How the Ethics of Foie Gras Tell us about the Ethics of Livestock Production More Broadly

Starting Nov. 25, 2022, it will be illegal for restaurants and grocers in New York City to serve or sell foie gras, a traditional French dish made of duck or goose liver. Foie gras is made by force-feeding the birds, typically through a tube leading from the mouth to the stomach, to fatten their liver, which critics deem inhumane. Notably, the New York City Council enacted the upcoming ban for that very reason, with the councilwoman who sponsored the legislation telling the New York Times that force-feeding is “the most inhumane process.” 

This legal change has been the subject of considerable debate, representing just the latest flashpoint in an ongoing dispute over the ethics of foie gras. While animal rights activists consider the force-feeding process abhorrent, foie gras farmers and many restaurant owners contend that it is not so cruel, in fact, and that banning foie gras devalues culinary freedom. Over the years, these opposing sides have clashed in several municipalities, including in Chicago, where after the city council outlawed foie gras in 2006, an uproar from restaurant owners eventually led the city to lift the ban only two years later. 

You might, understandably, be wondering—why talk about foie gras? It may seem like a bit of a niche issue. However, the foie gras controversy merits discussion as a microcosm of a broader, ongoing debate regarding the ethical foundations of animal production overall. Upon close examination, it becomes apparent that livestock production systems, as currently constituted, are perhaps fundamentally ethically deficient. In evaluating the ethical basis for foie gras and other animal products, I will argue that, ultimately, governments should ban foie gras. Moreover, a broader societal reevaluation of how we approach animal production is needed—though the feasibility of potential solutions remains uncertain. 

Let’s begin by taking a closer look at the history and production of foie gras to help understand why banning it is so important and contentious. Notably, the dish is regarded as a delicacy in French cuisine, esteemed for its rich, buttery, and delicate flavor. Its origins go back to Ancient Egypt, though it only became widespread in the 1500s in France, where it remains hugely popular and culturally significant. According to current French law, “Foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomic heritage of France.” So, for foie gras farmers and many restaurant owners—in France, the United States, and worldwide—foie gras is just a delicious, culturally significant dish. 

What animal rights activists take issue with is, as previously noted, the force-feeding process required to produce the dish. The physiological basis for force-feeding lies in the fact that, in preparation for long migrations, some waterfowl, including ducks and geese, expand their esophagus to gain weight, especially by accumulating fat in the liver. When foie gras farmers force-feed ducks or geese, they gradually increase the amount of food given to the birds, eventually administering far more food than a bird would ever voluntarily eat in the wild or captivity. By the end of the process, the birds’ livers have swelled up to 10 times their usual size.

Foie gras proponents claim that the force-feeding process can be humane, with the birds not necessarily rejecting the force-feeding. However, study after study demonstrates that force-feeding is an undeniably cruel, harmful practice. It leads to discomfort and injuries during force-feeding, gait abnormalities that prevent participation in natural waterfowl activities such as bathing and swimming, and high rates of bone fracture, among other concerning effects. Ultimately, researchers have found that mortality rates are between 4 to 20 times higher for force-fed ducks than for non-force-fed ducks of the same age.

Even apart from the horrific force-feeding process, the birds farmed to produce foie gras face sickening conditions. Right off the bat, when the birds hatch, the female hatchlings, which gain less weight than males, are generally immediately slaughtered. Heartbreakingly, these female birds are often left to starve or suffocate in garbage cans. The male hatchlings allowed to survive face a stressful, short-lived life, confined, most often, to a small enclosure or cage. And at a close, they face the same end as their female counterparts, destined for force-feeding and slaughter. 

That foie gras needs to be banned—that New York City and other municipalities are correct to do so—is the determination I arrived at after learning the above information. The evidence is unequivocal: The practice of force-feeding is cruel, needlessly so. And that conclusion is probably a conclusion many, if not most, sensible people without personal cultural or financial ties to foie gras production will reach upon learning about its true nature. 

This blog post could stop here. But, to stop here would ignore an intriguing, sharply consequential piece of logic that emerges from the conclusion that foie gras ought to be banned. If foie gras production is wrong, do all forms of animal production—meaning raising animals for the sale of animals or animal products—have similarly unethical foundations? In my view, crucially, the evidence supports this more ethically broad-reaching consideration of animal production. 

What do I mean? Essentially, the problem with foie gras production outlined thus far concerns the cruel, harmful practice of force-feeding the birds. At the same time, another dimension of unethicality, extending well beyond foie gras, is at play. In and of itself, humans raising and killing livestock, not just force-feeding geese and ducks in immense numbers, is unethical. The foie gras issue can thus also provide a window into the broader ethics of livestock production. 

Ask anyone their favorite animal. Whatever the answer might be, in all likelihood, it will be a wild animal—lion, tiger, zebra, etc. Relatively speaking, though, the overall population of most large-bodied wild animal species is surprisingly small compared to the number of livestock on earth. For context: 750,000 zebras live in the wild, approximately 20,000 lions, and only 3,900 tigers. In contrast: there are about 800 million pigs, 1 billion cows, and 33 billion chickens worldwide. The collective biomass of livestock on earth, in the end, amounts to more than all wild mammals and birds put together. 

