A narrow ban

I would like to comment on the article on the Chicago foie gras ban and the response of one reader.

Each time I read of another ban, I ask myself the same question: “Why is foie gras being championed by the general population as the food product they are trying to ban?”

The main issue seems to be that people find the process amounts to “animal cruelty.” Yet it would seem that if people universally cared about animal cruelty, they wouldn’t eat any animal products.

Do people not know about the processing of mass-produced poultry (and accompanying waste), the slaughterhouse practices of billion-dollar companies such as Tyson and Smithfield, or facilities that process meat and poultry according to kosher law?

Do they not feel for the tens of millions of chickens, turkeys, pigs and cattle that are put through these brutal conditions and painful slaughtering? Is it because ducks and geese are cuter than cows?

Frankly, I don’t understand the uproar about foie gras. Personally, I’d like to have the choice to continue to eat it.

If animal cruelty really is the issue, wouldn’t we be better served if we looked to the largest producers of poultry, beef and pork that slaughter millions of animals daily to make changes in their processes (e.g., reducing environmental pollution, hormones, antibiotics, increasing sanitation and less cruel practices) for the foods most people eat daily?

MICHAEL LEE

Gardena