BILL ANALYSIS
----------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:April 26, 2004 |Bill No:SB |
| |1520 |
----------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Senator Liz Figueroa, Chair
Bill No: SB 1520Author: Burton
As Introduced: February 19, 2004 Fiscal: No
SUBJECT: Force-fed birds.
SUMMARY: Prohibits a person from force feeding a bird for
the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal
size, and prohibits a product from being sold in California
if it is the result of force feeding of a bird.
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; 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
SB 1520
Page 2
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 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
SB 1520
Page 3
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:
1)Prohibits a person from force feeding a bird for the
purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal 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
SB 1520
Page 4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as
a nonfiscal measure.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. According to the Author, 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. As the Author 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, 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 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, Zogby International
headquartered in New York conducted interviews of 1000
likely voters chosen at random nationwide. More than
SB 1520
Page 5
three in four (77%) 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% disagree and 7% are not sure.
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. 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% 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, and sixty percent (60%) of its business
coming from selling foie gras.
a) 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
SB 1520
Page 6
pumps in a dose the food, creating a golf ball-sized
bulge as it goes down. Doses start about 5 ounces and
build up to about 14 ounces.
b) 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 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.
c) 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
SB 1520
Page 7
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 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."
d) 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.
SB 1520
Page 8
3.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:
a) 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 food was given in normal quantities, the
birds could not survive due to the deficiencies that
it would lead to in the long term.
b) Forced Confinement During Force Feeding Causes
Stress and Other Behavioral Problems for the Birds.
Proponents contend that some foie gras operations,
SB 1520
Page 9
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.
c) 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.
d) 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
SB 1520
Page 10
disorders, and increased mortality.
4.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
should not dictate what they cannot consume when the
reason is not based on scientific, fact-based analysis.
5.Are There Alternative Methods Of Producing Foie Gras That
Do Not Involve Force Feeding? According the EU
SB 1520
Page 11
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 hypothalmus 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 suggest 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.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
(Sponsor)
Farm Sancturary (Sponsor)
Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals (Sponsor)
Viva!USA - International Voice for Animals
(Sponsor)
American Board of Veterinary Practitioners
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals
Animal Legal Defense Fund
SB 1520
Page 12
Animal Legislative Action Network
Animal Protection Institute
Animal Protection & Rescue League
Avian Welfare Coalition
Best Friends Animal Society
California Federation for Animal Legislation
Contra Costa Humane Society
East Bay Animal Advocates
Freedom for Animals
The Fund for Animals, Inc.
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
Last Chance for Animals
Ohlone Humane Society Wildlife Rehabilitation
The Paw Project
Pet Adoption League
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation
Silicon Valley in Defense of Animals
Sir Paul McCartney
United Animal Nations
United Poultry Concerns, Inc.
World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)
Over 700 individual letters in support.
Opposition: California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Poultry Federation
California Restaurant Association
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Hotel Council of San Francisco
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
San Mateo County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sonoma Foie Gras
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Over 900 individual letters of opposition.
Consultant:Bill Gage
SB 1520
Page 13