that have long been phased out which do me the livers fattier. Indeed probably the best foie I've had is commercially produced and that is from Brittany. I have had the non-force fed foie from Spain that Dan Barber talks about (Bittman links the TED talk.) It's good, not as good honestly..a bit hyped probably due to it's ethicalness.
Nonetheless, I'm not arguing that it's not possible to raise them without force feeding. It is possible, and that's what I argue about the tax on the force fed to grow the supply of the non-force fed. The only thing I mention is that for me, this is a non-issue. I just don't care. To me, someone who has foie gras rather often (I do go to the gym 3-5 hours a day, 7 days a week)..I do notice the difference in flavor and texture.
As a Californian who is used to seeing crazy legislation and causes, I have no idea why foie gras attracted the legislature's ire, except as a class issue It is easier to ban a luxury menu item that only appears on four star restaurant menus than the ubiquitous burger which is the result of similar cruel farming and processing practices. With all due respect o Temple Grandin, all meat production is cruel and inflicts needless suffering on farm animals. Although I love meat, I have no necessary to see an abattoir or even learn about the facts involved in meat production. We should leave it at that. Federal law provides basic standards and state efforts to tinker with animal welfare in meat production should be banned. If you think foie gras inflicts unnecessary pain on geese, then don't order it.
1
Foie Gras unimportant unless you happen to be one of the 600,000 going through the torture. Just, as I guess, the killing of 12 journalists at Charlie Hedbo is irrelevant in the scheme of things given how many people are killed every day in war, domestic disputes, drug wars, etc. Or, that the beheadings by ISIS are insignificant because there are so few.
We agree - all animals raised for food lead unnatural and often tortured existences. We reach different conclusions - domination over animals needs to end - even for the ducks and geese.
We agree - all animals raised for food lead unnatural and often tortured existences. We reach different conclusions - domination over animals needs to end - even for the ducks and geese.
12
The ideas that foie gras "... is among the most overrated of luxury ingredients..." that it ..."is the least important (many organ meats are more enjoyable)" ...and that "most chefs cook it not because they love it but to appeal to food snobs..." are laughable. Questions of animal cruelty aside, at first bite I was convinced that foie gras is divine.
5
Of course we are probably far crueler to the plants we eat than the animals we eat. At least we have empathy for how we imagine animals might feel and try to accommodate them. Because plants sense the world in ways that are so alien to us, we assume we can't commit cruelty to them. Yet we know when damaged, they emit all kinds of chemicals in response. Who knows how vile and cruel we actually might be to them!
5
Absolutely.
Overfeed and over medicated chicken grown in weeks compared to organic chicken grown in months are considered as victims of animal cruelty.
Nobody ever complains for overfeed and over medicated potatoes grown way faster than organic potatoes. People only complain about their taste, not about the way they are grown.
The closer you are from human genes the more your pain matters, this is ridiculously ethnocentric.
Overfeed and over medicated chicken grown in weeks compared to organic chicken grown in months are considered as victims of animal cruelty.
Nobody ever complains for overfeed and over medicated potatoes grown way faster than organic potatoes. People only complain about their taste, not about the way they are grown.
The closer you are from human genes the more your pain matters, this is ridiculously ethnocentric.
2
Plants have feelings too, do they? No they don't. Ask any child. In this case science and common sense agree. Plants are amazingly sensitive to their environments, but they don't think or feel. There's no one there. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Since each animal consumed by humans eats vast numbers of plants during its lifetime, breeding animals for food hugely increases the amount of cruelty in the world -- by your own logic.
5
The ability to feel pain depends on having a nervous system and a brain. While it is true that some plants are very sensitive to their environment, nobody has been able to demonstrate that they have a nervous system and a brain, and therefore, feel pain.
So we can't say that plants "suffer" except by semantically stretching the meaning of the word to the extent it no longer corresponds to what animals and humans experience as "suffering."
This argument is of course often used by people who feel they need rationalize eating flesh foods. If you want to eat flesh foods go ahead, but don't use some harmful practices in growing and harvesting plant foods as a justification for eating meat. That is a "false equivalence."
So we can't say that plants "suffer" except by semantically stretching the meaning of the word to the extent it no longer corresponds to what animals and humans experience as "suffering."
This argument is of course often used by people who feel they need rationalize eating flesh foods. If you want to eat flesh foods go ahead, but don't use some harmful practices in growing and harvesting plant foods as a justification for eating meat. That is a "false equivalence."
2
Amazing! All these hooples worrying about fowl birds in a world gone mad where children are guided missiles and cartoonists targets.
1
@Al: Are you unable to care about two things at the same time?
What actions are you taking to protect children? I find that people who bring up the "but people should care about x" argument often are doing quite little about "x" themselves.
What actions are you taking to protect children? I find that people who bring up the "but people should care about x" argument often are doing quite little about "x" themselves.
10
I know what you mean. It's hard to walk and chew gum at the same time, isn't it?
5
Pity the poor oyster.
First time ever I've disagreed with you, Mark. A fantastic record!
It's quite true that outlawing foie gras is only the tiniest of steps toward preventing cruelty to animals, but it is a step in the right direction.
It's quite true that outlawing foie gras is only the tiniest of steps toward preventing cruelty to animals, but it is a step in the right direction.
12
The conditions under which poultry is raised in this country are dreadful (Bittman puts it well: "You can taste the misery"), but what really gets me is the practice of raising sun-loving, intelligent pigs underground, in the dark, in tiny cages.
14
I am totally unconcerned with force feeding geese or grain finishing beef. I no longer eat beluga because it just got too expensive. Foie gas is delightful and affordable from time to time . While it may be true that some order it out of pretention, most do not. I find those who anthropomorphize animals, who proclaim their vegan ism and who want to tell me what to eat to be far more pretentious.
4
No, it's the arrogance of your cold heart and blind eyes that is pretentious, that is, based on the pretense that you are in any position to gage the sentience and experience of other species. Trust me, you're missing the boat on this one, Allman.
5
If foie gras was "natural", it would just be called foie. The gras comes from ramming metal pipes down geese and ducks' throats and overfeeding them, which is categorically cruel. I certainly see why people want to ban something as gluttonous as that when there are heaps of starving people all over the world.
37
No, the “gras” means, literally, “fat.” A goose or duck that eats more simple-carb food than it is naturally evolved to is going to get a fatty liver, regardless of whether that food is rammed down its throat or the bird is given unlimited access to it. Come to think of it, so would humans. At least we consciously seek out and enjoy the stuff that’s slowly killing us....
They don't have throats.
Please spare us that old canard about starving people all over the world. You really think banning foie gras can cure world hunger?
If it comes down to survival almost any edible material is acceptable. This principle more than likely is why we are here for this discussion. At this stage, however, we should have learned that routine living on this planet would probably be best served by as much vegetarianism as possible with as little as the life giving protein from the animal kingdom as possible. I am , of course, realistic enough to know this will not be the case.
3
I have to agree with some of the other comments here, even if the number of Geese and Ducks is small compared to the poultry and cattle industry, it is still a worthy goal to end the cruelty that these animals endure. I would like to live in a world where humans respect the life of the animals we share this planet with. It might become less appealing to eat animal flesh if faced with the reality of factory farming every time someone sat down to a meal. People who consume animals that are raised inhumanely should be ashamed of themselves. They are obviously ignoring the horrors that those animals lived through before being killed for food.
12
Strange world where long time wealthy meat eaters are now wondering how get rid of it, while so many poor people dream about eating meat on a regular basis and consider this as a middle class privilege.
8
A couple things: 1) Foie gras really is all that. Prepared properly and accompanied by a nice glass of wine, it has a rich, caramelized taste, a velvety feel, and melt-in-your-mouth goodness. One of my favorite indulgences. 2) By applying anthropomorphic standards to the animals we choose to kill and eat, we quickly find ourselves slipping and sliding down a precarious slope. I never understood cans of Bumble Bee or Starkist that proclaimed: "Dolphin-free tuna!" OK. Uh, what about the tuna? Why the hall pass for the bottlenose, but not the albacore? Shouldn't we just have cans of "Tuna-free tuna!" ?
3
Stop being responsible (yes, you) and complicit in the torture and abuse of other living animals who have an interest in their own lives, and are absent of any choice. Your taste bud's fondness for foie gras, a liver in this case, but any animal's flesh or body parts will apply, does not morally supersede the wishes of the goose. The numbers of the animals does not have an impact on the morality. One goose, ten thousand cattle, 1 billion chickens: irrelevant. They're all individual lives.
It's just that simple.
Go vegan.
It's just that simple.
Go vegan.
1
Exactly, ckciii! Many of us have slid down the slippery slope to considering the feelings of all animals. Tuna-free tuna does exist, by the way (there's a brand called "Tuno"), and that would be the kind to eat if one prefers not to cause pain and distress among animals. (Fish often suffer quite a bit when caught.)
3
And do you wear hemp shoes? Never have a stitch of leather in your car? Never watch football (pigskin/leather)? Never watch baseball (horsehide)? Just curious how far down the slippery slope you've been willing to slide?
Years ago, I believe your newspaper did a story on the "dainty" and it wrote of women in the old country keeping a goose in a box, feeding it fat for its liver. I have never been able to shake the image of such a woman ---- it is all yours!
1
As a child in Paris going to see a screening with my parents in the 50s, I remember that it had no words. It was about an elderly man feeding his poultry their grain and giving his feral cats some milk in front of the door of his closed barn where the arm of his wife is seen edging out from under the door, and groping for crumbs. It left a memorable impression on this young viewer at the time.
Isn't it good to know that whatever delicacy the affluent have a taste for can be excused by Mark Bittman on animal welfare grounds, simply because it's not the common offending fare of the hoi polloi.
Anything that's produced in small batches, even if cruel, need not concern us. Is that it, Mr. B?
Sounds like an ideal moral—and marketing—niche to occupy, for a news source targeting the affluent with culinary adventures, restaurants, products and recipes.
Anything that's produced in small batches, even if cruel, need not concern us. Is that it, Mr. B?
Sounds like an ideal moral—and marketing—niche to occupy, for a news source targeting the affluent with culinary adventures, restaurants, products and recipes.
5
When I see a point argued on the basis of name calling, e.g. snobs, rich people, or emotional manipulation, I stop reading and move on.
2
But we also pay a lot of money for fur coats , and cars that pollute the environment! I think society not properly places priorities ! All let things slide for the murder of children in Pakistan , but people are going through because of the geese !
2
Foie gras production cruel? I have observed gavage of ducks by an artisanal producer of foie gras near Toulouse. The ducks were eager to be fed, but no more eager than other farm animals. They were treated with the same kind concern that I have seen other small farmers give their animals. There was no cruelty. I looked for and could see no evidence of suffering. Nothing about the fed ducks' behavior caused me to suspect that they might be in distress. I certainly can't claim that no one was ever cruel in the production of foie gras. But my observation makes me confident that cruelty is not intrinsic to the process.
Mr. Bittman dismisses foie gras as overrated. To me, it is one of the most delightful foods. Far from being a showpiece for chefs, as the article claims, foie gras is best when most simply prepared. Like dark chocolate, lamb, or blue crabs, the basic material is so good that it can't be improved by fussy preparation.
Mr. Bittman dismisses foie gras as overrated. To me, it is one of the most delightful foods. Far from being a showpiece for chefs, as the article claims, foie gras is best when most simply prepared. Like dark chocolate, lamb, or blue crabs, the basic material is so good that it can't be improved by fussy preparation.
8
Culturally meat and potatoes are a deeply rooted in us as North Americans as well as Europe and many places in the world. While i don't support this culture of cruelty there is a difference between changing something so deeply imbedded and an adopted ridiculous food like Foie Gras. Foie Gras isn't a staple. It is an affected choice, pretense via food. From the liver of a goose, who's liver processes all the toxins of it's body. A really intelligent choice to eat, on so many levels. Foie Gras is a small battle, there is a bigger war, the animal industry. Neither are acceptable or conscious but these significant but smaller things can be changed and should be. Mark Bittman you lost a reader in me.
1
I suppose its a matter of taste, but I strongly disagree with your view, Mr. Bittman, that foie gras is overrated. To my taste, its incomparably delicious when done right. I order it almost whenever I see it on the menu.
I do agree the cruelty issue is overrated. In this case, the force feeding simply exaggerates what wild geese do naturally before migration - stuff themselves to put on the necessary energy stores of fat for the long journey ahead (the Romans discovered how to imitate this natural process 2000 years ago). The enlarged liver is a natural consequence of that fattening up. Let's face it, there are far more cruel practices than force feeding an animal.
I do agree the cruelty issue is overrated. In this case, the force feeding simply exaggerates what wild geese do naturally before migration - stuff themselves to put on the necessary energy stores of fat for the long journey ahead (the Romans discovered how to imitate this natural process 2000 years ago). The enlarged liver is a natural consequence of that fattening up. Let's face it, there are far more cruel practices than force feeding an animal.
4
I once read a doctor's description of what it was like for a patient that needed to be intubated. Intubation involves sticking a tube into someone's mouth and into the airway so that they can be put on some sort of ventilator. The doctor said that for the patient, the sensation was something akin to feeling like they were being drowned. This is what I imagine force-feeding an animal with a funnel must be like for them. They must feel like they are drowning--every single time. Why would we do that to any other animal just so that we can fatten them up and eat their livers? It's torture. Plain and simple. Yes, we routinely torture a lot of other animals and later eat them (or not), but none of it should be okay. Torturing our fellow animals should not be okay--for any reason. How else to distinguish ourselves from our fellow animals if not that we know better and act like we do?
