Sunday, July 1, 2012

If you criminalize foie gras then only criminals will be able to order pretentious bullshit

via

California's controversial ban against the controversial delicacy foie gras goes into effect today, controversially, and it's stirring up all manner of controversy amongst the foodie set, a group renowned for their sense of proportion and understated comportment. The law was actually passed back in 2004, providing the industry a window during which to adapt to the coming changes, so naturally most chefs kept on serving it right up until yesterday, because how could they have seen it coming? It's been like watching a group of sloshed bros order one last round of shooters at 1:50 am before the bar closes, except the shooters in this case are French which is bro for gay so never mind this analogy sucks. 

"As the days counted down to the ban, restaurant owners said they saw an increase in sales from customers looking to enjoy their last legal taste," ABC news reported. (SPeaking of force-feeding, brb going to start a sketchy blow job porn site called 'Legal Taste.')

"'We have people asking for fois gras on their French fries, on their eggs on their sushi,' said Pedro Lorencillo, general manager at Chaya Brasserie in San Francisco." 

"This impending ban has got us practically forcing this shit down people's throats," no one said, but probably should have.
Foie gras, for any poor people reading this (gross what's that like?), is a French delicacy produced by force-feeding ducks and geese with the insertion of a tube down their throats, then pumping them full of corn and fatty ingredients until their livers become engorged with fat -- delicious, delicious fat. (Woh, wait a minute, what if they force fed the ducks fatty  foie gras? Think about how good that would end up tasting). It's a process you may be familiar with by its human analogue, where the ducks are America's obese children, parents are the farmers, the corn feed is hamburgers, and the feeding tube is the drive through window.

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, as you'll remember, is attempting to impose a ban on the sale of sodas larger than 16 oz. Meanwhile California is concerned about the wellfare of ducks abused in a small-scale high-end restaurant cooking technique.  That's about as good a summary of the differences between the two states as any. 

Look at these hot shot ducks with their fans and their cell phones and designer sneakers.

This LA Weekly piece summarizes both sides of the case: 

The arguments surrounding California's foie gras ban are clear: On one side, animal activists believe that it's up to the state to protect the welfare of livestock, and that force-feeding birds to fatten their livers for the sake of a gourmet delicacy crosses a line. On the other, chefs and diners argue that some of the most conscientious small farmers in the country raise these birds; if animal welfare were really a concern, activists and lawmakers would do better to start with the real culprit when it comes to mistreatment: factory farms.
True, industrial farms are responsible for a disproportionate number of animal cruelty and torture incidents (somewhere around 100 million percent of those animals suffer horribly), but basing your argument against a foie gras ban on the ol' 'other dudes are worse than us' routine is a bit like a guy who punches you in the face saying "At least I didn't chop you're fucking head off." I mean, sure, thanks for not doing that, but uh, you're still a douche.

A lot of people are convinced that the process, known as gavage, isn't even that uncomfortable for the animals because their physiology something something. It's what I refer to as the Meghan-Kelly-pepper-spray-is-basically-a-spice-Sean-Hannity-waterboarding-isn't-torture-corollary.

Chefs throughout the state, of course, are "crying fowl" (<---), as you might imagine, like some fucking guy or other I could probably go copy and paste a quote from off of someone else's story, who said I'm sure something like "Wah wah wah the world is ending how will we ever find another type of meat to put on a plate. Also I'm a super serious chef."  

Turns out the ban is likely not even enforceable, the San Francisco Examiner suggests, which is weird, because when the government bans things you're pretty much never able to get them again, like alcohol during Prohibition, and all the cocaine and jazz cigarettes I've definitely never seen anyone do. There is no state body in place that has the resources to actively monitor this, the story says, and some police deparments, like the San Francisco PD, say they have no plans to regulate it themselves. What's more, the language of the law merely prohibits the sale of foie gras, it doesn't say shit about giving it away, some smart ass chef is thinking right this minute, serving up a pan-seared turd of buttery meat fat to a room full of gastronomes on the house

Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's unethical, as everyone reading this blog has thought, justifying something or other at one point in their criminal-ass lives. Maybe, maybe not. You know what they say, if you criminalize foie gras, then only criminals will have access to a highly overrated scam concocted by bullshit artists meant to convince foodies they're special. Add foie gras to the list with oysters and bone marrow then. 

In summary, which no one says any more when they're summing things up for some reason, the important thing to remember is that what we're actually talking about here is whether or not the vast number of varied species we've enslaved for the express purpose of filling our giant bellies with art and/or emotional crutch eating should be only kind of tortured during their short, hellish existence on earth, or tortured like a motherfucker.  I vote for the former. Too much living nightmare fear makes the flesh a little gamey if you ask me.


brought to you by

5 comments:

said...

comment thread: https://www.facebook.com/luke.oneil.90/posts/394976620558542

said...

did you try pitching this to one of them fancy mags you write for? it were really good.

said...

Thanks. Thought about it but then had to churn it out. FOR MY SOUL.

PS: 63 likes, two comments. I don't get this blog.

said...

"Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's unethical" - wait, you mean legality isn't a reliable barometer for morality?!

said...

Not unless we're talking about immigrants because they all need to be deported obviously.

Post a Comment