This stark population difference between livestock and wildlife attests to a critical fact of modern human life. To produce animal products—from foie gras to meat to milk—we confine billions and billions of animals. According to a framework of evolutionary success, wherein the most successful species are the ones that survive and produce the most offspring, livestock species are thus extraordinarily successful, especially compared to wild species. But such a framework ignores a crucial element that we might also refer to as success: How good is their quality of life?

The system of foie gras production discussed above offers a depressing indication of the answer to that question. Most current discussions about the ethicality of foie gras center around the force-feeding process—And understandably so, as outlined, force-feeding involves enormous cruelty. However, to limit the discussion to force-feeding ignores another, broader dimension of unethicality, not unique to birds farmed to produce foie gras: the systematic confinement and slaughter of livestock. In a sense, the birds raised to produce foie gras are evolutionarily successful. They survive and reproduce thanks to human intervention. Success, though, ought to consist of more than just survival. In that regard, foie gras production falls short: The lives of birds raised to produce foie gras, confined to small enclosures or cages and destined for slaughter, are of essentially miserable quality. And crucially, therefore, the whole system of confinement and slaughter is wrong, ethically deficient, not just the cruel practice of force-feeding. 

Furthermore, most importantly, this basic system of confinement and slaughter is far from unique to these fowl. On a global level, the livestock industry generally practices industrial livestock production, a term describing a modern type of agriculture specifically designed to maximize efficiency with animals confined to small enclosures and cages. This factory farming contrasts with the more personal form of livestock production throughout much of human history—when most people were farmers or had close interaction with livestock. It is essentially an extension of brutal, unregulated industrial capitalism á la 19th-century coal mines, or modern sweatshops, to livestock production. Under this prevailing system, designed to maximize the production of animal products, especially for consumers in wealthier countries such as the United States, animals live in overcrowded, inhumane settings. Also, while some farms purport to have humane livestock practices, don’t be fooled: Such relatively compassionate setups are far and between and well out of the price range of most consumers. Moreover, even if the animals receive slightly better treatment, the fundamental, ethically lacking facts of confinement and slaughter remain the same. 

While foie gras production receives a lot of attention as unethical—and rightfully so—as I see it, on the whole, the production of other animal products is ultimately not all that different. Foie gras production and all other forms of animal production essentially represent the systematic exploitation of livestock by humans, exploiting their bodies for our benefit. It is not the same as, for instance, a predatory animal in the wild killing a prey animal for survival. It is well beyond that. Across the board, animal production is our aloof, organized confinement and slaughter of livestock species, only allowed to reproduce because of their material usefulness to us, the dominant species. 

Moreover, detractors who would argue that livestock animals are subconscious or sub-rational and thus less deserving of protection will find their arguments sorely lacking. In recent years, the scientific community has come to, almost unanimously, recognize that, much like humans, animals think and feel. Animals, including livestock animals, do not reach our level of cognitive or communicative abilities. However, evidence increasingly shows that they can often subjectively perceive the world in a manner not necessarily too dissimilar from our own. The ever-growing body of knowledge regarding animal cognition ultimately only enhances criticism of the unequal power dynamic between humans and livestock. 

There is—I believe—therefore, an ethical requirement of sorts for sweeping change not only in terms of banning foie gras but also to how we make all animal products. And that does not even include the vast environmental costs associated with livestock production, ranging from destroying natural ecosystems to contributing to climate change. Unfortunately, finding meaningful, workable solutions will be very challenging. 

Banning foie gras, though it, of course, faces considerable opposition, is relatively easy. The example recently provided by New York City with its foie gras ban shows that, while difficult to achieve, it is perhaps politically feasible on an even larger scale. Moreover, the sheer cruelty of force-feeding is hopefully, on some level, inherently abhorrent to most people, and increased public awareness of it may drive further action. 

Foie gras, though, is a somewhat niche food. How do we transition all of society away from livestock production? 

Perhaps some progress could occur if more people become vegan or vegetarian. But I find the case for that, apart from the individual satisfaction and health benefits of giving up meat, somewhat lacking. It can be tough to be vegan or vegetarian in today’s society, with financial, nutritional, and taste reasons that people do not do it. I am (ashamedly) neither vegan nor vegetarian currently—I struggle to plan out my meals as it is and know it would be difficult for me to fulfill my nutritional requirements as a vegan or vegetarian. Additionally, I suspect that motivating all of society to give up cheeseburgers, for instance, would be extremely difficult, no matter the unethicality of animal production. 

The best hope, in my opinion, lies in still-developing, yet-to-be-fully realized technologies that aim to replace meat. One novel solution is lab-grown meat, which various companies worldwide are working to develop. These companies aim for a product calorically, nutritionally, and taste-wise identical to real meat. Last year, notably, a restaurant in Singapore became the first restaurant to sell lab-grown chicken. However, currently, it remains far from hitting the market. Ultimately, while lab-grown meat will be tough to develop, hopefully, it will become commonplace sooner rather than later. The ethical issues with livestock production, shown through the controversy surrounding foie gras, demand that it does. 

“Foie Gras Undercover Investigation, 2003 Quebec” by liberationbc is marked with CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.