Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lost_sidhe t1_j0h8zap wrote

OK, it never went into effect - I was sure I've seen foie gras on a menu in NYC this year.

"...the city was barring the sale of a lawfully produced farm product "not for reasons of the health, safety or welfare of its citizens — but to change animal husbandry practices occurring on farms outside its jurisdiction to which it objects."

They do have a point.

91

glemnar t1_j0hcnie wrote

Let’s not pretend that those geese/ducks are treated worse than the chickens, cows, and pigs on our plates

80

Lost_sidhe t1_j0hdide wrote

Exactly. Battery house chickens are some of the most horribly treated meat animals in our country. People just seem to care less about chickens than any other factory farm nightmare - I don't know why.

Edit: probably chicken nuggets is why. :-/

48

freeradicalx t1_j0ihdib wrote

Everybody should pay a visit to a battery house at some point in their lives, without it being dressed up by the farmer ahead of time to not look how it normally does.

But we can't, because their industry literally lobbies to get laws passed that makes investigating them illegal. They have nothing to hide, and no you can't see it.

13

Lost_sidhe t1_j0iii3d wrote

If more people really cared to look under the plastic wrappers at where their food came from, it would be quite telling on how much their personal food choices would change, or how much pressure could/might be put on regulations and producers. I am not overly optimistic that the average person would care, even looking it plain in the face. Afterall, none of this is a secret, most people are just making an active decision NOT to look behind the curtain.

5

koreamax t1_j0iknx4 wrote

I don't understand why this is so much more controversial than veal

1

Curiosities t1_j0hf0b9 wrote

>but to change animal husbandry practices occurring on farms outside its jurisdiction

No, the law wasn't trying to change how those people run their farms, it was simply saying we don't want what you produce, but they're free to sell it elsewhere.

Overreach by the state here.

11

LittleKitty235 t1_j0ht11t wrote

State law typically trumps local laws. The State determines what powers are left to local governments to rule on.

12

Lost_sidhe t1_j0hfuza wrote

By that same argument, it's overreach of the city - did the people vote for it? I don't remember it ever being on a ballot. City making that decision for its people would also be overreach. Restaurants and customers can ban it as they see fit - and already do.

8

chusmeria t1_j0hpfo6 wrote

> By that same argument, it's overreach of the city - did the people vote for it? I don't remember it ever being on a ballot. City making that decision for its people would also be overreach.

America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Nothing you said makes any sense if you understand how American (and New York City) politics works.

4

lotsofdeadkittens t1_j0khbhj wrote

representative democracy have checks and balances to stop "tyranny"," ie. local unelected officials or just officials from other districts going against constitutions and non-representative chouices that voters did not vote on. No one voted for city council expecting them to start banning nYS agriculture. This is how representative democracy works. since voters dont vote on every policy present there needs to be a checking system for the sake of avoiding minority law changes being passed

4

arsenalfc1987 t1_j0hzyyi wrote

Unelected health commissioners have too much power

−4

chusmeria t1_j0i1ebh wrote

The city council created it. Don't make up random shit. Christ, fuckin liars and idiots responding to me: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-york-city-bans-the-sale-of-foie-gras-will-punish-businesses-offering-food-from-force-fed-animals/

> "We want to be a city that is judged of course about how we treat our fellow people, but also we want to be judged by how we treat animals and the evolution of how we come to care for animals," City Council Speaker Corey Johnson said.

> The council also overwhelmingly passed the Carriage Horse Heat Relief Act, keeping horses from working when temperatures go above 90.

5

StrngBrew t1_j0hvila wrote

State law almost always takes precedent over municipal laws

2

George4Mayor86 t1_j0ib9yo wrote

Who’s we? Why should the city get to force consumers to boycott products City Hall doesn’t like?

2

DadBodofanAmerican t1_j0lxlxi wrote

Nope. Overreach by the city. The state agricultural law prohibits any municipality from passing laws that will adversely affect the agricultural industry of another municipality. This way the state government, with representatives from both areas, can come in and make a decision where both areas have an equal say.

2

epicxownage t1_j0hxflt wrote

With the news of the law banning the sale of puppies etc in shops, how would this logic not also apply there? Just curious about the broader applications, I do not have a horse in this race

6

freeradicalx t1_j0ihlms wrote

Puppy mills don't grease Albany with lots of lobbying money the way that animal ag does.

8

DadBodofanAmerican t1_j0lxdjy wrote

Also people don't rely on puppies for food. Cruelty in how we treat pets is a lot different from how we secure the food chain.

1

Lost_sidhe t1_j0i7osb wrote

I'd guess (and that's all it is) that if it's a city only ban, then the state has set precedent to overturn it on similar grounds.

3

uncle_troy_fall_97 t1_j0ihqtn wrote

The selling-puppies-in-pet-shops ban is a state law, signed by the governor after some changes were made (like having it take effect in 2024 rather than immediately, for instance). So it is not analogous to this.

5

epicxownage t1_j0iblx4 wrote

Kinda what I was thinking. But, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t care enough to look into it deeper than this surface level question lol

1

GettingPhysicl t1_j0jzz8q wrote

We can also ban products made with slave labor if the slaves aren’t in nyc

And if we can’t, change the law that’s fucked up

To be clear I don’t care about the geese liver thing but the idea you can sell whatever as long as it is produced outside of the jurisdiction and that jurisdiction can set no rules sucks

2

Lost_sidhe t1_j0kz2v1 wrote

Well, except that the reason it was shot down by the state was that it was a legally ok product. Slave labor is illegal, so should automatically be banned everywhere. Realistically, we don't, internationally; because we still sell things like designer sneakers, and pre-peeled garlic. We shouldn't, but that should be federal bans.

2

GettingPhysicl t1_j0mtogw wrote

it is legally ok in all of the areas outside the jurisdiction. why can't we decide our own. NYC has more people than a lot of states do. sell it elsewhere. Again. nothing for or against goose liver bans.

1