I don't remember this being on any ballot, but apparently 8 years ago Californians voted to outlaw foie gras (but only starting in 2012). As the deadline now approaches, there's debate about the practicality of the law and comparisons to prohibition.
The NY Times has an article about a restaurant that has organized a farewell dinner full of foie gras dishes while it's still legal.
I have to say I'm on the fence for this. On the one hand, I enjoy foie gras and think people should be able to eat it legally; but on the other hand, I concede there might be too much foie gras production going on and a law like this is the only way to lower demand since people won't choose with their own free will to give it up. I don't feel in any way qualified to judge the animal cruelty accusations made about foie gras production.
One of the specialists interviewed for the article sums it up by saying the real debate is not so much about the merits of force feeding ducks or geese, but rather the moral judgment of whether or not it's ethical to kill animals for human consumption.
Gov Jerry Brown just outlawed shark fin soup and whale is also illegal, which I think are great laws. But why should ducks be more disposable than sharks?
I guess at times like this I'm glad France is much more open about food products: unpasturized milk and cheese, dry cured ham, and horse meat are all legal and available. I don't consume all of those things, but it's changing cooking habits and not laws that influence grocery store choices of what to stock (my husband's grandparents love pigs feet, but I've yet to meet anyone under 35 who does).
And then I see tomatoes from Morocco for 1€ a kilo and I think those ought to be outlawed!
No comments:
Post a Comment