8
Of course ducks and geese, unlike humans, do not have a gag reflex -- so in this case we should be wary of using too-great a degree of anthropomorphism. As Bittman properly points out, the birds that supply America's chicken addiction suffer more by leaps and bounds than fowl raised for foie gras
1
This is the basic argument against foie gras, how would you like a tube stuck down your throat? How about a different question, how would you like to swallow a fish whole? It would probably kill you, and it would be very uncomfortable. But a geese or duck? They have done it for millions of years, they must be masochists...
I disagree with Mr. Bittman. As Schopenhauer said so well, "The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality." Foie gras may involve fewer creatures than poultry production, but it is still important to the hundreds of thousands of geese who are force fed. Their lives matter to them, just like our lives matter to us. It's simple, either you believe that animals are conscious and feel joy, pain and can suffer, or you don't - a position I find mystifying and indefensible.
13
I don't think you read the entire column.
1
Bittman's attitude is dismissive - "But so what?" His statement "This is not to say a few thousand ducks and geese don't matter; it is to say that it's important to keep perspective" implies that these lives [not thousands but hundreds of thousands] in fact don't really matter because of the numbers. The sentence tracks as 'This is not to say...BUT.' He certainly never makes a case for how those lives matter, beyond as an ingredient for foie gras. Instead he argues that the geese are "the tiniest fraction of meat production" and those who protest are missing the big picture. He somehow refuses to believe that many of those who protest foie gras also protest "the big picture" of meat production and fishing, including for Sturgeon. He also fails to consider that if people can start to feel empathy for the clear and obvious abuse of geese, perhaps someday they will feel the same empathy for the invisible billions of other souls suffering and dying in factory farms. If the lives of the geese had moral significance to Bittman, the numbers simply wouldn't matter. It's not even clear that Bittman cares enough about the billions of cows, hens and pigs from "an industry that produces cruelty on a scale that's so big and overwhelming few of us can consider it rationally or regularly" to stop promoting their consumption. If he does care, he should act that way and join the only viable future, a vegan future.
1
If faced with personally killing an animal each time I wanted to eat meat I would never do it. Animals are sentient creatures with unique personalities, anyone who keeps pets knows this. After watching Samsara and seeing gestation crates I knew the time had come, no more meat for me. Treating animals in this way is certainly wrong- witness American revulsion at the Chinese practice of eating dogs- farm animals are no different.
11
Yeah -- you would. Countless millions before you, for all of human history, killed their own meat animals.
Many of the animals we consider "normal" do not exist in nature -- we CREATED them, bred them into existence, to serve as a source of meat. If we stopped feeding and caring for them, they would die horrible deaths of starvation and neglect. A cow weighs 1500 lbs or more -- whose going to feed a cow that has no purpose? a pig that weighs 600 lbs? do you have any idea much such animals eat? or the cost of their medical care?
If you go to any poor part of the world, you readily see people who kill -- and gladly! -- chickens, pigs, goats so they and their children can eat quality protein. You would too, if you did not have a Whole Foods on every street corner.
Many of the animals we consider "normal" do not exist in nature -- we CREATED them, bred them into existence, to serve as a source of meat. If we stopped feeding and caring for them, they would die horrible deaths of starvation and neglect. A cow weighs 1500 lbs or more -- whose going to feed a cow that has no purpose? a pig that weighs 600 lbs? do you have any idea much such animals eat? or the cost of their medical care?
If you go to any poor part of the world, you readily see people who kill -- and gladly! -- chickens, pigs, goats so they and their children can eat quality protein. You would too, if you did not have a Whole Foods on every street corner.
1
Does widespread cruelty to a large number of different types of animals excuse a specific type of cruelty to a small number of one type of animal?
Is it not a big deal that the government has allowed a meat to be sold that is illegal to produce because of its (government-recognized) cruelty?
Is it not a big deal that the government has allowed a meat to be sold that is illegal to produce because of its (government-recognized) cruelty?
3
So the argument basically boils down to this: If we can't solve all the problems, we shouldn't solve any of them. But it is precisely because foie gras is a relatively small industry that reforming or even banning it is an achievable goal. It makes no sense to abandon a goal simply because it is realistic. That being said, obviously, animal protectionists are fighting to reform the egg, dairy, and meat industries as well. But they have different tactics for those--fighting for outright bans isn't realistic, even if bans would accomplish a lot for animals.
9
Foie gras is excellent. If you don't like it, don't eat it.
There are humane methods of inducing this naturally occurring fatty liver in ducks and geese, and the local producers use these. Foie gras is a snob food only in America (where else?). I think there are far more vital and poignant issues than foie gras. Again, where else besides cheesy, foolish, belly button contemplating, faddist, superficial California would this be legislated? Cheesh.
There are humane methods of inducing this naturally occurring fatty liver in ducks and geese, and the local producers use these. Foie gras is a snob food only in America (where else?). I think there are far more vital and poignant issues than foie gras. Again, where else besides cheesy, foolish, belly button contemplating, faddist, superficial California would this be legislated? Cheesh.
8
Olivier, you had me until your last sentence.
3
I have eaten foie gras numerous times (including in its "native" Perigord region) and I find it delicious. Yet I am appalled at the practices used to produce it. Bittman reminds us all that, in the scheme of things, our carnivorous dining habits inflict pain and suffering all the time, on all our meat choices.
Reducing the fear and pain components of killing an animal for food should be a goal, but it's really in the living rather than the dying that we perceive the most horror in our meat production processes.
So, here's a debate-- shall we focus first on improving the living and slaughtering conditions for all food animals, or instead on reducing meat consumption (thereby reducing the number of animals subject to these practices)? Of course they can be done in parallel, but if you had to spend your life campaigning for one or the other, which would it be?
We don't have to choose. By reducing meat consumption, we can afford better-quality meat. Eat 3 ounces instead of 8, and let it be pasture-raised. Less cheese, but from cows whose udders aren't dragging the ground. Same cost to the consumer, better health, better environment, better conditions for the meat animals.
If you are what you eat, the last thing we should consume is over-stuffed, drugged, stressed critters with sore nipples and the nose cut off.
While bean curd may not stem my yearning for foie gras, one has to make concessions. But please let me hold onto my Trader Joe's pumpkin ice cream!
Reducing the fear and pain components of killing an animal for food should be a goal, but it's really in the living rather than the dying that we perceive the most horror in our meat production processes.
So, here's a debate-- shall we focus first on improving the living and slaughtering conditions for all food animals, or instead on reducing meat consumption (thereby reducing the number of animals subject to these practices)? Of course they can be done in parallel, but if you had to spend your life campaigning for one or the other, which would it be?
We don't have to choose. By reducing meat consumption, we can afford better-quality meat. Eat 3 ounces instead of 8, and let it be pasture-raised. Less cheese, but from cows whose udders aren't dragging the ground. Same cost to the consumer, better health, better environment, better conditions for the meat animals.
If you are what you eat, the last thing we should consume is over-stuffed, drugged, stressed critters with sore nipples and the nose cut off.
While bean curd may not stem my yearning for foie gras, one has to make concessions. But please let me hold onto my Trader Joe's pumpkin ice cream!
6
Right on about TJ's pumpkin ice cream ... and I have to assume no pumpkins were hurt in its making and cows readily donated cream to make it scrumptious.
2
Actually, I think Mark is trying to make the point that people are focusing current energy on foie gras which we deem to be horrific. He's emphasizing that ALL meat production is horrific and that we, as humans who love to rationalize every form for cruelty against animals, deem it to be worse than most meat production. This is simply not the case. While foie gras production absolutely disgusting and should be banned, the larger picture is also very scary, and almost worse. The amount of animals that suffer on a daily basis due to meat production (and not just rich people food) should also be focused on and also changed drastically. Just remember, Mark is a huge proponent of meatless meals...he's not the enemy. Everyone who eats meat and preaches about fois gras really is.
6
"He's emphasizing that ALL meat production is horrific..."
And that is incorrect. It's why the article lacks rigor.
And that is incorrect. It's why the article lacks rigor.
5
James Kling: In my high school English classes, they taught us to discern the differences between statements of fact and of opinion. "Horrific" is a statement of opinion. Hence, it cannot "lack rigor."
1
"James Kling: In my high school English classes, they taught us to discern the differences between statements of fact and of opinion. "Horrific" is a statement of opinion. Hence, it cannot "lack rigor." "
An excellent point. However, rigor would apply to the diligence with which the facts used to make assertions were gathered and put together to form the argument. Bittman's assertion that virtually all meat production is cruel displays an astonishing ignorance of the spectrum of practices out there in raising livestock. Bittman latches onto various trends and memes without any hint of nuance or detail. What he omits from his discussion, at the expense of his discourse on foie, suggests that he is being intellectually dishonest. He's clearly pushing against meat and egg production, never suggesting that there are humane and sustainable alternatives available.
An excellent point. However, rigor would apply to the diligence with which the facts used to make assertions were gathered and put together to form the argument. Bittman's assertion that virtually all meat production is cruel displays an astonishing ignorance of the spectrum of practices out there in raising livestock. Bittman latches onto various trends and memes without any hint of nuance or detail. What he omits from his discussion, at the expense of his discourse on foie, suggests that he is being intellectually dishonest. He's clearly pushing against meat and egg production, never suggesting that there are humane and sustainable alternatives available.
1
Mr. Bittman seems to admit tacitly what I already thought: that the crusade agains foie gras is only an opening wedge in a war to force us all to be vegetarians. The animal rights activists see foie gras ("rich man's food") as low-hanging fruit, and an early salvo to get people accustomed to the guns going off, before they come after all poultry products. You don't think they'll stop at foie gras, do you, or that the anti-veal crusaders are going to let us keep eating red meat? It's a sin to tell a lie, and I wonder if all the people signing petitions against foie gras would do so if they knew how they're being duped, or that the people getting them heated up about ducks and geese eventually want to snatch the last morsel of animal protein off thier plates. They're fanatics, and you cannot reason with them.
8
Sure, jh, there are zealots in any campaign for change. But as I eat less meat and explore other cuisines, for example, that do not depend on animal cruelty products, I am also grateful every day that I live where I can obtain safely and humanely raised meat. If others elsewhere in the country start insisting on this, things can change. No need to bash protesters, etc. They mean well, and their noise can help the less extreme but important changes happen.
You really don't have to be a vegetarian to be against animal cruelty!
You really don't have to be a vegetarian to be against animal cruelty!
4
This was exactly the strategy used against fur: since fur is a luxury product worn primarily by women - and entailed tortuous slaughter methods as well as trapping of wild species - it was an easy target. In one sense this was highly effective, drastically shrinking the fur industry. How often do you see a fashionable woman under the age of 70 wearing fur?
But the renunciation of fur did NOTHING to reform animal-farming methods at all. If anything, those have gotten worse over the last 30 years since the anti-fur movement grew. And ironically, leather has become much more popular in both women's and men's clothing.
More to your point: the most vocal opponents to foie gras and fur ARE radical vegans who - like PETA - are opposed to ANY human use of animal products, including wool, honey, and all medical experimentation - no matter the necessity or conditions - since they can consider any and all animal life as equal in value to humans. Yes, even rats!
They're even against adopting animals as pets/companion animals - even against the use of guide dogs and other service animals. If you think I'm exaggerating, look it up.
Yes, I do advocate for more humane animal farming - and if it's not possible to produce foie gras or fur humanely, they should be banned.
But targeting these items as the opening salvo to force total veganism on everyone won't work - and won't do anything to improve animal farming conditions or the lives of animals.
But the renunciation of fur did NOTHING to reform animal-farming methods at all. If anything, those have gotten worse over the last 30 years since the anti-fur movement grew. And ironically, leather has become much more popular in both women's and men's clothing.
More to your point: the most vocal opponents to foie gras and fur ARE radical vegans who - like PETA - are opposed to ANY human use of animal products, including wool, honey, and all medical experimentation - no matter the necessity or conditions - since they can consider any and all animal life as equal in value to humans. Yes, even rats!
They're even against adopting animals as pets/companion animals - even against the use of guide dogs and other service animals. If you think I'm exaggerating, look it up.
Yes, I do advocate for more humane animal farming - and if it's not possible to produce foie gras or fur humanely, they should be banned.
But targeting these items as the opening salvo to force total veganism on everyone won't work - and won't do anything to improve animal farming conditions or the lives of animals.
6
Foie gras means fat liver!
2
Strange world where foie gras is banned because it is unhealthy for animals, but sodas and burgers which are unhealthy for humans are not.
11
Well, technically, the burger is fine. The bun, that's the nutritional equivalent of a candy bar.
3
Foie gras is not "unhealthy" for animals, it constitutes torture of animals. Humans have free will to choose what they wish to eat; these birds have no such choice. They were born into captivity and have more food than they care to consume gunned into their stomach through metal pipes until they are killed for gratutitous human consumption. Such cruelty MUST be banned in a just society.
I love foie gras. Caviar is a guilty pleasure and white truffles are extraordinary, especially in Italy.
If you think they are overrated, mr. Bittman, don't eat them.
If you think they are overrated, mr. Bittman, don't eat them.
11
Once upon a time, I was entertained quite regularly by wealthy, wealthy folks in Europe. I found foie gras to be much like the "goose liver" once sold in supermarkets as lunch meat...Truffles were added to some dishes, but failed to impress me, and caviar is disgustingly fishy!! So, let those who wish to impress others by eating such things eat them and brag about it....As for me? I'll stick to baked sweet potatoes, avacados and maybe a really good rare steak now and then as special. I would like to give up the steak forever, but I'm still a meat eater.
He is not saying he constantly eats overrated foods. Can you imagine what he would do to well-rated foods?
