wolfgang puck drops foie gras from menu

I'm not really surprised. Puck has a tendency to do the PC thing.

The amusing part, of course, is that the Chicago ban which started the controversey is almost universially ignored by everybody.

This shows that laws without enforcement are useless. The law that restricts talking on a cell phone while driving is nearly useless too, because the police do not enforce it with any gusto. My life and limb have been endangered on numerous occasions due to drivers distracted by their cell phone conversations.

Regarding Wolfgang Puck, I salute him and all his efforts to bring a certain human conciousness of diners to what they eat. While I'm certainly not a rabid vegetarian, I don't believe animals should suffer just to supply us with a protein source.

In the case of foie gras, it's a delicacy that no one anywhere would deem necessary for nutritional survival. The emotional overaction of people who rabidly defend extreme luxury seems kind of perverse when so many suffer.

I wish people who defend foie gras so vehemently would remember the 35,000 children that die every day of ailments related to starvation when they sit down to eat.

I might think more of Puck if I felt he was really doing this because of some deep held belief of his, but come on, this is a publicy-marketing move by him because foie has a bad rap right now, and many celebs. (Puck's bread & butter) are on the anti-foie movement. This is nothing more than bowing to a small, but vocal contingent. I can't believe that after so many years, he has just suddenly "seen the light". This is all about marketing and money, which is fine, but then don't cover it in self-righteous bantering about humanely raising food. So don't cheer Puck on for his making a "noble" decision. He hasn't! He has bowed to a group of people and hides behind the curtain of "doing the right thing" when all he really is concerned about is his rep. and bottom line.

How Uneducated

Sorry but this just shows you how PC, celebrity stupidity he is.

Foie Gras is and can be produced organically. So by saying I am going to stop selling it, shows you how uneducated he is.

In fact this year alone two organic producers of foie gras recieved awards for the quiality of the product, one in spain and the other in france.

And just to educate the uneducated, organic foie gras is produced by free range ducks who naturally eat excessivly before migration, when their bellies naturaly touch their feet (storage for migration) then they are slaughterd in their lovely free range slaughter house.

So grow up, wake up and re educate yourself wolfgang

www.chefsworld.net

Hey I'd like to hear more about that!

Wolfgang drops the foie gras and a loud thud is heard around the world. :)

Kneejerk wolfgang

Here is more info on organic foie gras.


Spanish company Pateria de Sousa, in Badajoz province, is seen as more ethical because it makes its foie gras by slaughtering the birds at a time when they have naturally eaten more to create reserves for what would have been migration.
It means the harvest is seasonal, before Christmas or in February, depending on the weather. And it is limited to geese, not including the more reliable, breed-able ducks. But the proof of the pudding comes in the tasting - and the French have already given it a food award at the Paris International Food Salon.
"We don't force feed the animals, they feed and live freely on our land," says the farm's owner, Eduardo Sousa. "The animals eat and eat and eat, so that they'll be fat for winter."
They live in symbiotic harmony with the farm's pigs, bred for its Spanish "jamon". While the pigs feed on acorns, the geese pick up their leftovers, plus the figs and lupins dotted around. "We know when the geese are ready because their bellies drag on the ground." So how would they take off to migrate? Well, these ones don't.

END

These people just make me ill, bending over backwards to make a few headlines and PR, to please the minimal celebs.

The only reason they pick on foie gras is because of the presumed wealth of the people eating it, you dont see people harping on about battery farmed chicken, why because battery chickens are food for the masses and not just the bougeoisee.

wolfgang you are a muppet for giving up food and flavour, coward

www.chefsworld.net

And another thing

Hey foodnfoto

you are obviously one of the uneducated masses like wolfgang and you call yourself a food editor.

I wonder if those 35,000 people dying of starvation are in iraq as a direct result of a lie, on which you spend millions every day killing innocent civilians.

Here is an interesting concept for you, before doctors were available to the masses (like the battery chickens you love) only the strongest survived, so if we went back to the law of nature and only the strongest survived, then overpopulation, mass farming would not exist, but i am sure as **** foie gras would.

