Log In / Join Now

stirring the lees with james molesworth

Writing Laws for What We Eat

Photo by: David Yellen

Posted: Nov 27, 2006 12:20pm ET

If I wanted a politician to legislate what I eat, I wouldn't live in the United States.

The suddenly trendy concept of banning foie gras seems to be gaining steam—now a New York City councilman is considering introducing a bill to ban the delicacy.

Aren't there more important issues for our elected representatives to be dealing with?

As for me, I like foie gras. If I didn't like it, I simply wouldn't buy it. That's as powerful a vote as any individual can, or needs, to make.

If you live in New York, you can contact your councilman today at www.nyccouncil.info/constituent. This Web site allows you to look up your personal district representatives and get their e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

As for the councilman who seems to have a little too much time on his hands, his name is Alan Gerson, e-mail gerson@council.nyc.ny.us. His legislative office address is:

250 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 788-7259
Fax: (212) 788-7727

If this issue affects you—in either way—I urge you to speak up. When politicians run unchecked, folly, disguised in the name of legislation, runs amok.

Philip Mccarthy
November 27, 2006 3:06pm ET
James; Couldn't agree more about politicians and their proclivity to paying lip service to freedoms and persecuting based upon the latest trend. As an example - I enjoy tremendously harvesting my own venison and then pairing the backstraps with - say - a fine Viader. But our benighted overbearers feel this is the equivalent of drug turf wars and find it necessary to infringe here as well!! So enjoy!!
Dan Jaworek
Chicago —  November 27, 2006 4:22pm ET
It'll be interesting to see how this affects NY diners and the restaurants. I live in the Chicago area and it was dismissed as an oddity of the stupid midwest when it happened here. I believe one NY chef said it made Chicago look like a little hick town. I fully agree that no one, NO ONE, should be dictating what other people can and can't eat. Not to say I told you so, but I saw this on its way years ago when the anti-smoking brigades started taking it to the restaurants and bars. I don't smoke but I think it should remain an option for those who do. At the time I said, "what's next the food we eat"? And here we are. If this is allowed on the grounds that it is somehow cruel, someone will make the argument that ALL consumption of animal products is cruel. I live at the top of the food chain and gives me choices. I make mine, others should make theirs. It already happened here. Don't let it happen to you too. Dan J.
Ken Koonce
Dallas, Texas —  November 27, 2006 4:50pm ET
I understand that, to have their livers turned into foie gras, geese must be raised in pens too small to stand up in or turn around, and force fed an unnatural diet they would never eat voluntarily. They are kept this way for months ... many months, until their unnaturally enlarged livers are "just right" (for eating, of course, not for actual use by the goose). I'm all for freedom, but not the freedom to torture a defenseless animal for the sake of a few moments of sensual pleasure. I'm no vegetarian, but there is a difference between the quick, (relatively) merciful killing of an animal for food (including hunting), and the slow torture of a foie gras goose or veal calf for that little something extra. As society's standards and sense of decency evolve, such matters are perfectly appropriate matters for legislation. You may choose to eat such food as long as its (legally) available, but let's not pretend their's nothing going on here worthy of our attention.
Robert Fukushima
California —  November 27, 2006 6:39pm ET
I am always torn on these kinds of things. My basic poltical sense is that there are already enough laws and these kinds of things are not necessary, even harmful in taking away time and money from more important issues. On the other hand, I am one who really disliked the smoking in restaurants, many time I found the experience ruined for me or my companions by smoke that none of us enjoyed the smell of. I see Dan's point on this issue, but, cannot fully agree due to my own experience. Still, legislation to somehow create a better good should be very carefully examined as I think, all too often, the best intentioned law has unforseen consequences. As for cruelty, if you consume meat or leather that you did not hunt and kill, that animal suffered to some degree. If the animal products you enjoy came from a typical animal production facility, it suffered plenty. There is only a small difference between cattle raised in stock pens and fed corn, pigs raised on concrete slabs and goose in cages.
Anthony Caccamo
Rochester, New York —  November 27, 2006 7:12pm ET
Turns out I am a vegetarian. So you can probably guess where this is heading. James depicts the fois gras issue as simple consumer choice; just vote with your mouth. But as Ken rightly points out, animals are essentially tortured in the production of this food product. When bad things are done to the innocent or helpless, be they animals or people, it is the morale imperative of an enlightened society to intervene and prevent it from happening. So I, for one, whole-heartedly support the proposed legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to say so.
John Blankenship
Bay Area, California —  November 27, 2006 9:02pm ET
I would like to comment that Ken was incorrect with the stating that geese have to be caged in tiny cages; all that is required is that the geese are force-fed. I have seen geese raised for foie gras in both France and Quebec. Typically, the geese are restrained for feeding, but frequently are 'free range' or 'pasture raised', in that they are not kept in cages.


