by Mat Thomas, Farm Sanctuary, for The Animal World, February 2009

In January, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus ruled that certain advertising statements made by foie gras distributor D’Artagnan Inc. about its animal care practices were not supported by the available evidence, and issued a recommendation that they cease and desist making such claims. Because NAD is a self-regulation arm of the advertising industry, compliance with its rulings is voluntary, but D’Artagnan nevertheless agreed to “comply and modify its advertising” even though the company “strongly disagrees with NAD’s decision.”

That was probably the best tack D’Artagnan could take under the circumstances, because NAD’s opinions carry considerable weight with consumers, and the company would have drawn considerable negative attention to itself, had it refused to abide by the verdict. Actually, D’Artagnan would have made an especially easy target of criticism, especially from animal protection groups, given the unbridgeable plausibility chasm between their false claims that they treat ducks humanely and the reality of animal abuse inherent to foie gras production.

The case was brought to NAD’s attention by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), whose complaint focused on two “express claims” on D’Artagnan’s Web site: namely that “The liver is not diseased, simply enlarged,” and “Animals are hand-raised with tender care under the strictest of animal care standards.” HSUS further asserted that these statements resulted in “implied claims” that foie gras is produced humanely with healthy animals and without force feeding. After reviewing the evidence presented by both sides — including research studies, veterinarian testimonials, video documentation of common production practices, and consumer survey results — NAD determined D’Artagnan’s claims to be inconsistent with consumer expectations.

The scientific record confirms that force-fed ducks suffer from “hepatic lipidosis,” a pathological condition in which the liver becomes enlarged by as much as 12 times its normal size, at which point it is cut out and sold as foie gras. If the ducks weren’t slaughtered after several weeks of force feeding, the disease would be fatal for all the birds. During their short and painful lives, the enlarged livers push against the birds’ air sacs, causing them to gasp for air. They also push the birds’ legs outward at an unnatural angle, rendering them unable to walk. Considering the overwhelming evidence against D’Artagnan’s advertising claims, their stated disagreement with NAD’s ruling indicates two equally disturbing possibilities: either they knowingly tried to deceive their customers, or they are in such denial that they actually believe they treat ducks humanely. 

Farm Sanctuary has witnessed the results of this abuse within the foie gras industry firsthand, having obtained undercover investigative footage from four of the world’s largest foie gras producers and having taken battered, crippled foie gras farm refugees into our shelters. Farm Sanctuary was instrumental in the passage of California’s law to ban both the production and the sale of foie gras in the state (effective 2012), and more than 1000 restaurants throughout North America have signed onto our No Foie Gras Pledge. Given our experience and involvement with this issue, Farm Sanctuary applauds NAD’s decision, which, while primarily protecting consumers from fraud, also helps expose a cruel industry’s dark underbelly of lies and abuse.