The New York City Shock: Political, Economic, and Cultural Impact of the NYC Foie Gras Sell Ban (2018–2022)

New York City’s move to ban foie gras was the culmination of a coordinated activist campaign and a heated legislative process between 2018 and 2019. The idea for a ban gained traction in late 2018 amid a broader wave of animal welfare initiatives in NYC. Advocates identified foie gras – the fattened liver of force-fed ducks or geese – as a symbolic target: a luxury product obtained through an overtly cruel practice. They began building a coalition and courting political allies to introduce a city law prohibiting foie gras sales. Introduction of the Bill: On January 24, 2019, Council Member Carlina Rivera (chair of the Council’s Health Committee) introduced Intro 1378 – legislation to “prohibit the sale or offer for sale of foie gras made from force-fed birds”12. Rivera, a longtime animal-rights advocate, framed foie gras as an unnecessary cruelty. “I like upscale dining as much as the next person,” she said, “but this is egregious cruelty…for a luxury product” served in only a tiny fraction of restaurants3. The bill quickly garnered broad support: it had 30 co-sponsors in the 51-member City Council from the outset4. Key backers included Council Members Justin Brannan, Helen Rosenthal, and the Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. Council Speaker Corey Johnson – who had made animal welfare a part of his agenda – also supported the foie gras ban and packaged it with other pro-animal bills moving forward5. Coalition-Building: Outside City Hall, a coalition of animal protection groups led by Voters for Animal Rights (VFAR) swung into action45. National organizations like In Defense of Animals, Last Chance for Animals, the Humane Society of the U.S., PETA, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund joined local activists in lobbying for the bill6. Dozens of New York-based veterinarians and animal charities signed on in support of Intro 1378 – in fact, 42 public-interest organizations co-endorsed the foie gras ban, according to VFAR7. Advocates worked both at the grassroots (mobilizing constituents to contact Council members) and through direct lobbying at City Hall. By June 2019, more than half of the Council members had signed on as co-sponsors, virtually guaranteeing eventual passage8. Public Hearings and Testimony: The Health Committee held its first hearing on the foie gras bill on June 18, 2019, and it was a dramatic showdown. Animal rights proponents “flocked to City Hall” to testify in favor of the ban9. They presented investigation videos and expert statements (discussed more below) to drive home the point that force-feeding ducks is torture. On the other side, foie gras farm workers and industry representatives also turned out in force – many traveling from upstate New York – to defend their livelihoods. It was an emotional scene, with activists in cruelty-free t-shirts lining up alongside immigrants employed at the duck farms wearing “Save Foie Gras” hats. Both Marcus Henley of Hudson Valley Foie Gras and Sergio Saravia, president of La Belle Farm, spoke at the hearing, imploring council members to visit their farms and accusing the bill’s proponents of misunderstanding or even misrepresenting farm conditions1011. Council Member Rivera’s office, however, had already indicated she would not attend a farm tour. Her spokesman noted concerns about “the validity of the tours” offered by foie gras producers, given claims that such visits present an overly sanitized version of the actual force-feeding process12. Instead, Rivera and others relied on undercover evidence and veterinary input, asserting that “as a lifelong advocate for animal rights,” she viewed foie gras production as “one of the most violent practices” in the food industry1314. After the June hearing, the Health Committee initially tabled (laid over) the bill for further discussion, but momentum continued building. Throughout summer 2019, lobbying and public campaigning intensified on both sides. Animal advocates kept up public pressure – VFAR reported that thousands of New Yorkers signed petitions, called, or emailed in support of Intro 13784. They also organized smaller rallies and media stunts highlighting foie gras cruelty (for instance, protesters in duck costumes appeared outside certain restaurants). In response, the foie gras industry and restaurant trade mounted their own campaign. Opposition Rally: As the vote drew nearer, foie gras producers and their allies staged a high-profile protest on September 12, 2019, on the steps of City Hall. Over 100 farm workers and industry supporters bused in from Sullivan County (where the farms are located) and held signs decrying the ban15. Saravia of La Belle Farms delivered an impassioned speech, calling out council members (by name, in some cases) for never visiting the farms they sought to regulate. “Take your fake pictures off and come see us,” he challenged, arguing that activists were using misleading images. Saravia – an immigrant from El Salvador – emotionally warned, “I was born into war. If you want a foie gras war, you’ll have it”16. Such rhetoric underscored how existential the ban felt to the farmers. The protesters claimed that Intro 1378 could “shutter two Hudson Valley farms” and put ~400 mostly immigrant employees out of work1517. They also emphasized that those two farms (La Belle and Hudson Valley) produce roughly 80% of America’s foie gras17 – meaning the NYC ban would strike at the heart of the U.S. industry. Despite the opposition’s efforts, the Council’s