Foie Gras Continued

Yesterday I was talking about the front-page article on restauranteers trying to defend foie gras against Proposition 2, passed in 2004 but not taking effect until this July 1, 2012.  That's the one, I think, that stipulates that animals should be able to move their heads from side to side in their cages and maybe even turn around during their days in factory farms.  It extends to forced feeding.

 I wanted to give the readers' response, too, to the article of April 29.  It can be found with this link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/30/ED1C1OB569.DTL

I'm so impressed by both how caring and how articulate the readers are--one from Petaluma and one from San Francisco. 

Sheri Cardo of Petaluma writes, "The 1 percent keeps on fighting to live off the fat of the land--this time literally, in the form of foie gras."  She asks whether we should continue to torture animals "to feed the folly of those who relish the taste of cruelty?"

Steve Heilig points out that the language used in the foie gras defense is tortured too.

"To fight the voter-approved ban on foie gras, the Golden Gate Restaurnt Association--which previously fought against banning smoking in eateries and against Healthy San Francisco--calls their front group the 'Coalition for Humane and Ethical Farming Standards.'  Who was their consultant on choosing that name, George Orwell?"  Probably.  After all, when they were fighting against the ban on smoking in restaurants, they called themselves something like Citizens for Civil Rights.