Take some time to understand things before you make a comment like that.

www.chefsworld.net
So before you spout, understand the facts.

Iraq? We're talking Africa, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, New Guinea, North Korea, Burma, Haiti, etc.

We sometimes let our indulgence color our world. There are some who aren't as fortunate as us.

Kuan

Hey

Yea yea, but what Im saying is that people like foodnfoto love to spout that rubbish about foie gras because it is a luxury item, you dont see people like him saying lets ban chicken.

www.chefsworld.net

OK, tcapper your point made. People may disagree.

I dunno guys, foie gras issue aside, the steps he is undertaking to phase out "factory farmed" animals and go toward naturally raised meat and eggs, etc, in my opinion, can only be lauded as a good thing.

Yeah yeah, many people here will only tunnel vision onto the foie issue, but I think the larger import needs to be placed on all the other, more positive things his initiative will hopefully spur.

No need to get nasty, tcapper.

I'm glad there is a grower in Spain that uses humane methods to grow and harvest the foie gras. I wish all foie gras was sourced from such providers.

Before you start making rash assumptions about me due to one of my posts, just know that I have visited farms in France that produce foie gras and witnessed first hand the force feeding of the geese and their subsequent slaughter. Not something I would choose to see again. Therefore, I choose not to eat the stuff.

I have also seen the environmental impact of factory hog and poultry farms in my home state of NC.
Factory farming is inhumane to the animals, leads to disease, environmental degradation, lower quality and flavor, and poor working conditions for those who must man the processing plants.
I'm only asserting that people should understand more clearly where their food is coming from and what it takes to produce it.

Wolfgang Puck is making an informed decision about how he wants to market himself and his products. If the market segment that he caters to wants to eat meats from humane growers, it only shows respect for his clientele and sound marketing sense. If family farmers that produce superlative products benefit from supplying his operation, so much the better. It all leads to more sustainable agri-business which has far reaching benefits.

I just can't help but cringe a bit when people so vehemently defend the necessity of a luxury. Eat the stuff if you want, but don't squawk so loudly if the larger community asserts their desire for balance and humane treatment of the other creatures that share our world. People generally object to the appearance of selfish and unseemly behavior by people who have greater resources than the larger population.

Once again, I really don't care if Puck decides not to serve foie in his restaurants, but he really needs to be honest about his decision. I don't buy that he's doing it out of his desire to do "greater good." He's doing it to appease his clientele, so just say that. How about a little "truth in advertising".

As a chef and business owner, Puck has every right to make decisions about his business. I don't fault him for that, but at least he still has the right to make those decisions. In Chicago, that decision was taken out of chefs' hands by the City Council. I applude all those restaurants that are selling $15 plates of "toasted brioche" with a complimentary side of foie gras terrine. The City Council overstepped their bounds (even the mayor agrees) and should be called on it. Until then I support all the chefs and their "civil disobedience." What's next? Banning veal? Or how about eggs? Have you ever seen the conditions in an egg farm (factory)?!

Foie Gras enforcement in Chicago from what I hear is minimal to none.
The department in charge of enforcing violations is already so overworked with the other things they do, that issuing fines for trivial foie gras violations ranks at the bottom of the list.


Charlie Trotter pulled foie gras off his menu because of a deep belief that he was doing the right thing, not because he was trying to boost his public image. I can totally respect this.

While I will not take shots at Wolfgang (such as calling him a coward) because I have a huge amount of respect for him as a cook, I will admit I am not really pleased by this.

I still have respect for the guy as a cook and chef, I just think he is misguided in this whole endeavor.

How do you know what Puck is thinking and his personal reasons for changing?

It could very well be that after careful consideration, listening to his clients and seeing for himself the conditions that ultimately produce foie gras, he decided that he wasn't so fond of the idea and chose to stop selling it.
Good grief, it's not like there aren't plenty of other ingredients with which to make delicious food.

