Post by FWS on Jul 19, 2014 17:09:40 GMT -6
California's foie gras ban waddles to the Supreme Court
By Brianna Coviello
FoxNews.com
July 18, 2014
June 6, 2009: A three week old Mulard duck tries to fly inside a barn at the Ferme Basque in St-Urbain.
NEW YORK – California’s ban on force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras could become an entrée on the U.S. Supreme Court’s summer menu.
According to a state law that was adopted in 2004 but didn’t take effect until two years ago, “a product may not be sold in California if it is the result of force-feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size,” the typical method of producing the rich and buttery delicacy.
But 13 states – including South Carolina, Missouri, Kansas and Georgia - say the ban unconstitutionally interferes with interstate commerce. They say California’s ban on the sale and production of foie gras restricts the delicacy’s legal production in states that never agreed to the ban and is hurting the businesses of out-of-state farmers.
The issue, attorneys for the 13 states agreed in a brief supporting the case, which was brought by Santa Monica, Calif.-based attorney Michael Tenenbaum, “is of exceptional importance to the preservation of state sovereignty.”
Tenenbaum represents some opponents of the law, including a California restaurant company, a New York foie gras producer and a Canadian organization of duck and goose farmers. The 13 states filed a separate brief making similar arguments.
California Deputy Attorney General Stephanie Zook, who led preparation of the state’s 14-page Supreme Court brief defending the ban, cited evidence that “force-feeding causes ducks’ livers to swell to 10 times their normal size.” Violations of the law are punishable by fines of up to $1,000 per sale per day, though its enforcement has not been strict.
On June 30, when most attention was focused on the final two rulings from the Supreme Court’s 2013-14 term, California Attorney General Kamala Harris told the justices that the foie gras case is not worth their time.
“State laws prohibiting the sale of products based on concerns about animal welfare, or simply on a social consensus concerning what is appropriate, are not unusual,” California’s brief says, adding that “several states prohibit the sale of horse meat for human consumption.”
But the constitutionality of the foie gras ban is what could trigger the Supreme Court’s attention. Opponents say the law violates the Constitution’s dormant commerce clause, a phrase that refers to a prohibition on states enacting discriminatory barriers against commerce from other states.
“California may forbid its own farmers from using an established feeding technique,” Tenenbaum wrote in his petition, “but California cannot then seek to ‘level the playing field’ by depriving out-of state farmers of the competitive advantage they retain.”
Zook countered that “California has not sought to protect or favor local producers or economic interests” with its foie gras ban.
Despite the ban and potential fines, California restaurants have been getting around the law for the past two years by serving foie gras to favorite customers for free, instead of selling it.
This past week at La Toque restaurant in Napa, an exclusive culinary event titled “The State of American Foie Gras” featured the forbidden delicacy. And to keep the event legal, La Toque hosted it free for 50 winners of a contest held on its Facebook page in which entrants submitted a post about “why California’s foie gras ban is foolish.”
By the 2014-2015 term's end next June, the Supreme Court will have heard about 75 cases. Roughly 35 more will be selected during private conferences, in which at least four justices must agree for a petition to be granted. Many of the decisions will be made at the court's so-called "long conference," set for Sept. 29.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nosh Pit: Chefs renew foie gras battle with upcoming event
By Chris Macias
Sacramento Bee
Sunday, Jun. 29, 2014
Foie gras was meant to be forbidden following a ban that went into effect two years ago. But as many foodies know, this bit of fatty duck or goose liver can still be scored at restaurants if you’re in the know.
Foie gras has simply gone underground in Sacramento, and around Northern California as well.
With a little wink, some chefs might offer $20 toast points that come with a complimentary surprise. Others may simply offer it for free to a few favorite customers as an off-the-menu indulgence. It’s not illegal to possess foie gras in California. You just can’t sell it.
Fifty folks will be able to sample this forbidden food Saturday at La Toque restaurant in Napa. This culinary event is titled “The State of American Foie Gras” featuring six chefs, including Sacramento’s own Patrick Mulvaney.
But to keep the event in step with the letter of the law, you can’t buy a ticket. The event is free to winners of a contest held on La Toque’s Facebook page, where entrants can submit a short post about “why California’s foie gras ban is foolish.” Entries are also accepted at ilovefoiegras@latoque.com until Tuesday.
The event highlights the second anniversary of the foie gras ban in California, which went into effect July 1, 2012. For some chefs, the fight over foie gras isn’t over.
“It’s the principle that a vocal minority shouldn’t be telling us what to do, whether it’s what we eat or who we marry,” said Ken Frank, La Toque’s owner and executive chef. “Foie gras has a long, distinctive culinary history, and I don’t like them taking it out of our tool kit.”
The fuss over foie gras stems from its production methods, which are prohibited in the United Kingdom and Germany. Duck and geese are force-fed via a funnel and long tube to engorge the liver, a process called gavage to create this rich, buttery food. This type of feeding was banned statewide by the passage of SB 1520 in 2004 but allowed a 71/2-year sunset for the law to take effect.
The pro-foie gras camp points out that ducks naturally gorge themselves, to the point of swelling their livers, before migration. Robert Gordon, former president of the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association, visited a New York foie gras farm in 2005 and found the animals actually lived a pretty good life.
“I didn’t see any evidence of stress among birds that were tube-fed,” Gordon told The Bee in 2012. “In fact, many were trying to push their way to the front because they wanted to go next.”
Some local chefs flouted the statewide ban by serving foie gras for free. In some cases, the foie gras was shipped to Nevada and then brought into Sacramento, like a gourmet smuggling mission. Two anonymous citizen complaints were ultimately sent to the county about The Kitchen and the former Restaurant Thir13en serving foie gras as a complimentary item.
Enforcement of the law, which carries a $1,000 fine if violated, has remained nearly nonexistent. According to Zeke Holst, spokesperson for Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation, no further complaints about foie gras have been logged in the past two years. No Sacramento restaurant has received a foie gras-related fine.
The fact is, food politics moved on from foie gras a long time ago. California chefs and restaurant owners have been more concerned recently with battles over minimum wage hikes and glove laws.
Possible legislative support for overturning the foie gras law also seems to have disappeared for now. Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, originally voted “no” on SB 1520 because she generally opposes single product bans. Wolk also voiced the possibility of authoring new legislation to repeal the ban – but that has yet to happen.
Now, it’s Frank who wants to rally the foie gras forces again. He knows it’ll be a fight. Frank was sued in 2012 by the Animal Protection and Rescue League for serving free foie gras at La Toque, but prevailed after the Napa Police Department found no cause for action.
He’s now preparing for the Saturday event, which includes a variety of foie gras tastings and discussion with Guillermo Gonzalez of Sonoma-Artisan Foie Gras, a California producer that was essentially shut down following the 2012 ban.
“Across the state, chefs are still serving foie gras quietly,” said Frank. “There’s always been a high demand for foie gras. At the end of the day, if you don’t like foie gras, don’t eat it. Let the market make up its own mind.”
By Brianna Coviello
FoxNews.com
July 18, 2014
June 6, 2009: A three week old Mulard duck tries to fly inside a barn at the Ferme Basque in St-Urbain.
NEW YORK – California’s ban on force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras could become an entrée on the U.S. Supreme Court’s summer menu.
According to a state law that was adopted in 2004 but didn’t take effect until two years ago, “a product may not be sold in California if it is the result of force-feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size,” the typical method of producing the rich and buttery delicacy.
But 13 states – including South Carolina, Missouri, Kansas and Georgia - say the ban unconstitutionally interferes with interstate commerce. They say California’s ban on the sale and production of foie gras restricts the delicacy’s legal production in states that never agreed to the ban and is hurting the businesses of out-of-state farmers.
The issue, attorneys for the 13 states agreed in a brief supporting the case, which was brought by Santa Monica, Calif.-based attorney Michael Tenenbaum, “is of exceptional importance to the preservation of state sovereignty.”
Tenenbaum represents some opponents of the law, including a California restaurant company, a New York foie gras producer and a Canadian organization of duck and goose farmers. The 13 states filed a separate brief making similar arguments.
California Deputy Attorney General Stephanie Zook, who led preparation of the state’s 14-page Supreme Court brief defending the ban, cited evidence that “force-feeding causes ducks’ livers to swell to 10 times their normal size.” Violations of the law are punishable by fines of up to $1,000 per sale per day, though its enforcement has not been strict.
On June 30, when most attention was focused on the final two rulings from the Supreme Court’s 2013-14 term, California Attorney General Kamala Harris told the justices that the foie gras case is not worth their time.
“State laws prohibiting the sale of products based on concerns about animal welfare, or simply on a social consensus concerning what is appropriate, are not unusual,” California’s brief says, adding that “several states prohibit the sale of horse meat for human consumption.”
But the constitutionality of the foie gras ban is what could trigger the Supreme Court’s attention. Opponents say the law violates the Constitution’s dormant commerce clause, a phrase that refers to a prohibition on states enacting discriminatory barriers against commerce from other states.
“California may forbid its own farmers from using an established feeding technique,” Tenenbaum wrote in his petition, “but California cannot then seek to ‘level the playing field’ by depriving out-of state farmers of the competitive advantage they retain.”
Zook countered that “California has not sought to protect or favor local producers or economic interests” with its foie gras ban.
Despite the ban and potential fines, California restaurants have been getting around the law for the past two years by serving foie gras to favorite customers for free, instead of selling it.
This past week at La Toque restaurant in Napa, an exclusive culinary event titled “The State of American Foie Gras” featured the forbidden delicacy. And to keep the event legal, La Toque hosted it free for 50 winners of a contest held on its Facebook page in which entrants submitted a post about “why California’s foie gras ban is foolish.”
By the 2014-2015 term's end next June, the Supreme Court will have heard about 75 cases. Roughly 35 more will be selected during private conferences, in which at least four justices must agree for a petition to be granted. Many of the decisions will be made at the court's so-called "long conference," set for Sept. 29.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nosh Pit: Chefs renew foie gras battle with upcoming event
By Chris Macias
Sacramento Bee
Sunday, Jun. 29, 2014
Foie gras was meant to be forbidden following a ban that went into effect two years ago. But as many foodies know, this bit of fatty duck or goose liver can still be scored at restaurants if you’re in the know.
Foie gras has simply gone underground in Sacramento, and around Northern California as well.
With a little wink, some chefs might offer $20 toast points that come with a complimentary surprise. Others may simply offer it for free to a few favorite customers as an off-the-menu indulgence. It’s not illegal to possess foie gras in California. You just can’t sell it.
Fifty folks will be able to sample this forbidden food Saturday at La Toque restaurant in Napa. This culinary event is titled “The State of American Foie Gras” featuring six chefs, including Sacramento’s own Patrick Mulvaney.
But to keep the event in step with the letter of the law, you can’t buy a ticket. The event is free to winners of a contest held on La Toque’s Facebook page, where entrants can submit a short post about “why California’s foie gras ban is foolish.” Entries are also accepted at ilovefoiegras@latoque.com until Tuesday.
The event highlights the second anniversary of the foie gras ban in California, which went into effect July 1, 2012. For some chefs, the fight over foie gras isn’t over.
“It’s the principle that a vocal minority shouldn’t be telling us what to do, whether it’s what we eat or who we marry,” said Ken Frank, La Toque’s owner and executive chef. “Foie gras has a long, distinctive culinary history, and I don’t like them taking it out of our tool kit.”
The fuss over foie gras stems from its production methods, which are prohibited in the United Kingdom and Germany. Duck and geese are force-fed via a funnel and long tube to engorge the liver, a process called gavage to create this rich, buttery food. This type of feeding was banned statewide by the passage of SB 1520 in 2004 but allowed a 71/2-year sunset for the law to take effect.
The pro-foie gras camp points out that ducks naturally gorge themselves, to the point of swelling their livers, before migration. Robert Gordon, former president of the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association, visited a New York foie gras farm in 2005 and found the animals actually lived a pretty good life.
“I didn’t see any evidence of stress among birds that were tube-fed,” Gordon told The Bee in 2012. “In fact, many were trying to push their way to the front because they wanted to go next.”
Some local chefs flouted the statewide ban by serving foie gras for free. In some cases, the foie gras was shipped to Nevada and then brought into Sacramento, like a gourmet smuggling mission. Two anonymous citizen complaints were ultimately sent to the county about The Kitchen and the former Restaurant Thir13en serving foie gras as a complimentary item.
Enforcement of the law, which carries a $1,000 fine if violated, has remained nearly nonexistent. According to Zeke Holst, spokesperson for Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation, no further complaints about foie gras have been logged in the past two years. No Sacramento restaurant has received a foie gras-related fine.
The fact is, food politics moved on from foie gras a long time ago. California chefs and restaurant owners have been more concerned recently with battles over minimum wage hikes and glove laws.
Possible legislative support for overturning the foie gras law also seems to have disappeared for now. Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, originally voted “no” on SB 1520 because she generally opposes single product bans. Wolk also voiced the possibility of authoring new legislation to repeal the ban – but that has yet to happen.
Now, it’s Frank who wants to rally the foie gras forces again. He knows it’ll be a fight. Frank was sued in 2012 by the Animal Protection and Rescue League for serving free foie gras at La Toque, but prevailed after the Napa Police Department found no cause for action.
He’s now preparing for the Saturday event, which includes a variety of foie gras tastings and discussion with Guillermo Gonzalez of Sonoma-Artisan Foie Gras, a California producer that was essentially shut down following the 2012 ban.
“Across the state, chefs are still serving foie gras quietly,” said Frank. “There’s always been a high demand for foie gras. At the end of the day, if you don’t like foie gras, don’t eat it. Let the market make up its own mind.”
