by

by

September 6, 2012

Comments (1)

Comment Feed

reading your article should qualify as animal cruelty

I'm not going to dignify the attention-seeking of another dime-a-dozen "foodie" writer with too many words. You are indistinguishable from others tucked away as filler content in the thousands of free papers across the nation, writing in the same verbose style, arguing in the same boring manner in favor of any form of controversial or sensationalized delicacy. However some things stand out:

-The ickiness of using "unctuous" to convey a supposed positive quality of a food item. Perhaps in your next review of an Italian restaurant you should describe the raviolis as "pregnant with flavor".

-"Gavage takes place for a two-week period just before the young bird’s slaughter and involves inserting a smooth metal tube into a bird’s throat"

Oh I'm sorry, were the practices behind the production of your snotty meal so offensive that euphemistic language and sterilization of the process were necessary? Here let me translate for you into more realistic terms:

Foie gras is made by either confining ducks to a dark, filthy barn or a wire cage so small that they can't lift their wings for the duration of their dirty, pitiful, short lives. They then routinely have a metal pipe crammed down their throats by an indifferent and abusive industry worker, which has of course been documented to cause esophageal lacerations and pain by veterinarians. All this so provincial hacks can have an overpriced, rightfully disdained meal and a "naughty" food experience to sensationalize for conversation amid their snotty "foodie" friends.

Anthony Bourdain, who I'm sure you worship, once handwaved the intensity of this brutality as being no more severe than what female porn actresses endure for shoots. A classy bunch you food critics are, no?



Crystal Stevens more than 2 years ago

Current Issue
Fall 2014 Chow Dining Guide
Drink Bar Guide