Fowl play? Battle over serving duck delicacy leads to protests in Utah

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Darcie
    Feb. 16, 2008 1:35 p.m.

    Animal rights forever. that's what you say, as well as what the rancher says. Think about it, why would a capitalist treat his profit badly? Healthier animals taste better, sell for more, and are easier to care for. It makes no sence to abuse the animals that pay your bills.

  • Gyusz
    Jan. 18, 2008 6:21 p.m.

    Animal rights forever! Stop animal abuse!

  • Tony
    Jan. 18, 2008 12:00 p.m.

    YAY DUCK! I eat Fois Gras

  • Nana
    Jan. 18, 2008 11:58 a.m.

    this was a way good story. i love eating animals.

  • re: Dear Cheeth
    Jan. 18, 2008 6:19 a.m.

    I feel bad for you. You think every creature in this world has the right to be free from pain and suffering. That means you think that is actually possible. Good luck with that.

    Don't you think the actions of the people who broke the restaurant's window caused pain to other humans? You are trying to push your personal morals on everyone, and you're simultaneously applying a double standard. Amazing.

    I almost agree with your last statement, with a just a couple changes:

    Humans deserve a life free from torment at the hands of you and the tyranny of your personal beliefs.

  • JP
    Jan. 17, 2008 7:22 p.m.

    I'm seeing that many people are arguing the rights of human animals versus non-human animals, in that "animal rights" activists are not doing anything to help out non-human animals. This, nearly all cases, is completely false. Most everyone I know who promotes the well being of animals also provides a voice, assistance to, and direct aid of human animals as well. It is absurd to think that because one is involved in a movement that they are not involved in another. The fact that we are taking a stand against an injustice should give hope to others that we can acomplish our other goals of our planet's well-being. No one is telling to stop murdering animals, just don't force feed them until their liver literally bursts out of its side. Take a look at where all your food comes from. These are not the happy farms shown on corporate television. Open your eyes and your hearts.

  • Dear Cheeth
    Jan. 17, 2008 12:59 p.m.

    "Animals don't care about foie gras OR you."

    This point is undeniably invalid. Whether or not an animal likes me or you is irrelevant. The object is to end it's suffering. Every living thing has the right to a life free from pain and suffering, especially if that pain and suffering has it's roots in human induced exploitation, or what's referred to as the Animal Enterprise Industry.
    Some of you who have chosen to comment this article seem a bit misinformed. The ideal that Animal Rights embodies does not mean that animals should be treated as equals to humans. The concept of Animal Rights means that since animals share the same basic cognitive skills as humans, they should be treated with a fair and reasonable amount of equal consideration. Since they cannot possibly comprehend complex ideas or tasks (such as voting, for instance) they should not be granted those same rights in human society. In short all living creatures deserve a life free from pain, suffering and torment at the hands of humans.

  • Steve Hindi
    Jan. 17, 2008 12:07 p.m.

    Good and decent people are concerned about the suffering of all species, and understand that a just society need not feed, like parasites, on the suffering of others. While I regularly witness the efforts of animal protectors to enhance the well-being of humans as well, I often find that those opposing the fair treatment of animals are just as careless when it comes to needy humans.

    The FBI and other law enforcement agencies understand the link between violence against animals and violence against humans. It is something all people should consider, even if their primary interest is those within their own immediate circle, animal cruelty matters, and it further defines us as a people.

  • re: Jeremy Beckham
    Jan. 17, 2008 4:11 a.m.

    I'll answer your question:

    I would rather have a world where anyone can do anything they want to animals - dogfighting, foie gras, juicy steaks, cat tetherball, you name it - than a world where you and your proportionally small group of friends dictate the morals by which everyone else must abide. You think you have a perfect argument, because no one wants to say they would allow dogfighting. No amount of oppression, though, is going to rid the world of bad things. It's sad but true. You'll learn that someday, or you'll spend your life outraged that no one accepts your personal morals.

  • re: a concerned citizen
    Jan. 17, 2008 12:34 a.m.

    Interesting comment. I, for one, don't want animal liberationists to care about what I think.

    This equation essentially illustrates your comment:

    Animal liberationist = Human repressionist

    If that is what you believe in, great. Go live with your beloved animals, who won't know exactly why you are there (but might be quite frightened) and would sacrifice you for them any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

  • Jeremy Beckham
    Jan. 16, 2008 11:41 p.m.