He is a food and dining expert and has eaten far more widely than you. He is allowed to have his opinion. You probably don't like being called out in his article.
He is a food and dining expert and has eaten far more widely than you. He is allowed to have his opinion. You probably don't like being called out in his article.
1
How do you know who I am and what I do? That's a bit presumptuous, don't you think?
after reading a few dozen comments, i just don't get it. why, in order to make a personal or political point about a particular injustice, must all other injustices be minimized, mocked, or criticized? why does a photo of a cat being tortured raise passions more than a foreign person being tortured? why are people who portray themselves as saviors of one sort or another filled with so much hatred and vitriol? it's pretty much asking, as a group, to be mocked by those larger outside forces that maintain the systems of cruelty against which you protest.
how about, adopt any cause you like but don't attack others who might have different causes. there's plenty of hatred without all the self-proclaimed do-gooders going after each other. this is a lesson that was quite apparent back around 1970. has no one learned anything from political history?
how about, adopt any cause you like but don't attack others who might have different causes. there's plenty of hatred without all the self-proclaimed do-gooders going after each other. this is a lesson that was quite apparent back around 1970. has no one learned anything from political history?
13
The fact that it's "statistically insignificant" doesn't mean that it's "a non-issue." The fact that there's no outcry over caviar doesn't mean that foie gras should be exempt from protest. And whether a food is consumed by the rich, the middle class, or the poor is irrelevant. Cruelty should be called out.
15
A "relatively moderate price" of $50-$75 a pound? When do you consider something expensive?
5
I don't think Mr Bittman and others have quite your appetite. Foie gras is not something that most people sit down and eat by the pound before their main course.
As he noted, 'relatively'. Other luxury products are many times more expensive.
A visit to an abattoir by one and all, would reduce man's insatiable appetite for meat.
13
Research shows plants react to being hit, torn and eaten in ways that we can anthropomorphize too.
Humans, get over yourselves. We are living beings; we eat things to survive, just like all other living beings do. We can't photosynthesize and we aren't fast like a cheetah, but we have brains, opposable thumb & forefinger, and tools that have made us apex predators in the biosphere. We can figure out ways to obtain and eat almost anything.
We don't have factory farms and lavage because we're sadists. We have them because we like eating meat. Anyone who doesn't want to eat meat is welcome to leave more for the rest of us, but to anthropomorphize animals - or selected animals - but not plants is to engage in an exercise in line-drawing that has no right answer.
Humans, get over yourselves. We are living beings; we eat things to survive, just like all other living beings do. We can't photosynthesize and we aren't fast like a cheetah, but we have brains, opposable thumb & forefinger, and tools that have made us apex predators in the biosphere. We can figure out ways to obtain and eat almost anything.
We don't have factory farms and lavage because we're sadists. We have them because we like eating meat. Anyone who doesn't want to eat meat is welcome to leave more for the rest of us, but to anthropomorphize animals - or selected animals - but not plants is to engage in an exercise in line-drawing that has no right answer.
19
Got to say that deliberately causing pain and suffering to animals, be they bugs or humans, is wrong!!
1
Sam I Am: There's the old tiresome "plants have feelings" argument. Two points: 1) Plants do not have central nervous systems, so those "reactions" are not the same as they are for living creatures who do. 2) If we care about plants, we will not use them as farmed animal feed, which uses up 5-10 times as many plants (depending on the type of animal) as eating plants directly.
As to having factory farms and lavage "because we like eating meat": I guess that would mean that I am entitled to kill people if I like killing people. There should be more to our morals than doing what some of us "like" if it causes suffering and degradation to others.
As to having factory farms and lavage "because we like eating meat": I guess that would mean that I am entitled to kill people if I like killing people. There should be more to our morals than doing what some of us "like" if it causes suffering and degradation to others.
2
You must be joking. Plants do not have a nervous system, or even a single neuron. Suffering is possible with a nervous system. Your logic is moral relativism taken to an absurd extreme.
3
Factory farming is cruel. We must do away with it. Animals and sentient creatures and must be treated with compassion.
17
I've arrived at my morally superior attitude legitimately: I eat food I've grown or killed on land I own. I've slaughtered geese, chickens, rabbits, and with help, pigs. I eat venison, elk, and moose given me by my hunter friends. I am an omnivore.
This contretemps reminds me of the discussion of minimum wage: if you haven't had to meet a payroll or sell something to make a living, you should refrain from comment.
This contretemps reminds me of the discussion of minimum wage: if you haven't had to meet a payroll or sell something to make a living, you should refrain from comment.
4
tabasco: I heartily agree that omnivores should join you in doing it themselves. If they do so, many of them will join me in not eating animals any more.
2
That is some serious hand-waving you've done to dismiss the cruelty of force-feeding geese. You said that there are ways to produce foie gras without force-feeding, so therefore force-feeding isn't cruel. What now?
I'm a vegetarian but I am not over-sentimental about the process of making foie gras. I agree that most of the meat industry is based in cruelty, so maybe there's not much difference. May as well ignore one if you're ignoring the other...because foie gras tastes really good.
That said, just as our federal government should be doing more to regulate the obscene practices of the meat industry, it should also be doing more to encourage the difficult but humane methods of producing foie gras. We don't HAVE to treat animals so cruelly; it's just corporate greed that has ruined the industry. I can't wait for the day when humanely and sustainably-raised meat is the norm, and I can start eating it again. :-)
I'm a vegetarian but I am not over-sentimental about the process of making foie gras. I agree that most of the meat industry is based in cruelty, so maybe there's not much difference. May as well ignore one if you're ignoring the other...because foie gras tastes really good.
That said, just as our federal government should be doing more to regulate the obscene practices of the meat industry, it should also be doing more to encourage the difficult but humane methods of producing foie gras. We don't HAVE to treat animals so cruelly; it's just corporate greed that has ruined the industry. I can't wait for the day when humanely and sustainably-raised meat is the norm, and I can start eating it again. :-)
40
As a vegetarian as well, I applaud your well stated opinion. Thank you.
But of course Bittman did not mean to 'dismiss' the cruelty of force-feeding geese. Read all of the article to get his intention.
From the next-to-last paragraph:
"This is not to say a few thousand ducks and geese don’t matter; it is to say that it’s important to keep perspective."
From the last paragraph:
This is best seen as a test case, not as a significant defeat or victory. Foie gras itself just isn’t that important.
From the next-to-last paragraph:
"This is not to say a few thousand ducks and geese don’t matter; it is to say that it’s important to keep perspective."
From the last paragraph:
This is best seen as a test case, not as a significant defeat or victory. Foie gras itself just isn’t that important.
While living overseas, shopping in small butcher shops for meat, eggs, milk...two things became immediately apparent: where the food came from (down to the farmer who raised it, the abattoir who slaughtered it, the day and time it was slaughtered, etc), and secondly, "I really don't need that much of this."
Understanding that our food has a beginning, and in the case of eating animals understanding this being had a face becomes easier in small personalized shops. When in superstores and supermarkets it is hard to think twice about a slab of meat wrapped in Saran Wrap--with no history told of a life's beginning, the farm upon which it grew, who took care of it, and in the end who slaughtered it for our consumption.
Understanding that our food has a beginning, and in the case of eating animals understanding this being had a face becomes easier in small personalized shops. When in superstores and supermarkets it is hard to think twice about a slab of meat wrapped in Saran Wrap--with no history told of a life's beginning, the farm upon which it grew, who took care of it, and in the end who slaughtered it for our consumption.
19
Great post. People are divorced from their food production, from the farmers, from the very soil.
There are signs that this is beginning to change, with people becoming interested in local, organic produce, and the movement for pastured and grass-fed meats, eggs, and dairy from sustainable small farms.
There are signs that this is beginning to change, with people becoming interested in local, organic produce, and the movement for pastured and grass-fed meats, eggs, and dairy from sustainable small farms.
7
I had foie gras once years ago because my dining partner was trying to impress me, I think. It was good but I never cared about having it again, not due to cruelty because then I did not know how it was produced. I just like eating other things better. Mr. Bittman tries to make omnivores feel guilty. Good luck with that Mark.
2
Mankind itself is not much more cruel as nature itself so we need to accept that as long as we eat meat and use animal products there will be unspeakable cruelty to animals. Even though I am a vegetarian and I personally would not hurt any animal, I can live with this.
P.S. For the record, I am probably committing cruelty too when I flush down in the toilet stinkbugs that I find in my house.
P.S. For the record, I am probably committing cruelty too when I flush down in the toilet stinkbugs that I find in my house.
3
Small in number, maybe, but a new attitude towards animal suffering will require changing hearts. Foie Gras is a stunning example of a food we don't need (like we don't need burgers, 3x a week) and whose suffering we can clearly imagine. We're trying to get human beings to understand that just because they can do something doesn't mean they should. Just because it "tastes good" doesn't mean there aren't other questions to ask. I like tomatoes and prefer they aren't picked by slave labor. If that's my only choice, I'll go without.
This whole conversation has class dynamics. Vegans aren't big Nascar fans. Maybe stigmatizing the nouveau riche and their chardonnay and foie gras obsession is good for the cause, all around.
This whole conversation has class dynamics. Vegans aren't big Nascar fans. Maybe stigmatizing the nouveau riche and their chardonnay and foie gras obsession is good for the cause, all around.
8
Food should never be just about what we need - if it were, Mr. Bittman would be out of a job. Food should always also be about what we enjoy. Comparing foie gras to hamburger? You might as well compare wine to water.
3
Let's face it, friends - what we're reading here is one of many arguments intended to persuade us that the only way we humans can subsist and be merciful to other creatures and the environment is to go vegan. The author might as well stop beating around the bush (no political reference intended) and admit it. Whatever the moral merits of such an argument might be - and if you can find a Biblical reference that points to a requirement for us to achieve such a wretched sort of sainthood, I'd love to see it - realistically, you might as well expect big cats, sharks and 'gators to adopt a similar diet. In other words, for the vast majority of us it ain't gonna happen.
2
I disagree. The older ways of raising cattle and poultry for human consumption were vastly more humane, and far less environmentally harmful than the current mass production factory farm system. Yes, the cost of meat would go up, but perhaps it should. The current system privatizes the profits while socializing the costs of meat production. Is that how it should be?
123
Exactly, Betsy.
Returning to smaller, pasture-based farms would have an enormous ripple-effect of positive outcomes. And it's frankly untenable to think a vast majority of any people would ever become, and remain, vegan. Finally, many if not most vegan foods come from farming methodologies that are terribly ruinous to the soil, and have huge impacts on GHG emission and water usage, FAR worse than anything grass-fed beef might produce.
Returning to smaller, pasture-based farms would have an enormous ripple-effect of positive outcomes. And it's frankly untenable to think a vast majority of any people would ever become, and remain, vegan. Finally, many if not most vegan foods come from farming methodologies that are terribly ruinous to the soil, and have huge impacts on GHG emission and water usage, FAR worse than anything grass-fed beef might produce.
12
This week in CT, a local TV station reported on possible animal abuse at a farm because a calf perished due to the cold temperatures. I watched this news story with jaw dropped and head shaking. Do people have no comprehension of the torture animals endure due to factory farming? As sad as it is to see a calf die, one in which its short life was happily led outdoors, this in no way compares to the pain, suffering and slaughter of the animals purchased and eaten by consumers. When will the tide turn?
10
"cattle, for example, evolved to graze on grasses and are often fattened on grains — to which their digestive systems must then adapt"
Their digestive systems don't "adapt." We just feed them antibiotics to keep them alive despite the damage to their digestive system, just long enough to fatten them up before we kill them. That use of antibiotics endangers humans too, but we just do it anyway.
It is not necessary to be cruel. It is just cheaper.
Their digestive systems don't "adapt." We just feed them antibiotics to keep them alive despite the damage to their digestive system, just long enough to fatten them up before we kill them. That use of antibiotics endangers humans too, but we just do it anyway.
It is not necessary to be cruel. It is just cheaper.
190
It's not particularly cheaper -- it makes the meat taste better (*to most folks)....richer, more flavorful.
Well said!
Viewing foie gras in the larger perspective of food-animal production generally certainly feels wise to me. So let's take that that a step further and consider food animal production from the even broader perspective of how humans treat other beings generally. Given humanity's long-standing record of, shall we say, less-than-charitable treatment of our fellow humans, the maltreatment of food animals surely comes as no surprise at all.
And we can reason the other way, too. After all, people, too, are part of a food chain. And guess who's at the top! Wherein we see the real meaning of what being a member of the 1% (or .1%, or .01%) entails and enables. And in the treatment of food animals, we see how those of us farther down the food chain should expect to be treated.
And we can reason the other way, too. After all, people, too, are part of a food chain. And guess who's at the top! Wherein we see the real meaning of what being a member of the 1% (or .1%, or .01%) entails and enables. And in the treatment of food animals, we see how those of us farther down the food chain should expect to be treated.
7
Everything in this article is right except the conclusion reflected in the title. Rather than turning a blind eye to the suffering of geese, we have a moral imperative to end the torturous force-feeding inflicted on them.
This should only be the beginning of massive and radical animal welfare reforms. We must ban the torture methods wielded on factory farmed chickens, such as battery cages, forced molting, excessive overcrowding, and debeaking without pain relief. Did you know the Humane Slaughter Act doesn't even *apply* to the 8 billion chickens America slaughters per year? That's the mark not of discrimination against farmed birds: not racism, not sexism: speciesism.
This article says we shouldn't even get started tackling these atrocities because the problem is so large. That's cowardly.