In that sense, they are artifically fed to produce a particular flavor, similar to Kobe beef, but I'd hardly describe the geese as being 'tortured' - I've seen the geese run (or waddle, in the later stages) towards the farmer come feeding time. Overfeeding or changing the food source prior to final slaughter is a pretty common technique in farming - corn-fed finishing for cattle, as an example. The living conditions of chickens or turkeys raised on factory farms, on the other hand, make the life of the average foie gras goose seem idyllic.. and I don't see anyone proposing banning those.


If you want to advocate labelling to describe how the geese were caged or housed during the production of foie gras, that's fine; it allows for consumers to make a voluntary choice, and vote with their pocketbook (or indeed, to never buy foie gras in the first place). Feel-good legislation to single out one kind of farming over another based on a perceived 'icky' factor doesn't really do anything about animal cruelty on the whole, such as you see rampant in large factory farms, but does punish the foie gras producers, who are predominantly small organic farmers in North America, and probably had higher standards of care for that goose than the average butterball turkey..
Steve
dubuque, iowa —  November 27, 2006 11:07pm ET
I agree with Dan J. why should anyone tell us what to eat? We don't need politicians wasting their time on this type of issue. Certainly there are IMPORTANT problems to deal with. We are the top of the food chain so we should be able to eat what we want, as long as the animal isn't hunted to extinction or near extinction. I'm sure there are plenty of geese in the world. As far as bad things done to the 'innocent', don't compare any other animal with a human. That makes no sense.
Guus Hateboer
Netherlands —  November 28, 2006 6:43am ET
Just stating that there are more important things to deal with, or worry about, is really a way of over-simplifying things. Although I really love foie gras, I do not like animals to be tortured and locked up in small cages for their liver to reach an extraordinary size, and I think it makes a lot of sense discussing this subject. If there would be more important things to deal with, one could also argue that we should all stop discussing wine so much as we do now and concentrate on more important things...
Stuart Bander
Chicago, Il —  November 28, 2006 9:46am ET
Based on all of the difficulties in this world, ranging from wars, poverty, distruction, etc... why are our legislaters wasting thier time on a nonsenseful law like this. If thier concern is the treatment of the animals, do they realize that every type of food animal is mis-treated, ask them to visit a chicken farm where the cages are stacked 20 high in some of the most unsanitary conditions in the industry. Lets regain our focus and pass laws that truly matter and that actually impact the citizens of this country.
Michael Culley
November 28, 2006 9:57am ET
I think John's comments are the most appropriate in this case. It's like fattening cattle up for slaughter. These ducks are all killed for human consumption anyway. Let them enjoy some tasty corn before they go. If this is something for the politician, I say "get a real job".
Laurie Woolever
New York —  November 28, 2006 10:05am ET
For the record, the NYC councilman who had planned to propose a ban (Alan Gerson) has, for the time being, decided to back off of this issue. I doubt it is the last we will hear of it here in NYC, but for now, it is not moving forward.
Mark Mccullough
GA —  November 28, 2006 10:31am ET
Hey, if foie gras is banned, veal will be next. Banning foie gras is just one small step in a progression by the activists, not the goal. The general groups that strongly advocate pursuing their own freedom of moral choices they deem fit are the same ones who want to mandate to the rest of us only THEIR choices on food, smoking, speech, automobiles and religious expression. Foie gras is a tiny and relatively insignificant slice of a much bigger pie. Just a canary in a coal mine.
Ken Koonce
Dallas, Texas —  November 28, 2006 11:09am ET
Good and appropriate discussion. John, you may be right. I certainly admit I have never seen a foie gras goose being raised, and my sources may be biased. But this is part of why having this discussion is indeed worthwhile. If foie gras geese are not actualy made to suffer more than other animals we consume daily, I for one would see no reason for singling them out.I like the idea of labeling. I do think the consumption of veal, foie gras and other animals (arguably) subjected to inhumane treatment would go way down if people had to look at a label that described some of the practices used to raise them. It just might diminish enjoyment, and therefore consumption, of such foods if the consumer had to read "the animal you are about to consume was kept immobile in a small cage for months and force fed an unnatural diet causing it mental and physical suffering for your eating pleasure" before diving in. However, how is this going to work in a restaraunt?I know many people to whom I have mentioned how veal is produced hvae been quite surprised and said they would not eat it again, or at least would think twice. If they are true, we should not be ignorant of such things.
Santiago Achaval
Mendoza —  November 28, 2006 11:15am ET
Fish die by asphyxia. Lobsters are boiled alive. Chicken spend their lives in a cage, as do most cattle, unless they are free-range fed, like in Argentina. (There went a plug for our beef). Fois gras is used by these politicians to make a ¿moral¿ stand, with zero cost in votes because it is not really an item of popular cuisine, is it? As to Gus¿ remark on more or less important things to do: We discuss wine on our time and money. The government works on taxes. And to spend taxes legislating and later policing fois gras means not spending them on other items or causes. So in a nutshell, it is right to wonder about their mistaken priorities.Best,Santiago
Yaron Zakai Or
Israel —  November 28, 2006 11:27am ET
Certain things are simple: force feeding geese should be banned, it's simply not moral. Now for all the people claiming that there are more important things: I'm from Israel and we have some very serious issues to deal with. However, as of April 2005 force feeding geese was banned by a decision of our Supreme Court.
If we had the time to do that - NY state should deal with this as well.As the US is a good export market for fois gras, the only way to stop animal torture is to completely ban serving it.
Freedom is important, but moral is above freedom.
P.S. I'm not a vegetarian. I used to love fois gras.
James Molesworth
November 28, 2006 12:06pm ET
Thanks for all your posts - both sides of the issue have been presented calmly and thoughtfully.

