Project Summary

Colorado State University researchers propose a three-phase, $27,000 study over 18 months (Fall 2025 - Summer 2026) to assess potential foie gras ban feasibility. The research will examine consumer behavior, restaurant economics, public support, and messaging strategies. Research Objectives Evaluate economic/climate impacts on restaurants and consumer choices Measure public support and identify effective messaging Assess consumer demand nationwide Analyze economic effects in cities with existing bans Key Assumptions Minimal impact on restaurant selection/profitability Few restaurants currently offer foie gras Messaging can influence voter support Findings apply to progressive urban markets

Phase 1: Colorado Public Opinion Research: Fall 2025 | $10,000Survey 3,000 Colorado residents via Dynata to measure foie gras ban support and conduct menu choice experiments. Test hypothesis that foie gras has minimal impact on restaurant selection, meal pricing, and carbon emissions. Phase 2: Market Analysis and Economic Impact: Winter 2026 | $10,000Web scrape menus across 10 progressive cities to determine foie gras prevalence and pricing. Interview 100+ restaurants that removed foie gras to assess revenue impacts. Test hypothesis that few restaurants offer it and it's rarely mentioned in reviews. Phase 3: Messaging Strategy Development: Summer 2026 | $7,000Conduct voter interviews, focus groups, and messaging experiments in Denver. Test animal welfare, economic, popularity, and environmental messages. Produce tailored materials for media, social platforms, and community distribution to build ban support.

I have questions about the value of this research relative to its cost. When I thought it cost about half the current proposal amount, I was more intrigued.

I'd like to get more information about how foie gras policies work across various urban areas to make the conclusions more generalizable. I was on The Animal Rights Initiative's Animal Policy Accelerator Program call recently, and many participants are interested in pursuing foie gras policy locally. Ideally, the foie gras research would be generalizable to them, though I'm uncertain about the feasibility.

Despite my concerns, I'm generally in favor because: I really like Rebecca Niemiec and think she could be a valuable partner in the future We haven't fully developed our thinking yet This research will help us develop a research-based foie gras strategy over time (though other research questions also interest us)

Discrepancy: Eva didn't recall the research costing this much, but sees the economic impact analysis taking up more than originally anticipated Scope Question: Would reducing from 10 progressive cities significantly lower costs? Eva's perspective: 10 cities are necessary for sufficient data Restricting to Denver alone wouldn't provide enough restaurants that have removed foie gras from menus to assess economic impact

Rather than pursuing this specific foie gras research, I'd prefer to: Survey all cities and municipalities in key states that sell the most foie gras Develop a strategy for funding policy efforts in those cities

I'd be curious to get a sense of how many restaurants outside of Denver in Colorado serve foie gras. And perhaps get some kind of public opinion polling on that. Get a more complex sense of how a Denver ban might lead to Colorado ban and if that's even feasible.

Eva suggested extending this research to DC might make sense, as it would be the easiest way to expand the scope (she doesn't have capacity for another separate research project). I would like to explore this possibility. DC is a more significant city than Denver for a foie gras ban both in political and cultural significance as well as economic impact, so spending money on the research there might make sense. Potential advantages: DC has the highest concentration of foie gras restaurants among the cities considered Would be the most straightforward way to extend the research scope Potential concerns to investigate: CSU is a Colorado university - need to assess value of extending beyond their regional reputation and expertise. All of Rebecca's listed research on her website is Colorado-specific May affect the credibility of the research if they just do research related to places that PAF has campaigns, outside of their main area of operation

