Talk:Foie gras/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

French version

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

Bans

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)

Chicago just outlawed serving it in restaurants (April 2006) Themeparkphoto 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So is it still legal to sell it in Chicago grocery stores? Does this even happen? I've personally never seen foie gras in a grocery store. Jdufresne 05:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Chicago banned it in "food dispensing establishments," so groceries are out, too. However, they didn't ban force feeding, so you could, conceivably still produce foie in the city, assuming it were legal to raise ducks there at all, which it probably isn't.

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.

The importation is not banned in Germany, I buy it frequently here. --levsen 22 Jan 2006

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

Is there a factual reference to the assertion that "legislation is pending in New York?" The Times Herald-Record newspaper says, "But in New York, legislation to ban foie gras has gone nowhere. Hudson Valley Foie Gras has the support of Town of Liberty, Sullivan County and elected officials in the state Legislature." It mentions that unnamed animal rights activists (from California?) wanted legislation around 2003, but there is no mention of any bill that is "pending". The article is from 10 August 2006.

Health benefits

I have a French book on healthy eating that says the foie gras has major health benefits; the region in France where the stuff is principally produced (and consumed), Gers, has a life expectancy far above the average. Someone should research this. I can't provide more information without blatantly copying from the book. -- levsen 22 Jan 2006

Can you at least tell us the title of the book? --BorgQueen 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Je cuisine Montignac, tome 1" and other books by Mr. Montignac. This guy is a sort of French Dr. Atkins. Supposedly a certain Dr. Renaud of the INSERM institute has researched the health benefits of foie gras and the surprising longevity of those South-Western French. -- levsen 23 Jan 2006

Montignac is a fraud. Thye life expectancy in Gers (and the whole South/South West part of France has more to do with the benefits of garlic and wine, or the Mediterranean diet than with foie gras... delicious but pure fat. --Svartalf 17:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Consumption

Eek, someone reverted my addition about foie gras tasting nice with jam and wine. Why. It's not wrong. Try yourself. -- levsen 22 Jan 2006

You are indeed correct. Even in the town of Sarlat in the Dordogne region of France, one of the gastonomic capitals of France, stores sell onion jam and wine alongside their foie gras. Last time I was there we had a terrine of foie gras and figs, delicious. It may be true though that as with cheese, Americans enjoy foie gras with more exotic and possibly sweeter ingredients, eating more fruit or jam than cheese or foie gras. Purists eat it with toast, salt and freshly ground black pepper. I say as long as people are trying new things, let them eat it however they want. --Gastrog 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cruelty

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 don't know aobut that. People continue to eat veal and that remains an extremely cruel practice. Jdufresne 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If anyone's banning foie gras production because force feeding ducks are cruel, then they should ban eating any kind of meat altogether. I mean, butchering and eating animals are already cruel by themselves. Force feeding them is just one kind of animal preparation for the consumption of people. If they ban it, then they should draw a clear line when food preparation is cruel and when it is not. And when it comes to that, I think the issue just becomes ridiculous. Unless all of us become vegetarians, they're bound to find something cruel in how we prepare our food.Moonwalkerwiz 07:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But Fois Gras does definately cause suffering, as you can see from films on activist websites, and considerably more then free range cows, sheep and goats. So a ban on force feeding would be useful and it wouldn't be out of shape for every farming practice (although some others, such as battery chicken production also should be banned)27 September

Then we should find a way to measure animal pain while they are being prepared for food. If there is a way to scientifically establish that force feeding ducks is a lot more painful than, say, slicing their necks and other means of killing animals for food, then that would give some sense to the argument. If there is no way to feel as ducks do, or to feel as pigs do, then I say drop the argument and let's just eat them. --moonwalkerwiz

Ban on consumption?

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.

POV

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.

How is "force feeding" POV? The birds are forcibly fed more than they would naturally eat. It's a simple description 4hodmt 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• History, added information that it began in Egypt.

From there, see the diff.

i cant find anything banning eating fioe gras. i wonder why there is laws banning making it, btu there is no laws banning eating it- if u just banned eating and making at the same time, you would save a lot of time.