    No one has answered my earlier question so I'll ask it more pointedly:

    If you object to laws restricting foie gras because it infringes on humans' liberty/freedom of choice, how do you feel about dogfighting laws?

    How do you distinguish between the two?

  • Cheeth
    Jan. 16, 2008 11:28 p.m.

    I don't personally believe in being mean

    Animals don't care about foie gras OR you. Any of you. What's that? You say your dog likes you? That's because you give him food. Try not feeding him for a while and see how much he likes you then. And I bet you physically restrained him in order to get him to stick around, didn't you? You want to know what your dog cares about? Food. Attention. Sniffing other dogs' butts. Making puppies. Surviving.

    Animals are only pursuing their own survival.

    So are humans, and for you to try and prevent another human from living however they choose is wrong, as long as they aren't infringing on another human's rights. If you try and apply this to animals, you draw a line that leads to ridiculous scenarios and overall, greatly diminished freedom. If you don't think something is right, don't do it. Forcing your beliefs on others is hypocrisy.

    I am sure that plenty of Utah animal activists hate it when LDS people in Utah push their beliefs on others (as do I). This is the very same thing.

  • Hungry
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:55 p.m.

    Big deal, it's just a duck. One of my favorite past times is blowing those dirty birds out of the sky.

  • JB
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:45 p.m.

    The the sad reality with groups like SHARK is they act like the Sinn Fein and the IRA to direct action groups like the ALF. They can protest, and make petitions and have their 'hand clean' while the other groups engage in acts of domestic terrorism. They say it's terrible when windows get broken, and paint gets splattered across a window then they reap the rewards of such actions. It's guilt by silence. They may not do it themselves, but at the same time they are unwilling to turn in those who do.

  • Thank You
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:48 p.m.

    I have never eaten Foie Gras, but after this article I went and looked up some video's on it. It does seem pretty cruel. I am in no ways an animal activist. I hunt ducks and geese every fall. And many other animals. But this just did not seem right to me. I won't order it. I was pretty apalled at what Michael Vick did to his dogs. I don't see a huge diference here. Other than the fact that they are eaten. Let's just end it peacefully. If sacrificing a little pleasure for my pallet means ending the suffering of an animal, count me in. But I'm still going to hunt.

  • MM
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:27 p.m.

    Well said MA!

    Should we not be just as concerned with protecting the rights, safely and livelihoods of humans as we are ducks? Should the safety of the Metropolitan employees and patrons not be the top priority here?
    What about the next Restaurant a radical group decides to prey on?
    At some point someone has to be the adult and say enough is enough. Props to Karen for making that decision. It's too bad the masked protesters, who are so proud to sit behind the safety of their computer screens and stand behind their actions, but weren't proud enough to show their faces while doing it, couldn't have been more mature. Maybe they would have accomplished something more than just angering and annoying a lot of people.

  • a concerned citizen
    Jan. 16, 2008 8:50 p.m.

    FYI- Animal liberationists dont really care about what people who torture animals THINK. They care what they DO. And there are ALOT of people out there willing to go to great lengths to end the exploitation of this planet and ALL of it's inhabitants. So they are not asking you to stop, they're telling, the only question is, how far does it have to go?

    in solidarity

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 16, 2008 8:40 p.m.

    People should not have the right to torture whomever they please. Animals exist for their own reasons and not to be factory farmed and served on plates to the overfed bourgoisie.

    For animal liberation and class war!


  • Colleen Hatfield
    Jan. 16, 2008 5:30 p.m.

    I am not sure why or how some people leap to the conclusion that those who work for the well being of animals are not actively involved in human issues as well. This article and interview was limited to the scope of one issue; foie gras. And so the reporter asked me specifically about my efforts on behalf of animals, and I responded, and I responded honestly.
    If she had asked me how I help the human condition, which can be very dire, I agree, I would have shown her regular contributions to Oxfam and work that I do to help provide housing for the poor. Many who do not know me, judge and find me lacking. And yet, I wonder, what do you do in all of the causes you would like to point me toward??? I do not like suffering, human or nonhuman, and work to end it whenever and wherever I can.
    Warmest regards,
    Colleen Hatfield
    Regional Director/Showing Animals Respect & Kindness (S.H.A.R.K.)

  • Carolyn T.
    Jan. 16, 2008 5:02 p.m.