Dr Rebecca Niemiec, Animal-Human Policy Center Colorado State University Dr Lori Kogan, Clinical Sciences Department, Colorado State University Overall Objectives of the Research: Assess the impact a foie gras ban would have on restaurants, including the choices consumers would make without the option of foie gras and the economic and climate impact of these choices Assess overall public support for foie gras bans and effective messaging to enhance public support Assess the current consumer demand for and interest in foie gras nation-wide Examine the economic impact of removing foie gras from the menu in cities where it has been banned or restaurants that voluntarily removed it. Phase 1: Public Polling and Choice Experiment in Colorado We propose conducting a survey of a demographically representative sample of the Colorado public using Dynata survey company. The survey will ask about people’s behaviors and beliefs related to foie gras, and support of a ban on the sale of foie gras as well as force feeding. We will also include a choice experiment which would involve providing respondents with menus with and without foie gras (randomized as an experiment) to examine 1) people's self-reported likelihood of going to the restaurant with and without foie gras on the menu; and 2) purchasing choices. This will enable us to estimate net profits from a menu with and without foie gras and food choices/carbon emissions when foie gras is taken off the menu. We hypothesize that the presence of foie gras on the menu will have little impact on their choice of going to the restaurant, the average price of the meal they would choose to purchase, and the average carbon emissions of their meal choice. Budget: $10,000: 15 minute Dynata survey with approximately 3,000 respondents in Colorado Timeline: Completion of data collection and analysis, report produced by Fall 2025 Phase 2: Assessment of Consumer Demand and Economics Impacts from Existing Bans/Removal from Menus Our next phase of research will involve data scraping of all french cuisine menus on the internet in 10 progressive cities including Denver to examine what percentage of restaurants have foie gras, and the average price of foie gras compared to other menu items. We will then examine reviews of these restaurants to determine how often foie gras is mentioned compared to other food items on their menu. We hypothesize that a small portion of restaurants actually sell foie gras and for those that do, it is rarely discussed in consumer reviews of restaurants. In this phase of research we will also contact over 100 restaurants that have taken foie gras off their menu in in those cities and conduct interviews with restaurant owners to understand: 1) why they took it off their menu; 2) how taking it off their menu impacted revenue; and 3) perceived benefits of taking it off their menu. Budget: $10,000: $5000 for two contractors working a combined 200 hours at $50/hour Timeline: Completion of data collection and analysis, report produced by Winter 2026 Phase 3: Assessment of Effective Messaging about Foie Gras Our final phase of research will involve developing, testing, and disseminating messages to potential voters, based on Phase 1 and 2 results, to enhance support for a potential foie gras ban in Denver. This phase of research will involve first, doing in-person intercept interviews with potential Denver voters in public locations to examine common misperceptions and beliefs around this issue. Second, we will conduct focus groups and a messaging experiment testing the impacts of different messages (e.g., messages highlighting animal welfare impacts of foie gras, minimal economic impacts, lack of popularity of foie gras, or environmental impacts of foie gras) on willingness to vote for a ban. Finally, we will develop messaging tailored for media, social media, flyers, and yard signs based on the focus groups and experiments and distribute these to restaurants, schools, and via key influencers to enhance impact. Budget: $7000; $5000 for one contractor working 100 hours at $50/hour; $2000 for payment for focus group/survey participants Timeline: Completion of data collection and analysis, report produced by Summer 2026

Mission: Synthesizes socio-ecological data and convenes diverse stakeholders to help policymakers and agencies develop data-driven programs that improve lives of both animals and people. Vision: A world where policy makers, government agencies, scientists, and stakeholders work together to develop data-driven programs and policies that improve the lives of animals and people and incorporate all voices.

Policy Briefs: Data synthesis and policy analysis Stakeholder Coordination: Facilitating collaboration among diverse groups Original Research: Studies on public perspectives and policy impacts Legislative Support: Testimony and research to inform bills Transparent Approach: All results publicly available through reports and peer-reviewed publications

Associate Professor, Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department, CSU Former Manager, Colorado Bureau of Animal Protection (built program under Gov. Polis) Led development of state's non-lethal wolf management program and new Division of Animal Welfare 30+ peer-reviewed publications PhD in Environment and Resources from Stanford University B.A. in Ecology and Environmental Studies from Dartmouth College

Professor of Clinical Sciences, CSU Chair, Human-Animal Interaction section of the American Psychological Association Editor-in-Chief, Human-Animal Interaction journal (CABI) Manages academic community including newsletters, webinars, and student groups nationwide

Pets in Health/Social Services - Surveying providers to understand how pets impact healthcare decisions and service access (HABIC-funded) Pet-Friendly Housing - Analyzing rental availability, breed/size restrictions, and income disparities (ASPCA-funded) Veterinary Care Access - Examining workforce challenges and barriers to care; surveying veterinarians on welfare issues

Animal Cruelty/Neglect - National study on best practices and challenges for state programs (ASPCA-funded) National Animal Protection Survey (2024) - US public opinion on key welfare policies; establishing longitudinal dataset Equine Welfare - Quantifying cruelty cases and analyzing policy options

Carnivore Management - Focus on trophy hunting; Prop 127 post-hoc analysis; combating "ballot box biology" messaging Wolf Reintroduction - Media coverage analysis demonstrating bias and conflict escalation Pollinator Conservation - Public and beekeeper perspectives (with Butterfly Pavilion)

Research showing Americans support animal protection but underestimate others' support Testing interventions to correct misperceptions among public and policymakers Goal: Increase voting and legislation for animal causes

Post-hoc analyses of policy initiatives to learn from successes/failures Developing educational materials for wildlife biology curriculum Creating resources to reform North American model of wildlife management education

