Chicago Foie Gras Ban Repealed
Posted on 14 May 2008 under Food In The News, Food Philosophy
Some of you may recall about a year ago veterinarian Dr. Lisa Whiting, DVM, and myself debating the various bans on foie gras. This afternoon, the Chicgo Tribune is reporting the City Council has voted to reverse its two-year-old ban on foie gras. From the article:
The council voted 37-6 to repeal the two-year-old ban, which critics argued had made Chicago–and the City Council–a national laughingstock.
Legislating food because of emotion, without consideration or even the knowledge of the true facts, while stomping on the rights of others, is complete and utter nonsense.
It’s obvious to me bans such as this should not be allowed. Ban the bans!
Read Comments
XHTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
* Required. Your email will never be displayed in public.
Sponsors
15 May 2008 @ 1:31 am Posted by Christine
I’m completely with you on this. Thank God the Chicago City Council made right with this reversal.
16 May 2008 @ 2:24 pm Posted by DocChuck
I hate the taste of liver . . . duck, goose, or otherwise.
But I hate the ignorance of politicians even more.
I’m with you on this one.
16 May 2008 @ 4:54 pm Posted by DurianDurian
Chicago was hardly a “national laughingstock” over this. The rest of the world promptly forgot about the ban.
I think the foi gras ban was ill-advised but I think that your statement:
“Legislating food because of emotion, without consideration or even the knowledge of the true facts, while stomping on the rights of others, is complete and utter nonsense.”
misrepresents what actually went on in Chicago. I think it’s inaccurate to say that the ban was passed without any consideration. And I think it might be a bit of hyperbole to lament stomping on people’s right to eat goose liver.
Interesting development though
16 May 2008 @ 5:04 pm Posted by Dave
@Durian, I know I never forgot, and I don’t live in Chicago. And if you read what I wrote, my intent was “… without consideration … of the true facts.” This goes back to my earlier arguments with Dr. Whiting over what the true facts are. The facts are in many cases warped in order to get these bans passed.
No one should be told what they can and cannot eat, unless they’re 5 and won’t eat their brussel sprouts. Some of the things that are eaten by some people on this planet should be left alone for those people. Anything else is nothing more than a control issue.
19 May 2008 @ 4:47 pm Posted by DurianDurian
Seriously, no one outside of the midwest saw Chicago as a laughingstock. The matter was entirely forgotten about in most of America.
I understand what you are saying but by suggesting that there were “true facts” that were not considered you are implying that there is a bright line right or wrong to the debate. That indisputable foacts were deliberately ignored.
IMO, there isn’t any bright line and the “facts” can be arrayed and construed in many different ways.
“No one should be told what they can and cannot eat” is a statement of opinion which many people can rightfully disagree with . I can think of many instances where the government rightfully should prevent you from eating something, even though you might want to.
Anyway …
p.s. I am confused by the appearance of post #2 ???
19 May 2008 @ 4:56 pm Posted by Dave
Oy … I’ve been through this too many times and written far too much on it to do it again.
The appearance of post #2, eh? I’m surprised anyone caught that at all …
20 May 2008 @ 2:50 pm Posted by DurianDurian
We’ll save our hot air for discussing something I like to eat.
Like if they ban tater tots or something.
#2 had a whole header at one time. Thus my surprise.