Case 1: Is it unethical to eat foie gras? COMM 333 ...kahokatyitoportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/9/5/6/9/95693566/case1paper.pdf · RUNNING HEAD: CASE 1 Case 1: Is it unethical to eat

RUNNING HEAD: CASE 1

Case 1: Is it unethical to eat foie gras?

COMM 333: Persuasion and Argumentation

Dr. Phillip Clampitt

March 7, 2017

The Sinister Ducks

Katy Ito, Alexis Johnson, Maggie Pietrowski

Khalil Small, Adam Ziepke

Case 1 1

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary 2

Introduction/Overview 3

History 3

Legal History 4

Production 6

Audience Analysis 8

Affirmative Side 8

● Toulmin Model 9

● NRDd Model 10

Negative Side 10

● Toulmin Model 11

Effectiveness Ratings 12

Suggestions 13

Rejected Solutions 14

So What? 14

Appendix A: 100 Facts 15

Appendix B: Thumbs up and Continuous

Improvements

23

Appendix C: Summary of Critiques 23

Other Appendices 24

References 29

Case 1 2

Executive Summary:

The first case in Persuasion and Argumentation had us analyzing an article, finding arguments,

assigning a rating to each case, and coming up with suggestions for both authors. Our group was

given a case concerning whether or not foie gras is ethical to eat. Foie gras, a French delicacy, is

the fattened liver of a goose or duck. Coming into this project, our group had no idea what foie

gras was, so we did not have a bias; which was helpful.

In this essay, we will start by discussing the history of foie gras, including legal history.

We will then discuss how foie gras is made, including the process of gavage as well as natural

feeding. Next, we will go through our audience analysis, which includes residents of the Green

Bay area and Wall Street Journal readers. An interesting note is that, in this case, both audiences

would probably react to the article we were given the same way--probably with a big “what?”.

The next thing we discuss is our analysis. We discuss the affirmative side of the case first.

The affirmative side is the change agent, and therefore has the burden of proof. In this case, the

affirmative side says that eating foie gras is unethical. We then discuss our Need, Remedy,

Disadvantage, devil (NRDd) model. Next we discuss the negative side of the case, or the status

quo. For each side, we will discuss our Toulmin models in detail. We will then wrap up with our

effectiveness ratings, some of our suggestions for both authors, solutions that we rejected, and

end with our “So What?”.

Case 1 3

Introduction:

Today, there are a number of niche and idiosyncratic foods and dishes permeating the

food world. Foie gras (‘fwah grah’) which translates in French to ‘fatty liver,’ is one specific

dish of much unique characteristics and value. Primarily, one of the most interesting aspects of

what foie gras is derives from one of its main creation methods, gavage. Gavage is the process of

force feeding by which farmers tend to place a thick metal tube down the esophagus’ of male

ducks and geese, and pump about 2.2 lbs of grains and fats into the internal organs of the animals.

This process is usually performed about two to three times a day. As the liver of these animals

naturally weighs about 50g, the food industry requires that these ducks’ and geese livers weigh at

least 300g to qualify for preparation as foie gras. Following this process and the proper food

preparation by chefs, the final dish of foie gras results as one of a delicately soft and velvety

texture with an alluring and captivating buttery flavor. Accordingly, one serving of this esteemed

dish equates to about 13g and 60 calories.

History:

The foie gras tradition began in Egypt. Egyptians of the Ancient Empire would capture or

hunt geese. While doing so, they discovered that geese developed a large fatty liver from

preparing for migration. Soon after their discovery, they decided to replicate the process in order

to create a bigger bird. Today, we know about the Egyptian use of foie gras because of art that

has been found of geese related farming techniques. This artwork was projected to have been

illustrated in 2815-2400 BCE. Paintings from 2500 BCE also exist, these show Egyptian farmers

practicing force-feeding, or gavage.

Case 1 4

After the Egyptians, the gavage technique spread across the Mediterranean, and was then

adopted by the Greeks and the Romans, and the Romans turned foie gras into their own delicacy.

When Rome’s territory began to expand, so did the culinary art of foie gras. Then, the

gourmands decided to fatten geese just for the purpose of production. Following the fall of Rome,

it was the Jewish that kept foie gras alive and brought it with them across Europe. Throughout

the sharing of the foie gras tradition, France picked up the tradition. Eventually, foie gras became

part of France’s culture and culinary heritage.

As the practice and enjoyment of foie gras continued to pass, it became popular in the

United States by those who brought it back from Europe. It was not until later that American

farmers began to produce foie gras on their own.

Legal History:

Not only does foie gras have a long history in general, its legal history is also significant.

Eating and producing foie gras have been under a remarkable amount of scrutiny about whether

or not it is ethical. Some say that it’s okay, while others feel extremely strong against it. Then,

there are those who believe that the only unethical part of it all is the feeding process the ducks

and geese go through.

