A lease on life for foie gras

By LIAM MAYO
Posted 10/4/22

SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY — A New York State Supreme Court judge has granted an injunction that preserves, for now, the Sullivan County foie gras industry.

Two of Sullivan County’s foremost …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

A lease on life for foie gras

Posted

SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY — A New York State Supreme Court judge has granted an injunction that preserves, for now, the Sullivan County foie gras industry.

Two of Sullivan County’s foremost farms, Hudson Valley Foie Gras and La Belle Farms, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging a New York City Council law from 2019. The law banned the sale of foie gras, a product that both farms specialize in, within the city.

Both Hudson Valley and La Belle do a majority of their business in the city, business the law would curtail. Testimony from the lawsuit indicates that La Belle could lose $3 million in business and most of its approximately 100 employees as a result of the ban, and that Hudson Valley could lose $5 million in business and around 40 to 50 employees.

The law banning foie gras sales was set to come into effect later this year. Hudson Valley and La Belle requested an injunction to keep the law from impacting their businesses while the legal case played out.

Over objections from the New York City Council’s legal representation, Judge J. Machelle Sweeting granted that injunction on September 15. The law will remain unenforced while the court decides whether or not to uphold the law.

What’s at stake?

Hudson Valley and La Belle made a keystone of their argument the claim that by passing a law banning foie gras sales in New York City, the New York City Council sought to regulate the foie gras industry in Sullivan County. “Allowing municipalities to regulate farming operations through a sales ban would represent an unprecedented departure from settled norms,” wrote the plaintiffs in their initial complaint.

The New York City Council denied that claim in its opposition to the suit.

“Plaintiffs’ papers rely on a repackaged version of the false narrative that a ban on the sale of foie gras in New York City regulates farm operations located nearly 100 miles from city borders,” wrote the defendant. “Both as written and as applied, Local Law 202 does not reach into agricultural districts to restrict or otherwise regulate farming operations: it prohibits the sale of force-fed products, such as foie gras, in the city.”

The force-feeding practice of gavage necessary to produce foie gras led to the NYC ban on its sale. Supporters of the ban called gavage cruel and inhumane, and claimed the law would put an end to the practice, according to the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Hudson Valley and La Belle said that those comments indicated that the ban targeted their foie gras production in Sullivan County, rather than the sale of that product in New York City.

“Plaintiffs… cannot point to the section of Local Law 202 that prohibits the practice of force-feeding. That is because it does not prohibit force-feeding,” replied the defendant.

The New York City Council asked that the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction be denied, and that the judge dismiss the case entirely.

Sweeting chose to grant the preliminary relief requested by Hudson Valley and La Belle, pending the court’s decision on the underlying issues of the case.

This article follows up on an award winning five part series on foie gras and the economy of Sullivan County written by Helen Demeranville and published by the River Reporter in 2021. Catch up on the full story at the links below.

Part I: Fowl Play

Part II: All duck or no dinner

Part III: The wheat from the chaff

Part IV: Ducks out of water

Part V: Down and dirty at city hall

Beyond foie gras

foie gras, injunction

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here