    This is just another one of the many cruelties in the name of "Agriculture". There are humane alternatives in most, if not all areas of agriculture, but the dollar and material aspects win over living creatures and how they are treated. When we can not have compassion or kindness for ALL living things, it is a sad commentary on our morality.

  • Jeremy Beckham
    Jan. 16, 2008 4:32 p.m.

    By simply googling "Hudson Valley Foie Gras fire" I turned up several news articles, none of which said the fire was a result of animal activists. It appears to be a machinery accident. The owner himself, Izzy Yanay, has said it was accidental.

    Do you have a single source that says otherwise? One single source? Or is your anti-animal rights hatred confusing you so much that your imagination just got carried away?

  • clearconsciecneutah
    Jan. 16, 2008 4:06 p.m.

    "I've been to the foie gras farm, and the geese are fine about it. They don't mind getting fat." i'm interested in how the geese told their side of the story...? and to say that it's only an attack on the rich is so completely inaccurate. Animals rights activists have protested at countless restaurants. and to say that "eating 'any' meat means killing animals" it as obvious as saying "up is up and down is down" We protest all killing by being vegan and not having any deaths on our heads...

    think about it

  • mikhael
    Jan. 16, 2008 3:20 p.m.

    these protests and actions are against something terrible, but it is not just specific to foie gras. those chickens stacked on top of each other are cared about just as much as these ducks and geese. people on a daily basis try to get people to stop eating meat period. it is about stopping animal suffering and the cruelty committed for animal based products. it sickens me that people think this is only about getting to the rich. there are plenty of wealthy vegans and vegetarians. it is only aimed at the animal enterprises.

    and about this being the USA where freedom reigns, you can't put anything on a ballot. you have to get someone else to do it for you. this country isn't run by the people. it's run by people who are run by people who are "run" by the people. civil rights and women's suffrage weren't on the ballot, and wouldn't have been, had it not been for the activism (both legal and illegal) of the minority that needed to be heard. we are a voice for the voiceless in this world.

    also, i'm sure your children don't complain while you make them fat and sick either.

  • fowl
    Jan. 16, 2008 3:20 p.m.

    will win in the end..just like the cow, processed food,KFC(poor things get beaten to death W/out mercy) the fish are now force fed mercury, deers,elk have wasting disease, so quit force feeding the ducks down at the park too..LIVER YUK..I'LL STAY W/MY COW TONGUE SANDWICH SMOTHERED IN GREY-POUPON!

  • MA
    Jan. 16, 2008 2:19 p.m.

    Tim, Did you know that the fire at Hudson Valley was an act of vandalism and arson by an animal rights group much like SHARK.

  • MA
    Jan. 16, 2008 2:17 p.m.

    Has anyone paused to think about the people involved in this debate? How about the owner and staff of the Metropolitan restaurant, do their rights matter? Imagine groups of people wearing masks and hoods to hide their identity coming to your place of work or home and screaming chants for hours. And lets not forget the three acts of vandalism on the Metropolitan. I am sure it is not pleasant to be targeted like that. Karen raises the best question in the argument "If we stop serving duck liver, should we also stop serving duck? Then what about the chicken and the beef? " Peoples lives and livelihoods are involved here. Imagine Christmas with your family and loved ones being interrupted because of a broken window where you work. Imagine being afraid for your safety because you are never sure just how far radical groups will take things. I live in the USA so that I can have freedom of choice. If you dont want Foie Gras then put it on the ballot and let the people decide!

  • Kelly Colobella
    Jan. 16, 2008 1:56 p.m.

    I think it's hysterical that people think that because someone cares about an animal that automatically means they don't care about children or starving humans... (FYI if you REALLY CARED about creating more food for the hungry an easy way to do that is to eliminate meat from your diet, you can feed a lot more people from the food and water used to feed the animals they use for meat

    It's also really scary that anyone (did you actually WATCH the footage before you commented? Ignorance is bliss after all) can see that kind of thing and think it's ok, and then pet their cat or dog.

    If you think trying to create less suffering in the world somehow infringes on your personal rights, you're kind of a sick-o.

  • Honestly
    Jan. 16, 2008 1:43 p.m.

    I read some of the comments from both sides about a subject like this and realise why we are headed teh wrong direction. Talk about a bunch of extreme, knee jerk reactionary people. Try mature conversation instead of resorting to name calling, finger pointing and quotes from radio personalities.

  • Dave Hatfield
    Jan. 16, 2008 1:33 p.m.

