Malta

Malta has little agricultural land and a very small domestic poultry sector. Duck and goose production are not part of Maltese farming; poultry products such as ducks and duck eggs are usually imported by meat distributors like Ta’ Gauci. Historically, foie gras has never been part of Maltese cuisine, and there are no historical records of local foie gras production. The Mediterranean island’s restaurant culture occasionally offered imported foie gras in haute‑cuisine dishes, but it was a niche indulgence at luxury restaurants rather than a culturally embedded tradition. In 2022 the Maltese Ministry of Agriculture confirmed that no foie gras farms existed in the country and stated that force‑feeding and fur farming were “not the norm”[1][2]. The same message was repeated in animal‑welfare press statements; Malta’s plant‑based advocacy group Veggy Malta noted that the country “does not have a large animal agricultural industry” and that foie gras production was “barbaric”[3][4]. Because there was never a domestic foie gras industry, there were no producers, no employment, and no measurable output. Import data for “edible products of animal origin” show Maltese imports of such products at only US$29 000 (6 651 kg) in 2023[5]; this category includes various animal products and illustrates how small the market for speciality animal products is. Foie gras consumption was limited to imported products served at a handful of fine‑dining venues. There were no broader force‑feeding industries involving duck or goose meat; Malta imports most duck meat and eggs and does not engage in large‑scale waterfowl farming. Therefore the ban formalised a situation in which foie gras production was already absent and economically trivial.

Before 2022, Malta produced no foie gras and all consumption came from imports. High‑end restaurants and gourmet shops sourced foie gras from France, Spain or Italy. There were no exports. When the Ministry of Agriculture issued Legal Notice 187 of 2022, it immediately prohibited force‑feeding of birds and fur farming, but officials emphasised that the country had no operating foie gras farms[1][2]. The ban therefore targeted hypothetical future producers rather than closing existing farms. No producers were “grandfathered” or compensated because none existed. Consumers could continue to purchase imported foie gras, and restaurants were not forced to remove it from their menus. The law thus separated production (which was banned) from consumption and trade (which remained legal), a distinction reflecting Malta’s integration in the EU single market and the absence of a local industry.

Legal Notice 187 of 2022 amended the Farm Animals (Protection) Regulations under the Animal Welfare Act (Cap. 439). The notice introduced explicit definitions and prohibitions. It defined force feeding a bird as a process that causes a bird “to consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily,” including feeding through a tube inserted into the oesophagus[6]. A new regulation 3A states that “no person shall force feed a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size” and prohibits the practice outright[7]. Regulation 3B prohibits keeping animals solely or primarily for their fur or breeding them for such slaughter[8]. These provisions effectively outlawed foie gras production (because production requires force‑feeding) and fur farming. The law does not mention sales or imports and therefore does not prohibit the sale of foie gras or fur products; government statements and advocacy groups noted that the legal notice “does not ban the sale of foie gras or fur locally”[3][9]. Malta’s decision to ban production but not sales or imports reflects legal and economic constraints. As a member of the European Union, Malta must respect the EU’s rules on free movement of goods. A unilateral ban on importing foie gras would likely contravene EU trade law unless justified on strict animal‑welfare grounds, and EU law already allows production in certain member states on cultural‑heritage grounds. The Maltese government therefore avoided trade disputes by targeting production methods within its territory and leaving cross‑border commerce untouched. Officials described the law as a precautionary measure intended to prevent producers from relocating to Malta[2][10].

Because there were no foie gras farms to close, the immediate market effects were minimal. Restaurants continued to import foie gras, and there were no reports of shortages or price increases. Advocates acknowledged that allowing sales could undermine the ban but argued that prohibiting production nonetheless sent a symbolic message and could discourage consumption[4]. The ban may have raised public awareness; some food critics and diners questioned the ethics of serving foie gras, and a few restaurants reportedly replaced it with plant‑based alternatives, but concrete data on consumption declines are lacking. Retail availability remained limited to niche gourmet outlets. The absence of an industry meant there were no supply‑chain adaptations or attempts to circumvent the law; enforcement merely ensures that no farms are established. Post‑ban import statistics specific to foie gras are unavailable, but the continued legality of sales suggests imports persist in small quantities.

The pathway to Malta’s ban was short and largely uncontroversial. The Ministry of Agriculture introduced the amendment in June 2022 and issued it as a legal notice in early August 2022. Local animal‑rights organisations, particularly Veggy Malta, had been urging the government to adopt stronger animal‑welfare measures. Veggy Malta called foie gras production “barbaric” and celebrated the legal notice as a “positive step in the right direction”[3][4]. The group emphasised that Malta lacked a large animal‑agriculture sector and encouraged policymakers to invest in alternative, plant‑based foods[11]. The ban coincided with the Fur Free Europe European Citizens’ Initiative, which sought a continent‑wide end to fur farming; thus the Maltese measure aligned the island with broader European animal‑welfare trends. There is no evidence of long‑running national campaigns specifically against foie gras or of major public demonstrations; rather, the decision appears to have been driven by a small coalition of vegan activists, animal‑protection NGOs and a ministry willing to adopt precautionary legislation.

Because Malta never had foie gras farms, investigations into local practices were unnecessary. Legislators relied on international evidence about the cruelty of gavage. Advocacy groups repeatedly pointed to the fact that foie gras is produced by force‑feeding ducks and geese through tubes, causing their livers to enlarge up to ten times their normal size[12]. These practices have been documented in undercover investigations across Europe showing animals with liver pathology, respiratory distress, injuries and high mortality. Animal‑welfare organisations argued that force‑feeding breaches Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes, which requires animals to be kept without avoidable pain or suffering; yet five EU member states with cultural traditions (France, Hungary, Spain, Bulgaria and Belgium) continue production due to a heritage exemption[13]. Advocates in Malta referenced these international investigations to justify a proactive ban and emphasised that there is no humane way to produce foie gras. Environmental and public‑health arguments played little role because Malta had no local farms; the narrative focused on animal cruelty and aligning with evolving EU standards.

