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 ****