It doesn't seem that there is any reason to bash the guy. He's a well known chef with proven talent, ability and finesse. Just because he changes his mind on an issue doesn't make him a charlatan. It's perfectly reasonable to think that if you choose to sell meats produced at cruelty-free farms that you will contribute to the growth of sustainable, quality agriculture--that benefits everyone.

It's not disingenuous for Puck to use his public profile to furthur beneficial practices-just like he did when he lost all that weight by choosing to eat a healthier diet.

Calmer today

Hi, apologies for my rant last night.

I truly believe that this is a class issue and nothing to do with ethical products.

If this is an ethical issue then why do supermarkets still survive. 80% of all meat sold on this planet in supermarkets is mass produced factory meat, if people were so incenced then supermarkets would not be selling it.

Definatly a class issue, i just wish people could be honest with themselves.

ChefsWorld

heres something to think about... you may enjoy eating foie gras... but how many of you would force feed the duck yourself to continue to eat it? how many of you could stomach putting a tube down its throat to the obvious (and believe me its obvious) discomfort of the animal... and then continually feed a fatty unhealthy mix to the creature so that its liver swells (which in humans would put you in hospital while they work out what it is causing it to swell and ive been told a swollen liver is painfull... how many of you have had apendectomies after having a swollen apendix and your liver is many times larger...)

just food for thought...

i would like any of you supporters of foie gras to watch this video....YouTube - Foie Gras Investigation then tell me if its worth it

I really dislike how people seem to be lathcing on to the foie gras issue, which IMO is the lesser part of this story. Puck has decided to use only naturally raised meat, eggs, etc in his restaurants. I think this is a move to be lauded by the general public.

Would I be upset if the government banned foie gras? Yes, I would. But if it came down to me having to give up foie gras for universal humane treatment of animals, then I would do it. The greater good here is being served, yet everyone seems to blind to that fact because of one thing.

No matter what the reason--ethics, social pressure, etc--this is a step in the right direction and I applaud him for doing so. It's nice to see someone who is in a position to do something about it, well, do something about it.

I like foie gras, but I think it's overrated. Certainly not worth ignoring the larger issues.

Still not getting the point

the_seraphim

The whole point of my rant earlier was that why do people latch onto foie gras, very minimal production campared to chicken ( do you alwayse by organic ? ) I dont believe you if you said yes!

Foie gras production equates to 1.43% of the mass produced, battery farmed, steroid injected, live for six week chickens produced yearly.

So why are you even mentioning foie gras, and what about organic foie gras, the ducks force feed themselves for migration. The cruelty against Non-organic foie gras is microscopic compared to chicken.


Have you finally seen the bigger picture, forget about foie gras (its all a class issue) think CHICKEN.

ChefsWorld

I have bought organic meat for almost 20 years now. Doesn't mean when I go out to eat or to friends that I expect them to do the same, and I eat what I'm buying/given with good grace.

I cannot bear the thought that I should cook any meat that is not organically raised. Doesn't mean I force my views on anyone else, though!

I have also seen, first hand, the force feeding of livestock to produce fois gras. One of my best friends is French and her family farm is typical of many in her area of France. They routinely produce fois gras.

I have never eaten it, just like I have never eaten veal since I was 16 and read about the 'crate' method of raising. I don't care if that method is no longer widely used, I still don't want to eat the meat.

You think it's misguided for a well known celebrity chef to want to try to curb factory animal farming? To use veal and pork that is raised humanely? To use only sustainable fish and cage free eggs? Use only "audited for progressive animals rights compliance" chickens and turkeys?

I think it's fantastic that he's in a position to exert some influence and do this thing. He's in a position to possibly educate consumers and, at the least, cut the pockets of the agri-business corporations and support the sustainable, organic and family owned animal growers.

The foie gras issue is, at best, a minor one and should be forgiven in light of the greater good, IMO.

Making a large issue out of a small one is exactly what the animal rights activists are doing....it's almost hypocritical for people on this board to latch on (as the PETA nuts do) to the foie gras issue and ignore the larger, more positive concerns of what he's doing.

