Foie Gras Ban

[streets of paris]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-disney1108oct11,0,7039885.story

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PC MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

CANCEL BISTRO/CALI GRILL/V&A RESSIES IF YOU DISAGREE

[Rodders]

In my opinion, mistreatment of animals in this way is not acceptable. I'm glad that Disney have taken a lead on this issue.

[Cinderelley]

I'm more upset about them taking the characters away from LTT than this.

[Tinkerfreak]

In my opinion, mistreatment of animals in this way is not acceptable. I'm glad that Disney have taken a lead on this issue.

:thumbsup:

[mac badger]

what seems wrong to me is disney having a whole park dedicated to animals and conservation and serving a food that requires gross animal cruelty. i see nothing wrong with disney not serving this

[mrsgaribaldi]

I never ate it but after learning how they make it, I'm glad they got rid of it.

[vicster]

This has also been banned in Chicago!!!

[Mackflava99]

In a way you can point to more food tyes that have the same cruelty- but i am glad they did it

[BlueDorrie]

Not to start a flame war, I was actually looking forward to ordering foie gras at California Grill. I actually like the stuff and I'm disappointed I won't be able to order it.

[Disney Doll]

I think this is a good move on Disney's part.

[MickeyMousse]

In my opinion, mistreatment of animals in this way is not acceptable. I'm glad that Disney have taken a lead on this issue.

:ditto:

[SBETigg]

I'm really surprised it took them so long. A lot of celebrated chefs and top restaurants have already stopped serving foie gras. I'm guilty of enjoying the occasional foie gras dish, but it really is disturbing to know how it comes to be. And Disney is the one place I would expect to be PC to a fault. I think it's the right move for Disney.

[debandbub]

Originally Posted by Rodders View Post
In my opinion, mistreatment of animals in this way is not acceptable. I'm glad that Disney have taken a lead on this issue.


:ditto:
ditto the above ditto---As a new vegetarian and also a proud American- I respect the rights of others to live as they choose in this country. That being said, I am thrilled with this decision, whatever the motive. Different from Chicago's ban, which makes it illegal to make/consume duck liver, this decision doesn't outlaw it. Folks can still have it, just not at WDW. People vote with their wallets, and I'm betting that Disney isn't going to lose a ton of money with this decision.

[r4kids]

I'm more upset about them taking the characters away from LTT than this.


Agreed! :) I think it's a great move :thumbsup:

[EJS-Houston]

Bravo Disney for taking a stand that may not necesssarily be popular with everyone!!! There's no excuse for animal cruelty.

[dmosher]

I agree completely! I do eat meat and am not a huge PITA activist, but seriously... this is horrible. I didn't know anything about this dish or how it was made. I am completely disgusted that anyone would support this. All for the sake of liver?? Seriously? I don't care how good something tastes, thats just awful.
:pipes:
D

[Ian]

Disney's a corporation and making a move they think will financially benefit their company.

I'm not at all in favor of government bans (of any kind), because I believe in personal choice. If you don't like foie gras because of the way it's made then by all means ... boycott it. But don't force others to do the same.

But a corporation is different. They're making what is almost certainly a financially motivated decision they think is right for them and I fully support that. I don't think it's PC driven at all. I think it's balance sheet driven.

[mdhiggin]

I did not know about the process. I've never even eaten foie gras. We're not animal activists or anything, but that sounds a little disturbing. Who even came up with that?

[big blue and hairy]

Any restaurant can make any menu change for any reason. If there is a huge outcry, which I doubt, the change will be reconsidered.

Assuming the desrciption on the Sentinal is correct, how could you fault a restaurant for not serving something that is that inhumane to any animal?

:sulley:

[SFTrny]

Seems a very silly thread. Too many opinions on the treatment and even the actual consumption of animals out there.

[TheRustyScupper]

Any Assuming the desrciption on the Sentinal is correct, how could you fault a restaurant for not serving something that is that inhumane to any animal?

1) Hear, here!
2) Animal cruelly is cruel.
3) One should not eat food where animals are hurt, such as
. . . beef, where cows are hit in the head or shocked to death
. . . fish, where they are snagged or hooked then cut open
. . . veal, where animals are kept in pens
. . . turkey, where where millions of birds are housed together

4) Worse yet, what about plants - they have been proven to have feelings
. . . that are sheared on their stalks
. . . that are brutally yanked by their roots from their earth homes
. . . can be exposed to periods of no water
. . . can be exposed to periods of flooded fields
. . . cruelly have their skin ripped from them

NOTE: I guess it just depends upon your point of view. :secret:

[Figment!]

**Moderator Note**



Just a friendly reminder of the non-argumentative clause of the INTERCOT Terms of Service.

Please try avoid charged, argumentative words that undoubtedly will lead to arguments rather than civil discussions. Such terminology has been removed from the thread.

