PETA & the whole foie gras debate.
Over the past three months I’ve received emails from a Mr Ben Williamson at PETA about foie gras. I’d like to point out at the very start of this post that I don’t eat foie gras, not because of some ethical choice, but I’m just not that fond of the taste. I know what it is, when I’m called upon with my clients to use it I do so, principally because I’m educated enough to decide for myself. Now if you’re uncertain who or what PETA are I’ll enlighten you.
The organisation describes itself as:
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation is a UK-based charity dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals.
and goes on to say:
PETA works through public education, research, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement and protest campaigns.
Having received these unsolicited emails what shocks me is the approach that PETA have taken. They repeatedly refer to foie gras as:
Torture in a tin.
Yet foie gras is a naturally occurring product. Yes, ‘Torture in a tin’ may have been a great strap line for a campaign but it’s actually incorrect. If anything PETA could possibly be referring to Pâté de foie gras, which contains, amongst other things foie gras. Many people will disagree with me that foie gras is naturally occurring, after researching for this post it comes to light that geese naturally gorge themselves ready for their winter migrations, and a farm in Spain now utilises this to make ethical foie gras. PETA of course make no mention of this in their emails, but then they make no mention of the technique called gavage which is what I’m thinking they’re actually opposed to.
Gavage is the method of force feeding geese to make their livers swell. In France for foie gras to be called such it is a legal requirement that:
..must come from a goose or duck which has been force-fed using gavage for at least four weeks.
Now if you take a stance against foie gras produced this way, & France is only 1 of 5 European countries where it’s legal to produce the delicacy like this, surely you’d have to examine the entire contents of your cupboards & fridge. Where are PETA prepared to draw the line? Battery hens, pigs, the list goes on. But what makes PETA’s argument less credible was the enlisting of Sir Roger Moore to help raise their campaign’s profile. Sir Roger who now resides in Switzerland & Monaco sees fit to come back to the UK to protest at the Queen’s grocer selling foie gras. How about coming back Sir Roger & paying some taxes? Yet I couldn’t find any evidence of Sir Roger protesting in either Monaco or Switzerland, why is that?Because there is nothing like shitting on your own doorstep, is there Sir Roger? Just to shoot Sir Roger’s credibility even further out of the sky, I read that he’s recently done a book signing at Harrods, wonder if he past through the world famous food hall for any of this?: Foie gras @ Harrods .
So far I’ve established that PETA don’t really have a clue about foie gras & have recruited one of the worst advocates to raise their campaign profile. Not looking good so far is it Mr Williamson?
Next I’ll move on to the alternative. Several times on twitter people have engaged with me over the whole foie gras debate & every time we reach the same conclusion. Principally that they’ve been brain washed by the likes of PETA & The Animal Liberation Front and that they blanket all foie as unethical. Yet there is another way, an alternative, it isn’t cheap but as foie gras tends to be in the domain of the rich & well healed that shouldn’t make too much difference. After less than 5 minutes on the internet I found that ethical foie gras has been around for about 5 years, but PETA fail to mention that as well. If anything the whole PETA foie gras argument falls on it’s ass even more when people learn that the whole of the animal is actually used in production. Magret de Canard is the much sought after breast of foie gras ducks and both the legs & excess body fat is also prized as comodities. Even the feathers are used, I dare say even go towards Sir Roger’s pillows which he takes everywhere: Daily Telegraph Travel.
If PETA are going to use the argument that the production of meat causes distress to animals then where does it stop? Everybody knows the smell of fresh cut grass in summer, but very few actually know that it’s a distress signal given off by the plants. So are PETA advocating that we don’t mow the lawn? No, of course not, and I for one enjoy eating meat so I won’t have the likes of ALF or PETA dictating to me what I should or shouldn’t eat. Man is at the top of the food chain for a reason, that in itself is worth remembering & foie gras has been around for thousands of years.
Just to end this post I’d like to point out that I didn’t sign up for any of PETA’s emails & they were unsolicited, but it also appears that I’m not the only one. So if Mr Williamson or anybody from PETA has actually reached this far down the post then bear this in mind.