May 8, 2005 edits by 24.127.99.9

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)

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)

"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)

Reversion

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.

• Regarding your assertion that foie gras mainly comes from non-migratory birds, this is not at all true. The most common bird used in the production of foie gras is the Mullard duck which is a sterile offspring of a non-migratory Muscovy duck and a migratory Mallard duck. These birds do not appear frequently (at all?) in nature. Regarding farm conditions, what exactly do they have to do with production methods? Discussion on farm conditions would seem to me to be more about animal welfare than actual production methods and belongs in controversy section. Taft 16:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding your comments on the treatment of duck or geese(did you know it also comes from Geese?), you are simply wrong. Although today some livers come from eastern Europe, which I do not know about, in France the animals are free range. I have visited numerous farms in the Perigord, and have never found any evidence of what you claim. The farms are family owned; everyone takes care of the duck or geese, from the grandmother to the grandkids. During the day all animals are kept in large enclosures outside with water and food, and are enven taken on walks in the fields. It is true that the ducklings are kept indoors, in a barn, not in cages, simply because they need heat and protection from predators. It is sad that you care more about the weelbeing of animals than you do about the families and people that work and own these farms.--Gastrog 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Proper attribution

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)

Sterile Ducks?

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

• They are the offspring of two non-sterile birds; for example, if a muscovy duck breeds with a domestic duck, it can produce sterile offspring.

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

Man, this stuff is good!

I bought a tub for christmas, and its great! I don't even like liver, but these 180g are 1/2 gone already ;) As per the article, what exactly is the humane method california intend to use? Sam Spade 10:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's delicious stuff. Good pairing: mango relish. Little bit of foie gras, relish on a cracker: great. Check out this recipe for foie gras and cream egg at Epicurious: incredible. They also suggest stuffing dates with foie gras, lightly salting, and garnishing with a bit of chopped parsley. Salty sweet!

To the point, I think force feeding is specifically banned, but you can still feed geese fatty (non-animal product) food; they do fatten for the winter. It won't be same, though. I imagine people will smuggle the stuff in by mail-order. --Mgreenbe 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Critical response to Michael Ginor

Edited this passage:

• Michael Ginor, owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras and author of Foie Gras... A Passion, claims his birds come to him and says this is important because "a stressed or hurt bird won't eat and digest well or produce a foie gras." Critics point out that the birds aren't voluntarily eating at all, they are force fed through a pipe several times every day.

I removed the critical response from the paragraph. The reason I removed it was not because I doubt that critics think that the birds aren't voluntarily eating. Rather, I removed it because no one in the foie gras industry, including Michael Ginor who is quoted here, is claiming that the bird's are voluntarily eating. The producers, like many critics, also use the term "forced feeding". What Michael Ginor is claiming is that the birds come to him, not that they voluntarily eat. It seems odd and biased to include criticism of statements that the industry isn't even making.

BTW, the edits by 199.245.230.134 were me. I wasn't logged in. Whoops.

Taft 14:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Unclear passage in Criticism section

When editing the page, the following passage is commented in the text:

• Industry groups including CIFOG, and researchers at INRA affirm that forced feeding is not a cruel procedure and even that animals appreciate this treatment. The EU committee carried out several tests designed to detect pain or distress by looking at blood hormones and all of them were inconclusive or without any measurable difference to similarly raised animals. The committee did not observe any signs that animals appreciated being force fed, and observed that ducks attempted to move away when their feeder entered the room. However, veterinarians who serve at foie gras farms have observed this behavior.< !-- Can someone clarify what this is supposed to mean? "However" implies that the latter sentence contradicts the former. It currently supports it. Either "However" is the wrong word, or some other part of the sentence is incorrect. -- >

I take this last sentance to mean "However, veternarians who serve at foie gras farms have observed behavior which indicates the birds appreciate force feeding." This is consistant with the claims of the foie gras producers and contradicts the preceding sentence. I will make the edit as written above, but am documenting this as the passage was a bit confusing.

