BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1520
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1520 (Burton)
As Amended June 21, 2004
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-14
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS 9-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Correa, Bermudez, | | |
| |Corbett, Koretz, Leno, | | |
| |Nation, Negrete McLeod, | | |
| |Vargas, Yee | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Shirley Horton, | | |
| |Aghazarian, Maldonado, | | |
| |Maze | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits, effective July 1, 2012, the force-feeding
of a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond
normal size. 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.
SB 1520
Page 2
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.
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; and,
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS :
1)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
SB 1520
Page 3
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.
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. 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 $1.5 million, with
60% of its business coming from selling foie gras.
3)Other countries. There are at least 14 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.
4)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
SB 1520
Page 4
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.
5)Arguments in support. 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 Mullard 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.
6)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
SB 1520
Page 5
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Renee' L. Brooks / B. & P. / (916)
319-3301
FN: 0006392