Foie Gras

[Mysterion]

Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms, along with a streak of predictable vegetarian-baiting. I'll bite:

I've been a vegetarian for 35 years. I don't pretend to speak for all vegetarians, not should PETA or any other entity. I've made a choice, based on my own values and reasoning. It would be silly to argue that humans are not naturally evolved as omnivores; our dentition and digestive tracts make that clear. However, we have also evolved critical reasoning facilities--admittedly some of us more than others--and we no longer live in a state of nature. We have the luxury of making choices.

I'm not maligning anyone for making a mindful dietary/lifestyle decision; I do see some lopsided logic at work here:

...discriminating veal or foie gras just because of it's production methods [is] preposterous and hypocritical. We kill animals and eat their muscles and organs and they're delicious. There's no difference in how it's done...

Jordan, I respect your decision, but question your reasoning. This strikes me as an "end justifies the means" argument. Raising animals for food is one thing; doing so with no regard for the quality of stewardship seems base and thoughtless. At the risk of seeming even more pompous, I'll recall the words of philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832):

Perhaps one day we'll end up by appreciating that the number of legs, the furriness of the skin or the tip of the sacral bone are completely inadequate reasons for abandoning a sensate animal. The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they speak ?' but 'Can they suffer ?' "

Reminds me of a Ted Nugent quote:

"Vegetarians are cool. All I eat are vegetarians - except for the occasional mountain lion steak."

Prof, you've always seemed a thoughtful man. Invoking The Nuge does nothing to further your argument.

Its both delicious and cruel...

This is probably the best considered response I've seen here.

 

[masonjarjar]

if aliens came here, most likely evolved way past mankind's level of "development," I doubt they would be very impressed by how the most highly evolved species on the planet treats the sub-species..



they'd probably go visit the dolphins first anyways..

 

[Crazy Dave]

If you avoid the biased propaganda from both sides of the issue, it turns out that most people who've studied the issue with no preconceived agenda conclude that forcefeeding a duck or goose is less cruel and painful than any other factory feeding process. If you can live with the way cows and chickens are treated at most farms, you can more than safely eat foie gras in good conscience.

I have seen films of the "force-feeding" of foie gra geese. It did not look crule to me and I am very sensitive to that sort of thing.

Dave

 

[Confuzius]

Jordan, I respect your decision, but question your reasoning. This strikes me as an "end justifies the means" argument. Raising animals for food is one thing; doing so with no regard for the quality of stewardship seems base and thoughtless. At the risk of seeming even more pompous, I'll recall the words of philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832):

Perhaps one day we'll end up by appreciating that the number of legs, the furriness of the skin or the tip of the sacral bone are completely inadequate reasons for abandoning a sensate animal. The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they speak ?' but 'Can they suffer ?' "

I understand, I try as often as possible to source my meats from (what I consider to be) more ethical sources, be they organic, Kosher or Halal. I also told my self that when I started eating meat I wouldn't discriminate. If I'm going to be eating one animal, I can't not eat another, just because it's cuter, smarter, younger or whatever.

As far as suffering goes, it may be cold, or just plain wrong of me, but I see it as a kind of Plato's cave scenario. If all they've ever known is farm/pen/box life then that is their reality, and suffering is suffering in the context of what they might know to be real, not what is actually possible in the outside world. So spending your entire life in a pen, being fed on a mechanical schedule may seem like suffering for a cow compared to say a buffalo grazing on open pastures, but if it's all that they've known, they're probably rather content.

Slaughter these days is pretty much ruthlessly efficient, so barring any accidents there is very little opportunity for suffering there either. Pain; probably, suffering; I'm not so sure.

 

[Fnord5]

Never tried it, and don't really want to.
I don't like liver and I don't like any type of meat from fowl anyway.

It tastes like neither. You should at least try it once.


Second, I do not find it cruel.(although I am positive there are some farms that I would say are cruel)
Anthony Bourdain explains it here:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nishnabotna]

As far as suffering goes, it may be cold, or just plain wrong of me, but I see it as a kind of Plato's cave scenario. If all they've ever known is farm/pen/box life then that is their reality, and suffering is suffering in the context of what they might know to be real, not what is actually possible in the outside world. So spending your entire life in a pen, being fed on a mechanical schedule may seem like suffering for a cow compared to say a buffalo grazing on open pastures, but if it's all that they've known, they're probably rather content.

