Food for thought
I'm back from holiday and readying myself for this week's Sunday Sequence. I eased back into the way of things by presenting Evening Extra, Radio Ulster's drive-time news programme, on Thursday and Friday. Mark Carruthers, the regular presenter (with Karen Patterson) generously gave me very useful advice about how to handle what is an extremely fast-paced news programme; and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, once I'd worked out how not to bump into the "furniture" (the transitions, breaks, links to weather, travel and sports news, etc.).
This Sunday we explore the ethical case for prohibiting the production and sale of the French delicacy , following the city of to ban the delicacy in restaurants. That decision was supported by animal welfare groups, since the method of producing foie gras is tantamount, in their view, to a form of . Our discussion tomorrow will widen the debate to include both veal and lobster. The idea of a European-wide ban on foie gras will clearly not win much support in France, where the delicacy is something of a national treasure. Britain and Ireland both ban force-feeding; but they permit the sale of imported foie gras. Is that position ethically consistent? There is another question of ethical consistency worth raising for non-vegetarians who oppose foie gras: Doesn't all meat consumption involve causing suffering to animals? How much suffering is acceptable? If foie gras is unethical because of the quality of suffering it involves, what about the other meat, fish and foul that make it to the dinner table?
Also on tomorrow's programme: Is it time to routinely test for HIV with or without the consent of patients? That proposition clearly raises issues for civil libertarians, but it was discussed at the recent in Toronto as a possible measure to deal with the quite shocking fact that 90 per cent of those carrying HIV (across the world) do not know they are carriers. In the UK, it is reckoned that of those with HIV are unaware of their infection.
Comments
Welcome back from your hols, Will. You didn't use a blog-sitter this time - why not?
Welcome back fro the holidays. I have these doubt of mandatory AIDS TEsting.
Welcome back William. Would that those of us employed by commercial broadcasters were able to afford the luxury of 2 summer vacations ;-)
Animal-eaters like myself have got to deal more seriously with the ethical implications of the food we eat, in my opinion. You question is valid regarding all meat eating involving some kind of suffering. But I would argue that there is such a thing as killing animals humanely.
The British and Irish position on foie gras is definately inconsistent. Damned French.
I felt sorry for the chef during the discussion on today's programme. He was kinda out of his depth. The Animal Aid spokesman hammered his points through relentlessly. But the argument he developed was a good one. The UK and Ireland position makes no sense. And it's time for a ban of foie gras and veal across the EU.
I felt sorry for the chef too - I'd support a ban on foie gras and veal, but I thought the Animal Aid person was a heavyweight debater, who'd discussed these things before, and he didn't give the chef a chance to think through what his moral position is.
Also, I'm never sure about the argument that all meat-eating is wrong because it involves animal slaughter. After all, it's not like an unfarmed chicken would live a long and happy life - nor is it clear to me that humanity would tolerate large numbers of animals that weren't useful to itself.