    It is amazing to me how people will defend the indefensible. Once you have the information, you realize that the production of foie gras is an inhumane, extremely cruel practice. Its not rocket science. Its there for anyone to see.

    If you discovered that doing these things to your dog or cat would produce some sort of "delicacy," would you do it? I doubt it. Are these ducks and geese any less important?

    Personally, I can do without diseased, fatty goose and duck liver anyway.

  • Amanda B.
    Jan. 16, 2008 1:22 p.m.

    It is sad when people actually base their morals on what is illegal versus legal. The law has nothing to do with right and wrong.

    Listen to your conscience, not your pocket book. Just because you won't get into legal trouble for doing something certainly doesn't mean you should do it.

    Way to go SHARK! Such determination, standing up for what's right... I am truly impressed.

  • Texan
    Jan. 16, 2008 1:09 p.m.

    This is so silly! Perhaps we should be concentrating on the welfare of hungry and abused children in this country instead of ducks and geese. Wrong Priority!

  • Jeremy Beckham
    Jan. 16, 2008 12:51 p.m.

    Claims that foie gras is or is not cruel should be the focus of the discussion. But this 'supply and demand' logic is baffling to me and circumvents the issue. The maxim appears to me to be: if someone has a desire to inflict cruelty to animals and they're willing to pay for it, it should be allowed.

    Apparently, Michael VIck found a large enough market to make a buck off of breeding fighting dogs. Should the authorities have intervened? If people are willing to pay to be admitted to dog/cockfights, why should we not have the philosophy that 'if you don't like it, don't pay for it'?

    Or would Vick had been perfectly justified if they had sold the dead dogs for the meat market afterwards?

    Does reason play a role in our society's discourse anymore? Or must we forever be inundated with comments like "spotted owls taste good" that remind me of Junior High School students?

  • Teresa Menlove
    Jan. 16, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    I agree, if you don't like it you don't have to eat it! What's all the hoopla about. We killed lots of animals on our farm to eat when I was young including fattening up chickens to kill in the summer and beef too. It happens all the time. It's just the way life is.

  • I eat meat
    Jan. 16, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    I believe that chefs and restaurants should be able to decide for themselves what they serve. Also we should be free to decide if we want to spend our money on food we like to eat or not. I have never tried duck liver and don't plan on ever doing so, but if someone else does more power to them. If these activists want to make a difference in the ways the ducks are raised fine then but leave people to eat in peace.

  • smart utahans
    Jan. 16, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    How refreshing to read the comments posted here! I live in Oregon and there are WAY too many bleeding hearts here. They think it is fine to become a terrorist and break the law if you disagree with the law. They think it is their job to punish any business that sells fur or cuts down trees or serves goose liver. Many businesses have gone under because of these terror tactics.

    Way to go Utah for having the clearer way of thinking. Let the law of supply and demand take care of itself. If you want the product, buy it. If you think it is wrong, or inhumane to the animal, then don't buy it.

    We must be tolerant of other people's beliefs. Personally, I wouldn't order this from a menu, but wouldn' take away the freedom of anyone who does wish to do so.

  • farm folk
    Jan. 16, 2008 12:01 p.m.

    Sorry, folks! But i just watched the video and saw the portion where some folks saved some ducks from the farm after so called a long horrible life. Living on a farm myself, birds are only raised for up to twelve weeks before being killed for eating, otherwise you'd have tough, inedible meat that we couldn't even give away to a homeless shelter! Walk in someone else's shoes for awhile that has actually lived among God's creatures before passing judgment.

  • People, people, people!
    Jan. 16, 2008 11:54 a.m.

    I will never understand why people think their time is more valuable trying to save a goose's liver than teaching children to read and write or helping the elderly.

    Once goose liver is off of all menus, they can work on getting dogs the right to vote and cats the right to bear arms or getting Colonel Sanders put on trial for genocide.

    Animals don't have rights! People have responsibilities towards animals. There is a big difference.

  • bob
    Jan. 16, 2008 11:48 a.m.

    I have seen the video and I don't see any problem with except that SHARK now feels violence is justified against humans.

  • Sam
    Jan. 16, 2008 11:33 a.m.

    These comments are sad to read. I think most people just arent educated enough about what kind of cruelty, human and animal, is going on in the world but to actually know what is happening to these ducks and to support it is frankly evil. Why would anyone want to purposely inflict torture on something that does not deserve it just so you can get an unhealthy liver?

  • To Jeremy
    Jan. 16, 2008 11:23 a.m.