Taft 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

gag reflex

the controversy section seems to sensibly deliver NPOV analysis of the varying viewpoints on gag reflexes. i do not see a need for gag reflex to be mentioned in the production section, and as it is currently unattributed and asserting surety it comes across as POV. i am simply going to remove that sentence, i think the section does fine without it. i do not know a great deal about the subject, but trawling google tells me that there is far from a consensus on either side and very little non-agenda-based discussion.

FWIW, the article as a whole does not seem terribly POV--perhaps a little disjointed at worst, and although it can use some work, i think we can find a way to show all facets of this complex and debatable issue.

Burgher 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation check

Can someone double-check the pronunciation, please? currently: [fwä grä]

The pronunciation is currently spelled with a's with umlauts on top. This a-umlaut is pronounced as 'ae'. So, according to that pronunciation, foie gras would be pronounced something like: fwae grae.

I double-checked the Langenscheidt's French dictionary and confirmed both a's are pronounced with open a (as in 'ah'). So the pronunciation most Americans are used to was correct: fwah grah

Since I didn't start this entry, could the owners/originators investigate and update :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Il consiglieri (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a copy-paste from dictionary.com, which has it's own "special" set of pronunciation guides. To them (and elementary schools in the US, I believe), ä is just a long 'a' sound, like in father. I'll IPA it, good catch! --Mgreenbe 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right! Actually the ä is the long a even in Webster's dictionary. It caught my eye cause it's an ae in European languages such as German. So the old pronunciation was correct (just needed to find the pronunciation key), but I still like the new pronunciation guide better.

Could someone add an audio clip of it pronounced correctly? --Navstar 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Production methods

There are two paragraphs in here that are not really about production, and I removed them. They seem to be taken almost straight out of defenses that foie gras production is humane and natural, which are disputed by animal welfare groups, and are probably placed in this section as a subversion of NPOV. Contraversial claims should be in the contraversy section (and should in any case be backed up by sources). Pasio 06:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

These paragraphs I have removed are clearly biased and include claims that are contradicted in the "Contraversy" section. Whoever keeps restoring them should explain why they are doing so and cite their sources. Pasio 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Those paragraphs provide necessary context so readers do not anthromorphize geese. SchmuckyTheCat 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that people are anthromorphizing geese is a matter of opinion and not neutral. You are clearly trying to say, this stuff doesn't hurt them. Put that stuff under "contraversy" and please don't inject your point of view about anthropomorphizing into the article as fact. Moreover, do not put any such claims without citing sources -- which will be difficult to do, since they are opinions and not facts. Please do not keep restoring this non-neutral info as is. Pasio 14:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it. I re-read every sentence in those paragraphs. Each one is a simple factual statement.

Ducks and geese are omnivorous, and like many birds, have very elastic throats which expand and allow them to store whole food in the œsophagus while awaiting digestion in the stomach.

Absolutely a fact. Does anyone deny this?

In the wild this dilation allows them to swallow large items, such as a whole fish, for a long digestive process.

Again, non-deniable.

A wild duck may double its weight in the autumn, storing fat throughout much of its body and especially on the liver.

Non-controversial, observed since the Egyptians.

This weight gain is entirely reversible both in the wild and with farmed fowl used in foie gras production.

Possibly controversial, as foie gras production puts on more weight than nature would. Animal rights groups claim the weight gain in foie gras production is unhealthy and irreversible but farmers say "who cares about the long term health of an animal that will die in two weeks?" AND also say it is reversible. This part of the issue is covered in the controversy section.

Force feeding exploits a natural process through which geese and ducks store fat in their livers in preparation for winter migration.

Undeniable fact.

The feed, usually corn which is boiled with fat to facilitate ingestion, causes large amounts of fat to deposit in the liver producing the buttery consistency.

Undeniable fact. Foie gras would not exist if this wasn't true.