I don't think anyone is condoning cruelty to animals in every day life. Yet the definition of cruelty to farmed animals up for debate. There are quite a few myths about how foie gras geese are raised, when in reality, their situation is no where near as harsh as those of farm-raised poultry, milk-fed veal, etc.

We actually have an article in the works that details the foie gras industry and how the geese and ducks are raised. When it's published, please give us your feedback.
Ken Koonce
Dallas, Texas —  November 28, 2006 12:12pm ET
Mark, what you eat and what you say are not in the same category. Speech and religious expression have strong, specific constitutional protection. On the other hand, food has been heavily regulated since consumer protection laws establishing the Food and Drug Administration were passed almost a century ago, and we already heavily regulate smoking (restaraunt bans and warning labels) and cars (mileage requirements, pollution controls). It doesn't help the discussion to confuse things that are not really alike or talk in extremes. No one is out to control what you say or how (or whether) you worship. Such things are wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
Eric Arnold
NY, NY —  November 28, 2006 12:15pm ET


From what I can tell, people who are against foie gras really have wrong information about how it's produced. Because it's an animal product they just assume torture and cruelty when they haven't done their homework at all.

The real shame of this is that farmers who raise foie gras ducks don't have the money or power to fight animal-rights activists, who really should be going after commercial/factory chicken and turkey producers. Now THAT's cruelty. But since the animal-rights activists can't win that war, they're beating up on the little guy who can't defend himself. The little guy who, it should be noted, actually cares about being humane with the animals he's raising.
Mark Mccullough
GA —  November 28, 2006 12:47pm ET
Perhaps NYC should just mandate that restaurants post whether they are "foie gras free" and let those who are offended make their choice. Simple, cheap and free market driven.
Alan Vinci
springfield, n.j. —  November 28, 2006 12:50pm ET
The abuse of any animal for any reason especially for profit is way beyond my understanding of human behavior! I have to agree with Ken and Yaron on this issue and I stand against making a decision to eat fois gras. The force feeding of any animal is just a little to inhumane for me. I am not a vegetarian by any means, but I do not promote animal cruelty to satisfy my taste buds. I know everyone has a right to make choices and I can respect most choices, but this one is not something I can agree with. I believe this is an important issue as is any animal abuse and should be considered as such.
Taylor Barnebey
Philadelphia, PA —  November 28, 2006 1:35pm ET
First of all, all animal slaughterhouses run by major food companies are the definition of "animal cruelty", singling out foie gras, which is mostly raised by small farmers with higher standards (although the two do not go hand in hand) is purely hypocritical. Go watch veal, chicken, beef, pigs, or anything not raised "free-range" be raised and then slaughtered. If people going after foie gras would direct their attention at the industry as a whole then they might have a point. However, politicians will never do that because that means going after big companies with big cash. Its much easier to score some points with animal rights activists by singling out a product that is mostly grown by small farmers without the big bucks.Furthermore, I have been to a goose farm in Hudson Valley and watched the geese swarm to the farmer as he entered pen. He then proceeded to put his hand down each one of the bird's throats. So those birds couldn't have disliked being force fed all that much. Although this farmer did allow his geese to move around the pen.
Mark Mccullough
GA —  November 28, 2006 1:58pm ET
"Mark, what you eat and what you say are not in the same category." Ken, my point is that they ARE related in the sense that the same mentality is driving ridiculous initiatives to conform to a narrow PC view...whether it's banning foie gras or smoking outside or driving an SUV.
Pascal Valadier
Portland, Oregon —  November 28, 2006 2:16pm ET
I do believe in choices. You have the choice of not liking it, I have the choice of liking it. It should be a choice for every body. On the raising of geese or duck for foie gras, one of the major element, the "force feeding of the animal" hads to be to its liking. I grew up in Southwest France where most people raise geese, or in my case ducks for foie gras and confit. If the animal is mistreated, i.e. doesn't like the force feeding, you will end up with a sirrhosis liver which is unconsumable.Only happy birds will give foie gras and they need exercice as well, not the tiny pen, like somebody pointed out. These pens are reserved to egg prodution, where hen are stuffed in a pen so small and dark that they just produce eggs for a few months before being butchered for McDonald's chicken nuggets.In the end I respect people objection to Foie gras, it is their right and choice, but please do not impose your will on me, because I will not do it to you. After all it is our right to think freely and have opinions.So do not ban anything just because you don't like it, let people choose for themselves and act for themselves.