This should only be the beginning of massive and radical animal welfare reforms. We must ban the torture methods wielded on factory farmed chickens, such as battery cages, forced molting, excessive overcrowding, and debeaking without pain relief. Did you know the Humane Slaughter Act doesn't even *apply* to the 8 billion chickens America slaughters per year? That's the mark not of discrimination against farmed birds: not racism, not sexism: speciesism.
This article says we shouldn't even get started tackling these atrocities because the problem is so large. That's cowardly.
29
It is unfortunate that even in the New York Times, Bittman’s statement “almost all meat production is cruel” goes to press unquestioned--unless “cruel” is simply defined as killing and eating an animal. But Bittman implies feeding cattle corn is basically the same thing as forcefeeding, and because cows are ruminants, were not made to eat grain, and therefore feeding them grain is cruel. (If a cow or sheep made its way into a field of oats, or barley, or corn for that matter, Mr. Bittman, I guarantee it would eat the grains, and ruminate just has contentedly upon them.) Embracing a religion of veganism or vegetarianism, with its “truths,” is perfectly fine, but those like me who raise—and care for, are responsible for, appreciate, and really like—the species we take to market, would so like to see some really science-based journalism—and op eds—in the Times.
6
Excellent post, thank you, Martha.
4
Bullseye!
In our new money culture, perceived sophistication - social capital - is increasingly important, and increasingly more competitive as the size of the top 1% (or 1/2%, or 1/4%, or whichever echelon one is at) grows larger. So these food items, and the wines "needed" to accompany them, rise in value. Just as the headline you refer to states - among certain people. (Yes, they are tasty. I like truffles and may have them at home occcasionally on pasta, or in a homemade risotto, but seldom when I am out.)
Other societal ills growing from this unfortunate trend are perhaps more troubling. The tall, new apartment towers rising in downtown Manhattan, for example, are clearly a product of the same dynamic, and far more destructive of our way of life. Native New Yorkers who once could live happily in Manhattan are no longer comfortable there. The soul has gone; traded for piles of Bloombergian urban colonists without urban sensitivities.
Then there are the proposed additions to comfortable, old NY landmarks - like the Frick Museum - undertaken clearly to provide the cultural capital needed by Frick Board members, so they can "feel important."
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation - or of just plain ordinary and tasty food.
In our new money culture, perceived sophistication - social capital - is increasingly important, and increasingly more competitive as the size of the top 1% (or 1/2%, or 1/4%, or whichever echelon one is at) grows larger. So these food items, and the wines "needed" to accompany them, rise in value. Just as the headline you refer to states - among certain people. (Yes, they are tasty. I like truffles and may have them at home occcasionally on pasta, or in a homemade risotto, but seldom when I am out.)
Other societal ills growing from this unfortunate trend are perhaps more troubling. The tall, new apartment towers rising in downtown Manhattan, for example, are clearly a product of the same dynamic, and far more destructive of our way of life. Native New Yorkers who once could live happily in Manhattan are no longer comfortable there. The soul has gone; traded for piles of Bloombergian urban colonists without urban sensitivities.
Then there are the proposed additions to comfortable, old NY landmarks - like the Frick Museum - undertaken clearly to provide the cultural capital needed by Frick Board members, so they can "feel important."
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation - or of just plain ordinary and tasty food.
2
What about Haggis ?? Yes, Haggis that special Scottish dish produced from sheeps' innards.
Prepared right, it can be delicious, but you can't import it into the US.
And, for those who worry about ethics and animal welfare, it's made mostly from parts that would otherwise be thrown away.
Prepared right, it can be delicious, but you can't import it into the US.
And, for those who worry about ethics and animal welfare, it's made mostly from parts that would otherwise be thrown away.
1
The very thought of torturing and murdering sentient beings is nauseating, which is why I'm a vegetarian.
3
Yeah it's like banning mink coats but tolerating leather jackets... easier to pick on rich ladies than gangsters.
5
Let's think about how we fatten cattle and pigs (feed them grains) and how we give geese fatty liver disease (force-feed them grains). We might now consider: how do humans get fat and develop fatty liver disease?
5
This may be the single most flawed argument that I've ever read.
If you think that we shouldn't kill animals for food, then that's your POV. I would argue that's it's necessary, and that we need to treat them as humanely as possible prior to their demise.
Your point is that if we torture poultry prior to killing them, then what's the difference?
I don't know where to begin…..
If you think that we shouldn't kill animals for food, then that's your POV. I would argue that's it's necessary, and that we need to treat them as humanely as possible prior to their demise.
Your point is that if we torture poultry prior to killing them, then what's the difference?
I don't know where to begin…..
9
Is there even a term akin to 'dehumanize'? De-animalize, perhaps? In spanish we say "ojos que no ven, corazo'n que no siente" (if our eyes do not see it, our heart won't feel it); so, conveniently ignoring the cruelty we inflict on the animals we eventually slaughter and eat, seems here to stay. For now. We ought to replace meat with chemically- elaborated meat-like products, so we can have animals as pets; they'll appreciate it, and so will we. The fact we do not 'process' dogs or cats in this country is not so in others; of course, you know that.
We don't need chemically- elaborated meat-like products. There are plenty of meat analogues available already, and many of these taste far better than actual meat. But even these are not necessary. Look at India, where traditionally the highest caste people ate no meat or even eggs, and a marvelous vegetarian cuisine has evolved that in no way pretends to be meat. Meat-eating is just a bad habit. If you need meat analogues to help break the habit, fine. But they are not a necessity for most vegetarians.
5
I stand corrected. No need to build proteins and fat from scratch, Nature provides all we need. And then some. A meatless society living longer and healthier, NASA-type food plus fiber. I could live with that. Eat to live, not live to eat. Still, one cannot underestimate a german saying: "there is no truer love than the love for food". And, I might add, good wine!
1
Meat eating is not a "bad habit," and eating vegetarian or vegan certainly does not ensure greater longevity or improved health. Apparently, what those diets do is to cause the arms of their practitioners to be flung over the shoulder for unconscious and repeated patting oneself on the back.
3
I agree. How do you "humanly" slaughter any animal? Let's hope the shift to a vegan diet doesn't come about as a result of some catastrophe such as the extinction of an entire fish species like cod or the collapse of the rainforest ecosystem due to clear cutting for cattle raising.
If we wait until then to change life on our planet will be irrevocably altered to the harm and shame of us all.
If we wait until then to change life on our planet will be irrevocably altered to the harm and shame of us all.
5
Mark, you write that foie gras can be produced humanely, but Dan Barber himself admits that he was never able to replicate the model used by the one farmer who did so in Spain. So, no, it's effectively not possible and in any case, cost-prohibitive.
Everyone, Google "force fed misery" and see for yourselves what's involved. No, the geese and ducks don't gorge to this extent voluntarily.
But to your larger point, yes, all animal agribusiness is inherently cruel: even if animals are raised reasonably well, they always suffer a gruesome slaughter as soon as they reach market weight.
The solution is easy: gorge yourselves on the luxurious "Faux Gras" by Regal Vegan.
Everyone, Google "force fed misery" and see for yourselves what's involved. No, the geese and ducks don't gorge to this extent voluntarily.
But to your larger point, yes, all animal agribusiness is inherently cruel: even if animals are raised reasonably well, they always suffer a gruesome slaughter as soon as they reach market weight.
The solution is easy: gorge yourselves on the luxurious "Faux Gras" by Regal Vegan.
14
I love fois gras! The terrine is OK, but a slice of fresh fois gras, lightly sauteed, on top of a salad is really delicious. That said, I only eat it in October, which is when the birds are slaughtered here in Languedoc. The whole fresh livers are abundant and not too expensive.
Now sturgeon caviar is another thing - also delicious - but the species is endangered, and the eggs are very expensive. I eat salmon eggs instead.
I never eat industrially produced meat of any kind, and limit quantities because non-industrial meat is rather expensive. I believe this is good for my health as well as my pocket book, and better for the planet.
Now sturgeon caviar is another thing - also delicious - but the species is endangered, and the eggs are very expensive. I eat salmon eggs instead.
I never eat industrially produced meat of any kind, and limit quantities because non-industrial meat is rather expensive. I believe this is good for my health as well as my pocket book, and better for the planet.
8
Good article, foie gras isn't that important but nothing will change the meat binge most Americans indulge in every day. To say it is unnatural to eat so much meat falls on deaf ears. Americans do not care where their food comes from or what must be done to provide it in the quantities to which they have become accustomed. Eventually that will change but not be through "consumer" choice. As truly torturous as it is, meat production, like most other forms of extraction and manipulation is unsustainable at these levels.
4
"Unnatural?" Ancestral human diets ranged from 25% to 75% of calories from animal foods, depending on region and seasonal availability.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-hunter-gatherer-diets-varied/#axzz3Oq...
Links within to peer-reviewed research.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-hunter-gatherer-diets-varied/#axzz3Oq...
Links within to peer-reviewed research.
1
You couldn't pay me to eat foie gras. In fact, you couldn't pay me to eat meat. As you said, there is cruelty involved in all of it. If we just voted with our mouths and refused to take part in all the cruelty then producers would actually adopt less cruel methods. But I've learned that a meat-free diet is really enjoyable - not something I expected when I quit eating meat 40 years ago.
6
Human beings will always eat meat, which means that it will be necessary to raise animals solely so that they can be turned into meat for consumption. Any way you look at it, this is intrinsically a cruel act. While cruelty is the essence of predatory animals, even in the natural world, there is something grotesque about the flagrant and unnecessary cruelty in our modern meat production system.
Partly this has to do with the disconnect between animal husbandry and consumption - having to kill and prepare your own meat would change people's minds on how and how much of it they eat and it would give them an emotional connection to the source animal - and partly it has to do with the level of wastefulness. We kill an animal, consume some small percentage of it, and then turn the rest into filler for a garbage dump. This is profoundly disrespectful to these fellow creatures whose DNA links us to them at a biological level.
Short of reforming our factory farming system, which is hard and takes collective effort, the average person can take small steps to alleviate their own role in this. One is to reduce meat consumption overall. Americans eat more meat than most traditional societies, and we could eat less and be perfectly healthy. Two is to be willing to eat offal, so that less of the animal is wasted. And three is to try and get your meat from small farms. This is the hardest, and the most expensive, but has the highest ethical payoff.
Partly this has to do with the disconnect between animal husbandry and consumption - having to kill and prepare your own meat would change people's minds on how and how much of it they eat and it would give them an emotional connection to the source animal - and partly it has to do with the level of wastefulness. We kill an animal, consume some small percentage of it, and then turn the rest into filler for a garbage dump. This is profoundly disrespectful to these fellow creatures whose DNA links us to them at a biological level.
Short of reforming our factory farming system, which is hard and takes collective effort, the average person can take small steps to alleviate their own role in this. One is to reduce meat consumption overall. Americans eat more meat than most traditional societies, and we could eat less and be perfectly healthy. Two is to be willing to eat offal, so that less of the animal is wasted. And three is to try and get your meat from small farms. This is the hardest, and the most expensive, but has the highest ethical payoff.
9
We eat millions of tons of fish, both farm-raised and wild. I can't imagine anything crueler than the catching of a fish - hooked through the mouth, fighting for its life, hauled onto a deck and left to suffocate. And yet I never hear the animal rights people saying a word about fishing - for food or for recreation (most recreational fishermen eat the fish but some do it for competitions or for trophies to hang on the wall).
And worse -the methods used to catch wild fish include bottom dredging which destroys habitat for other creatures. Near-shore gill netting kills ducks and seabirds that get snared in the nets. Long-lining kills seabirds. Farm-raising (terrestrial) necessitates the killing of tens of thousands of birds and oceanic fish pens are environmentally unsound.
I will occasionally eat poultry from sources that are at least somewhat enlightened in the manner in which they raise the birds (true humane methods are rare - you can't scale up Joel Salatin's methods to raise enough chicken to meet demand) but I stopped eating fish because it is truly inhumane and unsustainable for the fish and the creatures that cohabit with the fish.
And worse -the methods used to catch wild fish include bottom dredging which destroys habitat for other creatures. Near-shore gill netting kills ducks and seabirds that get snared in the nets. Long-lining kills seabirds. Farm-raising (terrestrial) necessitates the killing of tens of thousands of birds and oceanic fish pens are environmentally unsound.
I will occasionally eat poultry from sources that are at least somewhat enlightened in the manner in which they raise the birds (true humane methods are rare - you can't scale up Joel Salatin's methods to raise enough chicken to meet demand) but I stopped eating fish because it is truly inhumane and unsustainable for the fish and the creatures that cohabit with the fish.
5
I can imagine many things crueler than catching a fish....but animal rights people focus on animals, not fish. There are plenty of other people who are focused on overfishing....in fact there are more laws governing fishing, in America and internationally than there are regarding animals.
But if you think for a moment you will realize that fish swim freely, even if farm raised all of their lives. This is not the case with animals raised in production scenarios....their entire life is miserable and then they are killed.
But if you think for a moment you will realize that fish swim freely, even if farm raised all of their lives. This is not the case with animals raised in production scenarios....their entire life is miserable and then they are killed.
2
Fish are animals.
And yes, the extent of fishing is regulated, but not the manner of fishing. There are no laws whatsoever about humane fishing methods.
And yes, the extent of fishing is regulated, but not the manner of fishing. There are no laws whatsoever about humane fishing methods.
I've had fois, and hated it and don't understand why people go out of their way to order it. Is it to prove how sophisticated some diners think they are?
1
Far too much effort is wasted on protecting animals, when one group of human beings slaughters another simply over a cartoon, and slavery is making a comeback in the 21st century. Let's devote our efforts to fixing the human race first. Worry about geese later.
5
we have the capacity, if not the will, to do both.