That animal rights activists do not like these things doesn't make the entire thing only suitable for a controversy section. Activists don't control the agenda for an article. SchmuckyTheCat 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First, if you claim these are facts, then you need citations for them. I have only seen these claims in pro-foie gras sources, and I am not sure they are correct. If these are undeniable facts, then source them. Second, these facts have nothing to do with production methods. By your own admission, these are added "so readers do not anthromorphize geese". You are clearly trying to inject your own interpretation of whether these production methods are inhumane into this section of the article. This is not in keeping with a neutral point of view. If you think these facts help clarify that foie gras is humane, fine, explain that in a section on cruelty. It is not appropriate here. Whether people are anthroporphizing geese is a matter of dispute, and therefore belongs in a section on contraversy that shows both sides of the disagreement. As you know, anti-foie gras people have facts about production methods which make them look bad. If you are going to make me insert those facts into this section to add balance, I will do that. But I think the fairest thing is to stick to a description of how foie gras is produced that all sides can agree is unbiased. Please do not be an activist trying to control the agenda for this article, which you say you oppose.

I have referenced the areas where you removed lines or added your own lines. SchmuckyTheCat 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But why did you take out the added lines? Why do you insist on turning this into some propaganda? This is supposed to be a neutral article. Do you have no sense of decency or fair play? (Plus, you kept tons of claims without references.) I have come to realize that you have no interest in NPOV and are intent on ensuring people only hear one side of the issue. Shame on you.69.140.240.211 06:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they were directly contradicted by the facts in the references - references that the anti-foie gras movement hold up all the time. That is why I deleted the added lines. For instance, the amount of food, instead of Pasio's unsubstantiated claims of "pounds" of food, I replaced it with actual real quantities in both the wild and on farms. SchmuckyTheCat 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can add references for any claims I put in there, but I know you're just going to delete them anyway. There are two ways to do this. Either we can work out a NPOV way that we can all be happy with, or you can continue to insert your biases and I can keep deleting them. I hope that you don't be a jerk about it, but I've just about given up on expecring anything.Pasio 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote from Wikipedia's "resolving disputes": Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it... Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise.Pasio 15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pasio, you're a PETA supporting editing an article about a food that is one of their current action items. I hardly think your tactic of blanking everything you disagree with can be taken as an attempt at NPOV. Blanking sourced information is just plain vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to be a PETA-supporter. I am trying to make this NPOV. However, you keep deleting everything I put in to try to improve the article's neutrality. This is vandalism. If you promise not to delete anything I include for balance as long as they are well-sourced, I will leave your sourced information. But you cannot expect to be one-sided about it. I am submitting this page for mediation. Please do not list this as a good article -- articles that are part of editing wars do not qualify under the definition. Please note too the "3 reverts rule" that says you cannot revert 3 times in a 24 hour period. Please do not break this rule.

"Foie gras" and not "Paté de foie gras"

Please, Can someone correct in the article this fault? Indeed, saying "paté" for "Foie Gras" is ABSOLUTLY uncorrect, an horror ;)

I only see two occurrences of pâté, one in the image caption, and the other say pâté is another presentation. They both seem correct. SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of ongoing edit war —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

except it wasn't. SchmuckyTheCat 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

Hello User:Pasio requested mediation; I am here as part of the mediation cabal.

As far as I can tell, the argument is simply repeated reversions between two versions: [5]. The most important thing is that these reversions stop right now. If there is another revert, I will request page protection, which will make the mediation harder to complete.

As a neutral editor I have to say I am worried by Pasio's desire to delete large chunks of information about production methods. As far as I can tell from the discussion, Pasio deleted these because he considers some of the statements unsourced, and some of the statement irrelevant to the production methods section.

Pasio, could you briefly point out which sentences in Schmucky's version you are skeptical of and desire sources for? And, could you also point out which sentences you think are irrelevant to the question of production methods?