Yaron Zakai Or
Israel —  November 28, 2006 4:04pm ET
Pascal: There is a big difference between the farms of mass production and fois gras. Mass production is needed to feed the human masses that can't afford buying chicken from free-range farms. I try to avoid chicken from mass production "farms", but most people in the world don't have this luxury. Fois gras is not mandatory - its luxury. So, getting animals to suffer in order to increase our dining pleasure doesn't make sense.
As for the "happy birds" - force feeding is their only option to get food, are they "happy" or just willing to suffer in order to get food?
Dan Rote
lancaster, pa —  November 28, 2006 6:00pm ET
I wonder if these geese and ducks were wild if they would like a nice fat fish to feast on. Wild cats kill mice, wolves and bears kill deer, bigger fish eat the little fish, and everything kills the poor defenseless rabbit.It's called nature!! Millions of people suffer with cancer, diabetes, etc. and yet others live a long healthy life. There is nothing fair at all with any species life. It is luck of the draw. I love animals and would be a vegetarian if it was up to me to have to kill my own. Luckilly, others do the dirty work for me because i love to eat them too. All of us wine lovers best watch out for the day someone determines grapes have feelings too and that picking them and squashing them is inhumane... laugh now, but these laws are getting more and more out of hand!
William Clay
Atlanta, Georgia —  November 28, 2006 6:02pm ET
I have struggled with this issue for years, having watched chickens hung up on clotheslines and have their heads cut off and rabbits bludgeoned to death with a club..it made me singularly aware of the abuse that animals go through for our pleasure simply because we can..however, I have not, as yet, backed up my displeasure with the slaughter of animals by becoming a vegetarian..I should, as I despise it so much...I hate to even post on this issue as I am so conflicted about it..on one hand, I eat venison, elk, antelope, etc. regularly, yet would never fire a shot to kill one..until I do find the will to become a vegetarian, I guess I just continue to condone it..and be part of the problem...
Pascal Valadier
Portland, Oregon —  November 28, 2006 6:34pm ET
Yaron,Happy I did say, well let say that they love it and if they suffer the product is lost. Foie gras animal need to be loving it if not no foie gras. Ducks especially, are very inteligent animals, and if they did not like it they would not come back for more (see many americans at all you can eat buffets!), and they are raised free range.Foie gras was a freak biproduct of animal grown for Human consumption. In my area in France until WWI it was a nessecity to force feed ducks and geese because it was the family meat for the winter, and by fatening them we got the conservative agent, their fat. It just happen that the Foie or liver was very good.Anyhow I disgressed from my point, I claimed earlier the freedom of choice. I respect your view, please have the spirit of respecting mine, so let's agree to disagree and drop any ban on anything we eat, which is produced naturally or traditionally in this case. It is our choice to consume or not foie gras or anything else, not the politicians choice.
Michael Krogh
Eden Prairie, MN USA —  November 28, 2006 7:11pm ET
Oh, boy. I'll mention only in passing James' wisdom of turning "Wine Spectator" into "Fois Gras Activist". But given the challenge . . .Of course we legislate what we eat. Hannibal Lechter, mythical though he is, is breaking the law when he has a taste of human brain. The Ag department is at your local slaughterhouse ensuring that questionable animals don't get into your food supply and at your airport ensuring you don't bring banned products into the country. When is the last time you had a Black Rhino steak or bald eagle drumstick? Legislating what we eat is done all the time, so get off the high horse.Now, on to "representative democracy." You know, our form of government? If the representatives of the people of NY feel it is a good idea to legislate against fois gras and their constituents want it, then it is THEIR JOB to legislate it, whether they are doing it to protect public health, animal welfare or just to make a wise or misguided statement to the world. If you live in NY and you don't like it, then VOTE THEM OUT. That's how it works. If you don't live in NY, then let NY be NY and make sure the same does/doesn't happen where you live, as you see fit. If you don't like living in a city that makes those statements, move somewhere where you can order Freedom Fries with your Freedom Toast. Now, as far as having too much time on one's hands, James, please get back to talking to wine. Write your complaint to your favorite NY paper if you want to change policy in NY.
James Molesworth
November 29, 2006 9:31am ET
Michael:

When it comes to legislating what we eat, there's a big difference between basic public safety and environmental consciousness, and imposing one's sense of morality onto others...you can't make the foie gras argument on morality and cruetly grounds without extending it to the rest of the farmed animals in the country. And as a few people here have eloquently pointed out, that ain't gonna happen...

I feel William's quandry though. When I was a small boy on vacation in Scotland one year, I took a hike with my parents through the countryside. A small herd of lamb crossed out path. At night, when I ordered lamb for dinner, my parents asked if I realized I was eating what I had seen that day. It crushed me, and I couldn't eat lamb for a while. My 'protest' eventually faded out though, and today I have no problem with it...

Now, I'll go back to writing about wine...
Ken Koonce
Dallas, Texas —  November 29, 2006 11:32am ET
Thanks, Michael. Appreciated the needed civics lesson (and "high horse" comment). Mark, my point is that cars, smoking, and foie gras involve actions, not thought or speech. We regulate all kinds of action, but it is (constitutionally) impermissible to regulate speech or thought. The two are simply not directly comparable. Even were foie gras banned, you would still be able to speak out against the ban, just as you now decry (apparently) the current smoking bans. In the realm of civil liberties, speech and action are just usually not on the same plane. Banning foie gras would not involve the thought police - raising foie gras is an action. We discuss freely, as we are doing here, and then decide what we are free to do, or not do, together. (See Michael's post above.)
James Peterson
San Antonio, Texas —  November 29, 2006 3:17pm ET
I was in Paris over the weekend and had a wonderful Foie gras appetizer at Le Fouquets. On top of that I had the lamb for the main course. All I could think about while I was eating these delicious foods was how wonderful it tasted. But that's just me... - Jim
Michael Krogh
Eden Prairie, MN USA —  November 29, 2006 8:22pm ET


I grew up in rural MN. I fished, a little hunting, spent a lot of time on friend's farms, and in an early job spent a day a week on the kill floor of a local slaughterhouse. I've learned to love all the animals of the forests and pastures and there are many I especially love with mashed potatoes, gravy, and a big red wine. I'm wide open to the argument that banning fois gras is misguided. But the notion that we don't legislate morality, or choices, is just wrong. Our government is one of the people. While it may do some crazy things in the short run (because of the people or in spite of them), in the long run we tend to get it right. Sometimes it becomes right because the rest of the country starts to understand and sympathize with the ideas of the whacky fringes, sometimes it becomes right because the body politic kicks the whacky fringe back out to political oblivion. Sometimes a single person can change everything (search Temple Grandin for a closely related example). Sometimes we all get led down a wrong path and take a while to come to our senses (prohibition is one example that shouldn't prove too controversial on this website!) But our system allows for ALL of it. That's this great American experiment of representative democracy at work.

