BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    







           ---------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Hearing Date:April 26, 2004    |Bill No:SB                |
          |                               |1520                      |
           ---------------------------------------------------------- 


                    SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
                             Senator Liz Figueroa, Chair

                        Bill No:        SB 1520Author: Burton
                   As Introduced:  February 19, 2004   Fiscal:  No

          
          SUBJECT:  Force-fed birds.
          
          SUMMARY:  Prohibits a person from force feeding a bird for  
          the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal  
          size, and prohibits a product from being sold in California  
          if it is the result of force feeding of a bird. 

          Existing law:

          1)Defines "migratory birds" as ducks and geese, coots and  
            gallinules, jacksnipe, western mourning doves,  
            white-winged doves, and band-tailed pigeons.

          2)Defines "poultry" as domesticated fowl intended for use  
            for human food and defines "fowl" as including chickens,  
            turkeys, ducks, geese, and other domesticated birds; and  
            defines "poultry meat" as the carcass of poultry or any  
            part of such carcass.

          3)Defines "poultry producer" as any person engaged in the  
            business of growing any poultry, which is marketed as  
            poultry meat, for a period of three weeks or more for the  
            purpose of increasing the size and weight of the poultry.

          4)Defines "poultry plant" as any place where poultry is  
            slaughtered, dressed, or drawn, and any place, except a  
            retail store or eating place, where poultry meat or  
            poultry meat food products are cooked, cured, smoked, cut  
            up, recut, packed or repacked, or otherwise prepared for  
            human food.

          5)Requires any person operating a poultry plant to obtain a  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 2



            license from the Department of Food and Agriculture  
            (Department) and to be inspected, operated and maintained  
            in accordance with standards adopted by the Department  
            and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

          6)Requires poultry or poultry meat to be "wholesome," which  
            means that it must be free of any disease, contamination,  
            or conditions that would render the poultry meat unsuited  
            for human food. 

          7)Requires that any animal to be slaughtered, including  
            poultry, shall be rendered insensible to pain by a  
            captive bolt, gunshot, electrical or chemical means, or  
            any other means that is rapid and effective before being  
            cut, 

            shackled, hoisted, thrown, or cast,  with the exception of  
            poultry which may be shackled  . 

          8)Provides that any person who operates a "live animal  
            market" shall not dismember, flay, cut open, or have the  
            skin, scales, feathers, or shell removed of a live animal  
            while it is still alive,  with the exception of poultry  .

          9)Specifies that any person who maliciously and  
            intentionally maims, mutilates, or tortures any bird that  
            is either an endangered, threatened, or protected species  
            is guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or  
            felony.

          10)Provides that any person who owns or trains a bird to be  
            used in bird fighting is guilty of a misdemeanor, and  
            permits any peace officer or animal control officer to  
            take possession of all birds and other property used in  
            providing an exhibition of bird fighting.

          11)Provides any person who sells or gives away live fowl,  
            including ducklings, as an inducement to enter a place of  
            amusement or place of business, or who artificially  
            colors any fowl, or who maintains or possesses fowl for  
            the purpose of sale or display without adequate  
            facilities for supplying food, water and temperature  
            control needed to maintain the health of such fowl, is  
            guilty of a misdemeanor.

          12)Specifies that none of the State animal cruelty laws  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 3



            shall be construed so as to interfere with the right to  
            kill all animals used for food.

          13)Prohibits a pet shop or other vendor from selling an  
            unweaned bird, and from possessing an unweaned bird  
            unless it employs a person who has completed an avian  
            certification program. 

          14)Provides that horsemeat may not be offered for sale for  
            human consumption, and that no restaurant, caf?, or other  
            public eating-place may offer horsemeat for human  
            consumption.  

          15)Authorizes any peace officer or animal control officer  
            to issue a citation or fine to a person or entity keeping  
            horses or other equine animals for hire if the person or  
            the entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment  
            regarding the keeping of horse or other equine animals. 

          This bill:

          1)Prohibits a person from force feeding a bird for the  
            purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size,  
            or from hiring another person to do so.

          2)Specifies that a bird includes, but is not limited to, a  
            duck or goose.

          3)Defines force feeding a bird as a process that causes the  
            bird to consume more food than a typical bird of the same  
            species would consume voluntarily while foraging.  

          4)Specifies that force feeding methods include, but are not  
            limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other  
            device inserted into the bird's esophagus.
           
          5)Prohibits a product from being sold in California that is  
            the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of  
            enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size.

