The Food Police Are Upon Us!
Some people think it's cruel to eat cow. I think it's cruel to children for parents to get divorced unless they are in constant and vicious conflict.
Well, we don't ban cow-eating or divorce by parents, and we shouldn't be banning foie gras. But we have...we fruits and nuts in the State of California...thanks to our pretend conservatarian former governor.
Elina Shatkin blogs at LAWeekly.com of an impending foie gras ban:
SB 1520, which bans force-feeding of ducks or geese to make foie gras and forbids selling foie gras produced that way, takes effect in July 2012. It was signed into law in 2004 by then-governor Arnold Schwarzeneger."When the ban comes in, we're going to serve it every day," chef Laurent Quenioux tells Bloomberg. "They can send me the foie gras police."
Some chefs, like Thomas Keller, are resigned to the ban, while others vow to band together and fight the ban via the courts legal challenges. A similar foie gras ban was passed in Chicago then lifted in 2008 at the urging of Mayor Richard Daley.
Think foie gras is the product of terrible cruelty? I don't. (See my previous blog items on this: Here. Here. Here. Here.) But, if you do think the gavage process is horrible, feel free to not eat eat it -- but not to tell me I can't.
Amy,
Do you differentiate between say, foie gras production and the production of veal? If you do, can you clarify what the difference is then?
(I haven't had veal in 20 years, and I haven't heard anyone complain about it lately, are the conditions still as bad as was portrayed way back when?)
jerry at September 12, 2011 11:23 AM
*sigh* What next? What other idiotic, self-righteous, moral-superiority-complex-laden laws are we going to have foisted upon us? How much longer are we as a nation going to put up with this malarky?
The Original Kit at September 12, 2011 11:27 AM
"Well, we don't ban cow-eating or divorce by parents, and we shouldn't be banning foie gras."
For me, the cruelty came when my parents, (not divorced at the time)made me eat liver. I don't care if it's foie gras, braunschweiger, or wrapped in bacon--no liver for me, thanks!
Pricklypear at September 12, 2011 11:31 AM
See, I told ya California is like a big bowl of granola - what isn't nuts is fruits and flakes!
Flynne at September 12, 2011 12:29 PM
Seems like an area the free market could take care of. "Cruelty-free" foie gras would sell. Wolfgang Puck managed to get cruelty-free veal fairly mainstream, simply by refusing to serve any other kind.
momof4 at September 12, 2011 1:34 PM
My rule of thumb: if I can't pronounce it, spell it, or identify it on the plate, I ain't eating it...
I R A Darth Aggie at September 12, 2011 2:17 PM
Funny I saw this just now, as I'm about to make me some stuffed jalapeno peppers. Oh, I know it was so incredibly cruel of those food manufacturers to kidnap those poor little peppers off the vine against their will and force their tiny mouths open so they could stuff 'em full of cheddar cheese, but still... ;-)
qdpsteve at September 12, 2011 3:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/12/the_food_police.html#comment-2474996">comment from jerryAmy, Do you differentiate between say, foie gras production and the production of veal?
I only differentiate between foie gras and veal in that one requires a sharper knife.
Amy Alkon at September 12, 2011 9:46 PM
This is both good news and bad news. Good news because if the government is wasting it's time on something of such small concern that will effect less then .5 percent of the population. Hopefully this can keep them distracted enough to not decided to concentrate on something more important.
Bad news is because the same. Really not something else the government can work on that is not more important. Try to reduce regulations, improve business environment, or finding and banning something that may need to actually be banned like lawyers or the cruel practice of Halal animal slaughter.
John Paulson at September 12, 2011 11:06 PM
Amy, are there any cases in which you think animal cruelty goes to far and should be illegal, or should animals be considered property the way, say, a chair is considered property? (No one's going to take you to court for sticking pins in a chair). Should it be up to the individual to decide how to treat an animal?
The divorce analogy is a bad one, here's a better one. The foie gras issue reminds me of this article from a little while back:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/children-obesity-parents_b_897667.html
The article suggests morbidly obese children who have health problems should be removed from their parents because it is abuse. What do you think? On the one hand we would certainly remove starving children from the home, and in the kid is having heart attacks at age 9 it is a problem. On the other hand do we reallywant to go there with regulations about what to feed kids?