James, I truly value your writing about wine. And, I reluctantly admit, you touched off a good discussion even though you also touched a nerve by politicizing it. From recent blog entries this is rivalled only by cork taint and the wine of the year in responses. It just touched off a different reaction in me. I don't eat fois gras and I don't care if people do, but if Chicago, NYC or my hometown of Fergus Falls wants to legislate one way or the other on it, they have every right to do so (and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences for it).
Robert Fukushima
California —  November 29, 2006 8:50pm ET
James, I believe your parents did you a service when they pointed out the lamb to you. I think an understanding of the nature of our food is something that is rapidly being lost in our world. I do understand the politics of food, and that many need to have the engineered and technologically advanced techniques that allow for mass food production. On the other hand, understanding that something died to provide that food is, to me, important in understadning the food itself. Like my wine, I care when, where and how my food comes to me. And yes, I have hunted, I still fish, and I eat what I kill, it is important to respect the life that I take nourishment and pleasure from. By the way, I think this subject is spot on for this type of blog. I think fine food and it's politics are a part of enjoying fine wine too.
James Molesworth
November 30, 2006 9:38am ET
Robert: You make a good point about respecting the process and origin of our food. For the mass produced food, most of us do not respect the process (or we know little about it), so we turn the other way.

But in the case of foie gras or other artisanal products it's far different. Some of us respect and are knowledgeable about the process and origin. Some aren't. The nature of it creates debate - and, not wanting to de-humanize it (or de-duck-ify it) it is very much like wine.

We may think little of the $8, million-case production Merlot. But the $80, premier cru Burgundy might be wonderully earthy to one person, yet funky and undrinkable to the next person.

In either scenario, free, open and moderately-toned debate is stimulating and appreciated, and again I thank everything for posting their opinions here.

Now as for wine, I've been working my way through two flights a day this week (usually 20 or so wines in a flight) of Loire (delicious '05s), Rhone (solid '04 CdPs) and South Africa. So look for some reviews of tasty vino via our Insider and Tasting Highlights soon.
John W Graham Iii
Richmond VA —  November 30, 2006 9:56am ET
I agree with James. More important things to deal with. Dont like it, dont eat it.
Ken Koonce
Dallas, Texas —  November 30, 2006 10:42am ET
Michael: Wow! Well said. I wish I had written it.
Mark Mccullough
GA —  November 30, 2006 10:58am ET
"But the notion that we don't legislate morality, or choices, is just wrong." But who's morality and who's choices? If these types of issues were put to a vote rather than having activist legislators or judges decide for us, that's fine by me. Unfortunately, the "people" aren't deciding, despite what the civics teachers above say. If more morality and choice issues were put to a referendum, most of these issues wouldn't see the light of day.
William Newell
Buffalo, NY —  November 30, 2006 11:31am ET
Perhaps it's time to move to Canada.
Tim Burnett
November 30, 2006 12:57pm ET
I do find the process as I understand it disturbing, so I do not eat foie gras. But banning it is more than a little intrusive, though less then abnormal given other regulation. It would seem to me that the market can only support so much supply, so its working correctly.

Unless you're a producer of foie gras though and can play the small artisanal business card, I'm not sure if writing the councilman will help much. Unless he sees enough opposition in his own district to seem like he'd be losing too many votes, he's probably more likely to dismiss the letters as the whinings of people who pay too much for their wine, cheese and food.

Honestly, I think politcians get more mileage out of the unspoken class warfare than the animal righs aspect of the issue.
Karl Mark
Geneva, IL. —  November 30, 2006 1:58pm ET
Who was saying that it was the councilman who had too much time on their hands? There are several viewpoints here and maybe we should invite the councilman to join the spirited conversation since they obviously have nothing better to do. Give the guy a break.
Valentin Gasser
Zurich, Switzerland —  November 30, 2006 2:56pm ET
Hi JamesHere another thought from Switzerland: Foie gras is good for you! We kill animals and we eat them. As long as everything is done in an natural manner I will agree.

Would you like to comment? Want to join or start a discussion?

Become a WineSpectator.com member and you can!
To protect the quality of our conversations, only members may submit comments. Member benefits include access to more than 315,000 reviews in our Wine Ratings Search; a first look at ratings in our Insider, Advance and Tasting Highlights; Value Wines; the Personal Wine List/My Cellar tool, hundreds of wine-friendly recipes and more.
Most Recent Posts
Jul 31, 2017
Still on Top
Jul 28, 2017
On His Own

WineRatings+ app: Download now for 340,000+ ratings.