Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#41

Post by synt4x1k0 »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #16
jeswin wrote: post #8

I was surprised to learn that India is the only country[1] to ban the production and import of Foie Gras. Very few people would even know about the dish in India. But anyway, I hope this torturous practice comes to an end worldwide. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras_controversy

Do you eat meat at all? If so, how were the animals raised, slaughtered and processed? This ban seems rather hypocritical to me given the atrocities happening in mass meat production. While there are absolutely terrible things happening in Foie Gras production (I would never, ever buy any products from Hungary, as a for example) the really good stuff is raised quite humanely.[1] To me this just looks like an attempt…

It isn't like this is new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras_controversy#Statutor...

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#42

Post by jeswin »

dvdbloc wrote: post #27
jeswin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat. One could certainly make a case for banning animal slaughter, but I suppose it would be practical only after we have good meat substitutes. But in the meantime we could perhaps ban wanton cruelty such as Foie Gras. I'll add veal too to the list now.

I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything?

> Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything

Certainly, IMHO. While many animals show varying levels of compassion, we are capable of doing that on a coordinated, global scale; which is unique.

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#43

Post by dkersten »

seanwilson wrote: post #25
cm2187 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t help thinking that this has little to do with foie gras, but is part of wider push by vegetarians to ban meat eating. You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat.

> push by vegetarians to ban meat eating Milk and egg production still involve animals being killed for meat though e.g. female diary cows are killed for meat when they stop producing enough milk after a few years and males from diary cows are killed within a month of being born as veal.

I see no issue with free range eggs from a local keeping chickens (where I know that they are, indeed, well treated, well kept and free range) since they lay eggs most days whether you eat them or not and if you don’t use them, they would rot or attract rodents.

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#44

Post by Scarblac »

dvdbloc wrote: post #27
jeswin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat. One could certainly make a case for banning animal slaughter, but I suppose it would be practical only after we have good meat substitutes. But in the meantime we could perhaps ban wanton cruelty such as Foie Gras. I'll add veal too to the list now.

I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything?

We can reason about what we do and make conscious choices about our diet. I don't believe other animals can. That power gives us a special responsibility.

We are also omnivores that don't need to eat meat to survive. Maybe for instance dolphins can also reason about what they do, I don't know. But their biology gives them less choice.

Also humans now eat so much meat that the mammals we breed for food are 15 times as much biomass as all wild mammals combined. It's almost irrelevant what other mammals do, there are so few of them.

Even so, it's a personal choice. It happens that I made a choice to be vegetarian, but that was only five weeks ago... Other people make their choice. But it's different from the case of other animals killing for food.

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#45

Post by jamil7 »

dvdbloc wrote: post #27
jeswin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat. One could certainly make a case for banning animal slaughter, but I suppose it would be practical only after we have good meat substitutes. But in the meantime we could perhaps ban wanton cruelty such as Foie Gras. I'll add veal too to the list now.

I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything?

Careful using this argument it's an appeal to nature and can be used to excuse just about any behaviour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#46

Post by dkersten »

seanwilson wrote: post #38
dvdbloc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything?

> I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? We're not in a survival situation, we have options that don't involve killing animals whereas animals do not, and we don't base our moral choices on what animals do to each other.

My cat isn’t in a survival situation either and has options that don’t involve killing. Hell, when she does kill a rodent, she doesn’t even eat it.

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#48

Post by seanwilson »

dkersten wrote: post #46
seanwilson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? We're not in a survival situation, we have options that don't involve killing animals whereas animals do not, and we don't base our moral choices on what animals do to each other.

My cat isn’t in a survival situation either and has options that don’t involve killing. Hell, when she does kill a rodent, she doesn’t even eat it.

"we don't base our moral choices on what animals do to each other"

Also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/veggie-cat-food/

> Unlike dogs and other omnivores, cats are true (so-called “obligate”) carnivores: They meet their nutritional needs by consuming other animals and have a higher protein requirement than many other mammals. Cats get certain key nutrients from meat—including taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamin A and vitamin B12—that can’t be sufficiently obtained from plant-based foods. Without a steady supply of these nutrients, cats can suffer from liver and heart problems, not to mention skin irritation and hearing loss.

Unlike cats, we can survive without meat.

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#49

Post by chemicalnovae »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #34
donw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is entirely unfair that restaurants be required to prove origin when challenged, especially for commonly counterfeited ingredients. Let's say that I go to a restaurant that claims they only use true cinnamon and Kashmir saffron to flavor a cinnamon roll, which they sell at a premium because of the high-quality ingredients. When challenged, that restaurant needs to be able to show proof that they are…

> Let's say that I go to a restaurant that claims they only use true cinnamon and Kashmir saffron to flavor a cinnamon roll, which they sell at a premium because of the high-quality ingredients. > When challenged, that restaurant needs to be able to show proof that they are delivering as advertised. > If it turns out that they were instead using artificial flavors and colors, then they are guilty of fraud, and the pu…

It seems the shark might disagree with you on that.

Re: Foie Gras, Served in 1k Restaurants in NYC, Is Banned

#50

Post by dkersten »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #34
donw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is entirely unfair that restaurants be required to prove origin when challenged, especially for commonly counterfeited ingredients. Let's say that I go to a restaurant that claims they only use true cinnamon and Kashmir saffron to flavor a cinnamon roll, which they sell at a premium because of the high-quality ingredients. When challenged, that restaurant needs to be able to show proof that they are…

> Let's say that I go to a restaurant that claims they only use true cinnamon and Kashmir saffron to flavor a cinnamon roll, which they sell at a premium because of the high-quality ingredients. > When challenged, that restaurant needs to be able to show proof that they are delivering as advertised. > If it turns out that they were instead using artificial flavors and colors, then they are guilty of fraud, and the pu…

It’s not nothing. It’s the price premium charged multiplied by the number of customers deceived.
Post reply on HN