          6)Provides that a peace officer, or officer of a humane  
            society or animal control, may issue a citation to a  
            person or entity who force feeds a bird or sells a  
            product that is the result of force feeding. 

          7)Requires payment of a civil penalty up to one thousand  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 4



            dollars ($1,000) for each violation, and up to one  
            thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day the violation  
            continues, and allows the civil penalty to be payable to  
            the local agency initiating the proceedings to offset the  
            costs to the agency related to court proceedings.

          8)Allows the district attorney or the city attorney to  
            prosecute a person or entity that has committed the  
            violation. 

          FISCAL EFFECT:  Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as  
          a nonfiscal measure.

          COMMENTS:
          
          1.Purpose.  According to the Author, this bill is intended  
            to prohibit the force feeding of ducks and geese for the  
            purpose of enlarging their livers beyond their normal  
            size.  Force feeding is the common method used to produce  
            foie gras and is accomplished by restraining the bird and  
            inserting a 10-to-12 inch metal or plastic tube into the  
            bird's esophagus and delivering large amounts of  
            concentrated meal and compressed air into the bird.  This  
            process is repeated up to three times a day for several  
            weeks until the liver reaches the desired size and the  
            bird is slaughtered.  As the Author contends, the force  
            feeding process is so damaging on the birds that they  
            would die from the pathological damage it inflicts if  
            they weren't slaughtered first.  The force feeding causes  
            birds to develop chronic liver disease called hepatic  
            lipidosis, in which a bird's liver swell to about 10  
            times its normal size.  This abnormally sized liver can  
            cause many health problems and eventually makes walking  
            and breathing difficult for the bird.  Further, the liver  
            may hemorrhage due to its size.  As further explained by  
            the Author, the mechanics of force feeding can also cause  
            injuries as a result of the use of the tube or funnel,  
            the food being too hot, bruising or perforation of the  
            esophagus, and asphyxia by forcing food down the trachea  
            of the bird.  The Author states that no other livestock  
            product is produced via force feeding, and that it is a  
            cruel and inhumane process that should be banned.  

          Recently, as stated by the Author, Zogby International  
            headquartered in New York conducted interviews of 1000  
            likely voters chosen at random nationwide.  More than  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 5



            three in four (77%) voters agreed that the process of  
            force-feeding of ducks and geese in order to produce foie  
            gras should be banned by law in the United States, while  
            16% disagree and 7% are not sure. 

          2.Background.  Foie gras is a French term meaning "fatty  
            liver" and is produced by force-feeding ducks and geese  
            large amounts of meal that enlarges their livers.  The  
            fat liver was produced traditionally from geese.   
            However, in recent years, there has been widespread  
            change to the use of ducks rather than geese, mainly for  
            financial reasons.  The duck chosen for foie gras  
            production is a hybrid between a Muscovy duck and the  
            domestic duck.  European countries such as France and  
            Hungary are among the largest producers.  In the United  
            States there are three producers of foie gras,  Hudson  
            Valley Foie Gras company and La Belle Poultry in upstate  
            New York that together produce about 90% of foie gras,  
            and Sonoma Foie Gras (SFG) that provides about 10% of the  
            domestic supply.  SFG has a farm with about 20,000 ducks  
            in the Central Valley and ships between 1,000 and 1,500  
            ducks a week, selling all the duck meat, not just the  
            livers, nationwide through Grimaud Farms.  There are  
            about 14 employees at SFG with annual sales of about  
            $1,500,000, and sixty percent (60%) of its business  
            coming from selling foie gras.  

             a)   The Practice of Force Feeding Ducks.  The  
               force-feeding comes when ducks are 12 to 15 weeks old.  
                During the force feeding period, ducks which had  
               previously been fed an increasing but limited amount  
               of food are forcibly fed large amounts of food 2-3  
               times a day for about two weeks and this normally  
               results in the increase of the size of the liver to  
               about 10 times the normal liver size of the bird.  The  
               amount of food fed during each force feeding is  
               considerably more than the normal intake, and as the  
               procedure is repeated, the quantity of energy rich  
               food (such as corn mash) which the birds are forced to  
               ingest is much greater that that which the birds would  
               eat voluntarily.  The ducks are sometimes kept 10 to a  
               pen about 10 square feet in size, and in low light to  
               keep them calmer.  To feed the ducks, a worker will  
               hold the bird between his knees and grasps the head,  
               inserting a tube of about 10 inches down the bird's  
               esophagus.  An overhead funnel connected to the tube  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 6



               pumps in a dose the food, creating a golf ball-sized  
               bulge as it goes down.  Doses start about 5 ounces and  
               build up to about 14 ounces.        