In 2003, a foie gras farm in California was sued by In Defense of Animals and Animal

Protection and Rescue League, two animal rights activist groups. The two groups strongly

believed the process in which they were fed (making the ducks and geese eat until their livers

grew about 12 times their normal size) was a major problem. However, the farm continued being

allowed to produce foie gras until it was banned in 2012.

One year later, on September 29, 2004, the California S.B. 1520 law (which is the force-

Case 1 5

feeding of birds) was signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. California S.B. 1520 stated that the law

will not go into effect until July 1, 2012. Included with that, it was also stated that “no civil or

criminal cause of action shall arrive on or after January 1, 2005, nor shall a pending action

commenced prior to January 1, 2005, be pursued under any provision of law against a person or

entity for engaging” (S. 1520, 2004). The purpose of the seven and a half year wait allowed

farms and businesses to adjust their methods of business practices.

A Chicago chef, Charlie Trotter, made a speech against foie gras and put an end to

serving it in his restaurant in 2005. During that speech, he called out a different Chicago chef.

That caused a bit of a controversy. Also in 2005, the American Veterinary Medical Association

refused standing on one side regarding the practice foie gras production debate.

It was not until April of 2006 that the ban of foie gras sales became active by the

Chicago’s City Council. Just a few months later, a petition had been sent out by a few groups of

animal rights activists to New York State's Department of Agriculture and Markets requesting

them to end selling foie gras. Recorded at that time was a skeptical chef who brought up the

point of food processes for other animals. Two massively important lawsuits were filed that year.

One of the lawsuits was against Whole Foods. This company was sued by a California farm, who

was sued earlier by In Defense of Animals and Animal Protection and Rescue League for

purposely impeding on one of the contracts they had. The second lawsuit occurred in November.

This lawsuit was against the Department of Agriculture and Markets sent by the Humane Society

of the United States, the Government Accountability Project's Food Safety Program, Farm

Sanctuary, and the New York State Humane Association.

Between the year of 2006 and 2012, restaurants decided to ban the sales of foie gras,

however, some decided to reverse those sale bans. There were protests breaking out in a couple

Case 1 6

of states at certain restaurants regarding their sales of foie gras. A legal petition had been filed

for the USDA from The Animal League Defense Fund to add notice labels to foie gras products.

These labels would read- "NOTICE: Foie gras products are derived from diseased birds."

Issues really started to arise in 2012 when the ban kicked in. California, as a state, was

sued by many restaurants that firmly believed that the ban law was unconstitutional. Two

attempts were made to lift the ban by the same restaurants, and both times, they were denied.

One of those restaurants even started offering free foie gras to customers.

Today, in 2017, California is allowed to legally sell foie gras; however, it is still illegal

for them to produce it.

Production:

Gavage:

Both ducks and geese go through a process at a number of foie gras production sites

called gavage. Gavage, or force-feeding, is a several week process, which begins with allowing

ducks and geese their freedom to roam and interact with others. At the sites where ducks and

geese go through ethical production, the ducks are not force fed and allowed to act naturally. The

next step for the waterfowl is confinement. They are kept in incredibly tiny cages that do not

allow them to even stand properly or fully stretch their wings, if at all. This purpose is to

condition or prepare them to restraint before the force-feeding process begins.

The major part of the process begins at six weeks where the ducks and geese are denied

their access to free food. For the ducks and geese, this means only being fed one meal for about

15 minutes. At about 10-12 weeks, the amount of food they receive is increased. It is at this point

that the ducks and geese are pushed to eat more food at a faster pace. By doing so, their

Case 1 7

esophagus will begin to become larger, which prepares them for being force-fed. It is at the 12

week mark where the ducks and geese are actually force-fed.

Gavage is the process where a large and thick tube is placed down the throats of the

ducks and geese. This tube carries the food directly to their stomachs. The process carries on for

about two to three weeks, and it occurs about three times per day. Along with this, the amount of

food given to them increases. Many places manually force-feed the ducks, but there are some

where machines take care of this process; which is called line-force feeding. During line force

feeding, up to 400 ducks and geese are fed in the time period of an hour.

No gavage:

When it comes to ethical feeding, the ducks and geese roam freely, allowing them to be

part of their natural environment. There is one specific place that is best known for their ethical

feeding: Spain. A little farm in Spain depends on the changing of seasons for their production.

Ducks and geese will land there to eat large amounts of acorns and olives, in order to prepare for

their flight south for the winter. In just a few weeks, they become fatter and heavier due to the

fact they’re eating such great amounts for preparation. When it comes time for slaughter, or as it

is called there, “sacrifice,” bright flashlights are shown in the ducks face; the bright light from

the flashlights paralyze them. It is when they are paralyzed that they are “sacrificed”. Slaughter

only occurs once a year on this farm because it allows the ducks and geese to repopulate

naturally.