It can only be a good, positive thing. Crap, most restauranters aren't in a position to offer this kind of meat, being that they can't/won't charge for it, don't have the consumer base, or are unwilling to cut even slightly into the profit margins. At least he's willing to set an example that hopefully others will follow.

If anyone is truly concerned about the wellfare of animals, he or
she would stop eating meat altogether. Nailing the feet of a goose
to the bottem of a wooden crate and force feeding with a funnel and
plastic hose creates a pretty gruesome mental picture. So does the
idea of all the children HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA going
hungry on a daily basis, not to mention around the world. Dark warehouses
full of harnessed calves being fed milk mash or chickens being thrown against
the wall of a processing facility also are not pleasant. Its the price of doing
business. When you kill something to eat, you don't look at it as a companion
or pet, you don't worry about its feelings. At which point does a specific
way of slaughtering become humane. Do you gas everything, shoot it in the
head, bleed it to death? Is it only mammals we worry about? As for Puck, who wouldn't cater to the stance taken by so many of his clientele? There
is no shame in that game. It is about serving others not yourself, after all.
Big hooplah over nothing. A person that was really concerned wouldn't consume or use any product produced at the cost of any living animal. I am
not one of those people by the way. Dog, Cat, Bird, Cow, Deer, Fish, or
Tomato. They are all consumed around the world on a daily basis. Is my eating ground horse patties any worse than eating beef patties? That depends on the horse I guess. Personally I prefer Beef. My father in law
loves Sea Turtle eggs raw with a little lime and hot sauce, does it make him
bad? No it just makes him a person that is from another culture and another
place. I do go on!!!!

Look, I agree that there is a fundamental disconnect with the way a LOT of this country (the USA) looks at food. Anything that resembles what it originally looked like when alive is generally considered "gross," as is organ meat and things like that. You serve a whole fish with the head on most people think thats gross. I personally don't feel that way. Most Americans know their food as cryvaced, shrinkwrapped, blobs of protein in the grocery store. In a completely cerebral way they think cruelty to animals is horrible (because it is) but seem not to care because what they buy at the store, to them, isn't an animal, it's a foodthing.

That being said, there is a huge difference between raising animals humanely and the agri-business, feedlot generated animals that we eat today. First off, the idea that hundreds of thousands of Americans go hungry is very real...but they don't go hungry because we can't feed them. Americans eat like 500% more protein than they need...the idea that we need to have protein at every meal is kind of off. Anyways, my point is basically that we could and should eat a lot less protein and eat the kinds of animals that are cared for and looked after, raised to be food, yes, but raised with care with the health of the animal and the health of the public in mind.

You made the argument that killing is killing and that raising animals is raising animals. I think that's an oversimplification that too many people make. Yeah, ultimately they end up on our plates, but how they get there should be a greater concern to more people.

You can't say anyone who is truly concerned about the welfare of animals should not eat meat. I'm concerned with the general welfare...I understand that they are raised to be eaten, that doesn't mean they can't be raised in better conditions. ****, they might even TASTE better, and I hope THAT is at least a concern of everyone here!

Jesus had his feet nailed to a board, but not ducks?? weird

I don't partake in assembly-line convenience. I don't say that killing things is bad while I hire people to kill things for me.
Ted Nugent

He said somehting else that I remember but couldn't find it to quote, but it went along the lines of....Vegetarians are cool. I like them, in fact I only eat vegetarians, except for the occasional bear or mountain lion.

Not trying to ruffle feathers, just stating my opinion through his words, but then again, I'm from mississippi which may explain some things.

to be 100% humane, we would have to be better equipped with knowledge that we don't and can't (so far) attain. Do plants have feelings? Do animals have souls? Do humans have souls? Why does chinchilla taste so good?? I don't know, it's just the way it is.

