There are currently some interesting discussions in the foodosphere about the bizarre and contradictory ethical dilemmas regulators seem to be having when it comes to food.
The article on Megnut is particularly interesting because it has been written by Michael Ruhlman. In what he himself describes as a rant, he rails against the pandering of US legislators to those calling for more regulation of food, especially of premium food products like foie gras and lobsters. It seems insane that politicians are willing to go to the effort and expense of banning foie. Whereas, they turn a blind eye to the torture of poultry by Big Agribusiness. The former is small with a limited market, the latter has billions of lobbying dollars behind it.
Aki at Ideas in Food, does a similarly good job of arguing for the live and let live then eat, school of thought and unsurprisingly, Tana at I Heart Farms, is vociferous on the matter.
Michael is right in his call to arms. We should work to create an environment where benefiting from agribusiness is as morally dubious as benefiting from the tobacco industry. I fear this will take time, especially whilst American legislators see the devil's hand in gavage but salvation in caged, de-beaked chickens. Hopefully, the UK and EU will maintain their more enlightened approach and continue to tighten rules on cruel farming techiques. If they don't, I suppose somebody will need to get off their arse and do something about it.
