Kill It, Cook It, Eat It: the foie gras challenge

On the face of it there’s something admirable in Kill It, Cook It, Eat It, which aims to make sure people know how food gets to their table and remind them that something died for their dinner. But in truth such shock tactics have little effect. Despite the odd scare story on the ignorance of townie children, we knew that already. And Jamie Oliver has shown children how Chicken Nuggets are made without putting them off (although they make the right gasping noises for the camera).

So it’s no surprise that the first comment on the Guardian’s Organ Grinder blog is: ‘Enough to make you a veggie, were it not for the delights of foie gras…’

In truth, while I’m sure it wasn’t pleasant in the small abattoir shown, it’s not like they took them to see Bernard Matthews factory as the Times’s Carol Midgley says death is often a blessed relief to the animal.

Perhaps the participants should have been asked to make foie gras. Rather than watch a stunned cow die, one of their number could have held down a twelve week old goose, while another forced a pipe down its throat to ensure the easy force feeding of grain. But the thing is, while it’s perfectly okay to import foie gras to the UK, it’s not legal to manufacture it.

Anyway. There’s an opportunity to put change on the Prime Minister’s agenda. Head over to Number 10 and add your name to the petition to ban foie gras.
Update: Visit Ban foie gras to learn more about why this particular delicacy deserves special attention.

2 thoughts on “Kill It, Cook It, Eat It: the foie gras challenge

  1. But it tastes so goooood….
    The petition says it causes the geese “severe liver damage, great pain, and high mortality rates” but well, if you’re going to eat their livers anyway, the ban is just about the pain bit isn’t it?
    Bit like saying don’t eat beef cos it kills cows…

  2. Well yeah… the moral or value judgement is that pain and suffering are wrong. When you combine that with all the evidence to support the idea that we’re all animals and accept that an awareness of the consequences of your actions creates a responsibility for those actions, the conclusion is that you should act to minimise pain and suffering.

    That we can import foie gras but not manufacture it, is an implied admission that awareness creates responsibility; if the nastiness takes place out of sight we can try to forget and therefore lose responsibility.

    Of course that goes against the Abrahamic convention that other animals are gifts from god to do with what we wish. And of course there’s no evidence in nature to support the idea that pain and suffering are wrong. Nature (and so god, if he exists, which I don’t believe) isn’t cruel, but indifferent. But all that shouldn’t stop us trying to change the world for the better.

Leave a Reply