Case 1 8

Audience Analysis: Green Bay residents, Wall Street Journal readers

While spending a considerable amount of time researching factors that related to foie gras

and our audiences, we did not find any specific data connecting the two. The closest

relationships found included economy and education. Since foie gras is a pricey food (about $50-

75), one must have the money to purchase it, therefore making the connection between the

economic standing of the two chosen audiences and foie gras. For education, generally a higher

level means a better job. Usually, a better job means more money, thus relating the education

aspect of the audiences to foie gras.

Trying to decipher which side Green Bay residents and the Wall Street Journal readers

would gravitate towards more, we inferred that both would remain more neutral. If it had an

effect on either, it would more likely be the Wall Street Journal readers. Since foie gras is not a

popular food, and many people do not know about it, it follows that neither audience would stand

more on one side.

Affirmative Side:

Affirmative side, which has burden of proof in this case, insists that it is unethical to eat

foie gras and states “force-feeding birds to fatten their liver is inhumane” (Jones, 2015). The

author in affirmative side is Adele Douglass, who is a founder and executive director of Humane

Farm Animal Care, which is a non-profit organization, improving the lives of farm animals in

food production (Jones, 2015).

The main argument that the affirmative side has is that foie gras production with force-

feeding doesn’t meet the organization’s standard, which is Human Farm Animal Care, which the

author belongs to. Within this organization’s standard, the author explained there are three

Case 1 9

categories to take a deep look and decide if the treatment of animals during production is

considered ethical or not. First of all, ducks and geese have no access to diet that maintains

health and promotes a positive state of well-being. Secondary, the environment is not designed to

meet the welfare need of ducks and geese and allow them to perform natural behaviors. Lastly,

ducks and geese are not protected from pain, injury and disease throughout their entire lives.

Toulmin Model:

The claim for the main argument is that it is unethical to eat foie gras. The evidence is

that foie gras production doesn’t meet Human Farm Animal Care’s standard. The warrant here is

that the organization protects animals in food production. As a support of warrant, the author

mentions that Human Farm Animal Care teams up with the top farm-animal welfare scientists

and veterinarians. (Appendix D)

As it is mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are three other arguments that support

the same claim: it is unethical to eat foie gras. The first chunk of evidence out of the HFAC

standard is that ducks and geese don’t have access to healthy diet. The warrant we found is that

force-feeding is not healthy, and this warrant is supported by the fact that force-feeding increases

the size of the birds’ livers to about ten times the normal size. (Appendix E)

The second piece of evidence of organization’s standard is that the environment is not

designed to allow ducks and geese to perform natural behaviors. The warrant for this evidence is

that ducks and geese can’t roam about and animals move as a natural behavior. In support of

warrant, the author mentions that the birds are confined to individual cages that are almost the

same size as their bodies. (Appendix F)

The third evidence of foie gras not meeting the HFAC standard is that ducks and geese

Case 1 10

are not protected from pain, injury, and disease. The warrant is that force-feeding of ducks and

geese causes a host of afflictions, with the support of warrant that the fact was documented by

Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. (Appendix G)

NRDd Model:

After we did analysis and created Toulmin models, we developed an NRDd model. The

need for this argument is to stop unethical production of foie gras. With the deeper look of this

debate, we believe the main point the both sides are arguing is the production of foie gras. Since

the affirmative side is insisting that almost “all foie gras productions fails to meet the

organization’s standard” (Jones, 2015), both eating foie gras and production of foie gras ties

together. The remedy is to outlaw foie gras production. Disadvantages that the remedy could

cause include that the economy can be influenced because foie gras is expensive, and family

farms could be at risk at the same time. People who like to eat foie gras could be uncomfortable

with the remedy. Devil for this case is the inhumane treatment of animals, and the author is

strongly using pathos warrants.

Negative Side:

The negative side, in debate, represents the status quo. In this case, the negative side says

that eating foie gras is ethical, especially if you eat other kinds of meat. This side was brought

forward by J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, a vegetarian. In his argument, Lopez-Alt states that “if you eat

meat, some foie gras more than passes muster.” He advocates especially for American farms,

free range farms, and anti-gavage farms.

Case 1 11

Toulmin Model:

Lopez-Alt has five main arguments, and each come with their own pros and cons. His

first argument is that ducks and geese have tough throats, and are therefore not hurt by tube

feeding. Due to the fact that ducks and geese have throats that are made to swallow whole fish,

and therefore bones, their throats are much tougher than human throats; and are therefore not

harmed by tube feeding. The downside to this is that the ducks and geese are still being force fed.

However, since the birds are not hurt by gavage, the claim that it is ethical to eat foie gras stands.

