Extreme Examples

By Patricia Dailey, Editor-in-Chief -- Restaurants & Institutions, 6/1/2004

Fattened duck liver and custodial rights at first blush would seem to have nothing in common, one being a deviously rich delicacy, the other carefully cobbled arrangements meant to represent the interests of children in divorce settlements.

In a saner, more reasoned world, these disparate topics would not have common talking points. Yet the politics of extreme activism—in these instances by animal-rights advocates and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—unite them in a way that interested parties in the restaurant industry should be keenly aware of and ready to address with swift responses and resources.

The duck livers under assault—described by French restaurateur Alain Ducasse as “a most exquisite feather in the cap of French gastronomy,”—are targeted in California, where a bill to ban production and sale of both goose and duck foie gras was approved 24-14 in a state senate vote last month; the next step moves the motion, sponsored by Democrat John Burton, to the assembly. If passed, it would take effect in 2012.

To fatten the livers, birds are fed through a slender tube gently inserted into the esophagus. The process, undertaken during the two weeks before slaughter, is done by hand in less than five seconds. A poultry specialist in the animal sciences department of The University of California at Davis and a veterinarian specializing in birds were quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying the birds don’t struggle and that there is no damage or cruel treatment. Never mind, though, foie gras has been targeted as a way for well-funded activist groups to advance an agenda that is vastly larger than a force-fed liver.

So, too, with MADD, which in its latest campaign has called for “a mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving ...with children under the age of 16 in the vehicle.” Stated more plainly, a single 3-ounce glass of wine—at a block party, ball game or a restaurant with dinner—would be sufficient to legally sever all parental rights, a viciously single-minded move that has huge potential to jeopardize the well-being of those whom MADD claims it is designed to protect.

Keeping children from harm’s way is society’s moral and legal obligation. But MADD’s approach crosses bounds of reason to become aggressive extremism, aimed more at accomplishing its own larger goals than to advance effective child advocacy.

In its efforts to stanch the flow of even the most reasonable and responsible consumption of alcohol, MADD has in mind a whole grab bag of ironclad strictures, all of them inching toward impingement and erosion of legal freedoms and rights. Similarly, animal-rights groups, now with their dander up over gander, look ahead to a time when all their causes have been forced through so that no animals are used for food—not chicken, lamb, beef, veal, eggs or fish.

If either of these issues—foie gras or custodial rights—seems to be on the fringes, far afield from the foodservice industry’s areas of concern, perhaps it is worth thinking about their effects on restaurant menus and profitability. Consequences would be dire indeed, so perhaps it is better to act now than react against them later.