Surprise resolution sparks foie gras debate

WASHINGTON — A last-minute resolution seeking the American Veterinary Medical Association's support of foie gras production roused the House of Delegates (HOD) last month as the controversial agriculture practice took center stage.

Stirring the pot: Connecticut's Alternate Delegate Dr. Stewart Beckett and his colleagues crafted a last-minute resolution to derail the chronic introduction of an anti-foie gras production initiative. "We need action," he says in an appeal before delegates. "We need a positive response to end a repeated resolution."

The pro-foie gras motion, brought by the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), countered a position opposing the forced feeding of ducks and geese, which was introduced by activist petition but turned down for the fourth consecutive year.

CVMA's move was intended to stop the welfare initiative's annual appearance before delegates by establishing AVMA guidance on the topic. For nearly an hour, delegates debated technicalities, long-term effects and moral implications related to enacting such a plan. They teetered between referring it to the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee and back to CVMA for further review. And while many expressed frustration with reviewing the same resolution year after year, others championed the democratic process that allows contentious initiatives to reappear.

In the end, both foie gras resolutions failed. One argument contends banning its production in the United States will only increase the importation of foie gras from other countries where its manufacture is not as closely regulated. Others simply want delegates to debate broader issues, and a majority of veterinarians appear suspect of activists' claims that the production practice constitutes abuse.

New Jersey Delegate Dr. Robert Gordon echoes those suspicions but outlined a need to consider all referendums. "I think this is democracy in action," he says.

Dr. James Weber, alternative delegate from Kentucky, concurs: "I'd really hate to see a resolution that sends the message that we don't want to hear the minority opinion on things."

Other delegates viewed the pro-foie gras production piece as a public relations nightmare.

"Do we really want to be on the record on this?" Massachusetts Delegate Dr. John De Jong asks.

Privacy protection

Just one of the two microchip resolutions made it to the House floor for consideration. The AVMA Executive Board withdrew its attempt to protect the privacy of owners who microchip their pets in favor of a similar resolution authored by eight state veterinary medical associations. The board's version clarified the multi-state attempt by indicating it referred only to companion-animal microchip databases, not those used by livestock producers.

Delegates unanimously approved the resolution brought by Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, South Dakota, Maine, Indiana and Oklahoma veterinary leaders. It endorses the use of microchip-registration databases strictly for reuniting animals and owners and opposes their use as a marketing tool.