6
We cannot be kind to animals until we are kind to ourselves.
1
"Foie gras is among the most overrated of luxury ingredients" So true - I'd much rather satiate - and I do mean Satiate - my hunger with a thick, aged, rib-eye (with bone, please) from grass fed, no-drugs in diet, beef cattle. Beef is the most proficient means of providing protein for human needs. Oh - and it tastes sooo good.
Of course vegans will dispute this. But, the fact is there isn't enough arable land to meet the protein needs of the world's population on a vegan diet. Compounding this issue further is the holistic objection of vegans to GMCs - mankind's best scientific solution to more efficient growing of edible plants.
It's silly to lament the killing of farm animals. Unless you also want to protest the evolution of the human brain - made possible by learning the use of fire to cook killed wild animals. Without that sustenance we'd have evolved pea sized brains and there would be no Comments section in the NY Times. That's not to argue that our diets shouldn't be tempered and balanced - which for most Americans isn't) but meat, especially beef, is indispensable for sustaining - and really enjoying life.
Of course vegans will dispute this. But, the fact is there isn't enough arable land to meet the protein needs of the world's population on a vegan diet. Compounding this issue further is the holistic objection of vegans to GMCs - mankind's best scientific solution to more efficient growing of edible plants.
It's silly to lament the killing of farm animals. Unless you also want to protest the evolution of the human brain - made possible by learning the use of fire to cook killed wild animals. Without that sustenance we'd have evolved pea sized brains and there would be no Comments section in the NY Times. That's not to argue that our diets shouldn't be tempered and balanced - which for most Americans isn't) but meat, especially beef, is indispensable for sustaining - and really enjoying life.
8
"...beef is indispensable for sustaining and really enjoying life." You're kidding, right?
6
Sorry, Tom Paine, but you are just plain wrong about land requirements for meat vs vegetarian diets. It is the opposite of what you state, according to research. Read more here:
Sustainability of meat-based and plant- based diets and...
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
Sustainability of meat-based and plant- based diets and...
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
4
James Hadley, do you understand the definition of "arable?" No?
And if you knew anything whatsoever about the issues of sustainability, you would know Pimentel's numbers have been the subject of intense criticism. Pimentel ignores entire segments of meat production that are more efficient than vegetables from industrial ag, including water usage requirements, fossil fuel requirements, etc.
Land usage is a lot more gray than black and white.
And if you knew anything whatsoever about the issues of sustainability, you would know Pimentel's numbers have been the subject of intense criticism. Pimentel ignores entire segments of meat production that are more efficient than vegetables from industrial ag, including water usage requirements, fossil fuel requirements, etc.
Land usage is a lot more gray than black and white.
2
I, too, found the force-feeding of geese or ducks reprehensible. I stood with you in thinking it wrong. I was in Chartres years ago where some folks were hawking foie gras and I ignored them on the way into the flea market. On the way out some three hours later I thought I'd try the foie gras. At that instant I lost all sympathy for the fowls. It tasted delicious.
41
You probably think cannibalism is wrong. But if you tried delicious human flesh, you'd lose all sympathy for humans. Right?
2
Unfortunately, this statement distills the essence of why our world is in the state it's in.
The interests of these intelligent, emotional and social beings in living, and in not having suffering and torture inflicted upon them, surely outweigh your momentary palate pleasure. That you like the taste of someone else's unnaturally engorged liver is no excuse for you to inflict terrible harm upon them by proxy. Might does not make right.
Cattle originally evolved to feed on grass, but have probably "evolved" to feed on grains when fattening in feedlots became popular. This was by the process of artificial selection - those strains which thrived, that is put on weight rapidly, were those selected for further breeding. All kinds of domestic animals have certainly "evolved" to be more docile and tolerant of production conditions - these are not "wild" animals. Not that this justifies force feeding or some of the other barbaric practices in fowl production.
Is raising of animals for food production inherently cruel? The vast majority of all animals live very short lives under "wild" or pre-human conditions and mortality of young animals is extremely high. Populations tend to expand when food is abundant and then crash when there are shortages. Was life really better for the average food animal before domestication? Would humans be better off in a "natural" condition, without tools or civilization? Not questions that are easy to answer.
Is raising of animals for food production inherently cruel? The vast majority of all animals live very short lives under "wild" or pre-human conditions and mortality of young animals is extremely high. Populations tend to expand when food is abundant and then crash when there are shortages. Was life really better for the average food animal before domestication? Would humans be better off in a "natural" condition, without tools or civilization? Not questions that are easy to answer.
6
you can't evolve an animal in a few years. or even 50. no, cows have not recently adapted to a diet of grains. it still messes them up and will take thousands of years to achieve a new breed of such cattle. high animal life forms are not plant bacteria in terms of selective breeding.
4
The ban on Foie Gras was a beachhead in the war on banning overall commercial farming. Yes, small, insignificant product -- exactly why it was chosen. As 'rich people's food' you would not get much public outcry, yet it established the principle of regulating an animal product based on its method of production. So, next could be hormone-boosted beef, all 'penned' animals, and the ultimate objective of those supporting the ban: commercial production of any animal product. Yes, foie gras is a small target, but attached to a much bigger issue.
85
This editorial lays out what is wrong (wrong is too mild a word, I'd start with disgusting and then move on immediately to profanities) with the sickening, awful US industrial production of meat. I grew up on a Wisconsin farm in the 1950's. We raised dairy cattle, pigs and chickens. The pigs and cattle we ate were killed and processed by professional butchers. The chickens we ate we killed and cut up ourselves. My job when I old enough was to catch and chop the heads off chickens that were past their prime for laying eggs. Then with my mother and brother and sisters we'd pluck their feathers and cut them up. I saw the insides of lots of chickens. Flash forward to now. A few years ago my ladyfriend and I were living on a farm in Wisconsin and raised some modern "meat chickens". She grew up on a farm in the
1
Having living for a time in country where people who ate meat had to humanely kill the animals they had raised, I realize Americans are completely out of touch with the cruelty corporations employ routinely to produce poultry, beef and pork.
Chickens, cows and pigs and sentient beings. This means they feel pain. I know from farm life that pigs are extremely intelligent and even seem to have a sense of humor. Cows are very physically loving to their calves.
I wish all those who eat meat would be required to watch videos of the torturous lives so many of our fellow creatures are forced to endure in the meat industry.
Many are chained and must stand in their own feces; others are crowded into cages unable to turn or move freely for all of the days they are alive. I've seen films of pigs moved toward slaughter on pulleys to which they're attached by hooks through their skin.
This is unconscionable, and I wonder why non-vegetarians don't lead the charge for more humane conditions for animals raised for human consumption.
The profit motive is no excuse to cause animals such immense suffering. The whole system needs to be changed.
Ask the poor person forced to work in a feed lot or slaughter house to make enough money to support their family to tell you what it is like in these places.
I promise you will be horrified by what they see and hear every day.
Chickens, cows and pigs and sentient beings. This means they feel pain. I know from farm life that pigs are extremely intelligent and even seem to have a sense of humor. Cows are very physically loving to their calves.
I wish all those who eat meat would be required to watch videos of the torturous lives so many of our fellow creatures are forced to endure in the meat industry.
Many are chained and must stand in their own feces; others are crowded into cages unable to turn or move freely for all of the days they are alive. I've seen films of pigs moved toward slaughter on pulleys to which they're attached by hooks through their skin.
This is unconscionable, and I wonder why non-vegetarians don't lead the charge for more humane conditions for animals raised for human consumption.
The profit motive is no excuse to cause animals such immense suffering. The whole system needs to be changed.
Ask the poor person forced to work in a feed lot or slaughter house to make enough money to support their family to tell you what it is like in these places.
I promise you will be horrified by what they see and hear every day.
10
There is abundant evidence that a plant based diet is more healthy and also more economical than meat based diets. That our forefathers from thousands of years back were meat eaters is a typical defense that holds no water because humans had not yet evolved to form agrarian societies. This defense is somewhat akin to saying that because our forefathers rode on horses we should all do so today. Humans evolve, technologies evolve, societies evolve, and we need to find answers that are contextually relevant.
5
Poor analogy. We still can ride horses perfectly well, though we choose to drive automobiles instead. But there is nothing inherently wrong about riding a horse and many people still do so recreationally. Similarly, our digestive systems have not "evolved" away from eating meat; simply, some people have chosen meat-free diets.
2
We were hunter-gatherers for ~95% of our existence as a species before the invention of agriculture. Agriculture is quite new in evolutionary terms, and we are still adapting to it. Veganism was not possible before modern supplementation was available, which is even more recent. I agree that a whole-foods vegan diet is healthier than the standard American diet, but so is a whole-foods omnivorous diet. Really anything is healthier than the standard American diet.
2
It remains utterly baffling--not to mention totally depressing--that the author writes these articles yet continues to eat meat himself.
5
Mr Bittman is a food expert and chooses to not confine his diet in this way. Perhaps he values his platform at the New York Times as a way to reach 300 million Americans eating meat three times a day....and feels that his opinions would be compromised and ridiculed as those of a New York, blah blah blah liberal....if he instead preached to America as a vegetarian.
Which would be better...being regarded thoughtfully by millions who then might alter their own diets and insist on changes in the American food production industry...or having one more vegetarian in the fold whose opinions are reviled by Red State America?
Which would be better...being regarded thoughtfully by millions who then might alter their own diets and insist on changes in the American food production industry...or having one more vegetarian in the fold whose opinions are reviled by Red State America?
I believe the fight against foie gras was meant to be a sort of toe in the door for animal rights advocates. It was one small victory in a much bigger, long-term campaign -- putting a stop to the many overt and unnecessary cruelties of modern meat and poultry production. So yes, it does matter, just as veal calves locked in dark boxes, sows squeezed into farrowing crates, chickens piled up in battery cages, and even free-range" poultry crammed into dark, fetid poultry barns all matter.
I agree about foie gras, caviar and truffles being overrated (though I do love truffles, I find fresh porcinis more satisfying). I remember a couple decades back when restaurants were doing stacked food and it seemed that a layer of those piles was almost always foie gras. Melting misery is what it is, and texturally revolting. And I notice that people often swallow caviar quickly, without chewing, to get past the gag reflex it often causes. Then take a swig of vodka or champagne to recover. So why bother? Just to say you did?
I agree about foie gras, caviar and truffles being overrated (though I do love truffles, I find fresh porcinis more satisfying). I remember a couple decades back when restaurants were doing stacked food and it seemed that a layer of those piles was almost always foie gras. Melting misery is what it is, and texturally revolting. And I notice that people often swallow caviar quickly, without chewing, to get past the gag reflex it often causes. Then take a swig of vodka or champagne to recover. So why bother? Just to say you did?
3
I cannot believe how casual you are, Mark, about foie gras. It is indeed cruel--just as all forms of killing animals is cruel. But--we have to start somewhere. If Americans can wrap their minds around the horror of a gosling being force fed, then dispatched, perhaps they will someday understand the pain and confusion of the millions of chickens, cows, pigs and sheep who are used, abused and killed inhumanely in our factory farms. Their suffering is horrible. It is an outrage.
I used to think that people would begin to "get it" around the issue of baby calves made to stand up in pens and fed only milk to fatten them--then promptly killed for "milk fed veal." Apparently they have not.
Let's fact it, we Americans (and many from other countries) are a pretty hopeless bunch. We treat animals that are raised for food the same way we treat countries and people we consider primitive and less than human. Karma will catch up!
I used to think that people would begin to "get it" around the issue of baby calves made to stand up in pens and fed only milk to fatten them--then promptly killed for "milk fed veal." Apparently they have not.
Let's fact it, we Americans (and many from other countries) are a pretty hopeless bunch. We treat animals that are raised for food the same way we treat countries and people we consider primitive and less than human. Karma will catch up!
7
Many good points made in this editorial. Agriculture is a very tiny blip on the media radar. So the appalling, disgusting (only profanity is adequate to describe it) industrial agriculture in the US is mostly given a free pass. I along with my ladyfriend were curious about modern "meat" chickens a few years ago when we were living on a farm. We'd both grown up on farms in the '50's and were familiar with raising and slaughtering chickens. It was a nightmare to slaughter these GMO chickens and to see what they look like inside. Hearts with so much fat around them these chickens would drop dead from heart attacks not long after they were 2 months old, which didn't happen because they are slaughtered at 2 months. While alive they could barely move like a normal chicken and spent their very short life constantly eating which they are programmed to do. I eat meat and don't have a vegan axe to grind, but seeing these pathetic creatures attempting to be the normal creatures they are meant to be, but can't, is something that I'll never forget. That's the chicken that we're all eating now
3
Animal abuse to produce food simply for our gastronomic pleasure is on a continuum from ducks force fed for foie gras (remember veal crates?) to those mythical free range happy cows who still ultimately end up slaughtered. Apparently, as a society we are not compassionate enough to to draw the line at the most inhumane acts of the food production continuum no matter how small the market share or contribution to our daily diet. Mr. Bittman, you are giving animal cruelty a pass and rationalizing why can't we start somewhere with the worst abuse and show some compassion. Apparently, you think if the entire animal food production industry is abusive, why bother trying to phase out of these practices ("the ducks and geese don't matter"). If the ducks are so insignificant, then why not end their suffering and this cruel practice.
9
Mr. Bittman, you are a model of clear thinking and good sense. Always a pleasure to read your collumns.
