![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Up next: After passing a ban on New York-style pizza, another Chicago alderman tries to ban the U.S. Constitution in Chicago city limits, \"you know, because it's just kinda stupid and shit.\"
Up next: After passing a ban on New York-style pizza, another Chicago alderman tries to ban the U.S. Constitution in Chicago city limits, \"you know, because it's just kinda stupid and shit.\"
I know that being against animal cruelty is very unhip for the Consumerist/Gawker set, but I have to point out that a better definition of \"nanny state\" is where the state is supposedly protecting you from yourself - like not allowing you to go without a seatbelt. Not supporting the supposed torture of animals is different. It's not about protecting the citizen.
People against foie gras should boycott restaurants that serve it. Sushi Samba was serving live lobsters (you get to kill it by eating it) and there was a huge backlash, so they dropped it from the menu. Better than a law.
mmmmmm now i am craving foie gras. damn you, consumerist!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1445-100x100.png\")
First prove that the animals involved are \"tortured\". We can't even get our government to decide what is \"torture\" to other humans, how do you think we can do it with lesser animals? You know, the ones that don't talk and we eat all the time. Where are people's priorities?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1916-100x100.png\")
Seems to me that this'll be easy to overturn in court. Animal cruelty laws don't apply to food producers (they have guidelines they adhere to in order to keep the wankers at PETA happy), and so killing a cow, or goose, or whatever doesn't get them in trouble like an individual would get in trouble for offing his dog.
So if there's no animal cruelty (in the eyes of the law) going on, how is it constitutional to ban the food?
The restauranteurs of Chicago will ram the constitution down Joe Moore's throat, although they'll sadly be prevented from gutting him and yanking out his liver.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-5888-100x100.png\")
I love foie gras.
That is all.
Publicizing how foie gras is produced should turn off a lot of potential consumers. Otherwise I think a case can be made that foie gras production is illegal cruelty to animals.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-5270-100x100.png\")
OK Demingite. Let's have a wager. You make that case and I'll put you on retainer for the rest of my life. If you can't make said case and are just talking out your ass, you owe me delicious foie gras for the rest of mine(which would be shortened considerably if I had a lifetime supply).
I'm especially interested in the \"illegal\" part.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4866-100x100.png\")
Constitutional? Is there something in the Bill of Rights that I'm missing? Show me where it's not constitutional to ban certain foods.
I didn't read the article, but does this issue have anything to do with the guy humping a duck in the picture above?
So when will Chicago be banning ground beef, steaks, and chicken? Many people argue that the way our meat is harvested/slaughtered could be construed as 'cruelty.' Let's not be picky about which animals we try to legislate protection for - get the ugly ones as well as the pretty/cute ones.
Also, dig around on the intarwebs for awhile. There are plenty of articles/videos that talk about how cruel is it to put a tube down a goose's throat, and plenty more showing that it doesn't cause the animal any pain, because they don't have a gag reflex like humans do.
I don't think legislation is effective in solving this type of issue. Consumer education appears to be a better way to go.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6198-100x100.png\")
How does a city which has reveled in the moniker \"Hog Butcher to the World\" suddenly find the manufacturing process of foie gras distasteful?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-7082-100x100.png\")
Everytime I hear about this story I think two things:
1) This is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard, and
2) It's been too long since I've had some nice foie gras
I mean seriously people, like Ishmael noted, most meat is raised in less than completely \"humane\" ways. Have you ever seen an industrial chicken farm? It's alot scarier than a tube down a ducks throat. And yes, I still eat chicken.
And as for point #2, I guess I'll have to make reservations for a nice restaurant this weekend.
Grady: I'll pass on the wager, but here's my attempt at a case: I have the impression that animal cruelty laws exist and cover a variety of species. I recall an incident some years back where some kids were prosecuted for torturing swans (cousins of geese, I believe). The kids twisted the swans' necks. If that was considered \"animal cruelty\" in the eyes of some law then it seems reasonable to me that force-feeding of geese could be considered likewise. I would think it would be an avenue for opponents of foie gras to at least consider exploring.
Again, I think simply publicizing the fact of how foie gras is produced should greatly reduce its potential market.
I don't think publicizing it will have much effect, but I could be wrong. Anyways, how ridiculous is it for us to be worried about geese when we have people being tortured in Guantanamo?
Even the mayor thinks its bad \"I think it's the silliest law that they've ever passed\"
But then again, Chicago is also the place that is considering a ban on trans fats, by a different alderman.