Smaller steps to a better fin-ish?

Letter from Peter Tan, Today Online 7 Jun 08;

I READ with dismay the commentary by Liang Dingzi “Of sharks’ fins and high rollers” (June 5). While the writer applauds Resorts World at Sentosa (RWS) for its decision to take sharks’ fin off its menu, he poisons his praise by calling RWS’s decision to serve high-rollers “hypocritical”.

Liang Dingzi does not see the wood for the trees. I say far better for companies to take smaller steps than expect each one to go all the way.

We should celebrate that 90 per cent of sharks’ fin will not be consumed at RWS, rather than lament the10 per cent that may be. In the end, the number of bowls of the delicacy consumed by high rollers at RWS will pale in comparison to the thousands served at wedding dinners acrossSingapore.

Let’s have local hotels follow RWS’s example and take sharks’ fin off their wedding banquet menus, for supermarkets not to stock shark fins, and, dare I add, for media companies not to publish advertisements that promote sharks’ fin menus and products.

One man’s foie gras is another man’s poison
Letter from Teo Puay Kim, Today Online 7 Jun 08;

I REFER to “Of sharks’ fins and high rollers” (June 5) by Liang Dingzi.

I would like to propose the banning of the French delicacy foie gras in Singapore.

We should be writing to all French restaurants to remove this distasteful dish that involves a high level of cruelty to ducks and geese.

Foie gras is French for “fatty liver” or the liver of a duck or goose that has been fattened by force feeding.

Chicago and California have already banned foie gras.

The following can be found on the Wikipedia website: “Animal rights and welfare groups such as Peta, Farm Sanctuary andHumane Society of the United States contend that foie gras: production methods, and force feeding in particular, constitute cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.

“Specific complaints include liver swollen to many times their normal size, impaired liver function, expansion of the abdomen making it difficult for birds to walk, death if the force feeding is continued, and scarring of the esophagus.

“Peta also claims that the insertion and removal of the feeding tube scratch the throat and the esophagus, causing irritations and wounds and thus exposing the animal to risk of mortal infections.”

Liang Dingzi is right. Compassion is not a tradeable commodity :—: we should be fair to the ducks and geese as well.