    As touched upon in the article, a wild duck is most likely far more stressed than a farm duck. (I think that it is ridiculous that someone even measured that.) Always looking for food, avoiding predators, enduring the cold etc. These farm feed ducks in their heated enclosures enjoy disease and predator free environments and plenty of food (in this case lots and lots of food). All until the day when they are humanely killed. This seems a little nicer life than struggling to survive on scraps in the wild waiting to be torn apart by a coyote or hawk.

    So, For every animal that you do not eat, I will eat THREE.

    PS. The spotted owl taste like chicken.

  • Jeremy Beckham
    Jan. 16, 2008 11:07 a.m.

    Lizzie says the following:

    "Additionally, the anti-foie video referenced in the article is not to be trusted. Google "animal snuff films" to see how these types of films have been faked, exaggerated, and taken out of context. Some rights organizations have even paid people to harm animals just to get a good scary video"

    What, specifically, do you claim is staged in the footage?

    In my experience showing the footage outside restaurants, most passersby are very disturbed specifically at the force-feeding footage. This footage was shot with a tiny hidden camera and shows a regular employee at Hudson Valley force-feeding the animals. So, are you seriously claiming that the force-feeding process that we see in the footage is all the work of animal whackos? Is that not an integral part of foie gras production (the defining aspect, in fact)?

    Or what of the 'isolette' cages where ducks are completely immobilized in row after row of tiny cage? Do you claim that animal rights people brought in forklifts worth of isolated cages and staged all that too?

    Do ducks/geese on foie gras farms have access to a standing body of water? Do you even know why that's important for ducks/geese?

  • Jeremy Beckham
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:56 a.m.

    I'm proud to be counted among the protesters of The Metropolitan that led to this victory for ducks/geese. The production of foie gras is inherently cruel. There is a reason that Chicago, California, and so many European countries have already outlawed its production. The production process is simply sickening.

    I don't see how anyone can watch the footage of ducks/geese being force fed and not feel sympathy for what that animal is going through. Why are we being so callous? Why do we feel like one unnecessary and unhealthy menu item is worth heaps of animal suffering?

    Is there ever a point that animal agricultural practices can get so horrendous that finally our society will stand up and say that enough is enough? Or will we always think that any amount of animal suffering is worth my most trivial tastes and pleasures?

  • Tim
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:47 a.m.

    I don't see how this is an animal rights issue even. It's just a most basic decency issue. Has everyone that is posting such negative comments gone and actually watched the footage of how foie gras is produced? I just followed the link and was sickened. If someone did that to a few of the ducks at liberty park everyone would call for cruelty charges - but if an industry does it we can call it 'agriculture'. How sickening. Also - Hudson Valley Foie Gras just had a fire and 15,000 ducks were burned alive. This is 'animal welfare'? This sounds like cruelty to me.

  • no more met 4 me
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:31 a.m.

    I'll never eat there again since mini martha stewart aka karen olsen caved in to some crackpots. the food hasn't been very good the last few times i went there anyway.

  • bob
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:25 a.m.

    This is just another example of how the left leaning liberals resort to violence when their argument fails to convince people who think for themselves. Many other groups do this too, for example PETA, Enviornmental Groups ect. Liberal groups like SHARK do not want people to think things through and come up with their own opinions, rather they want people to just blindly believe them and accept their thoughts as the only way to think.

  • Thomas
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:24 a.m.

    I'll consider vegetarianism the day dolphins do.

  • Lizzie Vonhurst
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:15 a.m.

    Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare

    An important point many people seem to be missing here: there is a different between "animal rights" and "animal welfare."

    Those who support rights believe that animals should be treated exactly the same as humans. Rights supporters are against all meat-eating. They are against fish tanks, medical testing, even seeing-eye dogs. Rights supporters seek to eliminate the relationship between humans and animals completely.

    Those who support welfare are those who actually make sure that the animals we use for consumption, research, and companionship are treated respectfully. These are the people who have studied foie gras farming and have found it to be humane. I suggest that those who are interested in learning more about the animal welfare aspects of foie gras farming check out the link at the end of the article for Legal Foie Gras.

    Additionally, the anti-foie video referenced in the article is not to be trusted. Google "animal snuff films" to see how these types of films have been faked, exaggerated, and taken out of context. Some rights organizations have even paid people to harm animals just to get a good scary video.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:15 a.m.