This next quote is purely for entertainment. I saw it on a bumper sticker once. If we're not supposed to eat meat, then why did god make it taste so good? :beer:
I think that this might be a neverending thread of opinions. Mine is, if you want to eat foie, eat it, if not don't. Too many people are worried about other people's business these days, it's just a little creepy. For instance, I was beating my neighbor's cat the other day, you know, to get him nice and tender before the spit. All of a sudden this lady walks out, could've been the cat's owner, but still. She tries to tell me she was going to call the cops on me and have me arrested.....can you believe the nerve of some people? Anyway I hope all of you guys come to a conclusion and let me know what it is. Thanks

Someday,
Your right about tasting better. I have a childhood friend who raises
pastuered ossobaw pigs in the edisto watershed. He has his pigs gassed.
He, like many others out there, feels the additional adrenaline released into
the pigs body effects the flavor of the end product. I am sure more blood
in tissue effects the end product and shelf life. Many game ranches shoot
thier animals from a distance with scoped rifles as well for the same reason.
Take it easy someday.

A few comments....

the_seraphim said: "heres something to think about... you may enjoy eating foie gras... but how many of you would force feed the duck yourself to continue to eat it? "

I would. I might even grimace while I did it. And then I'd slurp up his liver like there's no tomorrow!

As for Wolfgang Puck, look, I love the guy, but those of you supporting him and saying it's due to an enlightened point of view must not have read the release very well...:

First, he *never* said that he agreed, he just said that's what his 'guests' wanted. Second, and this is the important part...

"Farm Sanctuary has protested Puck's restaurant and food chain in recent years over its use of veal and foie gras. "

And who do you think he gave money to for a "animal treatment program"? The Humane Society and the *Food Sanctuary* . He paid them off to stop screaming about him to his customers and caved in, not much way around that.

So the most that we can say about that article is that an activist group got together and made enough noise to his premiere clients, who were hollywood types with a lot of influence, and he eventually gave in. This was an announcement of their success in making him cave him, not an article about Wolfgang Pucks beliefs.


As far the overriding topic of eating meat, etc....

Bottom line, you either believe you're at the top of the food chain and that its ok that animals suffer to feed your gullet or you don't. Anything else is just psycho-babble about the 'degree' of suffering, and self-deluded hypocrisy. There is no such thing as 'slaughter without suffering', period. None of the many animals that I have killed over the years did so without some degree of suffering, whether they have true 'feelings' or not I don't know, but if you've ever heard the squeals I'm sure we can agree that pig being pulled in to have that spike driven into his head wasn't 'happy' just before it happened. If we have the right to make them suffer a little to be our food, do we have the right to make them suffer a lot. The end result is the same. A dead animal that we killed. It sounds really harsh when put that way, and no one wants to even think it of themselves, but it is true.

Did you ever stop to think about the fact that cows obviously would not naturally eat corn? Or the fact that the whole reason we give them antibiotics is because the corn that we feed them makes them sick? How about the fact that it doesn't actually do much for the meat either and has more to do with the fact that we produce far too much corn in this country due to subsidies and so it's an incredibly cheap feed. Yet we have commercials and big labels on our menus proclaiming the virtues of 'corn fed beef' don't we? Isn't purposefully feeding an animal something you know will make it sick making it suffer?

I accept *all* of this. And I *enjoy* eating that meat, and that Foie Gras. And I know an animal paid for my enjoyment with its life. The fact is that many of us feel guilty *saying* that. We want to think we'd treat cute furry little creatures with compassion. And *we* probably would, because the vast majority of us are completely separated from the self-sustaining farms of yesteryear that we all lived on or understood at one point. Where we didn't think twice about twisting off the head of that chicken to have dinner tonight. We are a society that hides the 'dirty business' so that we as a people can feel good about ourselves. It's that same separation that even allows vegans to feel the way they do. Can you even imagine a farm family being vegetarians?

As for the comments about people starving, Iraq, etc. I don't know where you're coming from at all, nor what relevance it holds to the discussion at hand. Your point seems to be that we should all just eat basic food for 'sustenance', because anything more than that somehow creates more starving people? Which can only mean that you believe the wealthy should be less wealthy and the poorer less poor right? In other words, Socialism wrapped in a bit communism. That hasn't worked yet, but I'm sure there are some countries in which you could give it a shot. But the U.S. isn't one of them.