Thoughts?
NicoleK at September 13, 2011 2:04 AM
I am absolutely for removing morbidly obese kids from the home if the parents don't address the problem when first notified. It is killing them. We don't allow parents to kill their kids once they're born. Not even slowly via poison, so why allow it slowly via obesity?
Your rights as a parent or person stop when they interfere with mine, and your kids medical bills interfere with me.
momof4 at September 13, 2011 5:57 AM
And yes, it's absolutely a slippery slope. Everything with government is. But unlessw we want to go back to not having child protection at all, I think a parent allowing their kids life to be so severely shortened needs action.
momof4 at September 13, 2011 5:58 AM
"Your rights as a parent or person stop when they interfere with mine, and your kids medical bills interfere with me."
Then stop letting people force you into paying other people's medical bills.
damaged justice at September 13, 2011 6:23 AM
"Your rights as a parent or person stop when they interfere with mine, and your kids medical bills interfere with me."
And it is this sentiment that terrifies me most about federal health care. Suddenly, everyone will feel they have the right to but their noses into others lifestyle choices.
Astra at September 13, 2011 6:34 AM
So momof4, you think it is better to put fat kids into a state run institution (funded with your tax dollars btw) than to allow them to stay with their parents bc you believe you are some how paying for their fatness? How exactly, are these people costing you money? Do you receive a bill at the end of each month with a line item on it for all the fat kids in your town?
What about gay people who get AIDS? Are you all for imprisoning them for their lifestyle choices? I mean, those medications are expensive too. Do you get a bill for them as well?
You know, you are just like the woman haters out here who say divorce the bitch if your married life is less than perfect; except your issue is fat people. Why do you hate them so much? Did some curvy chesty girl steal your boyfriend in high school? You are really warped if you think kids should be exposed to the foster care program rather than being in a loving, but misguided home. And please, for the love of God, do not continue to call yourself a libertarian bc you are not. Anyone who thinks that the government should get involved in such intensely personal issues as weight, sexual orientation, and smoking is no better than any other big government cry baby.
Sheepmommy at September 13, 2011 7:15 AM
Just to be clear, we are talking about hugely obese kids, like 12-year-olds weighing 400 lbs, not the merely pudgy, stout, quite fat or even obese.
NicoleK at September 13, 2011 8:04 AM
Mom of 4, what if the kids don't cost you money? Say, the kids of a self-paying billionaire who makes huge donations to health care, who feeds his kids tons of junk because he thinks hugely obese kids are cute?
NicoleK at September 13, 2011 8:05 AM
... on the other hand basing it by what percentile the kids are is not good because by definition 1% of all kids are 99th percentile
NicoleK at September 13, 2011 8:07 AM
It's obvious that we have more government than we can afford, and this is a good place to start cutting.
MarkD at September 13, 2011 9:09 AM
If anyone read my previous posts, my first reason for removing them is that we don't let parents kill their kids. Period.
Sheepmommy, I've never called myself a libertarian. I lean libertarian on quite a few things. Killing your kids is not one of them. I actually self identify as a teapartier now, if you're so interested.
I'd be A-Ok with no one getting their medical bills paid for unless they could self-pay or find an insurance company willing to cover them. No, I shouldn't have to shell out taxes for a gay person or drug user with AIDS (or a slutty college boy with it) any more than I should have to shell out for a motorcyclist that doesn't use a helmet. Or people who shove food down their gullets. (sorry, fat people at the level we're talking about aren't "busty". They're disgusting.)
momof4 at September 13, 2011 3:29 PM
I misread the first sentence of this article as "Some people think it's cruel to eat crow"...
Cousin Dave at September 13, 2011 6:44 PM
> I misread the first sentence of this article
> as "Some people think it's cruel to eat crow"...
In such a context, I'd imagine myself to be the blog's Torquemada.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 14, 2011 3:49 PM
Leave a comment