    Praise to the chef for not caving in like others. I'm sure the SHARK leader knows "nothing" about who vandalized the restaurant.

  • Ing
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:14 a.m.

    Robert Hawkins, good point. Debates like this--most issues I can think of, actually--tend to get hijacked by obsessed, short-sighted, mean-spirited people on both sides. It's a big problem. Like Zacko said, usually what happens is that the silent majority (or the thoughtful moderates, if you prefer) end up getting hosed.

    Is Foie Gras really the same thing as liverwurst? (Same ingredient, different form, I suuppose.) If so, why aren't people picketing sandwich shops and grocery stores? It's the "wow" factor associated with Foie Gras, I guess.

    Kinda said how stupid, mean, and short-sighted some people can be.

  • Matt
    Jan. 16, 2008 10:14 a.m.

    I've had foie gras many times in France. It's great. But I agree with the others, if you don't like it, don't eat it. That one defender says, "There are so many other things to eat." Then you eat them! People can eat what they want. Such stupid things to fight and waste your energy over. Try tackling something useful.

  • Belgie
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:55 a.m.

    It's an interesting tasting food, but not worth the price or all the bickering.

    The comment about sympathizing more with animals if they had to raise and kill them is not true. Widespread sympathy for animals is a relatively new phenomenon and usually only happens among people that have not spent time around animals raised for food.

  • mom
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    I agree. Animals are yummy. animal "rights" groups are weird.

  • Robert Hawkins
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:39 a.m.

    Ignorance can help both sides of an argument. On the one hand, some dummies will EAT IT just to spite those they assume they don't like, the animal rights people. But make them actually do any more than pay a bunch of money ( which they can't afford on their uneducated-level jobs, or welfare,) such as raise and then kill the poor bird, they'd change their tune.
    On the other hand, people will refuse to EAT IT because they heard that the poor birds suffer confinement and torture, but they will vote for Bush because of the torture chambers he aknowledges he runs at Guantanamo.
    The bottom line is that a bunch of mean-spirited people bicker pointlessly on-line about something neither side is mentally capable of comprehending. All these posters admit they no nothing of Foi Gras (neither do I, as shown by my probable mis-spelling) but they'll hate it or absolutely love it, simply because they don't like, or do like, whoever is for, or against it. They would eat it yumyumyum if they thought it was liverwurst (it is) or they would vomit it up if they thought it was anything else. People just like to be contrary.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:27 a.m.

    I love animals ... there delicious.

  • Zacko
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:13 a.m.

    Once again the liberal whack jobs would have us believe that the comfort of an animal being raised for food is more important than human life and liberty.

    The SHARK rep said they would turn in whoever was responsible for vandalism, but I'm sure that inside she was giddy. Especially when the restaurant caved and quit serving the dish.

    Once again the noisy minority get's it's way while the silent majority gets hosed.

  • Willow
    Jan. 16, 2008 9:06 a.m.

    The SHARK protestors (or others) go way overboard when they resort to such measures as vandalism, threats, etc. Simply write the restaurant a letter with your concerns and then don't go there if it is so important to you. Take your business elsewhere.

    If you believe in eating meat (which I do), but are concerned about the animals' welfare then do your research to find those distributors, restaurants, grocers, etc. that fit with your values and lifestyle. Research the food label "Certifiably Humane." There are measures you, as a consumer, can take that will show grocers and other businesses what you want/don't want. But do it intelligently and sensibly.

    Buy what you believe in and don't buy or support what you don't believe in. It's as simple as that.

  • Digbads
    Jan. 16, 2008 8:41 a.m.

    Blecch! Foie gras is greasy and nasty. Its one of those "acquired" tastes, I suppose.

  • Dave
    Jan. 16, 2008 8:19 a.m.

    Notice how these "do gooders" always end up resorting to terorism.

  • Pete
    Jan. 16, 2008 8:13 a.m.

    What's next Rocky Mountain Oysters?
    Viva La France, Viva La Foie Gras.

  • SGJ
    Jan. 16, 2008 7:45 a.m.

    So it has always been a pricey food for the snobbish, but now, thanks to S.H.A.R.K. and other of that ilk, it will become even rarer hence ever more exclusive. Invest in foie gras futures today.

  • SJ
    Jan. 16, 2008 7:02 a.m.

    I have seen this served on some of the chef/cooking shows I like to watch and thought it something that I would never want to try. Now, I think I will order it next time I see it on the menu.