Friends of Animals Urges California Governor to Veto Foie Gras Bill

A bill that would eventually ban the production of foie gras in California recently cleared both houses of the California legislature, but one of its supporters — Friends of Animals — is urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.

Animal rights activists originally pushed for the bill, but it was amended by the legislature in ways that did not make them happy.

First, the ban on force feeding of birds in California wouldn’t go into effect until July 1, 2012 at the earliest. Ostensibly this is to give foie gras producers times to change their business practices, but this is also a nice way to simply punt the issue to a future legislature which could simply void the current bill.

Second, in the mean time the bill provides protections to foie gras producers from civil or criminal action. The bill provides that,

No civil or criminal cause of action shall arise on or after January 1, 2005, nor shall a pending action commenced prior to January 1, 2005, be pursued under any provision of law against a person or entity for engaging, prior to July 1, 2012, in any act prohibited by this chapter.

So instead of an immediate ban on foie gras, what the activists got for their trouble was a ban almost 8 years in the future with explicit criminal and civil immunity for foie gras producers in the meantime.

In a letter urging animal rights activists to call Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office and urge him to veto the bill, Friends of Animals Daniel Hammer wrote,

In his testimony on SB 1520, Assemblyperson Joe Nation stated: “I want to emphasize this. Sonoma Foie Gras, the only producer of foie gras in California, supports SB 1520.”

Sonoma Foie Gras retained a lobbyist to work on getting SB 1520 passed. In his testimony, Sonoma Foie Gras owner Guillermo Gonzalez stated: “I want to express my appreciation for allowing us to continue in operation! We are very appreciative.”

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office needs to hear from you. Tell him SB 1520 only benefits the state’s foie gras producer, while ensuring the continued torture of at least 440,000 ducks. Please press Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto SB 1520, “the foie gras bill.”

The full text of the amended bill can be read here.

Source:

Update on SB 1520: Urgent Action Alert. Press Release, Friends of Animals, August 31, 2004.

California SB 1520 – Amended – Force Feeding of Birds

BILL NUMBER: SB 1520 AMENDED BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 17, 2004 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 21, 2004 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 6, 2004

INTRODUCED BY Senator Burton

FEBRUARY 19, 2004

An act to add Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to force fed birds.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1520, as amended, Burton. Force fed birds. Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals. This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force feeding a bird, as defined. The bill would prohibit a person from force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another person to do so. The bill would also prohibit a product from being sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size. The bill would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day. The bill would provide that these prohibitions shall become operative on July 1, 2012. This bill would provide that no civil or criminal cause of action shall arisen or pending actions pursued, against any individual who, prior to July 1, 2012, engages in acts prohibited by the bill. Until July 1, 2012, this bill would prohibit an existing or future civil or criminal cause of action for engaging in an act prohibited by the bill, from proceeding against a person or entity engaged in, or controlled by persons or entities who were engaged in, agricultural practices that involved force feeding birds at the time of the enactment of this bill. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) is added to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

CHAPTER 13.4. FORCE FED BIRDS

25980. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose. (b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily while foraging . Force feeding methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other device inserted into the bird's esophagus. 25981. A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size, or hire another person to do so. 25982. 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. 25983. (a) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code, may issue a citation to a person or entity that violates this chapter. (b) A citation issued under this section shall require the person cited to pay a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation, and up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day the violation continues. The civil penalty shall be payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce this chapter to offset the costs to the agency related to court proceedings. (c) A person or entity that violates this chapter may be prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred. 25984. (a) Sections 25980, 25981, 25982, and 25983 of this chapter shall become operative on July 1, 2012. (b) (1) No civil or criminal cause of action shall arise , on or after January 1, 2005, or may nor shall a pending action commenced prior to January 1, 2005, be pursued , including a cause of action under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, against any individual who under any provision of law against a person or entity for engaging , prior to July 1, 2012,

engages in any act prohibited by this chapter. (2) The limited immunity from liability provided by this subdivision shall not extend to acts prohibited by this chapter that are committed on or after July 1, 2012. (3) The protections afforded by this subdivision shall only apply to persons or entities who were engaged in, or controlled by persons or entities who were engaged in, agricultural practices that involved force feeding birds at the time of the enactment of this chapter. (c) It is the express intention of the Legislature, by delaying the operative date of provisions of this chapter pursuant to subdivision (a) until July 1, 2012, to allow a seven and one-half year period for individuals persons or entities engaged in agricultural practices that include raising and selling force fed birds to modify their business practices.

