You know you are a public policy nerd when you read an amicus curiae brief for fun. That is what I caught myself doing recently. A few weeks ago, libertarian organizations Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief regarding a foie gras ban. Foie gras is a luxury food made from the fattened liver of a duck or a goose. To have these livers fattened, these birds are force-fed a mixture of fat and grain in a process known as gavage. The basis for the ban is that the force-feeding is inherently cruel (see PETA website for opponents' arguments).
Much like fish do not have the same neurological capacity to feel pain as humans do (e.g., Rose et al., 2012), I have to wonder if geese feel the pain of a tube down its throat. Vis-à-vis an argument of analogy, we anthropomorphize the pain because we think to ourselves, "Pushing a tube and shoving food down my throat sounds tortuous, so it must be the case for a goose or duck." But let's take the duck's anatomy for a second. Birds have gizzards, which give them the ability to digest stones and other hard materials. Ducks have been known to swallow whole fishes. Ducks also lack a gag reflex, thereby diminishing the argument that ducks are uncomfortable during gavage. The gavage takes places at the end of the fowl's life, and usually last 2-3 weeks (which is relatively short in comparison to the lifespan). Couple that with the fact that at least in the United States, the animals for foie gras production are treated better relative to other animals in agricultural production.
Setting aside biological facts for a moment, what does research say on the topic? The most thorough report on the topic comes from a 1998 meta-study completed by the European Scientific Commission (ESC). On the one hand, the report found that the gut capacity is adequate to handle gavage. The report also found that the effects were reversible in four weeks, thereby implying a lack of long-term damage. The overall evidence of injury was "small." Conversely, the same ESC report found a higher mortality rate, and that such fowl were impaired as a result of the gavage. The report also concluded that the "resulting fat liver is of no commercial value." In short, the ESC report had vindicating and damning parts. There is some other evidence suggesting a lack of pain (e.g., Guémené et al., 2006) and some suggesting more pain (Ma, 2013), more research is required to make a more determinable conclusion (Skippon, 2013).
There is the philosophical argument on animals' rights: Should we treat animals as equals to humans, as mere property of human beings, or have a legal quasi-qualification that affords animals some protections under the law? Animal rights activists argue one way, foie gras producers another. In the United States, France, and other countries where they produce foie gras, animals are afforded less rights than humans. There is a balance between animal rights and the individual human being's consumption choices, and it is difficult for society to figure out where to draw the line.
The problem with such a normative argument is that it comes down to "I personally don't like that." The logic used by foie gras opponents could be used to ban all factory farming or even all meat production, as the aforementioned amicus curiae argues. Yes, this is technically a slippery slope argument, but at the same time, animal rights activists would most probably not stop if they were able to enact a nationwide ban on foie gras. Fortunately, there is no notable legislative push to further ban production of animal products because freedom to eat whatever animals they want is preserved.
Aside from the food freedom argument and the argument that the ducks do not feel the amount of pain that animal activists purport, foie gras is a delicacy. More to the point, foie gras is not consumed at the same rate in the United States as it is a country such as France. In 2012, U.S. per capita consumption was 0.003 pounds. To put this number into perspective, the average American eats on average about 100 times the amount of buffalo meat. I'm not a fan of government bans because they are blunt instruments that often have unintended consequences. The prohibition of alcohol was so terrible that Congress had to appeal the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment, which is no easy feat given the constitutional amendment procedure. Prohibition of marijuana has also come with a heavy price. The thing here is that I don't expect a foie gras ban to have the same effect because foie gras does not have the same pervasiveness as alcohol. With only three foie gras production farms in this country, it is the lack of foie gras in this country that makes me wonder why we're bothering in the first place. It is probably because of that lack of demand that animal rights activists are grabbing at that low-hanging fruit. I don't mind a call for more humane practices in the foie gras industry, but when you look at biology, a lack of evidence, and market demand, I don't see why we need to take a further step to quash food freedom to placate animal rights activists.
No comments:
Post a Comment