Furthermore, in order to keep this discusion on-topic, please continue discussion toward this specific topic and away from broader, loosely related topics.

Thank you for your cooperation,

The INTERCOT Dining Staff

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

1) Hear, here!

. . . veal, where animals are kept in pens


Technically, veal is beef - it's baby cow specifically.

If you really find the production of Foie Gras that disturbing, really you should actually watch the videos on PETA's website.

We had to watch them as part of my HR class. Those will really make you consider vegetarianism or just switching to free-range companies, who provide humane treatment of animals.

[Maleficent's Dad]

Wow there are some good points listed here. I, for one, knew exactly how foie gras was produced prior to reading the article.

I'm guilty of enjoying the occasional foie gras dish, but it really is disturbing to know how it comes to be.
I knew how it was made, and I still have dined on this fine food.

I'm not at all in favor of government bans (of any kind), because I believe in personal choice. If you don't like foie gras because of the way it's made then by all means ... boycott it. But don't force others to do the same.
Great point, Ian. Not sure Disney is monitoring the bottom line or if they're going the PC route...

I'm not in favor of animal cruelty at all. But if you read Rusty's comments above, he does have some valid points...

I AM NOT TRYING TO STIR THE POT HERE - but to those of you who have tried foie gras, you can appreciate how wonderful the stuff is to consume. So to the critics out there, please note that the food does taste incredible!!! My first taste was way before I knew how it was made. Now that we are all a bit more "enlightened" as to how it is produced, perhaps we will all reconsider such exotic foods.

[Rhetoric2000]

Disney's a corporation and making a move they think will financially benefit their company.

I'm not at all in favor of government bans (of any kind), because I believe in personal choice. If you don't like foie gras because of the way it's made then by all means ... boycott it. But don't force others to do the same.

But a corporation is different. They're making what is almost certainly a financially motivated decision they think is right for them and I fully support that. I don't think it's PC driven at all. I think it's balance sheet driven.


Yeah, I pretty much completely agree with Ian here.

I find the production of foie gras very unpleasant and will probably not eat it, but would always stop short of banning others from having it. (Wow, it's like the fox hunting ban all over again!)

But a corporation, like a school and like a hospital has every right to choose the conditions of its operation within reasonable limits, and just as this might include collars only, not wearing clothes with political epithets or no false moustaches; it can include choosing not to serve foie gras. For whatever reason it wants.

***Incidentally, the visualisation of veal-rearing involving horrible conditions and ropes etc. is somewhat outdated - specifically coming from a documentary made in the early 80s. In many areas, young cows are raised in exceptional conditions and have to be shot by the farmer as the demand for them is so low (and to raise the cow further would make a huge loss). Eating veal can therefore be a really good way of supporting your local agricultural community.***

[Natazu]

You can still get Foie Gras in the Disney area at Le Coq au Vin, Everglades, and Cafe Point. Chef Chris, Chef Michael, and Chef Louis have no intention of dropping the duck.

[big blue and hairy]

1) Hear, here!
2) Animal cruelly is cruel.
3) One should not eat food where animals are hurt, such as
. . . beef, where cows are hit in the head or shocked to death
. . . fish, where they are snagged or hooked then cut open
. . . veal, where animals are kept in pens
. . . turkey, where where millions of birds are housed together

4) Worse yet, what about plants - they have been proven to have feelings
. . . that are sheared on their stalks
. . . that are brutally yanked by their roots from their earth homes
. . . can be exposed to periods of no water
. . . can be exposed to periods of flooded fields
. . . cruelly have their skin ripped from them

NOTE: I guess it just depends upon your point of view. :secret:
I'm not a PETA person. I eat meat, but there are degrees....I won't eat veal. It does depend on your point of view.

This is a decision made by a private company for their private reasons. It's their right. I just don't see the uproar over not serving it.


:sulley:

[SFTrny]

Hmmm..last time I was at WDW, there were a LOT of animals overfeeding until their organs were oversized and unhealthy.

[TheRustyScupper]

Hmmm..last time I was at WDW, there were a LOT of animals overfeeding until their organs were oversized and unhealthy.

1) I agree.
2) After all, my post was a spoof.
3) Glad you are in the same frame.

[Shugoondola]

I'm not a PETA person. I eat meat, but there are degrees....I won't eat veal. It does depend on your point of view.



I agree.

Good for Disney. I'm glad to hear it.

:mickey:

[disneydeb]

Oprah just had a show dedicated to range free choice for animal farmers. These have made me think a little more about food I choose.

[SFTrny]

I saw that Oprah episode...but I also heard that "free range" animal farming is increasing that cost of meat production across the globe...so that by supporting free range farming, we might be aggrevating hunger issues in other countries. Can anyone keep track of this?