(d) Because the Legislature intends to assist individuals engaged in agricultural practices that include raising and selling force fed birds to modify their business practices, the Legislature declares its support for the following: (1) Assistance in identifying alternate business opportunities for California businesses that currently rely on the sale of force fed birds. (2) Assistance in finding alternate employment, or providing job training, for employees of California businesses that currently rely on the sale of force fed birds.

UPC and Other Groups Urge Signing of SB 1520

Yesterday, I noted that Friends of Animals sent out a press release opposing California SB 1520 which would outlaw force feeding of birds for the production of foie gras in 2012. Shortly after the Friends of Animals press release, United Poultry Concerns issued a press release urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the bill and slamming groups opposed to the bill.

The UPC press release said it was joined in support of the bill by the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, VivaUSA, Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals, GourmetCruelty.com, and the Animal Protection and Rescue League.

According to UPC,

The bill if enacted will abolish a farmed animal abuse. The fact that
there will be a phase-in period is not a reason to oppose this bill. We have
applauded the banning of battery-hen cages in the European Union and in
Austria, and the banning of sow gestation crates in Florida, but all of this
important legislation for farmed animals includes phase-in periods. No one
who supports farmed animal protective legislation wants to wait for the law
to take effect, but that is now how the legislative process works. Yes, the
foie gras industry is going to use the time to try to overturn the law and
do other nefarious things, but this means that our public education work is
cut out for us. Given the facts of foie gras production and the videotaping
of the procedure that we have (Delicacy of Despair), it seems unlikely that
the public is going to be persuaded to abandon the ducks and oppose a ban on
foie gras production and sale in California.

. . .

Those groups who actively oppose SB 1520 could lobby at state and federal
levels to try to enact legislation that would ban foie gras production/sale
immediately, but they are not doing so. Instead, they are obstructing the
passage of this bill while offering no real alternative, just bashing the
bill and the groups that have worked so hard to get the bill introduced and
to retain as much of the original intent of the bill as possible.

United Poultry Concerns urges activists to support SB 1520 and to refuse to
reject this opportunity in pursuit of a purist fantasy. The objections being
raised against SB 1520 are unrealistic given the realities of the
legislative process and the enormous obstacles that farmed animals have
traditionally faced legislatively. Sabotaging this bill is going to hurt the
ducks, not help them.

The foie gras ban is one of about 1,000 bills that Schwarzenegger must either sign or veto by then end of September. Schwarzenegger has previously called the bill “silly” and pointed to it as an example of why California needs a part-time legislature.

Source:

Why UPC Supports SB 1520 and Urges Everyone Else to Support the Bill. Press Release, United Poultry Concerns, August 31, 2004.

Activists Harass Pennsylvania Restaurants that Serve Foie Gras

Acts of extremism and violence by animal rights activists in California have gotten a lot of attention and led to a bill that would ban the production of foie gras in that state, but activists in Pennsylvania have recently begun protesting and vandalizing a Pennsylvania restaurant that serves the dish.

Lucca’s, in Oakland, Pennsylvania, has been the target of protests from Voices for Animal Liberation which has conducted sidewalk protests against the restaurant. According to Lucca owner Joe Jordan, police recently had to be called to break up a protest in which animal rights activists were harassing customers.

Other activists have taken their opposition to more violent ends. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

Jordan arrived at work yesterday to find a stone obelisk in front of the restaurant toppled over. A statue of the Venus de Milo also has been “chopped to bits,” Jordan said.

Last wee, someone tossed a brick with the word “quack” written across it through the front window.

Source:

Protesters target foie gras menu item. David Conti, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, May 8, 2004.

Ban on Foie Gras Passes California Senate

A bill that would ban the force feeding of ducks and geese to make foie-gras passed the California state Senate this week by a vote of 21-14. The bill now goes on to the state Assembly.

Currently there is only one firm, Sonoma Foie Gras, in California that produces foie gras.

Source:

Ban on force-fed foie gras nears. Reuters, May 19, 2004.

SarahJane Blum Arrested?

A Lexis-Nexis search turns up nothing to confirm or add to this story, but in April animal rights activist Ryan Shapiro posted a report that SarahJane Blum, a spokeswoman for anti-foie gras web site GourmetCruelty.Com, had been arrested.

Last night, Friday, April 23, Sarahjane Blum, media spokesperson for GourmetCruelty.Com, was arrested after screening a copy of the video “Delicacy of Despair: Behind the Closed Door of the Foie Gras Industry” at Syracuse University. She was charged with felony burglary for the open rescue of ducks from Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Liberty New York. She was released on bail this morning and trial dates are pending.

Source:

Arrest for open rescue of ducks from foie gras farm. Ryan Shapiro, E-Mail Correspondence, April 24, 2004.