BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1520| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 1520 Author: Burton (D) Amended: 8/17/04 Vote: 21 SENATE BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE : 4-3, 4/26/04 AYES: Figueroa, Cedillo, Murray, Vincent NOES: Aanestad, Brulte, Machado SENATE FLOOR : 21-14, 5/18/04 AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Cedillo, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Florez, Karnette, Kuehl, Murray, Perata, Romero, Scott, Sher, Soto, Speier, Torlakson, Vasconcellos, Vincent NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Brulte, Denham, Hollingsworth, Machado, Margett, McClintock, McPherson, Morrow, Oller, Poochigian NO VOTE RECORDED: Chesbro, Ducheny, Johnson, Ortiz ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-28, 8/24/04 - See last page for vote 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 bird's liver beyond normal size, and CONTINUED SB 1520 Page 2 prohibits a product from being sold in California if it is the result of force feeding of a bird. Assembly amendments : until July 1, 2012, prohibit an existing or future civil or criminal cause of action for engaging in an act prohibited by the bill, from proceeding against a person or entity engaged in, or controlled by persons or entities who were engaged in, agricultural practices that involved force feeding birds at the time of the enactment of this bill. ANALYSIS: 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. 8. Authorizes the district attorney or city attorney to prosecute a person or entity that violates these SB 1520 Page 3 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.Specifies that the limited immunity from liability provided in this bill is not applicable to acts committed on or after July 1, 2012, nor is it applicable to persons or entities who were not engaged in, or controlled be persons or entities engaged in, practices of force feeding at the time of enactment of this chapter. 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. 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. SB 1520 Page 4 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 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 $1.5 million, with 60 percent of its business coming from selling foie gras. 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. 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. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No Unknown SB 1520 Page 5 SUPPORT : (Verified 5/6/04) (unable to re-verify at time of this writing) 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 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. SB 1520 Page 6 The Paw Project United Animal Nations United Poultry Concerns, Inc. World Society for the Protection of Animals Numerous individuals OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/6/04) (unable to re-verify at time of this writing) 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 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 : 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 SB 1520 Page 7 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. 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. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Bates, Berg, Bermudez, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Corbett, Correa, Diaz, Dutra, Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg, Hancock, Shirley Horton, Houston, Jackson, Kehoe, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox, Maldonado, Montanez, Mullin, Nakano, Nation, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Pavley, Plescia, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wesson, Wiggins, Yee, Nunez NOES: Aghazarian, Benoit, Bogh, Calderon, Campbell, Canciamilla, Cogdill, Cox, Daucher, Dutton, Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Pacheco, Parra, Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Wolk, Wyland SB 1520 Page 8 NO VOTE RECORDED: Cohn, Koretz, Nakanishi, Reyes, Salinas, Samuelian CP:nl 8/25/04 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****