The second argument is that depending on the farm, the birds are not always force fed.

An example of this is a farm in Spain where birds are allowed to roam about the property and

gorge themselves naturally. It should also be noted that ducks and geese do gorge themselves

before migrating. Since the geese are not force fed, and are therefore allowed to eat naturally,

this holds as another argument for foie gras being ethical. The reservation to this is, of course,

not all farms allow the birds to eat naturally. Some farms, because of the law of large numbers,

do mistreat their birds.

The third argument is that some farms are free range. Since this means that the ducks can

behave naturally, this also holds as evidence that foie gras is ethical to eat. In support of this

warrant, there are two major foie gras farms in the United States, and both of them are free range

farms. The reservation to this is that, of course, not all farms are free range.

The fourth argument is that there is an economic value in being humane. Basically,

damaged goods go for less money. If a bird is mistreated, their liver is more likely to become

damaged, and therefore the meat will be less desirable. Since money talks and foie gras is a

sensitive product, “any damage caused by rough handling or injury can severely detract from

market value.” This means that foie gras must be produced ethically. Of course, a reservation to

Case 1 12

this is the law of large numbers. This means that the more farms produce foie gras, the more

likely it is that a bird will be mistreated.

The last argument for this side is that other animals are farmed. Since animals are farmed

and there is not a fuss, foie gras must be just as ethical to eat as any other sort of meat. However,

a reservation to this is that some people disagree with eating any kind of meat.

Effectiveness Ratings:

Each side is rated based on a analyst point of view. The arguments we examined were

based on how well the affirmative side did to argue their point. The scores for each side come

from a team consensus. The affirmative side of the argument earned a 4/10. One of the biggest

flaws the team found, was that the affirmative side did not meet the burden of proof. This side of

the argument also did not have strong ethos and logos arguments. One thing the argument did

have was a very strong pathos appeal.

There is a strong example of a parallel case in this debate. It is seen when the author for

the affirmative side bases her entire argument off of one main argument, and the author for the

negative side cuts down her argument, therefore making her not meet the burden of proof.

The score for the negative side is a 7/10. One of the strengths that this side has was having many

good counter points to the opposition. Unlike author on the affirmative side, the arguments were

from several angles instead of just one main point. An issue that took away from the negative

side’s score was Lopez-Alt only talked about American farms, and when he did discuss foreign

farms, he condemned them for having unethical practices. Lastly, this side did not have as strong

of pathos as it could have.

Case 1 13

One interesting thing about this case is that it can be argued as a policy claim or a value

claim depending upon how the argument is stated. For example, if the argument is stated “you

should not eat foie gras,” this is a claim of policy. We know this because policy claims generally

say “should” or “should not.” If the argument is stated “foie gras is not ethical to eat,” this is a

claim of value. This is apparent because the claim is giving a hard statement to the ethics of foie

gras. The word “ethical” makes this a value claim, as it suggests that there is a better way (or

better things) to eat. This is important to discuss because the types of claim changes throughout

both sides of the argument.

Suggestions:

Both sides of the argument could strengthen their arguments. The affirmative side could

have used more than just HFAC guidelines. If Douglass would have used at least one other

organization, it would have strengthened the argument. The main point that this side was arguing

was that the gravage process is unethical. She should have stuck more to that point instead of

drifting off. Incorporating some ethos and a lot of logos would also have helped balance the

argument out and made it stronger. Lastly, the affirmative side needs to put more emphasis into

the fact that many stores and countries have foie gras banned. This shows that there is already

many opposed to it.

For the negative side, one of the largest flaws in Lopez-Alt’s argument was his answer to

how to get foie gras farms that are not up to the HFAC standards, up to HFAC standards. A

strong ethos that could have been added was a veterinarian’s testimony staying the birds are not

harmed by gavage. The author also could have used a stronger pathos appeal in his arguments.

Case 1 14

Rejected Solutions:

While researching this topic, we found solid arguments for both the affirmative and

negative side on outside websites. We wanted to use some of these sources to strengthen some

arguments, but since they were not stated directly in the article, we did not use them. While

breaking down each side of this debate, we tried to use KISS charts. We found out this was not a

viable solution because foie gras is too much of a niche topic for us to fill out the charts properly.

Myers-Briggs indicators were also a possible solution to breaking down the audience.

Unfortunately, they as well could not be used was because the audience was too broad to make a

type indicator.

So What?:

Overall, we as a group concluded several key concepts after close analysis of this

controversy. We believe that it is more beneficial and powerful to have several small arguments

rather than one big argument; for the ability to attack a situation from different avenues in the

attempt to attain success. Furthermore, it’s also important to have evidence from different

perspectives to add more strength and diversity to an argument as well. Accordingly, we’ve

concluded that it’s equally important to be conscious of counterarguments to your own claims.