There was almost no organised resistance to the ban. The absence of domestic producers meant no industry group or union lobbied against the law. Chefs and gourmets occasionally defended foie gras as a culinary delicacy, but mainstream public debate was limited. Some critics argued that banning production while allowing sales was hypocritical and ineffective, but this criticism came mainly from activists who wanted a more comprehensive prohibition, not from an industry trying to preserve its livelihood[9]. There were no legal challenges or court cases concerning the ban, and the Ministry’s power to issue regulations under the Animal Welfare Act allowed the change to bypass lengthy parliamentary debates. The only “struggle” faced by advocates was that the measure did not include an import ban, a compromise likely required by EU trade rules.

Malta’s foie‑gras prohibition fits within a broader trend of strengthening animal‑welfare laws. The Animal Welfare Act of 2002 established a framework for regulating the treatment of animals, and subsequent amendments have introduced progressive measures. In 2014 the Act was amended to enact a general ban on the use of animals in circuses[14], making Malta one of a handful of countries banning both wild and domesticated animals in circus performances. The government has also regulated pet breeding, tightened micro‑chipping requirements and supported stray‑animal adoption programmes. Legal Notice 187 of 2022 banned fur farming alongside force‑feeding, reflecting a coherent policy arc aimed at preventing inherently cruel industries from establishing on the island. In 2023 Malta passed an Animal Welfare (Amendment) Act strengthening enforcement and penalties. The foie‑gras ban should therefore be seen as one step in a suite of animal‑protection reforms rather than a symbolic outlier.

The success of the ban in Malta can be attributed to several interlocking factors: Economic marginality – there was no foie gras industry to oppose the law, so the political costs were negligible. The government could enact the ban without fearing job losses or economic backlash. Political structure – under the Animal Welfare Act the Minister for Veterinary Services can issue regulations without full parliamentary legislation. Legal Notice 187 of 2022 therefore became law quickly and quietly. Cultural openness – foie gras was not embedded in Maltese culture; its absence from local cuisine made it easier to outlaw production without provoking cultural resistance. Alignment with EU trends – the ban coincided with a European movement to eliminate fur farming and foie gras production. Adopting the prohibition allowed Malta to present itself as a progressive EU member and avoid being seen as a refuge for relocating producers. Advocacy synergy – though small, vegan and animal‑rights groups used international investigations to build a moral case and framed the ban as a precautionary measure that would signal Malta’s commitment to animal welfare. Their messaging emphasised that Malta should “move away from animal‑based agriculture”[11].

Malta’s experience offers several insights for policymakers and advocates: Pre‑emptive bans are easier – legislating against cruel practices before industries become established avoids economic disruption and resistance. Other small countries without foie gras production may similarly enact bans to prevent relocation. Production bans alone have limited market impact – because Malta did not prohibit sales or imports, foie gras remains available. Activists hoping to reduce consumption should not overstate the efficacy of a production ban when imports continue. Jurisdictions with established industries will need more comprehensive measures, including trade restrictions and consumer outreach, to change behaviour. EU trade law constrains national action – EU member states cannot easily ban imports produced legally in other member states. Malta’s law shows that targeting production methods within a jurisdiction is legally safer than restricting cross‑border trade. Symbolic legislation can raise awareness – even when market effects are small, bans can contribute to shifting norms. Malta’s decision generated positive press and aligned the country with broader animal‑welfare movements, signalling state support for cruelty‑free values. Local context matters – the ease of Malta’s ban stems from its small size, absence of an industry and centralised legal authority. Larger jurisdictions with significant foie gras production or consumption will face different challenges, including constitutional claims, regional heritage arguments and economic resistance. In sum, Malta’s prohibition of force‑feeding for foie gras and its ban on fur farming illustrate how a precautionary legal change can advance animal‑welfare norms with little controversy. The law reflects both domestic activism and European trends and underscores the importance of tailoring animal‑welfare strategies to local economic and legal contexts. [1] Malta bans fur farming and foie gras production | Eurogroup for Animals https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/malta-bans-fur-farming-and-foie-gras-production [2] Malta Bans Fur Farming and Foie Gras Production — Species Unite https://www.speciesunite.com/news-stories/malta-bans-fur-farming-and-foie-gras-production [3] Malta Just Banned Fur Farming And Foie Gras Production https://plantbasednews.org/culture/law/malta-banned-ban-fur-farming-foie-gras/ [4] [11] Malta praised for banning foie gras production and fur farming https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/news/malta-bans-foie-gras-production-fur-farming/ [5] Malta Edible products of animal origin, nes imports by country | 2023 | Data https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/MLT/year/2023/tradeflow/Imports/partner/ALL/product/041000 [6] [7] [8] mlt211598.pdf https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlt211598.pdf [9] [10] [13] Malta announces bans on fur farming and foie gras production | Totally Vegan Buzz https://www.totallyveganbuzz.com/food/malta-bans-fur-farming-and-foie-gras-production/ [12] Foie Gras Production And Fur Farming Are Now Illegal In Malta https://lovinmalta.com/lifestyle/environment/foie-gras-production-fur-farming-illegal-malta/ [14] Circuses Without Wild Animals - FOUR PAWS International - Animal Welfare Organisation https://www.four-paws.org/campaigns-topics/topics/wild-animals/worldwide-circus-bans