Bottom line, eat how you want. I'll support your right to do that any day. But keep the government out of regulating what we eat based on total hypocrisy. For that matter, I wish they'd stay the h*ll out of dictating smoking in restaraunts as well. This is supposed to be a free market society. The majority rules. Capitalism. I *hate* eating around smoke. I hate overfishing of certain species. And my wallet does not frequent or support those locales with which I disagree. But to some people that's just not enough. They need to dictate the ethics and morals of everyone else because their point of view is the only valid one.

Whoops, just looked up at all I've typed and realized I've gone on a rant so I'll stop now, apologies for the long post.

I don't recall anyone making the argument that it isn't OK to kill animals for meat. Some people feel that way--not me. I think we should kill animals for meat. I just don't think that we should raise many of them the way we do. I mean, forget the issue of suffering, it's just gross. Animals live in their own filth, nick and pick at each other, get sick, get maimed, etc. in the conditions. They are factory farmed, raised without care, abused and mistreated. To contrast, the food that is raised with care and love, attention, with forethought onto how the animal will TASTE after it is killed, is important to me. Naturally raised meat and poultry tastes better than the factory s h i t. Fact--I can't think of too many chefs who disagree. To me, there is a huge difference in the so called "hypocrisy" you say there is. It's not hypocritical for a chef to want natural meat--it is more sustainable, tastes better, and more often than not supports local business and economy. Nothing hypocritical about that. Maybe there is no such thing as "slaughter without suffering," but there is such a thing as raising without suffering.



Of course cows don't naturally eat corn. They eat grass. I don't think that the "whole reason we give them antibiotics" is because of the corn--it is more due to the horrible nasty conditions in which they live...i.e. bacteria and disease ridden filth. Thay have open wounds, infections, illness, etc, constantly, from the conditions on the feedlot as much as what they eat.

Doesn't do much for the meat? Yes it does. It makes the cow put on 100's of pounds in a matter of weeks, fills the meat up with saturated fat and "corny" flavor. It affects the marbling, the grading, and the weight at which it is sold. The number one reason we feed it to them is to fatten them up--same as foie gras, for that matter.

Grass fed beef tastes dramatically and noticeably different from corn fed beef. So much so, that most americans don't like the taste of beef because, well, it tastes too much like beef and not enough like fat and corn. We've now been conditioned to like and love corn fed beef.

Cheap feed? Nah. Not any cheaper than letting them roam around and eat natural grass until you kill them. Nobody would eat it though.

So, yeah, it does a lot for the meat.

Glad we agree on something.

I think the only point they are/were trying to make is that foie gras is a luxury item, in a world in which 90% don't have the luxury of luxury food, it's just kind of nice for us to be able to even debate the virtues of foie in a world in which a billion (or more) people go hungry every night. Some people are sad they can't eat foie anymore, when there are people in Africa, Asia, etc. that are sad because they can't eat ANYTHING. That's all. It's called perpective...i.e. thinking about the potential suffering of other living things. It's the bad part of being successful. Because the danger of becoming too successful and bloated on wealth and food is that you lose all perspective on life in general, and the daily struggle to survive in particular. Which is fine. I do it to. People that point those things out realize the disparity in wealth that makes the US, in particular, so fat and bloated and wasteful while much of the world starves to death.

Socialism? Communism? Whatever. Call it what you want. I don't think it would be a bad thing to have less agri-business and more family farms. I can't believe anyone on this board would disagree with that. If you want to call that socialist and communist, then go ahead. I call it healthier, more natural, and, oh yeah, more FLAVORFUL.

I understand that the whole natural family farm, etc, is the ideal. I know most chefs would be happy to trade in their factory chickens and pork for small farm raised stuff. I know that most chefs can't make the bottom line work if they do this. Again, I understand. But the ideal only stays the ideal for as long as people are unwilling or unable to change. I think, no matter what the cause, that this is a step in the right direction by a chef who is in a position to exert some influence over a broad base of clientele and sellers. I can only see it as a good thing. A baby step in the right direction.