             b)    Effects on the Birds of Force Feeding.  In 1998,  
               the European Union (EU) requested that its Scientific  
               Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (EU  
               Scientific Committee) produce a report on the animal  
               welfare aspects of the production of foie gras using  
               ducks and geese.  Members of the EU Scientific  
               Committee foie gras working group included a dozen  
               professors of veterinary medicine and agricultural  
               scientists from across Europe.  The EU Scientific  
               Committee report was completed in December 1998, and  
               the conclusion was that force-feeding, as currently  
               practiced, is detrimental to the welfare of the birds.  
                Further, it was found that the force feeding of ducks  
               and geese along with confinement causes physical  
               problems, including respiratory, metabolic, and  
               locomotive impairment.  Foie gras production  
               facilities prevent birds from engaging in their  
               natural exploratory activities and social behaviors,  
               leading to depression and frustration, while the force  
               feeding process creates very high stress levels for  
               the birds.  They also found that elevated death rates  
               was another indication of welfare problems associated  
               with foie gras production.  

             c)   Other Countries Have Banned the Practice of Force  
               Feeding Birds.  There are at least fourteen countries  
               that have banned the practice of force feeding birds  
               to produce foie gras, either with explicit language in  
               the laws, or as part of the general animal cruelty  
               law.  As of January 2004, Italy banned foie gras  
               production, following the lead of Austria, the Czech  
               Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg,  
               Norway, and Poland.  Other countries whose laws have  
               been interpreted to ban the force feeding of birds for  
               foie gras production include Holland, Sweden,  
               Switzlerland, and the United Kingdom.  Perhaps most  
               significantly, Israel, once the world's fourth largest  
               foie gras producer, recently banned foie gras  
               production.  In August 2003, the Israeli Supreme Court  
               issued a 39-page decision declaring foie gras  
               production to be contrary to the country's animal  
               protection laws.  In issuing its opinion, the Chief  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 7



               Justice stated:

             "There is no real controversy with respect to the fact  
               that the practice of force feeding causes suffering to  
               the geese. . .the goose is prevented from eating  
               freely and is forcefully fed several times a day with  
               high energy food in quantity far above its  
               physiological requirements.  The process whereby a  
               metal tube, through which the food is packed into its  
               stomach, is introduced into the goose's body - is  
               violent and harmful.  The process causes a  
               degenerative disease in the goose's liver and  
               enlargement of the liver up to ten times its normal  
               size.  There is no controversy that without the injury  
               to the goose liver, it is not possible, at present, to  
               produce goose liver." 

             The court concluded its declaration by stating:

             ". . .no one denies that these creatures also feel the  
               pain inflicted upon them through physical harm or a  
               violent intrusion into their bodies.  Indeed, whoever  
               wishes to may find, in the circumstances of this  
               appeal, prima facie justification for the acts of  
               artificial force feeding, justification whose essence  
               is the need to retain the farmer's source of  
               livelihood and enhance the gastronomic delight of  
               others. . .But this has a price - and the price is  
               reducing the dignity of Man himself."  

             d)   Several Grocers are Refusing to Purchase Foie Gras.  
                 According to recent press articles, Trader Joe's and  
               other grocers have decided to stop carrying all duck  
               meat and foie gras.  Whole Foods Market, which is a  
               national chain headquartered in Austin, Texas with  
               over 145 stores and $3.2 billion in sales, announced  
               that it is developing enhanced animal-treatment  
               standards, starting with those for ducks and expects  
               to implement the new standards by the end of 2004.   
               Grimaud Farm's which sells Muscovy ducks to Whole  
               Foods and other high-end retailers, and is which is  
               also the custom processor for Sonoma Foie Gras, would  
               be the most impacted.  Whole Foods has made it clear  
               that they do not want any of their producers to be  
               connected with any foie gras company.           