Therefore, this will allow you to become conscious of the weaknesses your own argument

possesses and seek to diminish and completely get rid of them. The last conclusion we came to

took a little longer to come by: all of the audiences we assessed in this case are pretty neutral.

Due to the fact that foie gras is so niche, not many people know enough about it to have an

opinion.

Case 1 15

Appendix A: 100 Facts

1. Foie gras - French for "fatty liver" - is the diseased and enlarged liver of a duck or goose,

produced through force feeding.

2. The Animal Protection & Rescue League has investigated all three US foie gras farms

and several in France and found rampant cruelty to be the norm.

3. “Two to three times a day, a worker grabs each bird, shoves a long, thick metal tube all

the way down his throat, and an air pump shoots up to two pounds of corn mush into his

esophagus.” (Source)

4. A duck's liver naturally weighs around 50 grams.

5. To qualify as foie gras, the industry regulations require ducks' livers to weigh a minimum

of 300 grams.

6. “Food law expert Baylen Linnekin, himself a defender of foie gras, quotes the Humane

Society campaigner Paul Shapiro’s claim that: “Force-feeding is not an ‘ingredient’ of

foie gras, since foie gras can be produced without resorting to such cruel methods.””

(Source)

7. “Spanish farmer Eduardo Sousa...produces what his fans call “ethical foie”, but which he

prefers to call “natural”.” (Source)

a. This farm has no fences or cages, the animals are totally free range.

b. Geese naturally gorge themselves due to an abundance of food.

c. Geese stop at the farm to mate and store fat before migrating, this causes them to

naturally gorge themselves.

d. The product from this farm generally weighs 450g, versus factory farm product,

which weighs 600-1000g.

e. Sousa slaughters about 800 geese a year and produces in a year what a factory

farm produces in three months.

8. California banned the production and sale of foie gras July 1, 2012. This ban was lifted

January 7, 2015.

a. “The judge, Stephen V. Wilson of United States District Court, ruled the ban

unconstitutional, saying it attempted to override existing federal law regulating

poultry products.” (Source)

9. “Artisan Farmers Alliance (AFA) is a not-for-profit organization which represents

America's foie gras farmers and others involved in bringing artisanal agricultural

products to the American table.” (Source)

10. “Foie gras has an alluring, buttery flavor with a soft and velvety texture. It is a delicate

dish, prepared in many ways and often accompanied by fruit.” (Source)

11. Ducks don’t have a gag reflex and has an insensitive esophagus--this allows them to

swallow spiney fish without pain. (Source)

12. Ducks naturally fatten their livers before migrating. (Source)

13. American foie gras is raised on small-scale farms using artisanal methods. (Source)

Case 1 16

14. The American Veterinary Medical Association has refused to take a stance against foie

gras. (Source)

Ban on Foie Gras: A Legislative Fowl

Ma, V. L. (2013). Ban on foie gras: A legislative fowl.

15. US- 4 foie gras production facilities…

a. California

b. New York

c. Minnesota

16. Physical and psychological issues (force feeding and its process)

17. “Force-feeding is just mimicking the natural tendency of birds to overeat in preparation

for migration”

The Farmer Who Makes ‘Ethical’ Foie Gras

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/18/the-farmer-who-makes-ethical-foie-gras

18. Eduardo Sousa- allows geese to be “free” and eat what they want on own terms

The Ethics of Foie Gras: New Fire for an Old Debate

http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/01/foie-gras-new-fire-for-an-old-debate.html

19.

20. “Even though egg, dairy, pork, poultry, and beef farms may be worse than foie gras farms,

foie gras should still be singled out because it's controversial and draws attention to the

larger issue.” -Dan Barber

21. Small family-owned farms struggle and are singled out; huge commercial farms are able

to continue their businesses just fine

Case 1 17

22. “Foie gras as an industry shouldn't be judged by its best farms, it should be judged by its

worst.” -Dana Goodyear

a. “Once you leave the small U.S. farms, eating foie raises other ethical questions.

Large scale Canadian and French farms are notorious for their cruel practices, like

caging the ducks into boxes so small that they can't open their wings, drinking

water from channels contaminated with feces and dead ducks. These are the types

of farms where all of the PETA videos you see are filmed, and they are atrocious

by any standard.”

23. “So the argument goes: If there's an industry that causes hundreds of thousands of

animals to suffer unnecessarily, don't we have a moral obligation to shut it down, even if

there are a few examples of farms in which such atrocities don't occur?”

a. “If every industry were judged by their worst practitioners, we'd have nothing. No

farms, no doctors, no lawyers, no manufacturing of any kind, literally nothing. It

may well be that foie gras farming has a higher ratio of bad farmers to good, but

that does not mean that the good farmers should be chastised for the poor

behavior of their peers. Indeed, it should be the exact opposite: we should take

every opportunity to celebrate those farmers who, in the face of easier profits and

faster production, still deign to do right by their animals and produce foie gras in

the most humane way possible.”

