Nancy Sexton wrote:Still, I think if it's not overturned, the only effect will be a crippling of fine dining in Chicago proper. Fine Dining will move to the 'burbs.
Why should they employ people to police something that will ultimately rob them of tax money?
Nancy
Mayor Daley wrote:“We have children getting killed by gang leaders and dope dealers. We have real issues here in this city. And we’re dealing with foie gras….Someone talks about foie gras this week. What’s next week? What’s on your menu…”
crrush wrote:The Councilman's assertion that the smoking ban and the foie gras ban are in the same category, and if the city council can ban one and get away with it, they can ban the other just as easily--that's just scary, mostly because he's right...so far. My hope is that by the time the full smoking ban is supposed to take effect in 2008, people will have come to their senses and realize that there are far more important battles to be fighting. Frankly, it's embarassing.
Nancy Sexton wrote:I simply can't believe anyone is going to stop eating fois gras over this. If they enforce the law, fois gras will move to the suburbs. As a suburbanite, I've seen this as a plus.
Still, I think if it's not overturned, the only effect will be a crippling of fine dining in Chicago proper. Fine Dining will move to the 'burbs.
Why should they employ people to police something that will ultimately rob them of tax money?
Nancy
stevez wrote:
I saw a piece on the news last night where several restaurateurs had some hard numbers as to the amount of $$$ this will be costing the city in terms of lost tax revenue. It was a pretty high number if I remember correctly.
Do you really think fine dining can move to the suburbs? I just can't imagine that. For one thing, there is the drinking and driving issue. It's hard to get through a tasting menu with wine pairings and then face a long drive, even if you are not over the limit.
sundevilpeg wrote:Do you really think fine dining can move to the suburbs? I just can't imagine that. For one thing, there is the drinking and driving issue. It's hard to get through a tasting menu with wine pairings and then face a long drive, even if you are not over the limit.
leek wrote:stevez wrote:
I saw a piece on the news last night where several restaurateurs had some hard numbers as to the amount of $$$ this will be costing the city in terms of lost tax revenue. It was a pretty high number if I remember correctly.
That number assumes that people will not substitute something else to eat instead of having a foie gras dish.
Mhays wrote:I was thinking about this recently while my family and I were having a lovely day fishing. Comparatively, putting a tube in an animal's mouth and feeding it (which, remember, we do with human beings in the hospital) seems incredibly less cruel than fishing.
Think: we spent our time chopping a small living animal into bits, shoving hooks through them, throwing them in water where they're either swallowed whole (hopefully) or nibbled into pieces. Then said hook goes through the mouth (if you're lucky) or the eye (if you're not) of the fish you're trying to catch, you drag it in by the injury out of its element, and then allow it to die a number of unpleasant ways. (even if you're practicing catch-and-release fishing, I don't think it's any nicer)
Cynthia wrote:Come to think of it, how did they escape the steely eyes of our vigilant city council. Surely filleting a live fish is more unkind than making foie gras.
crrush wrote:...The whole idea of banning a food because of cruelty is absurd. Where does it stop? ...Frankly, it's embarassing....But the one thought going through my head as I savored every bite of that rich, fatty liver...can't we at least put it in perspective of consumption? ...Now let's compare total foie gras consumption in the city of Chicago to, say, consumption of chicken nuggets, which I watch my nieces and nephew scarf like kiddie crack. What are we saving? Are we valuing the treatment of a few ducks over the treatment of scores and scores of chickens? Should we concern ourselves with the greater good? ...
nr706 wrote:I know we have some lawyers on here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the city's ordinance legislates against selling foie gras. But if a restaurant wants to offer the foie gras free as part of another dish people are ordering, it's not illegal.
The Chicago Sun-Times wrote:In a show of defiance, some chefs said Tuesday they will continue to serve foie gras -- they just won't charge for it.
Chef Didier Durand of Cyrano's Bistrot said he was rewriting his menu for today to include a new dish: seasonal potatoes with a garden salad. Beneath it will be the phrase, "complimentary liver de canard," -- that is, foie gras.
"We may put some in your pocket before you go home," said Copperblue chef Michael Tsonton.
Nancy Sexton wrote:Fois Gras, Veal, Live Fish, poorly raised Chickens..........
STOP BEING NEUROTIC ABOUT FOOD ALREADY!
Or at least, keep it to yourself, just don't eat them yourself.
Frankly, I think it's neurotic to be sympathetic about your food.
after digesting the low level of discourse on this topic by some, my sympathies have shifted dramatically towards the food i eat.
(CBS) wrote:The Chicago Park District hopes a new lawn treatment will keep Canada geese off its grass in Grant Park.
The geese are snacking on grass in Butler Field, and leaving their mark behind.
To combat the problem, the Park District sprayed 200 gallons of a digestive irritant across the field. The chemical is safe for humans, but gives geese diarrhea within 20 minutes.
Park officials hope the geese will get the picture and leave.
leesh wrote:In the larger scope of things, foie gras and cigarettes are legally produced items. Why punish certain industries (bars, restaurants) for allowing a legal product at their establishment? If people think something is is unfair or unhealty, lobby to pass a law to stop making that product. stop the production of foie gras and cigarettes at their very source.