                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 8



          3.Arguments in Support.  Sponsors of this bill are  the  
            Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights  ,  Viva!USA  
            - Intentional Voice for Animals  ,  Farm Sanctuary  , and the  
             Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals  .  There are also a large  
            number of animal welfare groups in support of this  
            measure, as well as veterinarians, including avian  
            veterinarians, and numerous individuals.  The proponents  
            raise several concerns regarding the current practice of  
            force feeding birds:

             a)   Force Feeding of Ducks Does  Not  Mimic Their Current  
               Natural Migration-Feeding Process.  According to the  
               proponents, the foie gras industry has attempted to  
               justify the practice of force feeding by claiming that  
               it takes advantage of a bird's anatomical abilities,  
               mimicking the natural tendency of birds to overeat in  
               preparation for migrating.  They argue that this is a  
               specious argument for several reasons.  First, while  
               some geese and ducks do put on fat stores for  
               migration, the Muscovy duck is a tropical bird that  
               does not migrate in the wild.  The Pekin duck (which  
               the Muscovy is crossed with to produce the Mulard duck  
               commonly used in foie gras production) is completely  
               domesticated and incapable of flying.  Therefore, it  
               is much less likely that this type of duck has such a  
               potential to store such amounts of food during  
               force-feeding.  Second, under no extent would such  
               duck gorge themselves to the extent that its liver was  
               swollen 10 times its normal size.  As they point out  
               by way of  studies, the health of the duck in foie  
               gras production is compromised to such a great degree  
               that the birds would die if they weren't slaughtered  
               after being subjected to the force feeding process for  
               just a few weeks.  Finally, the diet forced upon the  
               birds is severely deficient in several ways and is  
               destined to produce physiological suffering.  It forms  
               an unbalanced diet intended to artificially induct  
               hepatic lipidosis in the liver.  If it were given  
               under natural conditions, the birds would refuse it.   
               Even if the food was given in normal quantities, the  
               birds could not survive due to the deficiencies that  
               it would lead to in the long term.
             
             b)   Forced Confinement During Force Feeding Causes  
               Stress and Other Behavioral Problems for the Birds.   
               Proponents contend that some foie gras operations,  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 9



               including Sonoma Foie Gras, keep the ducks in near  
               darkness for the 2-3 week force-feeding period, in an  
               attempt to keep the birds calm.  This prevents normal  
               exploratory behavior, which results in the birds not  
               receiving adequate exercise.  Confinement, as well as  
               reduced light levels, also affects the birds'  
               abilities to interact socially in a normal manner.   
               Ducks who are housed in individual cages during the  
               force-feeding period have their social instincts  
               completely thwarted.  Confined so tightly at times in  
               these cages, they become agitated and injured during  
               the force feeding process.  It has also been observed  
               that they are not provided sufficient access to water  
               to bathe and immerse themselves - a strongly motivated  
               behavior among waterfowl - and because of this they  
               remain in a dehydrated state.    
             
             c)   Ducks During the Force Feeding Process Endure  
               Tremendous Stress.  The proponents contend that ducks  
               suffer from feelings of malaise as their body  
               struggles to cope with extreme nutrient imbalance and  
               distress caused by loss of control over the birds'  
               most basic homeostatic regulation mechanism as their  
               hunger control system is over-ridden.  Observation of  
               ducks during force-feeding indicates a strong aversive  
               reaction to those who are performing the force feeding  
               procedure.  Domesticated birds are very receptive to  
               normal feeding and show little fear of those who feed  
               them, but as force feeding continues, ducks show a  
               "flight response" and the force feeder has to  
               sometimes pursue and catch the bird, or at the very  
               least restrain them.  This anxiety increases with the  
               constant repetition of the cause of the stress and the  
               pain associated with the procedure of force-feeding.  
             
             d)   Ducks Suffer Several Physical Disorders and  
               Possible Death as a Result of the Force Feeding  
               Process.  Proponents contend that bronchial  
               obstruction, fibrosis of the liver, enterotoxemia, and  
               enteritis are afflictions that can threaten force-fed  
               birds, and other painful injuries to the esophagus,  
               including hemorrhagic inflammation and perforations of  
               the esophagus can result as well.  Other physical  
               problems that can occur are impaired mobility, severe  
               foot and leg disorders, respiratory difficulties,  
               lesions and cuts, liver damage and other metabolic  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 10



               disorders, and increased mortality. 
          
          4.Arguments in Opposition.  A coalition of several groups  
            is opposed to this measure and includes, among others,  
            the California Farm Bureau, the California Grain and Feed  
            Association, the California Poultry Federation, and the  
            California Restaurant Association.  There are also  
            numerous restaurants, chefs, businesses and individuals  
            who are opposed to this bill.  Opponents  contend that  
            the production of foie gras is not unethical, nor harmful  
            to ducks.  In fact, as opponents argue, the process  
            during which the foie gras is produced mimics a natural  
            process during which ducks gorge themselves prior to  
            migration.  In addition, the USDA inspects and approves  
            each fatty liver destined for consumption.  They argue  
            that the product is safe; and if it were found to be  
            contaminated or diseased, it would be destroyed before  
            consumption.