Scientists and Experts on Force-Feeding for Foie Gras Production and Duck and Goose Welfare

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-scientists-and-experts-on-force-feeding-

for-foie-gras-production-and-duck-and-goose-welfare.pdf

24. “The end result of force-feeding is—hepatic steatosis—which is a liver disease. This

causes—at different degrees during its development—physiological and physical

problems which are detrimental to the state of health and well-being of birds. Eventually

the hepatic steatosis will lead to the death of the birds.”

25. “Force-feeding is finally, a practice against nature, which violates the natural prehension

of food. Therefore the contention [is] that the introduction of such equipment reduces the

well-being of the birds subjected to it.”

26. Is Foie Gras Particularly Cruel to Animals?

http://animalrights.about.com/od/FactoryFarming/a/Foie-Gras.htm

27. “Humane foie gras”: foie gras produced without force-feeding process

“livers may not meet legal definitions of foie gras in some countries, which require a

minimum size and/or fat content”

Friend or foie gras: Can the infamous delicacy ever be humane?

http://grist.org/food/friend-or-foie-gras-can-the-infamous-delicacy-ever-be-humane/

28. “‘Veterinarians have historically failed to recognize pain in birds.’” Unlike many other

animals, whose physical discomfort is often obvious to the casual observer, ‘birds are

naturally stoic prey animals, [and] their demonstration of pain can often go

Case 1 18

unrecognized.’” -ALDF testimony from Fern Van Sant, a veterinarian and avian

specialist who founded the “For The Birds” animal hospital

29. “‘The enlarged liver is not painful.’” The heavy breathing we witnessed is also nothing

to worry about... explaining that like dogs, ducks do not sweat — they pant. ‘That’s just

normal.’ [Quoted on the HVFG website] The ducks’ anatomy makes them particularly

suited to gavage. ‘Unlike that of mammals, the throat of waterfowl is lined with tissue

similar to the palm of our hand, permitting them to eat live, wriggling fish, spines and all,

without harm, or to accept the feeding tube. Furthermore, ducks are not only capable of

storing large amounts of food at the base of their throat for later, their livers are also

adapted to store extra fat when food is abundant. This makes foie gras almost seem like a

natural byproduct of duck physiognomy.’” -Bartholf (49 years of vet practice focusing on

livestock)

A year after ban’s repeal, foie gras remains hot topic

http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/A-year-after-ban-s-repeal-foie-gras-remains-6741702.php

30. “The original state law (SB1520), which was passed in 2004 and implemented in 2012,

banned both the sale and production of foie gras.” (CA)

31. Illegal to produce foie gras; legal to sell it (CA)

Foie gras

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/foiegras

32. Key welfare issues…

a. “Force-feeding prevents birds from carrying out their normal feeding behaviour.

b. The feeding pipe can damage the birds’ throats.

c. The handling involved during force-feeding can be stressful.

d. Birds’ livers may become 6 to 10 times the normal size and stop working properly.

e. The keeping of birds in small, individual cages doesn’t allow the birds to stand,

walk, preen, stretch their wings or carry out their normal behaviours properly.”

Foie gras now legal in California after judge overturns statewide ban

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/01/08/foie-gras-now-legal-in-california-after-judge-

overturns-statewide-ban.html

33. “The Poultry Products Inspections Act, a federal law which regulations the sale and

distribution of all bird-related products, prohibits individual states from imposing bans

that regulate conditions of of food.”

Foie gras banned in Chicago

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/foie-gras-banned-in-chicago/

34. “The bird liver delicacy foie gras was banned from restaurants Wednesday in a measure

approved by the Chicago City Council after members decided it was inhumane to force-

feed the birds.”

Artisan Farmers Alliance

http://www.artisanfarmers.org

35. July 1, 2012: CA law bans sale and production of foie gras

Case 1 19

36. January 7, 2015: CA federal court overturns foie gras state ban

Foie gras can go back on California menus, judge rules

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-foie-gras-can-go-back-on-the-menu-judge-rules-

20150107-story.html

37. “The judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it interferes with an existing

federal law that regulates poultry products.”

38. 'fathead' is the American word for the shameless chefs who actually need a law to make

them stop serving the swollen, near-bursting organ of a cruelly force-fed bird.” -People

for Ethical Treatment of Animals

39. Foie gras is a luxury food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been

specially fattened.

