Opinion: Let’s hope the foie gras ban is a slippery slope to no longer abusing animals for food

To the editor: I am saddened but not surprised when I read about people defending the outrageous depravity that is force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras. Clearly they are threatened by change, and their defenses, predictably, fall into three camps. (“Chefs react angrily as federal appeals court upholds California ban on foie gras,” Sept. 15)

First, there’s the “slippery slope” argument; then the libertarian position gets espoused; and finally, we have the “not as bad as” dismissals. These tired arguments have been used to fight progress for social justice throughout history.

We all draw the line somewhere, and laws curtailing the most egregious cruelties inflicted upon animals have been around for centuries. Compassion is not finite; we can care about animals and humans simultaneously.

I applaud the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision allowing California to finally enforce its foie gras ban. As a 30-year vegan, I hope this is the beginning of a long and steep slippery slope. Animals should not be abused simply to satisfy culinary preferences. Why be cruel when we can be kind?

Stewart David, Venice, Fla.

..

To the editor: This atrocious decision cannot be forced down our throats. Live and let liver!

Mark Steinberg, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: As I am the lanky and grizzled die-hard animal rights activist pictured on Page A6 of Saturday’s print Los Angeles Times holding the anti-foie gras sign, I’m obviously happy to see The Times spotlight the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the state’s ban.

It comes as no surprise to me that the purveyors of such cruelty would react with self-serving drivel.

Los Angeles chef Eric Greenspan’s response — that people who object to foie gras should not prevent others from eating a food they love — seeks to obfuscate the inherent moral imperative in banning foie gras and overlooks the fact that the tortured geese and ducks have absolutely no choice in the matter.

Chef Neal Fraser’s trite “don’t we have anything better to do?” comment is ridiculous. I can protest foie gras and fight for social justice, help children and work to end homelessness. And I do.

I am curious to learn of Fraser’s plan for ending childhood hunger while selling diseased duck livers.

Robb C. Curtis, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook