Woah, the French version seems to have way more information. Anyone up for translating? --NeuronExMachina 21:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lol, the first time I saw this i though "fuagra? is that some kind of asian vegetable?"... this fat liver seems less nice.

What states/countries is this banned in? --NeuronExMachina 05:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With no claim of completeness: The UK, Sweden, Israel, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Luxembourg and now California. 217.224.85.244 22:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We have to draw a distinction between countries banning the production of foie gras through specific methods of gavage, those banning gavage altogether, and those banning it and the importation of foie gras manufactured that way.

I strongly doubt that the UK, Sweden, Germany, Poland and Luxembourg ban the importation of foie gras. This seems to fly against all the commerce clauses of the European Union treaties, and I'm pretty sure that they would be sued to hell if they did.

Somebody who really knows about such stuff (as opposed to merely copying information from other sites) should write about this. David.Monniaux 11:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As California and New York are the only states with foie gras industries, if passed the New York law would end production in the United States.

This is obviously disingenuous, since both of these laws give long deadlines, there would be plenty of time for the corporations involved to shift foie gras production across state lines. NTK 21:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rephrased this. David.Monniaux 10:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It says "some people regard force-feeding as cruel". Is there another point of view? AndrewR

Yes. For instance, I remember people working in the foie gras industry saying that it wasn't and that the ducks and geese didn't seem to be hostile to the feeding. Furthermore, I cannot vouch for the opinion in the general population, but I suspect that the consumption of foie gras would be less widespread if people considered its production to be unduly cruel compared to other methods for raising animals for butchering. David.Monniaux 20:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to laws banning consumption of the stuff. So the previous mention of such bans is misleading -- and I deleted it.

This article reads like it was written, or heavily modified, by an animal rights enthusiast. I'm going to do some editing on it. I am attempting to neutralize statements outside of the controversy section - where POV shouldn't be. And in the controversy section, I'll add material defending foie gras. Others can feel free to followup discussion with me here - but please don't blind revert.

From the intro I did remove a little bit:

• removed "swollen by forced feeding resulting in hepatic steatosis" and replaced with "that has been overfed."
• jsutification: that is very POV in the intro - the controversy section spells this out fine, so it isn't removing the issue. It also isn't clinical hepatitis (it would be if it continued, but not at the point of slaughter) so it's a factual correction.
• removed "Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Norway and Poland have specifically banned force feeding animals." as this list is duplicated (more completely) later in the article. It serves no purpose in the intro, the term "force feeding" is also POV.

• History, added information that it began in Egypt.

From there, see the diff.

I reverted this series of edits. It's obviously an animal rights supporter deleting things contrary to that POV and adding text that inflames the "this is cruel" POV. I'd welcome changes sympathetic to the animal rights POV, but not wholesale deletion or non-factual information. Since this ws an anon IP, who knows if they will see this and try and add their info in a NPOV way. [1] [2] [3] [4] SchmuckyTheCat 16:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of July 25 2005 the article features lines such as "the birds often come to undergo this process willingly". This is not just POV, it's clearly absurd. The ducks clearly do not suckle on the feeding tubes of their own volition. The balance of the intro is so far in favour of the "delicious delicacy" POV that it doesn't represent the truth. Expanding this to a more balanced intro is not POV bias.

• Not absurd at all. Birds come to their handlers fully knowing what to expect. They don't suckle the tube like a teet, but at an unstressed (stress makes bad livers) farm where birds know their handlers they waddle up at feeding time. I'll reword this for proper attribution. SchmuckyTheCat 14:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"the birds often come to undergo this process willingly." I haven't even been to this page before, but that made me laugh really hard. scaryice 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is that? Depending on the farm, it is true, per numerous eyewitness accounts. The only way they get fed is gavage, and they're hungry. Wnissen 15:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is rampant POV and non-factual information throughout this article. It largely looks like it was written by employees of a foie gras farm. For example, "As far back as 2500BC, the Egyptians sought the fattened livers of migratory birds as a delicacy." I previously made edits removing POV, and stating the more factual version of what is actually known, as documented on the EU Commission report, which is referenced in the article. That is, a statue of a fattened goose was found in ancient Egypt 4500 years ago. The current statement distorts the facts, since most foie gras today does not come from "migratory birds", rather non-migratory ducks.

The production section seems to spend no time discussion actual production, i.e., farm conditions. It is devoted mainly to making an argument that ducks wouldn't mind being force fed because of certain physical traits. Again, this is a very selective and industry-oriented view of the facts found in the EU Commision report, and belongs in the controversy section.

While I am certainly concerned with animal cruelty, I did not insert POV, simply undid the rampant industry POV. The EU Commission report also states many facts about its production, which contradict the opinions currently expressed. For example, contrary to what foie gras producers often state, ducks and geese do have gag reflexes. It is also a fact that most birds are kept in cages that do not leave room for them to turn around or spread their wings. Ducks are waterfowl, and given no access to water in most foie gras operations. Foie gras farms also keep ducks in complete darkness most of their lives. All of these facts are substantiated in the thorough review of foie gras production completed by the EU. However, the industry-friendly opinions throughout the article are only substantiated by statements made by producers themselves, not independent sources.

Rather than revert away from all of my changes, which were well researched statements of fact, please point out specific cases where I have inserted POV. I might note that the controversy section should be a perfectly legitimate place for POV, yet my edits to that section were also undone.

On this article, we obviously have people with definite and opposite opinions regarding the cruelty of force-feeding. I think that the solution to avoid conflicts and "revert wars" is to properly attribute all contested claims: for instance, if some statements are in an industry publication, say so; if some statements are in a EU scientific report, say so.

I also think that there is a substantial impact of culture dependency in the debate. As with many things, people are ready to prohibit things on "ethical" grounds as long as they're not used to it, or the thing sounds "foreign" (I note that the argument that foie gras is a French specialty seems to have played a role in the Californian campaign). We should then probably also mention the geographical origin of the parties involved. David.Monniaux 06:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ducks used are a sterile hybrid" I'm confused what do they do grow them from cuttings? Jackliddle 13:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• see also, mule SchmuckyTheCat 16:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)