40. tbsp-canned or smoked is 13g

41. 60 calories/serving

42. Workers ram pipes down throats of male ducks 2x a day , pumping 2.2 lbs of grain and

fat into their stomachs

5.Male geese- 3x a day up to 4lbs in process known as "gavage"

43. Force feeding causes the organs of the birds to swell up 10x normal size

44. Causes birds to have trouble standing because of their enlarged organs and abdomens

45. Causes birds to tear their own feathers out and attack each other because of stress

46. Birds are kept in tiny cages or crowded shelves unable to bathe or groom themselves

causing them to be covered w excitement and oils that would usually protect their skin

47. Birds sometimes encounter foot infections due to standing on metal grilles during gavage

48. Other health issues as a result of gavage:esophagus damage, fungal infections, diarrhea,

impaired liver function, heat stress, lesions, and fractures of the sternum

49. Some ducks die of aspiration pneumonia which results as some birds die from choking on

their own vomit or when grain is forced into the lungs

50. Birds force-fed for foie gras had a mortality rate up to 20 times that of a control group of

birds who were not force-fed

51. Female ducklings are useless to the foie gras industry and are simply tossed into grinders,

live, so that their bodies can be processed into fertilizer or cat food

52. PETA investigation at Hudson Valley Foie Gras in New York (previously called

“Commonwealth Enterprises”) found that a single worker was expected to force-feed 500

birds three times each day.

53. So many ducks died from ruptured organs resulting from overfeeding that workers who

killed fewer than 50 birds per month were given a bonus.

54. Some Ducks who were being force-fed were confined, up to a dozen at a time, to a pen

measuring just 4 feet by 6 feet.

55. Foie gras is so cruel that California has banned its production

Case 1 20

56. India has banned the importation of foie gras, meaning that it cannot legally be sold

anywhere in the country

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/ducks-geese/foie-gras/

1-19

57. Seventy-two percent of the foie gras imported into the U.S. comes from Canada

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/5-big-fat-lies-about-fatt_b_6482104.html

58. The force-feeding causes the birds’ livers to swell to up to 10 times their normal

size.https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/14/can-foie-gras-ever-be-ethical

59. Due to the inhumane treatment of the birds involved, more than a dozen countries,

including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Israel (formerly the

world’s fourth-largest foie gras producer), have either prohibited force feeding for foie

gras production or have interpreted it as illegal under existing anti-cruelty laws.

60. Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco have passed resolutions

condemning foie gras. Retailers such as Safeway, Costco, Target and Whole Foods

Market refuse to sell it. More than a hundred California restaurateurs dropped foie gras

from their menus voluntarily before the ban was in effect.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/foie-gras-low-carb-fatty-liver-poses-deadly-health-risks-

duck-dish-banned-parts-us-247047

61. Renowned chef Wolfgang Puck sent a letter to nearly 5,000 fine dining restaurants in

California earlier this year to explain why he supports the law. He wrote, “As a chef, a

businessman, and someone who cares about the humane treatment of animals, I’m

writing to let you know why I support this particular law, and why I hope you’ll give it

your full support as well.”

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/09/foie_gras_ban_upheld_0919

12.html?credit=web_id85539080

62. The chicks spend two week “acclimatizing” in the nursery, 12 weeks outside then 13

days of intensive feeding starting with 200g of corn mix a day, which is gradually

increased to a kilogram a day.

63. “Foie gras is part of the protected cultural and gastronomic heritage of France, By”foie

gras” is meant the liver of a duck or a goose specifically fattened by force-feeding.”

64. In nature, migrating ducks stuff themselves with food for their long journey and the

gavage is an extension of this natural process; the ducks do not suffer, are not sick or

diseased as a result, and the liver will revert to normal if force-feeding is stopped.

65. Force-feeding ducks dates back to the time of the Egyptians around 2500 BC and causes

the birds no suffering. “Our mantra is respect. Respect for the environment, respect for

the birds, respect for the customers. You cannot force-feed a duck of it is afraid or

suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/05/french-foie-gras-farmers-fight-ban

66. Federal court overturns state ban on Foie Gras in California. As if January, 2015, Foie

Gras is legal again in CA.

Case 1 21

67. The duck does not have a gag reflex and has an insensitive, collagen-lined esophagus,

enabling it to swallow large fish and other prey without pain.

68. Sousa & Labourdette figured out how to ditch the force-feeding — their product is made

from wild geese who touch down in Spain once a year to gorge themselves on acorns and

olives before flying south for the winter.

69. "The market for foie gras is incredible — France makes millions of kilos a year," Sousa

explains as we amble around his 1,200-acre goose farm just outside of Pallares, Spain.

"That's another world from what we do here."

70. The duo set out to commercially produce foie gras in a natural, sustainable way. But

Sousa says their technique is nothing new: It was used in Spain more than 500 years ago,

before the Spanish Inquisition.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/01/487088946/this-spanish-farm-makes-

foie-gras-without-force-feeding

71. can be produced by alternative methods; This method involves timing the slaughter to

coincide with the winter migration, when livers are naturally fattened.