Rationalization, which you might suspect I don't agree with. Using this, you could rationalize just about anything.

 

[Sullybob]

Its both delicious and cruel - I love the stuff and my rationalization is that if geese had larger brains and opposable thumbs, they'd not hesitate to turn our livers into a yummy snack.

I'm fortunate in that I have access to good Quebec foie gras, as well as the French stuff.

+1, its delicious and cruel. For me, the deliciousness wins out over the cruel. I eat it rarely, it's just to expensive to eat often.

 

[Fnord5]

Slightly off topic.
I work at whole foods, and a while back we had these flyers about a proposition to do with animal cruelty.
I saw one, and told the cashier I was next to, "but the animals tears make it taste better"
You should have seen the death stare the customer behind me was giving me.

 

[Mysterion]

...As far as suffering goes, it may be cold, or just plain wrong of me, but I see it as a kind of Plato's cave scenario. If all they've ever known is farm/pen/box life then that is their reality, and suffering is suffering in the context of what they might know to be real, not what is actually possible in the outside world. So spending your entire life in a pen, being fed on a mechanical schedule may seem like suffering for a cow compared to say a buffalo grazing on open pastures, but if it's all that they've known, they're probably rather content...

Fair enough; I do appreciate the consideration you put into your decision. I doubt I'm clever enough to go head-to-head on philosophical underpinnings, but here's my take: Obviously, animals lack self-awareness. They don't anticipate, and they don't make comparisons. Domestic feedstock don't know that there's a better, more comfortable reality. But I do.

 

[kreigle]

I didn't vote since my answer isn't up there.

Don't like it, but not because of how it is 'made'.

My wife and I tried it in a restaurant not too long ago as part of an appetizer, and neither of us cared for the taste or texture of it. We couldn't even finish the small piece that was on the plate.

 

[Confuzius]

I respect that. My more comforable reality however includes bacon in my belly, and if that makes me a tyrant, that's something I'm prepared to live with.

I have also, on many occassions pondered wether or not, if the opportunity presented itself, via a horrible accident that made me lose a limb or what not, if I would try people. I realize that as people can feel and rationalize, it would be unfair for me to snack on anyone but myself. My only worry then is that I would develop a taste for it and lack a source. This is also a premise for a half written screenplay/short story in my head...

 

[ratcheer]

Both. Delicious and cruel.

Tim

 

[arghblech]

Both delicious and cruel.

I eat it and I don't feel guilty. I know where my food comes from.

 

[letterk]

I don't know either way, all I know is I'm not eating liver, regardless of where it came from.

 

[Shane]

I think it tastes great. If you think it's cruel, then more for me.

 

[blantyre]

I don't know either way, all I know is I'm not eating liver, regardless of where it came from.

Sounds like your strictly liver and bacon but hold the liver and give me some extra bacon instead. Not a bad route to go.

 

[Brodirt]

I recall with great pleasure a too short summer spent on a working olive estate in Aups, France where I learned to love all pates.

A morning jog would bring my brother in law and I to the local open air market where we would stock up on wine, charcuterie, bread, cheese and produce.

Late morning and early afternoon would be wiled away by the pool with the food and the TV2 showing the Tour de France start to finish.

What a summer.

 

[professorchaos]

Recovering from my puerile mood earlier...yes it is delicious and possibly cruel. Yet I approach the cruelty the same way I approach owning pre-ban ivory. Something died, or in this case suffered then died, to supply us with something wonderful. Better that the "something," be it ivory or foie gras, be appreciated than casually consumed.

 

[ouch]

Monkfish liver is delicious, and sometimes referred to as foie gras of the sea. The tail tastes like lobster, too.

 

[richmondesi]

The cheese thread got me thinking. Do any of you gents eat Foie Gras, or are there any guys who avoid it because of the way its made?

I don't know how it's made, and I don't want to. It's good. Don't ruin it for me