BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1520
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Lou Correa, Chair
SB 1520 (Burton) - As Amended: May 6, 2004
(As proposed to be amended)
SENATE VOTE : 21-14
SUBJECT : Force fed birds.
SUMMARY : Prohibits, effective July 1, 2012, the force-feeding
of a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond
normal size and also prohibits a product from being sold in
California if it is the result of such force-feeding.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a person from force-feeding a bird for the purpose
of enlarging a bird's liver beyond normal size, or hiring
another person to do so.
2)Prohibits a product from being sold in California if it is the
result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging
its liver.
3)Includes in the definition of "bird," but does not limit the
definition to, a duck or goose.
4)Defines "force feeding" of 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.
5)Provides that force-feeding methods include, but are not
limited to, delivering feed through a tube or similar device
inserted into the bird's esophagus.
6)Authorizes a peace officer or officer of a humane society or
animal control agency to issue a citation to a person or
entity that violates these provisions.
7)Requires payment of a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each
violation, and up to $1,000 for each day the violation
continues, payable to the local agency initiating the
citation, to offset costs.
SB 1520
Page 2
8)Authorizes the district attorney or city attorney to prosecute
a person or entity that violates these provisions.
9)Prohibits any civil or criminal cause of action as a result of
an entity engaged in an act prohibited by these provisions,
between January 1, 2005 and July 1, 2012, including any
pending actions.
10)States the intent of the Legislature in delaying the
operative date of these provisions to allow entities engaged
in agricultural practices that include raising and selling
force fed birds to modify their business practices.
11)States the support of the Legislature for the following:
a) Assistance in identifying alternate business
opportunities for California businesses that currently rely
on the sale of force fed birds.
b) Assistance in finding alternate employment, or providing
job training for, employees of California businesses that
currently rely on the sale of force fed birds.
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. Also 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, re-cut, packed or
repacked, or otherwise prepared for human food.
SB 1520
Page 3
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.
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 from 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 shall be
construed so as to interfere with the right to kill all
animals used for food.
SB 1520
Page 4
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, cafe, 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 horses or other equine animals.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . 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 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. The author's office
contends that the force feeding process is so hard 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 swells to about 10 times its normal size.
This swollen 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.
The author's office further details that the mechanics of force
feeding can also cause injuries as a result of the use of the
tube, the food being too hot, bruising 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, Zogby International
SB 1520
Page 5
headquartered in New York conducted interviews of 1,000 likely
voters chosen at random nationwide. More than three of four
voters (77%) 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% disagreed and 7% were 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. A fatty 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, with 60% of its business coming from
selling foie gras.
The practice of force feeding . The force-feeding process begins
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. 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 deposited
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 or her
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 of the food, creating a golf ball-sized
bulge as it goes down. Doses start at about five ounces and
SB 1520
Page 6
build up to about 14 ounces.
Effects of force feeding on birds . 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.
Other countries . 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, Switzerland, 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
SB 1520
Page 7
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 fatty 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.
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 also the custom
processor for SFG, 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.
Free market . According to supporters, "the concepts of a free
market and free choice assume a fully-informed public, but the
vast majority of the public is certainly not fully informed when
it comes to the cruelty and suffering involved in the production
of foie gras. Moreover, our society's free market and free
choice values have never been free of moral constraints,
including with respect to food. This is certainly not the first
time the California Legislature would be telling the market and
the public that they can buy and sell and eat as they please,
but only to the extent that their actions are not inhumane. The
Legislature has already made the sale of the meat of horses and
cats and dogs for human consumption a Penal Code violation. It
is a tiny step to prohibit the sale of the livers of the birds
produced under conditions that cause the birds tremendous
SB 1520
Page 8
suffering."
Other methods for producing foie gras ? According to the EU
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
hypothalamus 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 suggested 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.
Arguments in support . The proponents of this bill, including
veterinarians and animal welfare groups, have raised numerous
concerns regarding the current practice of force feeding birds.
1)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
SB 1520
Page 9
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 conditions would ducks gorge themselves to
the extent that their 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.
2)Forced Confinement During Force Feeding Causes Stress and
Other Behavioral Problems for the Birds . Proponents contend
that some foie gras operations, including SFG, 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, which is a strongly motivated behavior among
waterfowl, and because of this they remain in a dehydrated
state.
3)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
SB 1520
Page 10
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.
4)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 disorders, and increased mortality.
Arguments in opposition . A coalition of several groups is
opposed to this bill, which 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
SB 1520
Page 11
to differentiate these animals from those raised primarily for
other purposes. This bill, 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 a scientific basis. The
opponents 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, Sonoma 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.
NOTE: The proposed amendments reflected in this analysis have
removed the opposition of Sonoma Foie Gras.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (co-sponsor)
Farm Sanctuary (co-sponsor)
Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals (co-sponsor)
Viva!USA - International Voice for Animals (co-sponsor)
Silverstone
American Board of Veterinary Practitioners
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Action Network
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Legislative Action Network
Animal Protection and Rescue League
Animal Protection Institute
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
Avian Welfare Coalition
Best Friends Animal Society
Caf? Champagne Restaurants
California Federation for Animal Legislation
California Lobby for Animal Welfare
California National Organization for Women
California Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Cat Clinic of the Quad Cities
Contra Costa Humane Society
Davis Food Co-op
SB 1520
Page 12
East Bay Animal Advocates
Farm Sanctuary
Freedom for Animals
Hastings Student
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
Marin Peace and Justice Coalition
Martin Sheen
Natural Foods Co-op
Ohlone Humane Society Wildlife Rehabilitation
Pet Adoption League
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Reproductive Science Center of the San Francisco Bay Area
Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals
San Diego Last Chance for Animals
Seeds for Change - Humane Education
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation
Silicon Valley in Defense of Animals
Sir Paul McCartney
The Fund for Animals, Inc.
The Paw Project
United Animal Nations
United Poultry Concerns, Inc.
Valerie Harper
Vegan Action
Victoria Rugg Studio
World Society for the Protection of Animals
Numerous individuals
Opposition
California Cattleman's Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Poultry Federation
California Restaurant Association
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
Individuals
SB 1520
Page 13
Analysis Prepared by : Renee' L. Brooks / B. & P. / (916)
319-3301