Sdedeo (tips) 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The following statements are not about production methods and designed solely to add a point of view, specifically that production methods are not inhumane, and should be either moved to the "Contraversy" section or balanced with information about production that speaks to issues relevant to critics of foie gras production; and in any case, all these statements should be sourced:

• Ducks and geese are omnivorous, and like many birds, have very elastic throats which expand and allow them to store whole food, or large amounts of food, in the esophagus while awaiting digestion in the stomach.
• In the wild this dilation allows them to swallow large items, such as a whole fish, for a long digestive process.
• Wild geese may consume 300 grams of protein and another 800 grams of grasses per day.
• Farmed geese allowed to graze on carrots adapt to eat 100 grams of protein, but may consume up to 2½ kilograms of the carrots per day.
• A wild duck may double its weight in the autumn, storing fat throughout much of its body and especially on the liver.
• This weight gain is entirely reversible both in the wild and with farmed fowl used in foie gras production.
• Force feeding exploits a natural process through which geese and ducks store fat in their livers in preparation for winter migration.

The following are additional statements that are unsourced, in dispute, and non-neutral:

• The geese or ducks used in foie gras production are initially free range, feeding on grasses that toughen the esophagus. ("That toughen the esophagus" is trying to inject a point of view that their esophagus can handle it rather than a description of production methods. It should be removed or given context that foie gras production does injure birds' esophagus.)
• While still free roaming they are gradually introduced to a high starch diet that by itself leads to about half of the enlarged liver's size.
• Care is taken during the feeding process to ensure no damage to the esophagus occurs, which could cause injury or death in the animal. (This is definitely a point of dispute. Any source critical of foie gras will provide contrary evidence.)
• Force feeding exploits a natural process through which geese and ducks store fat in their livers in preparation for winter migration.

There is one more recent addition from ShmuckyTheCat which I dispute, but haven't tried to work it out since he just deletes everything I add:

• • The next feeding phase, which the French call finition d'engraissement, or "completing the fattening process", involves forced daily ingestion of controlled amounts of feed for 12 to 15 days with ducks and for 15 to 18 days with geese... Typically, at the start of production an animal might be fed 200 grams of food per day and up to 450 grams at its last meal. (These amounts are dry weight. Because this grain is mixed with about an equal weight of water and fat, the weight is much higher. See for example Guemene D et al., “Force-feeding procedure and physiological indicators of stress in male mule ducks,” Br Poult Sci. 2001 Dec;42(5):650-7, p.651. Moreover, it is misleading to say they start with 200g per day and then end with 450g per meal. in fact, it rises from 250g to over 1000g per day. See INRA, an industry source: http://www.tours.inra.fr/sra/internet/images/equipes/comportement/foiefras/Diapositive4.jpg)

Pasio 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I confess I don't see a problem with the first list of sentences. Discussion of force-feeding is enhanced by comparison to the natural feeding patterns of geese. (I don't see the point of the "reversible weight gain" sentence, though.) I think your best recourse here is to expand on these comparisons if you think any of them are misleading. What do you think of my most recent edits to the section?

The second list could certaintly do with some sourcing; Schmucky, could you provide sources for these statements? If the esophagus is indeed injured during force feeding, that should be added in. If it is controversial whether or not the esophagus is injured, which seems to be the case, something like "whether the esophagus is injured or not is a point of dispute; see the 'controversy' section below." I've added something like this to the passage.

The new paragraph could do with some updating -- as you point out, dry weight is misleading, and also the 'per day' --> 'per meal' comparison is troublesome. I've gone ahead and changed the food weights to the ones you give. Schmucky, what do you think?