5
Mark you've missed the point. Are any chickens, cows or hogs force fed fatty foods twice a day for 6 weeks ? Do any other animals have their liver swell up to ten times it's normal size ? Then you look down your nose and say foie gras is insignificant - only involves 600,000 animals per year - and you justify this by spewing some meaningless stats about how many chickens are consumed each year. Again missing the point. Defending this practice just caters to the top 1 % and perpetuates the prevalent financial power that they already possess in our political system (of our sick society). I would never eat stuff, and will walk out of any restaurant that serves it and really resent pompous and arrogant arguments that defend a morally unsound opinion that this cruelty is permissible.
5
If we could just get people to eat only free-range or pasture raised eggs, that would make a huge difference in the lives of hens. They live such a short time, why not make it as pleasant as possible.
(And yes, there is a difference between cage-free and both free-range and pasture raised. I eat only the latter, produced in facilities located within 75 miles of my house.)
(And yes, there is a difference between cage-free and both free-range and pasture raised. I eat only the latter, produced in facilities located within 75 miles of my house.)
5
I used to eat only such eggs myself, until I found out about what happens to all male chicks at all hatcheries to supply all egg farms, including the small-scale, local, pastured, organic, free-range ones …. and what happens to all hens from such farms when they're spent at around 2 years old. Check it out for yourself, and learn the suffering inherent to the business model.
3
Yes, old hens are eaten, as are capons. It's rather efficient and delicious.
3
Hello, Mark? Come down out of there with the foie gras. The important points in this column are not strengthened by your tastes concerning foie gras. The geese line up peacefully to be "force-fed." I prefer black truffles, and though I'm neither rich nor vulgar, I prefer both to caviar, as well as to sweetbreads, liver, and other "organ meats." I have had unforgettably transcendent foie gras experiences even as a poor graduate student, right up there with a few wine moments. De gustibus non disputandum est.
5
I might be a simple man but I've always found grain fed beef much more flavorful than that grassfed stuff I've eaten in Europe. Just like Popeyes chicken is actually in fact better than any mom and pop shop or home made stuff. Yuppies be damned!
1
Perhaps the author should get a law degree from Berkeley so he can conflate "stuffing" a duck as merely "unnatural" as opposed to torture to obtain pricey foie gras, much like the Bush lawyer conflated waterboarding with "intelligence extraction."
6
"Most chefs cook [foie gras] not because they love it but to appeal to food snobs."
Mr. Bittman, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've worked in the restaurant industry for nearly a decade, and you are correct that some ingredients make it to the menu because of popular demand and not because the chef is enthralled by them. Those would be steak, chicken, and chocolate. Foie gras, on the other hand, is beloved because it is delicious. It is not about status and not about impressing people with the means to dine at expensive restaurants.
I'm ecstatic that foie gras is once again legal in California. I had some today--for free--and it was absolutely fantastic. Frankly, I'm not that concerned about how the ducks are treated (although as it turns out, they're treated quite well as quality foie gras production requires that they be) but I do question why you are so harshly critical about animal production when fruit and vegetable agriculture entails destroying a habitat, killing most of the life within it, and planting it for mass production. Think about that the next time you're eating artichokes, heirloom tomatoes, or some other such "overrated" fruit or vegetable.
Mr. Bittman, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've worked in the restaurant industry for nearly a decade, and you are correct that some ingredients make it to the menu because of popular demand and not because the chef is enthralled by them. Those would be steak, chicken, and chocolate. Foie gras, on the other hand, is beloved because it is delicious. It is not about status and not about impressing people with the means to dine at expensive restaurants.
I'm ecstatic that foie gras is once again legal in California. I had some today--for free--and it was absolutely fantastic. Frankly, I'm not that concerned about how the ducks are treated (although as it turns out, they're treated quite well as quality foie gras production requires that they be) but I do question why you are so harshly critical about animal production when fruit and vegetable agriculture entails destroying a habitat, killing most of the life within it, and planting it for mass production. Think about that the next time you're eating artichokes, heirloom tomatoes, or some other such "overrated" fruit or vegetable.
101
there is no reason in the world to be mean and cruel and self-aggrandizing in this way. "you have no idea what you're talking about." "think about that the next time you're eating artichokes." are you a teenager? you write like a troll and it's embarrassing just to read it.
it's childish, more so because the column seems to be saying similar things as you, which is to take the macro view, that all industrial food production deserves scrutiny and to not get stuck on whatever slice rouses your personal passions.
it's childish, more so because the column seems to be saying similar things as you, which is to take the macro view, that all industrial food production deserves scrutiny and to not get stuck on whatever slice rouses your personal passions.
5
Are you really not aware that most crops are grown to feed to animals in the meat, dairy, and egg industries? And that up to 90% of the protein, calories, nutrients, etc. are lost in the process?
If you want to reduce crop production, the very first thing you will do is boycott all animal products.
If you want to reduce crop production, the very first thing you will do is boycott all animal products.
6
Scott L., "most crops" are not grown to feed animals in the meat, dairy, and egg industries. Simply false. A large percentage of monoculture grains (corn and soy especially) are, but even then the amount used in livestock feed versus what is used for biofuels, human foods, and other refined products is less than 50%. I surmise your 90% of all nutrients figure is similarly sourced and erroneous.
This does not even take into consideration the entire segment of the industry wherein animals are raised on pasture, either entirely grazing permaculture grasses, or are minimally supplemented with feed (chickens and pigs).
If you want to stop habitat destruction, support grass-fed animal products and cut out monoculture crop foods and industrially produced fruits and vegetables.
This does not even take into consideration the entire segment of the industry wherein animals are raised on pasture, either entirely grazing permaculture grasses, or are minimally supplemented with feed (chickens and pigs).
If you want to stop habitat destruction, support grass-fed animal products and cut out monoculture crop foods and industrially produced fruits and vegetables.
This for a friend in her 90s in Paris, who just asked for some uplifting photos of children and birds. 'Foie Gras' is being shared, as she just went on a tear recently about how awful it was how geese are treated, and ma foie :) I know she is able to make this with flair and panache!
My parent in Paris at an elderly age once wrote to tell me that she and her spouse were suffering from a case of indigestion due to goose mousse. Too rich most likely, and too rich for my palate as well, although I wolfed it down as a teen, and didn't give a thought to Peter and the Wolf's poor duck.
A French friend wrote that on Christmas Eve, she enjoyed it solo with a slice of fois gras, 8 oysters, 2 red salmon roe eggs, and a glass of red wine. Foie Gras is always going to feature high on the menu in France, just as The French like our bacon and don't weep over our family friend 'Wilbur'.
The other day on an outing to a family restaurant with a French name and excellent bread, my nephew in his early 50s, tall and handsome, mentioned that no red meat was served where he was hibernating for the winter. He didn't miss it, but I gingerly added that a little steak in moderation might be all to the good, because he needs more than just rabbit food.
Last night from a Canadian friend: 'Don't you remember in Spain where we saw the slaughtering of a cow and stepped aside from the trail of blood?'. Nope, and she's the meat-eater. I forgot about it.
Thank you for a fine article, Ducky!
My parent in Paris at an elderly age once wrote to tell me that she and her spouse were suffering from a case of indigestion due to goose mousse. Too rich most likely, and too rich for my palate as well, although I wolfed it down as a teen, and didn't give a thought to Peter and the Wolf's poor duck.
A French friend wrote that on Christmas Eve, she enjoyed it solo with a slice of fois gras, 8 oysters, 2 red salmon roe eggs, and a glass of red wine. Foie Gras is always going to feature high on the menu in France, just as The French like our bacon and don't weep over our family friend 'Wilbur'.
The other day on an outing to a family restaurant with a French name and excellent bread, my nephew in his early 50s, tall and handsome, mentioned that no red meat was served where he was hibernating for the winter. He didn't miss it, but I gingerly added that a little steak in moderation might be all to the good, because he needs more than just rabbit food.
Last night from a Canadian friend: 'Don't you remember in Spain where we saw the slaughtering of a cow and stepped aside from the trail of blood?'. Nope, and she's the meat-eater. I forgot about it.
Thank you for a fine article, Ducky!
4
I do agree on the destructive nature of our production of protein for human production. Point. But if you are going to make the "larger" point of proportionality, I simply do not see the greatest biggest foul thing that humans are doing now is mistreating domestic animals (tho, yea, it may well be rotting our very souls). A far far greater misdeed is the destruction of natural habitats and the extinction of wild species. We can stop eating force-fed gooses livers anytime, and our world will be "right" again, but extinct species don't come back.
6
true. but saying "this is a horror but that one is even worse so i should devote my attention to that one and leave the first alone" leads to paralysis, and no action taken at all. industrial animal cruelty is not insignificant, and worth devoting energy to stopping. there are many areas to work, and hopefully enough people so that they can choose their involvement. otherwise, it's a game of "what's the real true worst horror" and presto: manipulation by the self-interested.
7
But a major driving factor of species extinction and habitat loss IS animal agriculture, and especially the movement towards more grass-fed and pastured animals, given how much land and water is devoted to grazing them and raising the alfalfa and grains for them.
It's all connected, the abuse and suffering of farmed animals, and the earth's destruction.
It's all connected, the abuse and suffering of farmed animals, and the earth's destruction.
4
"But a major driving factor of species extinction and habitat loss IS animal agriculture, and especially the movement towards more grass-fed and pastured animals, given how much land and water is devoted to grazing them and raising the alfalfa and grains for them."
100% wrong. Sorry.
If you want to cultivate biodiversity and restore grassland habitats, husbandry of well managed ruminants is essential. And by definition, pasture-based cows and other ruminants need exactly ZERO grain supplementation.
If you want to hasten the earth's demise, keep zipping off all the topsoil via tillage agriculture, and add NPK fertilizers and harmful herbicides and pesticides as well.
100% wrong. Sorry.
If you want to cultivate biodiversity and restore grassland habitats, husbandry of well managed ruminants is essential. And by definition, pasture-based cows and other ruminants need exactly ZERO grain supplementation.
If you want to hasten the earth's demise, keep zipping off all the topsoil via tillage agriculture, and add NPK fertilizers and harmful herbicides and pesticides as well.
3
Almost all animal production in the US is cruel?
No. The worst offenders are undoubtedly poultry and pork, but one needs look no further than the explosion of interest in people keeping backyard chickens, or getting eggs and meat from local farms that keep small, free-roaming chickens on open pasture. Smaller pig producers may be rarer, but they are part of the nascent back-to-grass movement, that is more than a call for grass-fed beef. People want pastured, healthful, humanely and sustainably raised beef, but these sorts of farms are often biodiverse and raise pigs, chickens, turkey, lamb, etc. as well.
Speaking of lamb, virtually all lamb, domestic or otherwise, lives 100% on grass, and even CAFO beef spend most of their lives on pasture.
Going on and on about foie as a small issue, relatively, is much noise with the point being swept under the rug. If we want change in how animals are raised for food, that change is not going to happen by becoming a nation of vegans -- let's be realistic. It will come from concerned and informed consumers, who understand the myriad implications of their food and how it is raised. Bittman completely ignores this, not just in this article, but in his various (and often misinformed) screeds concerning livestock being bad for the environment.
How about resources for the good farms, Mark? How about information on how people CAN make a positive change in their eating habits? Instead, we get a puppet show about foie.
No. The worst offenders are undoubtedly poultry and pork, but one needs look no further than the explosion of interest in people keeping backyard chickens, or getting eggs and meat from local farms that keep small, free-roaming chickens on open pasture. Smaller pig producers may be rarer, but they are part of the nascent back-to-grass movement, that is more than a call for grass-fed beef. People want pastured, healthful, humanely and sustainably raised beef, but these sorts of farms are often biodiverse and raise pigs, chickens, turkey, lamb, etc. as well.
Speaking of lamb, virtually all lamb, domestic or otherwise, lives 100% on grass, and even CAFO beef spend most of their lives on pasture.
Going on and on about foie as a small issue, relatively, is much noise with the point being swept under the rug. If we want change in how animals are raised for food, that change is not going to happen by becoming a nation of vegans -- let's be realistic. It will come from concerned and informed consumers, who understand the myriad implications of their food and how it is raised. Bittman completely ignores this, not just in this article, but in his various (and often misinformed) screeds concerning livestock being bad for the environment.
How about resources for the good farms, Mark? How about information on how people CAN make a positive change in their eating habits? Instead, we get a puppet show about foie.
4
Hi James, I know you know that 99% of animal foods in this country are industrially produced (even if that's off by a percent or two, it still effectively means that all such meat, dairy and eggs are appallingly cruel).
And for animals raised on pasture, they may have good lives for a short while, but they are invariably shipped in terrible conditions to face slaughter at an industrial slaughterhouse, as mandated by USDA (with very, very rare exceptions). And backyard slaughter often means a more prolonged and painful death at the hands of inexperienced butchers, as reading the forum discussions on their own websites reveals.
And for animals raised on pasture, they may have good lives for a short while, but they are invariably shipped in terrible conditions to face slaughter at an industrial slaughterhouse, as mandated by USDA (with very, very rare exceptions). And backyard slaughter often means a more prolonged and painful death at the hands of inexperienced butchers, as reading the forum discussions on their own websites reveals.
4
It's less than 99%, closer to 5-6% and growing each year.
In other countries, the numbers are much higher.
And you miss the point: we can tip the percentages, and go back to more traditional methods, reverting monoculture grain croplands to grasslands, and renewing our topsoil, water usage, and carbon sequestration in the process. It absolutely can be done. Fixating on the horrors of the industrial meat production system without considering the viable alternative is an exercise in hand-wringing.
We are literally destroying the livelihood of our nation by killing the soil. Take back our farms, take back our food.
In other countries, the numbers are much higher.
And you miss the point: we can tip the percentages, and go back to more traditional methods, reverting monoculture grain croplands to grasslands, and renewing our topsoil, water usage, and carbon sequestration in the process. It absolutely can be done. Fixating on the horrors of the industrial meat production system without considering the viable alternative is an exercise in hand-wringing.