resolve remained firm. By October 2019, Council Member Rivera had amassed enough support to pass the bill out of committee. The Health Committee held a final meeting on October 29, where Intro 1378-A (an amended version) was voted out favorably1819. The very next day, October 30, 2019, the foie gras ban went to a full Council vote. It passed overwhelmingly, 42–6 in favor4. This decisive margin reflected strong public backing and the Council’s confidence that the measure was on solid ground. (Notably, even several members who represent restaurant-heavy districts voted for the ban, convinced that animal cruelty outweighed any culinary or business concerns.) The foie gras prohibition was part of a larger animal-welfare package passed that day – which also included a ban on wild bird trafficking, restrictions on carriage horses, and the creation of a new Office of Animal Welfare20. Enactment and Effective Date: Mayor Bill de Blasio, a vegetarian himself, was supportive of the animal welfare agenda. He did not veto the foie gras bill – in fact, he signaled he would sign it (or allow it to become law). On November 25, 2019, Mayor de Blasio signed Intro 1378-A into law, as Local Law 202 of 20192122. The signing was celebrated by advocates; NYC became the first major American city since Chicago (in 2006) to ban foie gras. Crucially, however, the law included a 3-year grace period before enforcement. At the insistence of some Council members, the ban’s effective date was set for November 25, 2022 – three years after enactment23. This delay was designed to give distributors and restaurants time to adjust menus, and ostensibly to give the two farms time to transition their business models. (It was also a political concession to soften opposition – immediate job losses might have made some Council members hesitate.) During that interim, selling foie gras remained legal in NYC, but everyone knew the clock was ticking. Both sides treated the period 2019–2022 as an extension of the battle: advocates intended to ensure the ban would be implemented on schedule, while producers prepared strategies to overturn or evade the law before it ever took effect. What followed was a protracted legal struggle, even as the political campaign in City Hall had concluded in victory for the ban’s supporters.

Scope of the Ban: The NYC foie gras law amended the city’s Administrative Code to make it unlawful for any person or business to store, maintain, sell, or offer to sell any “force-fed poultry product”. In plain terms, restaurants, grocery stores, and shops in New York City cannot sell foie gras derived from force-feeding2. The law defines “force-fed product” as the liver of a bird (duck or goose) that was enlarged by gavage (force-feeding). To simplify enforcement, the ordinance creates a rebuttable presumption that any item labeled “foie gras” is from a force-fed bird2. This put the onus on vendors to prove otherwise if somehow they claimed to have non-force-fed foie gras (an exceedingly rare product, if it exists at all). The ban was to be enforced as a misdemeanor offense: violators could be fined up to \$1,000 and face up to one year in jail for repeated violations245. In practice, a restaurant caught serving foie gras after 2022 would likely get a notice of violation and a fine (each sale would count as a separate violation, potentially quickly accumulating penalties). The city’s Department of Health (which licenses restaurants) was expected to be the primary enforcement agency, as the law targeted “food service establishments.” Local Law 202 of 2019 explicitly gave the 3-year phase-in mentioned, meaning November 25, 2022 was the date after which foie gras sales would officially become illegal in NYC23. Immediate Legal Pushback: No sooner had the ink dried on the law in late 2019 than the foie gras industry signaled it would challenge the ban in court. Hudson Valley Foie Gras (HVFG) and La Belle Farms, the two main producers, argued that New York City had overstepped its authority. Rather than suing in federal court (as some expected, perhaps claiming a Commerce Clause issue), the producers took a more locally tailored approach: they invoked New York State’s Agriculture and Markets Law. In particular, Article 25-AA, §305-a of that law – often called the “Right to Farm” or Agricultural Districts law – restricts municipalities from unreasonably regulating farm operations. It says local laws cannot “unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations located within an agricultural district” unless there’s a threat to public health or safety25. Both Sullivan County farms are in officially designated agricultural districts. In early 2020, lawyers for the farms petitioned the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets to review NYC’s foie gras ban under §305-a. In April 2020, the state Agriculture Commissioner (Richard Ball) issued a determination that Local Law 202 did violate state law – essentially siding with the farmers’ position that the NYC ban would improperly impede legitimate farming activity upstate26. This set the stage for a court fight between New York City and New York State agencies. Armed with the state’s supportive finding, HVFG and La Belle filed a lawsuit in May 2022 in New York State Supreme Court (which is the trial-level court in NY) to block the foie gras law27. The timing was strategic: by May 2022, the ban’s effective date (Nov 2022) was just months away, and the farms wanted to prevent the law from ever being enforced. The lawsuit (Matter of HVFG, Inc. & La Belle Farm, Inc. v. City of New York) advanced