like in California. Should they mind their own business or do you think they're right ?
2006-12-13 08:43:06 · 14 answers · asked by Siobhan 3 in Food & Drink ➔ Other - Food & Drink
the people who feed the ducks usually eat it too (and even more than the others because it is less expensive to them)
2006-12-13 08:59:44 · update #1
The only reason they want to ban it is because it is meat and many in California are vegans. I think, if they can do that then we can ban veggies in places like Texas where grilling meat is big.
It is a matter of choice as to how you eat and no man should ban anothers food.
2006-12-13 08:48:40 · answer #1 · answered by rltouhe 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The problem is, I don't think you can get foie gras without force feeding. The definition is a liver that's really rich and fatty because the duck or goose has been force fed. So you can't get foie gras "naturally", you'd just get regular livers. That said, I don't think it should be regulated or banned. The process is not nearly as bad as some of the other things we do to livestock, since ducks and geese are adapted to overeat and store a lot of fat in their livers to prepare for migration.
2006-12-13 17:19:11 · answer #2 · answered by bmdave 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think foie gras should be banned nationwide because the practice they use is vicious and cruel. I've stopped eating duck (I never ate foie gras) because of this terrible cruelty. People who are trying to ban foie gras, more power to them. They have every right to get it banned, because the people who do this practice are heartless and should be jailed. Foie gras is animal cruelty and it needs to be banned now and forever.
2006-12-13 17:21:43 · answer #3 · answered by nobodyd 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The animal rights activists are against it because the ducks and geese are force fed to enlarge their livers specifically to make foie gras. Not better or much worse than other livestock raising methods for slaughter in my book.
2006-12-13 16:53:26 · answer #4 · answered by COACH 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Should mind their own business:) Or, well, farmers could stop force feeding and let them eat at their own pace...which would mean the price of foie gras would skyrocket as it'd take longer and it's be rarer.
Bring on the foie gras!! Can't wait for Xmas!! (I live in France)
2006-12-13 16:48:32 · answer #5 · answered by Swou 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Although I object to the force feeding of the ducks/geese... I think it is WAY out of line to be legislating what we can or can't eat.
I live on a small ranch here in California, and raise chickens, goats, pigs, and sheep. They live in nice spaces, are fed, watered, and sheltered... and in season, we slaughter a few.
Stop force-feeding the geese, and let the price of liver go through the room... darned food snobs !!
2006-12-13 17:02:15 · answer #6 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're against it for ethical reasons...more power to you and anyone else w/the same view - as long as you carry that ethical standard throughout your life. If you wear leather shoes, leather belts, leather bags....or use makeup and/or toiletry items that use animal testing....or take medicine that has been tested on animals, etc, etc.....then please, don't talk to me about cruelty to animals being the reason for being a vegetarian because it's rather hypocritical.
That statement isn't directed at anyone here because I have no idea whatsoever if people here (question asker, and responders) are truly pro-animal-rights - I'm just making my own statement.
Personally, I think that consider we're in land of the free....people can eat what they want. I don't want a government that tells me what I can and can't eat....do you really want a gov't that'd decide your diet for you?? It's one thing to boycott eating it for your own reasons...but to not be able to because the gov't has banned it doesn't seem right.
I myself am almost vegeterian- or...vegan....whatever. I barely eat any meat whatsoever. It's not for ethical reasons though...I just hate the taste and/or texture of most of it.
....on the other hand...I love all my leather boots, and I love the right that I have to wear them :)
2006-12-13 17:24:44 · answer #7 · answered by Am I there yet? 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
already banned in Chicago. I think its alright to object to the cruelty of the process, but it should be up to the chef and the consumer whether or not they want to serve or buy it.
Don't like what's on the radio? Change the channel.
2006-12-13 16:53:07 · answer #8 · answered by JUDI O 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here in Chicago it was already banned months ago. I admit I have never tried it but I understand the way it is produced is disgusting and insanely abusive to the animal.
2006-12-13 16:48:30 · answer #9 · answered by daven71 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think those who eat it should have to feed the ducks.
2006-12-13 16:46:31 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