          Opponents further argue that banning a specific product  
                                                                       based on emotion rather than fact is a dangerous  
            precedent.  Animal husbandry laws have been in place for  
            years and these laws are intended to address certain  
            species of animals whose primary purpose is to provide  
            food for the table.  This designation is to differentiate  
            these animals from those raised primarily for other  
            purposes.  This proposal, as opponents argue, threatens  
            to harm these laws and could disrupt agriculture  
            throughout the state.  Proper animal care has evolved  
            from decades of practical experience and scientific  
            research.  Those husbandry practices are best determined  
            from experience and scientific basis.

          The opponent's state that the foie gras market continues to  
            develop and thrive and that consumer demand for this  
            delicacy is increasing and restaurants in California  
            continue to add it to their menus.  For example, Somona  
            Foie Gras sells its product to approximately 300  
            restaurants in California and 200 restaurants outside of  
            the state.  As argued by the opponents, the Legislature  
            should not dictate what they cannot consume when the  
            reason is not based on scientific, fact-based analysis.    


          5.Are There Alternative Methods Of Producing Foie Gras That  
            Do Not Involve Force Feeding?  According the EU  





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 11



            Scientific Committee, one study experimented with new  
            technical approaches in order to obtain fatty liver  
            without force-feeding.  The researchers destroyed the  
            medio-ventral nucleus of the hypothalmus of geese by  
            electrolytic lesion in order to induce hyperphagy.  They  
            obtained hyperphagy (heightened feeding activity)  
            effectively for a short period, so that the geese had an  
            increase in body weight and in the weight of the liver,  
            but the weight increases were lower than those obtained  
            with animals which were force-fed.  In a second approach,  
            researchers injected specific drugs to induce obesity and  
            a fattened liver, however the weight increases were still  
            lower than those obtained by force-fed animals.  The  
            other possibility suggest by the EU Scientific Committee  
            for fatty liver production could be to feed ad libitum  
            (free access to food).  The resulting product, however,  
            is not what is demanded by the consumer.  The liver  
            includes fat but to a much lower degree than in force fed  
            birds.  It might be possible, as suggested by the EU  
            Scientific Committee, to breed birds for a larger  
            appetite.  If this were done, it would be important to  
            ensure that the resulting increases in the sizes of the  
            body as a whole, or of particular organs, did not result  
            in poor welfare, for example of leg pain or organ  
            malfunction.  If the birds with good welfare and a large,  
            but not pathologically changed liver were produced, a  
            high fat content pate would have to be produced by the  
            addition of fat.

          The EU Scientific Committee recommended that research  
            should be continued to look into methods of producing  
            fatty liver which do not require the use of  
            force-feeding.
          
          SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
          
           Support:   Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights  
          (Sponsor)
                                Farm Sancturary (Sponsor)
                                Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals (Sponsor)
                                Viva!USA - International Voice for Animals  
          (Sponsor)
                                American Board of Veterinary Practitioners
                    American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to  
               Animals
                    Animal Legal Defense Fund





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 12



                    Animal Legislative Action Network
                    Animal Protection Institute
                    Animal Protection & Rescue League
                    Avian Welfare Coalition
                    Best Friends Animal Society
                    California Federation for Animal Legislation
                    Contra Costa Humane Society
                    East Bay Animal Advocates
                    Freedom for Animals
                    The Fund for Animals, Inc.
                    Hastings Student Animal Legal Defense Fund
                    Hayward Friend of Animals Humane Society
                    Humane Education Network
                    Humane Farming Action Fund
                    Humane Society of the United States
                    In Defense of Animals
                    Institute for Wildlife Studies
                    Last Chance for Animals
                    Ohlone Humane Society Wildlife Rehabilitation
                    The Paw Project
                    Pet Adoption League
                    Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
                    Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation
                    Silicon Valley in Defense of Animals
                               Sir Paul McCartney
                    United Animal Nations
                    United Poultry Concerns, Inc.
                    World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)

                    Over 700 individual letters in support.

            Opposition:    California Farm Bureau Federation
           California Grain and Feed Association
           California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
           California Poultry Federation
           California Restaurant Association 
           Golden Gate Restaurant Association
           Hotel Council of San Francisco
           Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
           San Mateo County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
           Sonoma Foie Gras 
           U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

                      Over 900 individual letters of opposition. 

          Consultant:Bill Gage





                                                                    SB 1520
                                                                     Page 13