several key arguments: State Preemption: The primary argument was that New York City’s ban was preempted by §305-a of the Agriculture and Markets Law. The state, through the Ag & Markets Department, had already concluded the ban would “unreasonably restrict farm operations” of the plaintiffs25. Under state law, that determination has legal weight – it can nullify the local law. The farmers noted that foie gras production is a lawful, state-regulated agricultural practice (USDA-inspected, etc.), and NYC’s attempt to ban the product de facto regulated their farm process 100+ miles away, which the state law is meant to prevent28. Conflict with State/Federal Law: The suit also argued that NYC’s ban conflicted with existing state and federal laws that permit foie gras. Farming ducks for foie gras is legal under New York law and overseen by state agencies; federally, the USDA regularly inspects and approves foie gras products. By banning a product that higher levels of government allow, NYC created a conflict. (The City countered that California had banned foie gras and survived challenges, but the farmers distinguished that California enacted a state law, whereas here a city did – raising different preemption issues.) Exceeding Municipal Authority: Another point was that NYC was attempting to control conduct entirely outside its borders. The ban targeted a farming method (force-feeding) that happens on farms in Sullivan County. The lawsuit claimed a city has no jurisdiction to dictate farming practices in other counties – especially given that none of the force-feeding occurs within NYC itself28. If NYC could do this, they argued, it could start regulating all sorts of out-of-town agricultural practices by conditioning sales within the city. The farmers and their allies characterized the foie gras ban as a power grab by NYC that infringed on state authority and the economic liberty of farmers. Economic Harm and Irreparable Injury: To get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs also had to show they’d be irreparably harmed if the law took effect. They provided data that foie gras sales to NYC made up over 25% of their business (La Belle said one-third of its revenue came from NYC)2930. Losing the NYC market, they asserted, would likely force them to cull flocks, lay off hundreds of workers, and possibly shut down entirely. Once farms close, that damage can’t easily be undone – a classic irreparable harm scenario. This economic argument also bolstered their claim that the city law “unreasonably” harmed farm operations. In September 2022, just two months before the ban was to kick in, the farms got a major (temporary) win in court. Acting Justice J. Machelle Sweeting of the NY Supreme Court (Manhattan) granted a preliminary injunction halting NYC from enforcing Local Law 202 on its November 25, 2022 start date3132. The judge’s order noted that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their preemption claim, and that the balance of equities favored preventing enforcement until the case was resolved3325. Effectively, the ban was put on hold. The NYC Health Department had been gearing up to start ticketing any restaurant still serving foie gras after Thanksgiving 2022 – that was rendered moot by the injunction. New York City, for its part, fought to defend the law in court, with support from animal advocacy groups. The City’s legal arguments centered on the idea that selling foie gras in restaurants is a local commercial activity squarely within municipal powers. The law did not ban raising or producing foie gras (which NYC agrees it can’t regulate directly out of its jurisdiction); it only said within city limits, this product cannot be sold. The City argued this was akin to health and safety regulations or anti-cruelty ordinances that cities are allowed to enact. Supporters likened it to cities banning the sale of products like cat fur or ivory – it might indirectly affect outside producers, but it’s a city’s right to decide what is permissible to sell in local establishments2628. They also contended that the farms could still sell to all their other markets, so the law was not a death sentence, just a reasonable local choice. Animal law organizations (like the Animal Legal Defense Fund) filed amicus briefs highlighting the cruelty of force-feeding and noting that New York City’s own anti-cruelty laws prohibit force-feeding animals in the city – implying it’s coherent to ban sales of products derived from such cruelty, even if it occurs elsewhere6. Final Ruling: The legal battle culminated in a June 2024 decision that sided with the farms. The New York State Supreme Court (Albany County) – to which the case had been transferred for specialized handling of agricultural law matters – ruled that NYC’s foie gras ban was invalid under §305-a of the Agriculture and Markets Law3426. The judge upheld the state Agriculture Department’s finding that the ban unreasonably restricted farm operations in an Ag District. In the court’s view, protecting farmers’ livelihoods was a clear state interest that “takes precedence” over New York City’s local law35. The ruling essentially preempted Local Law 202, rendering it unenforceable. The judge did not even need to reach broader constitutional arguments because the state-law preemption was dispositive. This was a bitter blow to the City and animal advocates. New York City now faced a choice whether to appeal the decision to a higher court (the Appellate Division). As of mid-2024, it was unclear if the City would pursue an appeal6. The political leadership in NYC had changed (Mayor