Less then 24 hours after having a very enjoyable meal at Alan Wong’s sampling locally grown beef from Kuahiwi Ranch on the Big Island, I find out that the state senate has a bill that will attempt to ban the sale of Foie Gras in Hawaii.
Based from the language in the bill, they are making this an animal rights issue. The bill declares that, “The mortality rate of the birds during the force feeding period is six times greater than during breeding.” An odd statement considering the fact that any animal raised for human consumption has a 100% mortality rate.
I do agree that force feeding (gavage) ducks and geese in order to fatten their livers is unethical, however there are other, more humane methods of fattening the liver. This is something that SB2170 does not take into account. A blanket ban on all foie gras sales in the state because some growers still practice force feeding is irresponsible and unfair to ranchers who do not use gavage techniques. One thing that is apparent when reading this bill is that the proponents, Clayton Hee, Robert Bunda, and Russell Kokubun never consulted with foie gras vendors.
Many chefs choose to buy from reputable growers who allow the birds to fatten naturally. Gavage birds do fatten up faster, but the process of using the tube causes the bird to become distressed which in turn effects the quality of the liver. Furthermore, the number of humane growers is only going to increase thanks to a California law which will go into effect in July 2012 prohibiting the “force feed[ing of] a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size.” This July 2012 deadline will force California growers (which accounts for half of the foie gras production in the United States) to utilize more humane methods.
Aside from the fact that I love foie, news of this bill really rubbed me the wrong way because who are they to determine what we can or can’t eat. If I chose to go to a restaurant and order a piece of foie gras, then that is my prerogative. If they choose to ban the sale of foie gras, then they may as well ban the sale of chicken for the unethical practices of chicken farmers, or the selling veal because of the slaughter of baby cows. But why stop there, why not ban the sale of organic produce because some farms use underpaid migrant workers to harvest their crop? If you disagree with the practices of how your food was grown or produced, then don’t order it. Just because you may not like something, does not give you the right to prevent others from exercising their choice to partake of it.
Probably the most irksome thing about this bill is the fact that there are some serious issues in the state of Hawaii. The Furlough Fridays issue is still at the forefront of Hawaii politics. There is still a budget short fall in this state, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Hawaii has a 6.9% unemployment rate (tied for 9th highest in the country). With all the problems in this state, the three state senators backing this bill have chosen to tackle the issue of foie gras. An innocuous issue that, even if it passes, will not effect a majority of Hawaii’s residents.
Chicago passed a similarly innocuous law in 2006. As a result, chefs protested by serving foie gras without charge. The law was hardly enforced with only a few fines being issued. Eventually the law was repealed passing by a vote of 37-6 with no debate. There are more important issues that the state senate should concentrate on. Leave the menu decisions to the chefs and the restaurant patrons.
Song stuck in my head at the time of this post: The Rubber Duckie song by Jeff Moss
7 Comments
Seriously, with all the really important crap happening in our state (like denying our keiki a good education), our lawmakers have introduced a bill to ban foie gras? Really? We truly have idiots running our state.
What are you talking about?!? They’re also busy blocking gay marriage, right? This is a team of pols that’s focused on what matters.
Cough. Furlough Fridays. Cough cough.
Disclaimer: What I know about Hawaii politics can fit in a short blog comment.
I’m with you right up until who are they to determine what we can or can’t eat?
The purpose of the bill is not to tell you what you can or can’t eat; it seems, in its own misguided way, to attempt to tell you what you can or can’t do to animals while they are still alive. You have to admit that’s a different issue. You say yourself that force-feeding is unethical.
I agree with scrivener. This is a bill to tell people what they can’t do to animals while they are alive. I think the intent of this bill is to prevent
animal cruelty, and I think we need more animal cruelty prevention bills in this state.
Heaven forbid our legislators actually do something USEFUL with their time, like find creative (though sensible) ways to deal with our budget shortfall.
Just another fine example of why I say we need to revamp Hawaii’s state government, in particular, streamlining our legislative branch.
We do not need a TWO house legislature. They do precious little as it is. Instead, we should eliminate the House of Representatives and add maybe, 5-10 seats to the senate. That would be plenty enough for the State of Hawaii. the Capitol Building can be reconfigured to consolidate other state offices in the then vacant House Chamber and representatives’ offices.
Hold an election to fill those senate seats anew, with a strict (and low) cap on campaign spending, to even the playing field, now so biased towards incumbents with their massive campaign “war chests”.
State saves BIG money. We have a shot at COMPETENT and more efficient legislators. We all win.
I’ve read this bill and have also read the bill in California. My understanding of how each is written leads me to believe that the Hawaii bill is designed to dovetail (no pun intended!) into California’s, with making the assumption that the majority of foie gras distributed in Hawaii comes from the Sonoma farm that was specifically targeted in California’s final bill. The Sonoma farm was targeted mostly so that the CA Leg. wouldn’t harm its operation by force-closing a local business, but also to allow the operation to find a method that would be more in line with the methods allowable under CA’s foie gras bill.
The problem is, though, the Hawaii bill — if approved — goes into effect in 2010, and yet the CA bill does not until 2012.
There has been no public information shared by the Sonoma farm that they are closer to a production method more in line with the CA bill. Not that I have any reason to believe there hasn’t been any progress, I’m just indicating there is no monitoring “in preparation for” its compliance.
So reconciling these two issues (CA’s impending foie gras bill, and Hawaii’s): Hawaii could potentially be without farm-produced foie gras for two years.
So in my opinion, everyone’s effort should be at imploring these Senators to align Hawaii’s foie gras bill with California’s in terms of effective date.
On the the matter of folks telling us what we can and can’t eat, this bill does no such thing.
I don’t agree that if the ducks are getting hurt it should be OK. But I saw this article, and some others, which really lay it out. Foie gras looks OK, ethical. http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-02-18/restaurants/is-foie-gras-torture. Has anybody in Hawaii even seen this kind of farming? I think this is a rush to appease a special interest which won’t have much effect in Hawaii. I think that is wrong. This article raises serious doubt that our Senators are much interested in whether this farming pratice is OK or not. Don’t let the truth get in the way of what we are doing.
One Trackback
[...] Hawaii’s foodies want their foie gras: Hawaii Senators apparently have nothing better to do… [...]