[Goes4FastPass]

After all the discussion this board had about pronouncing Le Cellier I think we should avoid any food that's harder to pronounce than 'hot dog'. Besides, if asked to choose between the two I'd go for the tube steak.

Adieu, y'all

[ElenitaB]

Moderator Alert
Keep this discussion on-topic and away from broader, loosely related topics.

Thank you!

[dmosher]

I saw that Oprah episode...but I also heard that "free range" animal farming is increasing that cost of meat production across the globe...so that by supporting free range farming, we might be aggrevating hunger issues in other countries. Can anyone keep track of this?

Actually this shouldn't have any direct effect on the world meat price. Here in NEw Zealand almost all meats (beef, chicken, etc) is free range and while yes the cost of living is a bit higher here, the price has not increased in surrounding countries. They have their own live stocks and support themselves. Unless the US starts shipping more than 48 percent of it's beef to neighboring countries (and they probably won't since their beef is a higher quality), buying free range should only effect your family and your health.
:pipes:
D

[Ian]

Great point, Ian. Not sure Disney is monitoring the bottom line or if they're going the PC route...Well in this particular case, I think it's probably both.

Being PC is profitable these days. Same as being "green." I mean do you really think Disney would have spent all the time and effort updating their resorts to "green" status if there wasn't profit motive in there?

Of course not.

[SBETigg]

Well in this particular case, I think it's probably both.

Being PC is profitable these days. Same as being "green." I mean do you really think Disney would have spent all the time and effort updating their resorts to "green" status if there wasn't profit motive in there?

Of course not.

All good points. It could well be that they're not selling enough of it, as more magazines and media sources have been discussing the production issues of foie gras. Wine Spectator ran a fascinating article on it last year in which they interviewed some of the goose farmers involved and some restaurateurs/chefs who are abandoning it. Even a number of the more serious connoisseurs are not ordering it, making it less feasible to keep it on hand as the demand decreases. So it seems that the profit issues and PC issues do indeed go hand in hand, as Ian suggests.

[SFTrny]

I did some research into the sources of foie gras...really interesting stuff. Been around since Roman times. Seems like the stuff in France is traditionally goose liver, but here in the States and other places, it is predominantly duck liver.

Now...where is WDW going to find a large enough duck to produce the oversized liver that they would need to make this economical?

[jwallace378]

Ok, Ok, I know everyone is against the way they fatten up the goose for the liver. But, what about the way they fatten up the cattle for your steak at Le Cellier? Isn't that the same "cruelty"?

[Ian]

All good points. It could well be that they're not selling enough of it, as more magazines and media sources have been discussing the production issues of foie gras. Good point, Sheri. I didn't think about that aspect of it.

[Rodders]

Ok, Ok, I know everyone is against the way they fatten up the goose for the liver. But, what about the way they fatten up the cattle for your steak at Le Cellier? Isn't that the same "cruelty"?
I hear what you are saying and I can't say that these animals aren't mistreated because in some cases they are. having said that, from what I have read, I have yet too see anything as cruel as routinely ramming tubes down animals throats to force large amounts of food into the animal. In my opinion the problem with Foie Gras and many other food production methods is that it involves deliberate mistreatment. The farming of cattle generally involves a reasonable standard of living and in my opinion it is our responsibility to ensure that decent living conditions are provided for our food. I am also of the opinion that mistreatment, whether it be deliberate or otherwise should be eliminated from the system. I am also aware that the system as it stands is far from perfect and we have a way to go before cruel practices are eliminated completely. Just my view from the terraces :mickey:

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

With cattle, they are fattened up using corn. Instead of grass and hay, they are feed corn grain, which is very fattening for them so they can gain more weight. Most places is somewhat humane, but again, there are always places that don't get it and treat them poorly.

I'm not a PETA person either, but their videos are....interesting and thought-provoking to say the least.

[Cinderelley]

Well, we could let all the animals go and return to hunting all of our food. ;)

[big blue and hairy]

Well, we could let all the animals go and return to hunting all of our food. ;)Ummmm....what will you be hunting...lettuce? :D

:sulley:

[Cinderelley]

Ummmm....what will you be hunting...lettuce? :D

:sulley:

Well, at first, I thought we would just hunt the animals, but then I realized there were people who opposed hunting. So, in order to be politically correct, we couldn't hunt them. Then I figured we would take out the old ones, like the animals in the wild do. But, I'm sure that would raise a huge outcry about how we need to nurse them back to health. Forget about survival of the fittest.
So, that means we would have to go from hunters to gatherers, but only if we don't use pesticides. It's not right to kill the bugs in such a horrific way. Instead, we'll have to have swarms and swarms of ladybugs after the EPA does an investigation to make sure the ladybugs won't have a negative environmental impact. Which of course they will, since they'll be eating all of the insects that would be eating our food. But instead of coming to that conclusion logically, researchers will have to get a ridiculously large amount of money in the form of a federal grant to complete years and years of research on this topic.
In the meantime, society as we know it will have taken a step backwards in time where we can all live like Grizzly Adams did. We will be one with nature and have animal friends who somehow understand when we speak to them in English and disappear off the screen as we go into town to barter our goods, but magically reappear as we return to our lonely mountain top cabins.