We are literally destroying the livelihood of our nation by killing the soil. Take back our farms, take back our food.
3
James Kling: Have you done the math on that? The problem is that we actually can't do it that way. I strongly recommend you go to Cowspiracy dot com and, if possible, see the movie you will find there. A lot of people have tried to figure out a way that we could do it all humanely and consume animals at current levels, but it just doesn't work.
1
Foie gras is yummy, especially when it's not in a pate but cooked intact, with a little brioche and perhaps some wilted spinach leaves with a touch of balsamic. If I never ate it again? Eh! If any American would like to reduce cruelty to animals, you have billions of chickens, hundreds of millions of pigs, tens of millions of milk cows and beef cows, all of which are subjected to antibiotics and hormones to make them grow faster and/or overproduce milk, and kept in generally appalling conditions for all of their short lives.
And why? Because your industry is intensely focussed on making food ever cheaper. Cheaper is better, right?
And why? Because your industry is intensely focussed on making food ever cheaper. Cheaper is better, right?
55
Cooked intact! Why cook it at all??
I know of one restaurant in Paris that serves foie gras cru, i.e., raw.
I know of one restaurant in Paris that serves foie gras cru, i.e., raw.
1
The cost of food continues to rise in our state cities, and our farmers in our large rural agricultural states, the heartland of America, have been badly hurt by this Recession. Cheaper is better indeed, and for 3 granny smith apples, a can of beans, a tiny tin of tuna in olive oil, a small package of almonds, 6 eggs, two small cartons of plain yoghurt, a bit of tabouley, some spinach leaves and a brick of cheddar cheese, it all tallies up to $26 dollars plus tax. Hard on elderly seniors on fixed incomes, and those who are working and on food stamps, this might be considered a bargain. Many of us, under tremendous pressure to eke out a living, do not have time to cook. For this single household, it's back to Irish stew to be made on Sunday afternoons with a package of Bath Olivers when feeling flush.
2
actually, no more antibiotics for chickens unless actually required for an individual chicken for its own health.
Here is a question I ponder. If a 1000 lb cow yields about 500 lbs of grocery store beef, is it more humane to eat a cow (one soul) than to eat an equivalent weight of chicken (many souls)?
3
Add to that, the thousands of field animals killed in the production of tillage crops (e.g., corn, soy, wheat, but also any crops like broccoli, lettuce, tomatoes, done on industrial scale). Those animals need to be accounted for. What's more, animals raised as livestock are eaten; animals killed in industrial procuce ag are discarded.
3
Assuming, of course, that cows and chickens have souls. Obviously salmon and turnips don't count.
2
Jan Black: I think so. I don't like that any animals are raised for food. But if people insist on doing so, I would rather than only one sentient being suffer than 250 of them. I do encourage people, if they feel they must eat meat, to eat heavier animals for that reason.
1
I always get the sense that this issue is as much about class anxiety/rage as it is about ethics and gastronomy. Foie gras is expensive, "frou-frou," frivolous, and they don't serve it at Applebee's or Burger King. Therefore, it must be stopped. I agree with Bittman's take: Foie gras is raised in small amounts, artisanally, according to long tradition, and in accord with a larger ethic that encompasses sustainability and common sense. Outrage over animal welfare and our eating habits should be directed at the McRibs and Extra Crispys of the world.
5
Mark, you write that foie gras can be produced humanely, but Dan Barber himself admits that he was never able to replicate the model used by the one farmer who did so in Spain. So, no, it's not possible.
But to your larger point, yes, all animal agribusiness is inherently cruel: even if animals are raised reasonably well, they always suffer a gruesome slaughter as soon as they reach market weight.
The solution is easy: gorge yourselves on the luxurious "Faux Gras" by Regal Vegan.
Or make a homemade version with 1 cup dried brown or green lentils, simmered until very tender with a bay leaf and some dried thyme. Meanwhile, thoroughly caramelize a finely sliced large yellow onion in a little olive oil until richly flavored and golden, and lightly toast a large handful of walnuts until fragrant. Then blend or food-process all of the above with a tablespoon of red miso, 3 tablespoons of mirin or Sauternes, 2 tablespoons of tamari, a teaspoon of ume vinegar if you have it, adjusting flavoring as you wish. Bon appetit!
But to your larger point, yes, all animal agribusiness is inherently cruel: even if animals are raised reasonably well, they always suffer a gruesome slaughter as soon as they reach market weight.
The solution is easy: gorge yourselves on the luxurious "Faux Gras" by Regal Vegan.
Or make a homemade version with 1 cup dried brown or green lentils, simmered until very tender with a bay leaf and some dried thyme. Meanwhile, thoroughly caramelize a finely sliced large yellow onion in a little olive oil until richly flavored and golden, and lightly toast a large handful of walnuts until fragrant. Then blend or food-process all of the above with a tablespoon of red miso, 3 tablespoons of mirin or Sauternes, 2 tablespoons of tamari, a teaspoon of ume vinegar if you have it, adjusting flavoring as you wish. Bon appetit!
7
If Mr. Bittman has any alternative proposals for feeding over 300 million people, most of whom live many miles from any significant agricultural region, we'd love to hear them.
If Mr. Bittman would like a cause to pursue, it might be the fixing of a situation where 75% percent of people in the country, living mostly in the east, get a third of more of their food shipped cross country from the Pacific coast. What that means for the strategic value of Mississippi crossings should disturb even the most complacent gourmand.
If Mr. Bittman would like a cause to pursue, it might be the fixing of a situation where 75% percent of people in the country, living mostly in the east, get a third of more of their food shipped cross country from the Pacific coast. What that means for the strategic value of Mississippi crossings should disturb even the most complacent gourmand.
4
The solution is pretty simple: eat better and more humanely raised meat, dairy and poultry and less of it. Eat more pulses - peas and beans - most of which can be grown closer to population centers, especially if we quit using vast amounts of land for growing animal feed.
If you don't like peas and beans, try some of the "Beyond Meat" products made from pea and soy proteins. New Jersey is the "Garden State". Maybe it could rediscover how it got that name.
If you don't like peas and beans, try some of the "Beyond Meat" products made from pea and soy proteins. New Jersey is the "Garden State". Maybe it could rediscover how it got that name.
3
Eating flesh has proven to be unsustainable, unhealthy and cruel. Humans do not have talons or teeth to catch prey so eating as such is an unnatural cultural habit.
Eating without really understanding what is on the plate and how it got there is thoughtless and that usually turns out badly.
"the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" Gandhi
Thank you Mark
Eating without really understanding what is on the plate and how it got there is thoughtless and that usually turns out badly.
"the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" Gandhi
Thank you Mark
62
To say that " ... eating so is an unnatural cultural habit" is erroneous. Humans evolved as omnivores. Our mouths have canine teeth which are designed for tearing flesh and molars for grinding nuts and seeds, etc. At the risk of oversimplification, there are two types of foods and humans need to consume both to be healthy. Animal protein, including dairy, has complex fats and amino acids needed to nourish the brain and grow bones, teeth, major organs and cartilage. Plant foods cleanse the body, but they do not fortify it. And, unlike the stomachs of ruminants, the human stomach cannot efficiently digest vegetable matter to obtain the nutrients the body needs. Eating both animal and plants is synergistic.
15
This comment shows a deep ignorance of human evolution and biology. Eating flesh is incredibly natural and is a trait shared by our closest living relatives, chimpanzees (also without talons).
Yes, we eat WAY more meat than we would in a state of nature, and yes, the industrial scale raising and slaughtering of animals for meat is inhumane and unsustainable. However, to say that it is unnatural for humans to eat meat is just simply incorrect. There is very clear evidence that early humans were using stone tools to carve bits of meat off of carcasses, competing with the likes of scavengers such as vultures for their share. In chimpanzees, hunting is a vital activity, providing surges of protein and also serving as an important social activity.
Even so-called vegetarian primates, such as howler monkeys, have been known to steal and eat fowl if and when the opportunity presents itself. Eating meat is natural. Mass producing meat is not.
Yes, we eat WAY more meat than we would in a state of nature, and yes, the industrial scale raising and slaughtering of animals for meat is inhumane and unsustainable. However, to say that it is unnatural for humans to eat meat is just simply incorrect. There is very clear evidence that early humans were using stone tools to carve bits of meat off of carcasses, competing with the likes of scavengers such as vultures for their share. In chimpanzees, hunting is a vital activity, providing surges of protein and also serving as an important social activity.
Even so-called vegetarian primates, such as howler monkeys, have been known to steal and eat fowl if and when the opportunity presents itself. Eating meat is natural. Mass producing meat is not.
59
We eat everything, including meat, and always have for as long as we have been people. And when there pre-people, they ate meat too. As do our closest relatives chimpanzees. If you don't want to eat meat that is OK. But please, don't use a silly argument about not having talons to support your ideas.
10
I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm unsophisticated. But I love foie gras. Done with sauteed raisins, and a small glass of Sauternes, there is little else that can equal that gustatory pleasure. At least for me. I can't stand the idea of animals suffering, though, and agree with the article on that point. But you don't have to put down foie gras to make that point.
49
As a former haute cuisine connoisseur and cook myself, who used to enjoy homemade torchon of foie gras with a glass of Rieussec, I empathize. But as a whole-food plant-based vegan of some years now, may I inspire you to explore equally and richly satisfying alternatives? Regal Vegan's "Faux Gras" (a lentil/caramelized onion/walnut pate) is fabulous, and readily available in NY. I haven't given up pleasure, only suffering.
115
Yes, you do have to put down foie gras to make that point.
6
Actually, you do.
If you really can't stand the idea of animals suffering then you have to stop the activity that leads to that suffering. If you don't then what you are actually saying is that you can stand the idea of animals suffering because that suffering is in the service of your taste buds.
Once you remove the hypocrisy it's really quite simple.
If you really can't stand the idea of animals suffering then you have to stop the activity that leads to that suffering. If you don't then what you are actually saying is that you can stand the idea of animals suffering because that suffering is in the service of your taste buds.
Once you remove the hypocrisy it's really quite simple.
6
Besides the issue of killing animals, overfeeding geese is not cruel. When it's feeding time they come running. They do not have a gag reflex so sticking that tube down their throats is not cruel in of itself. It's only cruel because someone told you it was.
72
Do you have any idea what forced feeding is? Have you seen a forced feeding operation? I have. It is beyond me how anyone could say it is not cruel. Why don't you give it a try?
4
Have you watched the video footage of the feeding? Google "force fed misery" and check the birds' willingness for yourself.
5
So you don't think having a tube stuffed down your throat without knowing why is cruel? You don't think this is extremely traumatic for the bird?
5
Looked at another way, what's really in question is the price of meat. If "industrial production" is pressured, meat will cost more and fewer people will be able to afford it. So one arrives at: Who is going to decide how much meat people with limited means will eat? The people who want to eat more meat or those who think that they should eat less?
12
It's apparently very difficult to raise geese with diseased livers without forced feeding. From all the reports I've read this is in fact torture, don't minimize it. I agree that most meat production is terrible, but in contrast to foie gras, it can be done humanely. It's more expensive but available. Temple Grandin is an effective pioneer in humane meat production. I can find humanely produced eggs which I buy at a premium. There are dairies that treat their cows well but you have to look for them. I really don't think you understand what you're talking about.
12
Can be is very different from how most of it actually occurs.
I really don't think you understand what you're talking about.
I really don't think you understand what you're talking about.
2
Mark does understand what he's talking about: Chickens and dairy cows can live in pretty good conditions, but it's some of the associated practices that occur at all farms, however small, local, organic and humane. Google for yourself things such as all male chicks at all hatcheries to supply all egg farms being killed by suffocation, crushing or maceration. Check the recent Humane Society reports on the fate of all spent egg-laying hens (an especially gruesome slaughter). And learn what's inherent to the dairy business model: annual pregnancies with all male calves killed for veal, and all females raised in confinement on formula to replace their worn-out mothers who are slaughtered in their youth at 4-6 years of age and as many pregnancies. It's heartbreaking.
It is impossible to source any animal food, even the seemingly benign eggs, cheese, yogurt and ice cream, without a lot of hidden and senseless slaughter.
It is impossible to source any animal food, even the seemingly benign eggs, cheese, yogurt and ice cream, without a lot of hidden and senseless slaughter.
4
Where do capons come from, then?
1
"If it’s ultimately and legally determined that foie gras production is cruel, inhumane or both, labeling it so would strengthen the argument that so are the current means of production for most industrially raised animals (and their products)."
That argument also works the other way around. The industry will fight very hard to keep foie gras legal, because it doesn't want a slippery slope of animal kindness. It's the same logic that makes the NRA fight tooth and nail for assault weapons.
That argument also works the other way around. The industry will fight very hard to keep foie gras legal, because it doesn't want a slippery slope of animal kindness. It's the same logic that makes the NRA fight tooth and nail for assault weapons.
98
If it is so unimportant, why write about it? After reading about it extensively a couple years ago (during the whole ban thing), I came to learn that it's a pretty harmless procedure (lavage). A goose is not like a person. They have a very different biology and while lavage would be insanely painful and cruel to a person, it is not so for a goose. They don't seem to particularly dislike or fear it, and it's not painful for them.
I like geese, but I also like ducks and chickens and pigs, and I eat them anyways. I'm an omnivore and not ashamed of it. Livestock are not pets, and they only exist because we breed them for food.
Left to folks like yourself, Mr. Bittman, we'd be eating nothing but raw or steamed vegetables, washed down by tepid water. Oh wait -- that's not hyperbole, but your actual concept of what people should be forced to eat by the government (who knows better than we do, about what is good for us).