This isn’t the way to engage with bloggers, in the main we’re nice people but clearly I’m not the only one who is teed off with your half baked campaign: See here at The Shed
Thanks for reading, my rant is now over. Carry on.
PETA and their allies remind me of the right to life crazies here in the USA. They can’t hold a rational conversation, but it is easy to scream ‘Baby Killers!’. Of course they also believe that the world was created 6000 years ago…..
We live in California, where foie gras is now illegal. But in two weeks, we leave for five days in Las Vegas, where I plan to eat foie every day. Multiple preparations, on most of the days. Screw you, PETA.
Liking your style there Bob. I’m all for freedom of choice & it’s my choice not to eat foie gras (more out of taste than any weak morale argument).
I’m just wondering if there are secret foie gras clubs like speakeasys in the 1920′s, LoL.
Enjoy Vegas
Much as PETA’s argument might have flaws, the alternative ‘ethical’ production methods mentioned above only have credibility if we know how often they’re employed. For example, if 99% of foie gras is produced using the methods seen as cruel, then peta’s argument makes sense, as the alternative isn’t worth mentioning….it’s not used enough to make it worth mentioning!
I also think that humans being at the top of the foodchain for x years will never excuse the cruel and unethical practices carried out worldwide. Man is also incredibly selfish and short-sighted and unsustainable farming practices will cause future problems. But hey, who cares so long as we can eat steak as and when we please, eh?!
Finally, of course peta use shock tactics….they work, simple as that. Otherwise would their cause ever receive half as much attention?
And of course your answer to the ‘grass in distress’ is?
The evolution of man means that we eat both vegetables, meat & fish, working on the basis that some vegetarians don’t eat meat based on animal cruelty would surely mean that they are hypocrites as it’s ok to put plants into distress before plucking them from their environments.
With regard to PETA’s shock tactics, would you say they’ve worked? Probably not as the two blog posts I’ve seen recently aren’t exactly blowing PETA’s trumpet.
PETA have a flawed campaign, executed badly & come out of it looking short signed & pious.
Are you really comparing grass to mammals with similar organs, genetic makeup etc. as humans? If so, then I’m sorry but I don’t have an argument back as that’s probably one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard.
What I’m doing is showing how flawed your particular argument is. It’s funny how some people are quite selective when it suits them (I’m thinking in-particular an element of pescetarians).
But then you’re moving away from the article I’ve actually posted. Looking at PETA’s tactics, they have to use shock values because anybody with a computer & some common sense could pull their campaign apart, as seen above.
I’d also like to point out that I’ve had NOTHING from PETA concerning this post in any form of reply. I sent them a copy and judging by the amount of Facebook ‘likes’ & Twitter ‘Re-tweets’ this I find it hard to understand why they aren’t defending their position.
PETA’s attitude to foie gras is like the Daily Mail’s attitude to, well, everything. It is happy to go for the shocking headline, the use of one example which will horrify people, but not happy to put both sides of the story across. By its own words it does “shocking things” because otherwise the media ‘wouldn’t want to know’. It’s the media’s role to put forward the arguments for AND against, not just one side (when there are two sides). Maybe that’s PETA’s problem with the media.
Unlike the media (yes there’s poor examples of the media like everywhere else, but I’m talking in general) there’s no mention on PETA’s website about the ‘ethical foie gras’ you’ve mentioned in your article. Only the ‘we need foie gras banned’. Why not provide the whole truth, not the bit you like?
Big fans of shock tactics, PETA, on its website, writes about a raid on an American-based production facility saying “one duck had a maggot-covered neck wound that was so severe that water spilled out of it when he drank”. Now I’m betting that all those people being riled up about foie gras are citing such comments down the pub, “sure there’s poor birds not able to drink because the water just pours out again”.
Take a step back for a second. This is a production facility that was right to be investigated. It’s obvious from this statement that the birds weren’t treated well at all. But is that an example of how the majority of facilities that produce foie gras operate? I very much doubt it.
Do I think all foie gras should be made in an ethical fashion like the farm in Spain? Yeah, that would be nice. But come on, let’s get rid of all the shock treatment and have a discussion based on facts.