:D

By the way, before anyone gets all upset that I'm so insensitive, I've never eaten this stuff, don't know how to pronounce it, and didn't know that it existed before this thread. Also, no animals were harmed in the making of this response.

[Rhetoric2000]

Well, at first, I thought we would just hunt the animals, but then I realized there were people who opposed hunting. So, in order to be politically correct, we couldn't hunt them. Then I figured we would take out the old ones, like the animals in the wild do. But, I'm sure that would raise a huge outcry about how we need to nurse them back to health. Forget about survival of the fittest.
So, that means we would have to go from hunters to gatherers, but only if we don't use pesticides. It's not right to kill the bugs in such a horrific way. Instead, we'll have to have swarms and swarms of ladybugs after the EPA does an investigation to make sure the ladybugs won't have a negative environmental impact. Which of course they will, since they'll be eating all of the insects that would be eating our food. But instead of coming to that conclusion logically, researchers will have to get a ridiculously large amount of money in the form of a federal grant to complete years and years of research on this topic.
In the meantime, society as we know it will have taken a step backwards in time where we can all live like Grizzly Adams did. We will be one with nature and have animal friends who somehow understand when we speak to them in English and disappear off the screen as we go into town to barter our goods, but magically reappear as we return to our lonely mountain top cabins.

:D

By the way, before anyone gets all upset that I'm so insensitive, I've never eaten this stuff, don't know how to pronounce it, and didn't know that it existed before this thread. Also, no animals were harmed in the making of this response.

Wow. One field. So many straw men.

I'm always intrigued by what people manage to class as "Political Correctness", but banning hunting is a new one.

I'm not sure what pesticides has to do with foie gras.

I've made it clear already in this thread that I'm against the banning of foie gras. But it IS on the borderline, and it is exceedingly unpleasant. And it is quite feasable that somebody would think that it IS going too far without being some kind of parody of an environmental activist.

When the debates were going on over here about fox hunting (and hunting in general) you do occasionally come across people who appear to have a strange notion that "natural death" in the wild is a peaceful, pleasant way to go; rather than virtually always hideous, strung out and horrible - HOWEVER I have seen absolutely nobody make an argument like this on this thread.

Very few animal lovers take too much issue with the nature in which an animal that is to be used for human purposes dies. That is quite another thing from dealing with how the animal lives its life - and THIS is the issue that people have with foie gras. Arguing (or attempting to ridicule) elsewhere is irrelevant.

I don't know if this posts counts as being "upset at your insensitivity" - but your post is clearly designed to ridicule-by- association other posters in this thread who have not come in the least bit close to the points that you imply that they have made. Which I think should be called out.

[Rodders]

Well, at first, I thought we would just hunt the animals, but then I realized there were people who opposed hunting. So, in order to be politically correct, we couldn't hunt them. Then I figured we would take out the old ones, like the animals in the wild do. But, I'm sure that would raise a huge outcry about how we need to nurse them back to health. Forget about survival of the fittest.
So, that means we would have to go from hunters to gatherers, but only if we don't use pesticides. It's not right to kill the bugs in such a horrific way. Instead, we'll have to have swarms and swarms of ladybugs after the EPA does an investigation to make sure the ladybugs won't have a negative environmental impact. Which of course they will, since they'll be eating all of the insects that would be eating our food. But instead of coming to that conclusion logically, researchers will have to get a ridiculously large amount of money in the form of a federal grant to complete years and years of research on this topic.
In the meantime, society as we know it will have taken a step backwards in time where we can all live like Grizzly Adams did. We will be one with nature and have animal friends who somehow understand when we speak to them in English and disappear off the screen as we go into town to barter our goods, but magically reappear as we return to our lonely mountain top cabins.

:D

By the way, before anyone gets all upset that I'm so insensitive, I've never eaten this stuff, don't know how to pronounce it, and didn't know that it existed before this thread. Also, no animals were harmed in the making of this response.

I have to second Rhetoric on this one. A few points that I must pick up with you

First of all, what has hunting got to do with political correctness?

Secondly, I and many other people on this thread are saying that it's not acceptable to torture an animal because it makes it taste nicer, I am not making an argument for or against anything that you have discussed. You may be surprised to hear that I appreciate, understand and even agree with some of the points made. The trouble with those points is that they are totally irrelevant.

[wendy*darling]

Well guys, I think we are done here.

Thanks to the OP for alerting us to the fact that foie gras will no longer be served on WDW property.