What is needed here is more sourcing from both Schmucky and Pasio. Can both of you work with the current version we have to source statements? Don't remove or add anything, since that's a point of controversy; bring it up on the talk page and I'll do it. I'm adding "fact" templates to the most problematic statements as I see them. Sdedeo (tips) 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1) The list of statements that I said are not about production should be sourced. Claims like "eating grass toughens their esophagus" or "the diet before force-feeding accounts for half of the swollen liver's size" sound highly suspect to me. 2) In addition, the claim that care is taken to avoid damaging the esophagus needs to be sourced. It seems clearly unfounded, as some producers may be careful and others may not be. So if it has some basis in fact, it should be sourced. 3) The amounts 250g-1000g are dry weight -- total weight is around 500g-2000g. 4) The facts about wild birds are meant to suggest that force-feeding is natural and not harmful. Here are some statements to provide balance to this context: Foie gras production involves force feeding birds much more than they consume in the wild and much more than they eat voluntarily. This results in unnatural effects on their bodies including livers swollen to many times their normal size, impaired liver function, expansion of the abdomen making it difficult for birds to walk, and death if the force feeding is continued. In addition, force feeding methods can cause scarring of the esophagus. (Source: "Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese", Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, Section 8 - Summary, 16 Dec 1998, http://www.gaia.be/nl/rapport/foiegras08.html)Pasio 01:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and add a {{fact}} tag to the sentences you are skeptical of, and why don't you add some of this info (briefly) about force-feeding in the right places. Then we can wait for Schmucky to weigh in. Sdedeo (tips) 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have to go through this on this article every time somebody picks up a pamphlet at a PETA rally? I mean, I think I ate some crap pate about 20 years ago so it's not like I am here defending my favorite food. I saw a bad article about six months ago, fixed it up, and now end up defending it week-in and week out because it attracts a lot of attention.

In the references section are several reports from governments, particularly the EU, which run into several hundred pages of references. Putting references points to every single page of the EU report after every sentence, or even a phrase, does not make for a readable article. It's already there.

Reversible weight gain is particularly important, as it is part of the natural process. Ducks/geese get fat, then ducks get thin. All by themselves. It's a major data point of all reports on foie gras production. It is already referenced in the existing ref tags. It is also important to this article because activists say "OH NOES! Farmers give the duck stetatosis (sic)." It is irresponsible to leave it out because it is such a critical datum both to refute the activists and to make the point that this is normal for migratory waterfowl.

I notice this actually snuck back in to the controversy section, actually. Activists repeatedly compare the ducks to people so it's important to point out the facts about duck biology that aren't like people at all. Humans don't double their weight over winter. Humans don't swallow whole fish.

If the esophagus is indeed injured during force feeding, that should be added in. The link Pasio provides SAYS THIS: "those conducting force feeding endeavour to avoid injury' to the ducks and geese since injury to the birds at this time can cause mortality." Michael Ginor actually addresses this (I think this in the controversy section) that stressed animals DO NOT produce a foie gras, it's not just mortality (which is less than farmed chickens and turkeys) that farmers care about. The end product will not exist if the birds are stressed out. There may be farmers that just don't give a damn, but they still have to do pay attention to their work in order to get a sellable product.

Pasio has not sourced his statement that the amount fed is dry weight and that it should be doubled. The chart from the "industry site" differs from that in the EU report, but I don't think it really matters.

The per day vs per meal is not an attempt to avoid anything, in the last week of the process they are only fed once per day (in the existing references)

The amount of carrots (2500grams) that geese will voluntarily ingest is in the EU report, referenced after the next sentence. The "industry site" actually quotes this as more than 3kg.

Force feeding exploits these processes that needs to be fact checked? What else have people been doing for 2500 years of farming waterfowl? What does every reference state? What is the inevitable conclusion of that paragraph?

see the controversy section below is first person from the POV of the encyclopedia and non-encyclopedic writing. Readers will get to it, don't point them at it.

SchmuckyTheCat 06:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits. First I want to point out that SchmuckyTheCat says his information is in there to "refute the activists". I still maintain that this discussion is best kept in the Contraversy section, or a section on humane issues. Foie gras is primarily a food, and contraversial issues shouldn't be creeping into other parts of the article. However, I'm fine going with the mediator and keeping the info as long as it's balanced.

• I added a sentence about how the amounts of grain listed were dry weight. The INRA graph that shows weights rising from 250g to >1000g says "Quantités esprimées en maïs sec" which means "Quantities expressed in dry maize".
• I made invisible the claim that care is taken when inserting the tube. I feel this depends on the producer and can't be stated as a fact. However, it is stated in the reference, so if you think it should be made visible again that's reasonable.
• I made invisible the claim that ducks naturally double their weight before winter. According to SchmuckyTheCat's reference, this is true of warblers. Of ducks, it says, "However, the muscovy duck Cairina moschata is a tropical species which is not migratory. Hence whilst the domestic goose might well be adapted to store food before migration, it is less likely that a cross between the domestic duck and the Muscovy duck, the Mulard, has such a potential for food. These hybrids do accumulate fat in the liver when caused to have a high food intake but the biological origins of this are unclear."
• This same reference says "It may be that such mechanisms are exploited when ducks and geese are given a large volume of food which results in a substantial expansion in the size of their liver." I therefore changed SchmuckyTheCat's unequivocal statement to "may".
• I have added the sentences I recommended for balance above.
• I changed SchmuckyTheCat's references to actual links to those references.
• I added some "citation needed"s.