72. Such livers are alternatively termed fatty goose liver, ethical foie gras, or humane foie

gras.

73. The term ethical foie gras or humane foie gras is also used for gavage-based foie gras

production that is more concerned with the animal's welfare

74. Foie gras is a regarded as a gourmet luxury dish

75. During the force-feeding period, the birds are kept in individual cages, with wire or

plastic mesh floors, or sometimes in small groups on slatted floors.

76. ducks and geese are social animals and individual cages prevent such interactions

77. Geese and ducks show avoidance behaviour (indicating aversion) of the person who feeds

them and the feeding procedure

78. In modern gavage-based foie gras production, force-feeding takes place for between 17

and 30 days before slaughter.

79. Fresh foie Gras $93.50 http://www.hudsonvalleyfoiegras.com/index.php/foie-gras-

62.html

80. As early as 2500 BC, the ancient Egyptians learned that many birds could be fattened

through forced overfeeding and began this practice.

81. France largest production 78.5%

82. In the wild, esophageal dilation allows them to swallow large foodstuffs, such as a whole

fish, for later digestion.

83. Typical foie gras production involves force-feeding birds more food than they would eat

in the wild, and much more than they would voluntarily eat domestically

84. The feed is administered using a funnel fitted with a long tube (20–30 cm long), which

forces the feed into the bird's esophagus. If an auger is used, the feeding takes about 45 to

60 seconds, however, modern systems usually use a tube fed by a pneumatic pump with

an operation time of 2 to 3 seconds per duck.

Case 1 22

85. The feed, usually corn boiled with fat (to facilitate ingestion), deposits large amounts of

fat in the liver, thereby producing the buttery consistency sought by some gastronomes.

86. Ducks reared for foie gras are typically slaughtered at 100 days of age and geese at 112

days. At this time, the bird's liver is 6 to 10 times its ordinary size. Storage of fat in the

liver produces steatosis of the liver cells.

87. In France, at the end of 2015, individual cages were prohibited to improve animal welfare.

They will be replaced by cages which house 4 to 5 birds.

88. Cost is $50 per pound

89. Total fat: 6g

90. After production in Egypt, Greeks and Roman adopted the production

91. In Europe, Jewish adopted the foie gras production after greeks and roman

92. The cage that ducks and geese are confined is almost the same size as their bodies.

93. Ducks and geese swallow rocks to use to fill their gizzards

94. Green Bay residence household average: $66,839

95. College: 31.3%

96. Bachelor’s degree: 24.5%

97. WSJ reader-Male: 62% Female: 38%

98. Average age: 42

99. Average Household income $245,594

100. Graduated college or more: 80%

Case 1 23

Appendix B:Thumbs up and Continuous Improvement

Thumbs Up:

● Introduction

● Audience Analysis

● NRDd Model

● Suggestions

● Rejected Solutions

Continuous Improvements:

● Qualifier

● Parallel case

● So what?: Audiences are neutral

● Types of claims

● Rating as analystes

Appendix C: Summary of Critiques

Thumbs Up:

● History/Production slides

● Analysis on Pathos, Logos, Ethos

● NRDd Model

Continuous Improvements:

● Some slides have too much text

● Q & A part didn’t match with presentation

● Public Speaking (Some members)

Case 1 24

Appendix D:

Appendix E:

Case 1 25

Appendix F:

Appendix G:

Case 1 26

Appendix H:

Appendix I:

Appendix J:

Case 1 27

Appendix K:

Appendix L:

Case 1 28

Case 1 29

References

Artisan Farmers Alliance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2017, from

http://www.artisanfarmers.org/historyoffoiegras.html

Dixler, H. (2015, January 09). The decade-long foie gras fight, explained. Retrieved

March 03, 2017, from http://www.eater.com/2015/1/9/7513743/foie-gras-ban-california-history-

appeal-peta-aldf

Kazi, Z., Naveed, S., & Pakistan, S. (2016, December 06). 20 most expensive food items

in the world. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from https://www.parhlo.com/20-most-expensive-

food-items-in-the-world

McKenna, Carol (2000). Forced feeding: An inquiry into the welfare of ducks and geese

kept for the production of foie gras. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from

https://www.worldanimalprotection.ca/sites/default/files/ca_-_en_files/foiegrasreport_tcm22-

2611.pdf

Newkirk, I. (2015, January 16). 5 Big Fat Lies About Fatty Liver (Foie Gras). Retrieved

March 06, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/5-big-fat-lies-about-

fatt_b_6482104.html

PETA.(n.d.). Foie Gras: Cruelty to Ducks and Geese. Retrieved March 06, 2017, from

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/ducks-geese/foie-gras

Senate, S. 1520, 2004 Leg. § 25984 (Cal. 2004). Retrieved from

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040SB1520