Chances Fade for Foie Gras Bill in New York

There is an article in the Wednesday, June 15, New York Times, headed "Chances Fade for Foie Gras Bill" (Dining section, page F12.) It is not on the paper's website, so I will paste the whole article below. I will offer my thoughts, and questions about the bill, after the article:

----------------------------------

The New York Times
June 15, 2005 Wednesday
Section F; Column 4; Dining In, Dining Out/Style Desk; Pg. 12

Chances Fade for Foie Gras Bill

By Peter Meehan

Animal rights advocates have given foie gras a tough time over the past year or so. Chefs in the San Francisco Bay Area who used and sold it were subjected to vandalism and threatened. Their opponents said its production was cruel because it requires the force-feeding of ducks and geese.

The California Legislature passed a law that would eventually bar its production and sale. Two well-known Chicago chefs got into a name-calling spat over whether using it was ethical.

The anti-foie-gras tide seemed so strong that Michael Ginor, an owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Ferndale, N.Y., the most prominent producer in the East, threw up his hands and backed a bill in the New York State Legislature that would ban production, but not for 10 years.

''I've got 200 employees to worry about,'' Mr. Ginor said in a telephone interview. ''If I don't know if I'm going to get put out of business at the end of the year, how am I going to know I can afford to put a new roof up to protect the ducks from the rain? At least this way I can make a plan.''

Earlier this year he worked to persuade legislators to revise bills that would have banned foie gras production as soon as this November. Bills now in the Assembly and Senate would impose a ban in 10 years.

In another twist, however, the sponsor of the Senate bill, John J. Bonacic, Republican of Mount Hope, says he has decided not to push for its passage after all and has told Mr. Ginor that he should not be so ready to compromise.

Senator Bonacic said he originally sponsored the bill with the 10-year delay because Mr. Ginor, a constituent, asked for his support. But since then, he said, he has concluded that Mr. Ginor was mistaken about the inevitability of the ban. And he said the New York Farm Bureau, an agricultural lobbying group, is strongly opposed to the bill and could help prevent its passage.

''I think, quite frankly, he's getting a lot of advice,'' the senator said. ''I want to make sure this is something he wants.'' After the two spoke by phone yesterday, Mr. Ginor said he would reconsider his support of the proposed law.

The Senate and Assembly bills would ban the force-feeding of birds ''for the purposes of fatty enlargement of their livers,'' with a fine of $1,000 for each violation. The sale of foie gras would not be barred.

The measure is expected to die in Senate committee this year. Other bills, including ones with immediate bans on production, could be introduced next year.

----------------------------------------

HSUS has been asking its members to urge their representatives to back the bill, calling it similar to the foie gras ban passed in California. But the ban on sale in California, rather than only on production, is a considerable dissimilarity. Some animal protection groups fought the California bill because of the seven year phase out period. I supported the bill, despite the waiting period, because legislative wins always involve some compromise and because the bill had the support of Senator Burton, the most powerful member of the California senate, who would be out of the senate the following year. I thought it unlikely that a bill submitted in the near future without his support would survive with better terms than the one with his support. Despite the disappointing phase out period, I was thrilled by the victory achieved: a total ban on the production and sale of foie gras in one of the world's largest economies.

What survives of the New York bill is considerably less, and could be seen as simply protecting that state's foie gras industry for the next ten years. I think it is always a mistake to oppose another animal groups legislative efforts -- it undermines our movement's credibility in the legislature. But I think it reasonable to ask if the animal protection groups opposing the current bill have a good point, and if the bill should be allowed to die. Then hopefully it can be resurrected with the New York equivalent of California's Senator Burton behind it, so that a ban (probably with a waiting period being the unfortunate compromise) on both production and sale can be achieved.

Animal protection activists must be willing to compromise in the area of legislation since that is generally how legislation works: no compromise, no law. But there comes a point at which the compromise is so great that we must ask ourselves if we are just selling out and declaring a win when there isn't one.

Whether or not the bill becomes law, it has had the terrific effect of publicizing the cruelty behind foie gras. The article in today's paper provides a great opportunity for letters that keep the discussion alive on the editorial pages. The more light shone on the horror behind foie gras, the more likely will be a future total ban. The New York Times takes letters at letters [at] nytimes.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published. You can learn more about "The Pain Behind Foie Gras" at: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=97


(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)