Lastly: note how a Federal JUDGE overturned a vote of the people. While I don't agree with the ban on foie gras, I DO believe strongly that citizens voting should MEAN something, and not be overturned by social engineering judges with an agenda. This goes double if not triple for the Federal judges who did the same thing to voters who voted (in several states, including Florida only SIX YEARS AGO, to preserve traditional marriage).
I like geese, but I also like ducks and chickens and pigs, and I eat them anyways. I'm an omnivore and not ashamed of it. Livestock are not pets, and they only exist because we breed them for food.
Left to folks like yourself, Mr. Bittman, we'd be eating nothing but raw or steamed vegetables, washed down by tepid water. Oh wait -- that's not hyperbole, but your actual concept of what people should be forced to eat by the government (who knows better than we do, about what is good for us).
Lastly: note how a Federal JUDGE overturned a vote of the people. While I don't agree with the ban on foie gras, I DO believe strongly that citizens voting should MEAN something, and not be overturned by social engineering judges with an agenda. This goes double if not triple for the Federal judges who did the same thing to voters who voted (in several states, including Florida only SIX YEARS AGO, to preserve traditional marriage).
27
Simmer down, Concerned Citizen, Mr. Bittman did not mean to bite us, and should we turn into cannibals than we will have something to goose about.
We're pretty much ALL omnivores, CC. That merely means that we can eat a variety of foods. But I guess it's good you're not ashamed. Me neither.
Your remark, though, about farmed animals only existing because we breed them for food seems to suggest that you feel that somehow absolves us of any moral responsibility to them. By your reasoning, we could just as well substitute "targets" for "food", and so justify standing farmed animals out in a field to give our "sportsmen" something to shoot at. What about children, CC? Do you have any, or are you planning on some in the future? What's their purpose going to be according to you? And how will that affect your treatment of them?
I'm sorry, but reading comments like yours, at this point in the debate, is just tedious.
Your remark, though, about farmed animals only existing because we breed them for food seems to suggest that you feel that somehow absolves us of any moral responsibility to them. By your reasoning, we could just as well substitute "targets" for "food", and so justify standing farmed animals out in a field to give our "sportsmen" something to shoot at. What about children, CC? Do you have any, or are you planning on some in the future? What's their purpose going to be according to you? And how will that affect your treatment of them?
I'm sorry, but reading comments like yours, at this point in the debate, is just tedious.
4
Oh, gosh. I suggest you read one of Mr. Bittman's very useful cookbooks. We used How to Cook Everything to roast a spatchcocked chicken on Sunday. I used a humanely raised chicken because they tend to taste better -- it was fabulous. Then we ate the leftovers with a very lovely lentil salad based on a recipe from How to Cook Everything Vegetarian.
Hardly steamed vegetables and tepid water.
Hardly steamed vegetables and tepid water.
5
Humans - I am regularly chagrined at the self absorption of my species and our terrible cruelty and destruction of our fellow creatures. Not EVERYTHING is about the human and religion does a monumental disservice by asserting that the earth and all its creatures has been put here for our exclusive pleasure and convenience.
128
What are we planning to feed our domestic animal friends so that they do not disappear and end up stuffed at a museum? They need greens, oats, kibble and a long menu of other such fare to survive, and we are taking their food away from them? On another note, I like the story of an English diplomat imprisoned in a foreign country, kept for month and month in solitary confinement, thrown into spiritual confrontation with himself, who emerged from captivity and wrote a book about a seal who preferred T-bone steak to fish. Now that's rich...
There are religions (and denominations within Christianity) which teach that humans' "dominion" over the earth requires stewardship and mindfulness.
2
It was inevitable that religion was going to squeeze itself into this forum here, but reminded me that every year, a Senegalese friend and her family in Africa gather together to sacrifice a goat in honor of those they loved.
While it's true that the number of ducks and geese killed for foie gras is small relative to the roughly 10 billion land animals killed each year for food in the U.S., that doesn't change the fact that overturning the foie gras ban reverses significant protections for at least some animals and needlessly subjects more individual ducks and geese to egregious abuse before being slaughtered. Mr. Bittman argues that, in the greater context of animal farming, "foie gras itself just isn't that important," but each individual bird who is force fed until his or her liver expands to 10 times its normal size would probably big to differ.
38
And if vivisection made an animal that much more tender and flavorful, would you still indulge?
11
Depends. What animal we talking about here?
2
Agreed. And delicious...I enjoy mine on a bagel at Morries Bagels and Toasts at 1 rue de Charonne...a bit of NYC meets Paris in one bite.
7
The entirety of nature is very happy for this "jadetimes."
So, why eat any animals when such cruelty is involved? I would guess it's mainly force of habit--and one doesn't have to be terribly adventurous to learn to love the vast variety of vegetarian food.
31
Its economic. On a per pound basis chopped meat (and other cuts) are cheaper than most vegitarian fare.
Because not all meat involves cruelty. Period.
Is that so, ds? I find that hard to believe when a pound of dried beans (which makes 2-3 pounds of edible beans) costs about $1.25 at my local supermarket. I could give you many, many more examples, but I don't think you want to be bothered with the facts on this issue.
2
I will fully admit that if I had to slaughter my own animals for meat I am not sure I would eat as much. Having said that I enjoy prime corn fed beef much more than grass fed and absolutely adore foie gras and pork belly and eat way more of it as I should. The fact is that we humans have evolved into the ultimate apex predators and I have no moral issue with our ability to feed ourselves industrially anymore than I have a moral issue with any other animal out there that kills another to eat. I am supposed to get all upset about the fact that we are really good at producing and killing our food. If anything I am way more morally outraged about our lack of ability to put that skill to use helping to feed those around the world who continue to starve. Genetically modified crops and industrial slaughter techniques will end world hunger and I could care less about how any animal that I am going to eat is treated.
8
Sorry, DS, but having "no moral issue" simply indicates a lack of moral sense. You don't get to cherry pick. Either you care about the suffering of any being capable of experiencing it, whether human or other, or you don't. Next time, why don't you just start with "I could care less"? And then stop.
7
The manufacturers of genetically engineered crops love to pretend that they are trying - and able - to "end world hunger." But that will only happen when poor people in 3rd world countries can afford to buy their produce. Hunger comes from poverty, not lack of genetically engineered crops.
Perhaps you would argue that GE crops will make food so abundant that even the poorest can afford it. Funny, there are still hungry people all over the world (including right here in the U.S.) and our fabulously abundant GE corn and soy are making billions for Monsanto.
Perhaps you would argue that GE crops will make food so abundant that even the poorest can afford it. Funny, there are still hungry people all over the world (including right here in the U.S.) and our fabulously abundant GE corn and soy are making billions for Monsanto.
4
It's "I couldn't care less," not "could." unless, of course, you could.
1
True, anyone who cares about ethics or morals will boycott all bird products, starting with bird corpse parts and eggs. These are all terribly inhumane, including all the ones with the deceptive label such as "humane" and "free range." And they are produced in obscene quantities. Pig corpse products too. Dairy comes next. Then the rest.
But just search for and watch videos of these foie gras production facilities and you will be especially horrified to be a member of the species that runs them. They are an extreme of vulgar barbarism. The fact that there are far fewer victims doesn't give one much relief from the revulsion. Using this product is entirely inconsistent with having even a modicum self-respect or dignity.
But just search for and watch videos of these foie gras production facilities and you will be especially horrified to be a member of the species that runs them. They are an extreme of vulgar barbarism. The fact that there are far fewer victims doesn't give one much relief from the revulsion. Using this product is entirely inconsistent with having even a modicum self-respect or dignity.
27
Ethics and morals are about boycotting eggs? No handmaidens left to milk the cows anymore who depend on them? No grain for our pet hens this early morning?...
This is all terribly inhumane? And yet the favored family member of the poor, living in a hamlet a few miles from Oxford at the turn of the 20th century, was their pig, much cherished and loved above all, and the pride of the family where the men would visit their neighbors on a Sunday and hang out smoking a pipe, complimenting this lucky favorite who ate far more than the other members of the family for a year - Time to re-read 'Larkspur Rise to Candleford', the autobiographical memoirs of Flora Thompson with a small chicken pie for lunch and watch "Sweeny Todd" on the telly with the baking of the infamous pork pies on Seville Street.
This is all terribly inhumane? And yet the favored family member of the poor, living in a hamlet a few miles from Oxford at the turn of the 20th century, was their pig, much cherished and loved above all, and the pride of the family where the men would visit their neighbors on a Sunday and hang out smoking a pipe, complimenting this lucky favorite who ate far more than the other members of the family for a year - Time to re-read 'Larkspur Rise to Candleford', the autobiographical memoirs of Flora Thompson with a small chicken pie for lunch and watch "Sweeny Todd" on the telly with the baking of the infamous pork pies on Seville Street.
@Miss Ley: And how is that relevant to the pigs of today, who suffer horribly and painfully before brutal deaths? Perhaps it would be helpful for you to Google some material about the lives of hens in egg-laying farms (the male chicks are ground up alive just after hatching), the cows in factory feedlots standing in their own waste all their lives (the males going to doghouse-size crates just after birth and being killed in a couple of months), and the pigs who live their short and horrid lives in metal pens so small they can't turn around.
2
Let us release our animal friends and perhaps they will roam free as the buffaloes, while piglets will turn feral and seek their revenge with their tusks as they turn into sharp boars.
Spot on editorial. As a vegetarian for the last twenty one years, nothing is more insulting and infuriating than artificial outrage over cruelty that barely exists when compared to the horror of our factory farms. Meat consumption left the farms decades ago, every bite of meat eaten comes from factory farm cruelty. Not eating veal or foie gras does not make you compassionate or caring, it makes you an irrational hypocrite. It's really a dichotomy: you're either cruelty free or your not. Now eat you veal and quiet down.
42
My only problem w Beal is a lack of robust flavor and texture. Foie is delicious.
Have you ever heard the saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" I strongly, strongly prefer that people join me in going vegan - for the sake of the animals, the planet, and their own health. But why should I prefer that people make no moves in that direction rather than sparing at least a few animals a bit of torture while we continue to work on making things better for all animals?
3
"Meat consumption left the farms decades ago, every bite of meat eaten comes from factory farm cruelty."
Someone's going to have to tell the thousands of small farms that are raising their animals on pasture, humanely and sustainably, that they do not in fact exist. And the millions of consumers who buy from them will be very upset as well.
"Have you ever heard the saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" "
I agree with this. I just don't agree that veganism is perfect by any measure.
Someone's going to have to tell the thousands of small farms that are raising their animals on pasture, humanely and sustainably, that they do not in fact exist. And the millions of consumers who buy from them will be very upset as well.
"Have you ever heard the saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" "
I agree with this. I just don't agree that veganism is perfect by any measure.
1
I think it's humorous that when California legalizes fois gras, Bittman says it's completely insignificant, but when California passes that silly caged-hen law, it's of massive significance. Come on, man, you can't have it both ways.
9
Everyone eats eggs and chickens, only a very few eat Foie Gras. It's a scale thing, you know, math...
5
I think he's talking more about the relative size of the impact of the bans.
1
Oh Mr. Bittman, such a first world problem. I dare you to live in Liberia for a month. Or even a week. As a local not as a superior voice of consious from the west . All parts of the animal you will be so grateful to have, no matter how it is raised.
51
NTL, if searching to learn of first world problems, perhaps we might read what Nicholas Kristof has to say, while understanding what you relay about the consumption of meat in developing countries - the magnificent Nomad tribes of Africa and the care for their cattle; the photo taken in Ethiopia of a tall man handing my friend on mission a large slab of red meat through a narrow brick wall. We were not all vegetarians in those days, and we are not today either here or elsewhere, while we continue to work and carry high the banner for the rights of children world-wide, who join us in eating some meat too on occasion.
1
Are you suggesting that our standards for how we raise and slaughter our livestock should be on par with Liberia? That we're not allowed to have higher standards than some of the poorest countries on the earth? How does that even make sense?
My mother told me to be grateful for the food on my plate because there were children starving in Europe but that didn't mean she only prepared meals that were eaten by starving children in Europe.
If we can do better we should.
My mother told me to be grateful for the food on my plate because there were children starving in Europe but that didn't mean she only prepared meals that were eaten by starving children in Europe.
If we can do better we should.
5
What do we call this Straw man? False dilemma? False dichotomy? Mr. Bittman is simply saying that most animals are mistreated. How is this in anyway implying that he is judging folks in developing or failed states?
8
A Vegan I should have begun,
I really wish that I was one,
A look in the mirror
Has become a searer,
All meat products I ought to shun.
I really wish that I was one,
A look in the mirror
Has become a searer,
All meat products I ought to shun.
88
Everything in moderation, Mr. Larry. When I last saw my brother it was in the Paris métro where the evening before, after careful deliberation, he kindly gave me a tender morsel of roast duck from his platter. At last hearing, he is well and alive, and rather than shunning all meat products, perhaps we should choose mirrors that give us our best reflections and complexions.
2
To eat Vegan I did try,
Animals fates make me cry
But Alas,
I can't eat just grass,
I really, really did try.
Animals fates make me cry
But Alas,
I can't eat just grass,
I really, really did try.
10
A vegan i am!
A slice of ham?
A leg o' chick?
No thanks.
i'm better, not sick,
without 'em.
A slice of ham?
A leg o' chick?
No thanks.
i'm better, not sick,
without 'em.
15
Your justification...the torture of geese is unimportant because, after all... all farm animals are tortured...is abhorrent. Shame on you. Have a heart.