medcabal round two

OK, Schmucky, given Pasio's responses, why don't you go ahead and made the edits you want to see in that section. Don't remove any {{fact}} tags unless you can replace them with references. Sdedeo (tips) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I understand that this may be tiresome for you. The other option is for us to go with the brief paragraph [6] and save the rest for the controversy section. Sdedeo (tips) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Schmucky, I haven't heard from you in a bit; I'll wait 24 hours and then assume that everything is back to normal and article expansion and improvement are on track, and will close out the mediation. Sdedeo (tips) 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy. It's nice that Pasio is actually using referenced sources now but I disagree with some of them, and certainly disagree with the wholesale blanking another user performed. I'll get back to it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No rush. There's no way "wholesale blanking" is OK. When you get a chance, go through and examine the references; if they don't say what Pasio claims, remove them; if you disagree with their notability, bring it up here. Sdedeo (tips) 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not Pasio blanking. [7]. As well when this article was first cleaned up we didn't link to every possible Anti-Foie gras website in existence, but they creep back in [8] [9]. I currently don't have time to revert the blanking while salvaging useful edits, and cull to the most useful external links. I haven't even looked at Pasio's edits in depth, it looks like he is now referencing the edits he makes, which he was not doing before asking for mediator involvement. I don't think referenced edits will be an issue except to smooth (not delete) any bias issues. SchmuckyTheCat 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and prune the external links if you like (as fairly as possible.) Definitely WP:ISNOT a web directory. Sdedeo (tips) 23:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the revert wars have stopped and editing is progressing nicely. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I will close out the mediation case as resolved. Sdedeo (tips) 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't prune completely the bunch of external links. It would be nice if one of the activists could prune the list to the most relevant/informative three instead of a laundry list.

I made organizational edits because the last spates of editing suffered readability problems. I did not remove a single sourced criticism unless it was a repeat of something already in the page. I did clean up sentences for structure, and, excessive, phrases, and, commas. SchmuckyTheCat 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, revert wars have stopped and everyone seems to be editing nicely. I'll close out the mediation now; if my assistance is needed again please drop a line on my talk page (I've taken the article off my watchlist.) Sdedeo (tips) 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the implication that "Animal Rights Activists" are the only objectors meet NPOV?

In the talk page, it looks like some writers are assuming only extremists find the gavage process disagreeable or cruel. It seems reasonable that people who are not otherwise active in animal rights movements might react strongly to gavage. Is describing them as animal rights activists consistent with NPOV practice or a subtle attempt to frame all objectors as extremists/whackos?

Sailboatd2 12:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed statement on duck migration that was not found in the listed source

[10] I've reverted an edit that had the summary "Removed statement on duck migration that was not found in the listed source". The removed statement was concerning duck migration and weight. As the listed source states, on pg 26, "For example the mean weight of the blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata increases from 10-12g to 20-23g before migration to the breeding grounds." SchmuckyTheCat 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The blackpoll warbler is not a duck, but I'm certain the EU scientific committee used it for an example with good reason. SchmuckyTheCat 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations needed

The GA criteria has recently been changed so that internal citation is necessary, and although I might not personally agree with it, for this article, i'm tempted to make an exception. What I see here is basically a farm of links as references, while they are ordered out nicely, to verify the article, a reader may have to click on three or four external links before they actually find the one that references the sentence they want to verify, and then of course they have to actually read the reference. Please try to use internal citations, I know it might take some time, but it would really improve the article, and someone might delist this otherwise. Homestarmy 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)