Octopus Farming Bans - EU collaboration with Eurogroup for Animals, MFA, Compassion; federal testimony prepared Fur Sale Bans - Communications strategies for MA and NY legislators; media/podcast coordination with Humane World Extreme Confinement - October 23rd workshop (Reducetarian Conference) Veterinarian Surveys - Polling on foie gras, sow confinement, VSD+ across 5 states (overcoming AVMA resistance)

Successfully informed two Colorado bills (2025 session): Pets + Housing bill (with ASPCA) Research Animal bill (with Aubyn)

Current Challenge: Receiving more project requests from the movement than current capacity allows Expansion Goals: Hire two contractors full-time for: Large-scale data science capabilities Direct legislative engagement Scale research operations Transform research into policy implementation Partnership Vision: Seeking funders who can be active partners in scaling operations and expanding impact

ASPCA Human Animal Bond in Colorado (HABIC) Humane World for Animals Wayne/Animal Wellness Action Eurogroup for Animals, MFA, Compassion NYU CEAP CSU Schools (Social Work, Veterinary Medicine) University of Colorado Summerlee Foundation Center for Human Carnivore Coexistence Project Coyote Butterfly Pavilion

How generalizable are the findings from Phase 1 in Colorado to other states or nationally? Phase 2 seems larger and more expensive than I expected—can you explain what drives the increased scope and cost? What is the rationale for choosing the ten “progressive cities” in Phase 2, and how will you ensure they provide a representative picture? Can you clarify how contractors’ work in Phases 2 and 3 will be managed to ensure quality and consistency?

How will you measure whether removing foie gras has any measurable impact on restaurant revenues, given that other economic factors may be in play? For Phase 1’s survey and choice experiment, how will you account for potential biases in self-reported consumer behavior? In Phase 2, how will you validate the accuracy of scraped menu data (since many restaurants don’t update menus online regularly)? What specific methods will you use to analyze consumer reviews, and how will you differentiate between anecdotal comments and broader trends? In Phase 3, how will you ensure that the messaging experiments mirror real-world conditions (e.g., voters encountering these messages through ads or campaigns)?

What do you see as the most actionable outputs of each phase for policymakers or advocates? How will this research help inform strategies for potential foie gras bans outside of Denver—are there insights you expect to scale nationally? How might this work connect to broader animal protection campaigns (e.g., against factory farming or force-feeding more generally)? What risks or limitations do you anticipate in the research (low restaurant response rates, public indifference, political pushback), and how do you plan to address them? If funding constraints arise, which phase(s) of research would you consider most essential, and which could be scaled back or redesigned.

There’s a lawyer named Aubyn Royall who will work on project and facilitate workshop before Reducetarian on extreme confinement. They will be piggy backing on PAF polling. Instead they were going to buy the sample for both things. If they are allowed to piggy back it should be 9-10K less. The assessment of effective messaging is a thing that they just added on to the end. It seems pretty critical. Focus groups on effecrive messaging. The second phase is the main thing we talked about. The first phase is a part of it. Third phase is building off first 2 The third phase is important because the messaging in the last election ended up with losses. They did a study on why the big cat ban on why they failed in the last colorado animal issues. Generalizability Question: The goal is to have all the work they do is be generalizable to the extent possible. The choice experiment do folks in denver and colorado avoid foie gras is not generalizable, the choice they make instead of foie gras is generalizable. They could buy this as a national sample and make more generalizable and if it worth weighing with Eva. The second phase is pretty egneralizable with the web scraping and data analysis. This will create a process for evaluating extent of foei gras that will be easily applied to other places and regions. The end of this will get a process that is usable. Learning lessons Should they buy just a Denver sample or should they buy a national sample as well? It should be the same price. Purchase samples an online panel provider recruits samples that are demographically representative and you can do that at the city, state, and national level. They are not truly random samples. They might be biased in someway. What Becky says is that they are biased in favor of animal protection issues than the general public. They’ve tried a bunch of different companies historically. She uses Synth, Dynata, and Prolific. Panel providers are what these are. They tell them the questions they want them to ask. If the goal is to get the most accurate estimate of something, something like yougov is the way to go. You can pay for one question to be added to the poll. This is overall more accurate. The outputs that are actionable are messaging that combats on the foie gras industry messaging. They are going to say its going to negatively impact communitise, they are going to choose these foie gras that’s worth, have a huge economic impact and enviornmental impact. All this research will help to address that. Just provide evidence that counteracts all their messagin with actual research that can be shown to politicians nadn the public.