BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1520|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1520
Author: Burton (D)
Amended: 5/6/04
Vote: 21
SENATE BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE : 4-3, 4/26/04
AYES: Figueroa, Cedillo, Murray, Vincent
NOES: Aanestad, Brulte, Machado
SUBJECT : Force fed birds
SOURCE : Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
Farm Sanctuary
Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals
Viva!USA - International Voice for Animals
DIGEST : This bill, commencing July 1, 2012, prohibits a
person from force feeding a bird for the purpose of
enlarging the birds liver beyond normal size, and prohibits
a product from being sold in California if it is the result
of force feeding of a bird.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
SB 1520
Page
2
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 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
SB 1520
Page
3
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
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, commencing July 1, 2012:
1. Prohibits a person from force feeding a bird for the
purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal
SB 1520
Page
4
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
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.
Comments
According to the author's office, 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
SB 1520
Page
5
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's office 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's
office, 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's office 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's office, Zogby
International headquartered in New York conducted
interviews of 1000 likely voters chosen at random
nationwide. More than three in four (77 percent) 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 percent disagree and seven
percent are not sure.
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 percent
SB 1520
Page
6
of foie gras, and Sonoma Foie Gras (SFG) that provides
about 10 percent 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 percent)
of its business coming from selling foie gras.
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 pumps in a dose the food,
creating a golf ball-sized bulge as it goes down. Doses
start about five ounces and build up to about 14 ounces.
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
SB 1520
Page
7
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.
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 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
SB 1520
Page
8
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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/6/04)
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (co-source)
Farm Sanctuary (co-source)
Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals (co-source)
Viva!USA - International Voice for Animals (co-source)
American Board of Veterinary Practitioners
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Legislative Action Network
Animal Protection and Rescue League
Animal Protection Institute
Avian Welfare Coalition
Best Friends Animal Society
California Federation for Animal Legislation
California Lobby for Animal Welfare
California Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
SB 1520
Page
9
Contra Costa Humane Society
Davis Food Co-op
East Bay Animal Advocates
Freedom for Animals
Harper, Valerie
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
International Bird Rescue Research Center
Last Chance for Animals
Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals
Natural Foods Co-op
Ohlone Humane Society Wildlife Rehabilitation
Pet Adoption League
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation
Silicon Valley in Defense of Animals
Silverstone, Alicia
Sir Paul McCartney
The Fund for Animals, Inc.
The Paw Project
United Animal Nations
United Poultry Concerns, Inc.
World Society for the Protection of Animals
Numerous individuals
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/6/04)
California Cattleman's Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Poultry Federation
California Restaurant Association
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
Numerous individuals
per Committee analysis:
Animal Owners and Animal Enterprises
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
SB 1520
Page
10
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Hotel Council of San Francisco
NAIA Trust for the Protection of Animals
San Mateo County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sonoma Foie Gras
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
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:
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
SB 1520
Page
11
food was given in normal quantities, the birds could not
survive due to the deficiencies that it would lead to in
the long term.
Forced Confinement During Force Feeding Causes Stress and
Other Behavioral Problems for the Birds . Proponents
contend that some foie gras operations, 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.
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.
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
SB 1520
Page
12
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
disorders, and increased mortality.
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
SB 1520
Page
13
should not dictate what they cannot consume when the reason
is not based on scientific, fact-based analysis.
CP:nl 5/6/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****