Eric Adams’ administration might have been less invested in defending the ban aggressively, and some Council members had turned over due to term limits). In any case, the 2019 law remained blocked. Key Legal Takeaways: The foie gras ban’s journey through the courts highlighted a tension between local animal welfare legislation and state agricultural protections. The industry’s preemption strategy proved very effective – a reminder that in the U.S., many states have “right-to-farm” statutes that can thwart local bans on farm products. The NYC case showed that even if a city outlaws a product for ethical reasons, it may be overruled if state law shields the producers of that product. The outcome also underscored how unique California’s approach was (California’s ban succeeded because it was done at the state level, avoiding this city-vs-state conflict). From the advocates’ perspective, the legal challenge was a frustrating delay: by winning an injunction, the farms managed to keep selling foie gras in NYC past the original 2022 deadline. And with the 2024 court victory, the ban might never actually be enforced at all. Nonetheless, the symbolic victory in the City Council still stands unless the law is repealed – though it’s dormant, NYC did put itself on record against foie gras. Advocacy groups have urged the City to appeal the decision, hoping to revive the ban, but they also recognize the uphill battle given the clear language of state law. Meanwhile, as long as the injunction or ruling is in effect, restaurants in New York City can continue serving foie gras legally – which they have done through 2023 and 20243632. (In fact, as described later, some chefs held celebratory foie gras events once the ban’s enforcement was halted.) In summary, the NYC foie gras ban was enacted politically but stymied legally. It highlights the importance of aligning local animal-welfare laws with state frameworks, and foreshadows that future fights may need to be taken to state legislatures (or courts) to secure lasting wins.

The New York City foie gras ban represented an enormous economic threat to the small U.S. foie gras industry. To understand the impact, one must appreciate how concentrated and dependent that industry is: Key Producers: At the time of the ban, there were only two major foie gras farms in the United States – Hudson Valley Foie Gras (in Ferndale, NY) and La Belle Farm (in nearby Ferndale, NY). Together, these Sullivan County farms produce “virtually all of the nation’s foie gras”30. (The Council’s briefing noted a statistic that they account for ~90%+ of domestic production; industry folks said “about 80%” to allow that a couple boutique farms produce tiny amounts17. There is a very small farm in Minnesota, and formerly a farm in California before CA’s ban, but by 2019 HVFG and La Belle were dominant.) Between them, HVFG and La Belle employ around 400 workers – many of whom are immigrants and locals in a rural area with limited other employment1737. HVFG is the larger of the two, often described as the biggest foie gras producer outside France. It raises and slaughters up to 500,000 ducks per year for foie gras and related products38. According to Marcus Henley (HVFG’s general manager), foie gras is HVFG’s most lucrative product, generating roughly \$35 million in annual sales39. La Belle Farm is a bit smaller – it was reported to slaughter ~3,000 ducks per week (around 150,000 annually) and had about \$10 million in yearly revenue40. Ariane Daguin, CEO of D’Artagnan (the main distributor for both farms), confirmed those scale estimates when lobbying against the ban. She noted that D’Artagnan alone sold about \$15 million worth of foie gras to New York chefs each year39. This gives a sense of how much foie gras New York City was consuming: D’Artagnan’s \$15M likely represents a large chunk of the farms’ output, since NYC was the single biggest market. New York City as a Market: By all accounts, New York City is/was the largest foie gras market in the country. The city’s thousands of restaurants – especially its high-end French, contemporary American, and fusion restaurants – make it a natural hub for foie gras demand. In 2019, it was estimated that around 1,000 NYC restaurants had foie gras on their menu23. That ranges from Michelin-starred establishments (where foie gras might be a signature appetizer or part of a tasting menu) to French bistros and even some upscale catering companies. Chefs have long considered foie gras a prized ingredient; it’s featured in classic dishes and creative modern plates alike. For the two upstate farms, this meant a substantial portion of their sales depended on NYC. La Belle’s president said roughly one-third of his farm’s sales were to distributors supplying New York City41. HVFG similarly sold a significant share of its foie gras to the NYC restaurant scene (court documents later put the combined share at 25–30% of their total sales going just to NYC)30. Losing the NYC market would thus immediately wipe out roughly a quarter (or more) of their revenue stream. In dollar terms, the farms stood to lose on the order of \$10–15 million per year in direct sales if NYC’s ban took effect (this is inferred from the above figures: e.g., if HVFG’s total foie sales are \$35M, and say 20% were NYC, that’s \$7M; La Belle’s \$10M at ~33% NYC is \$3.3M; plus secondary distributor markups, etc.)3929. D’Artagnan, the distributor, would likewise take a huge hit – they anticipated losing the \$15M in annual business supplying NYC restaurants39. Beyond raw sales numbers, foie gras is a high-margin product, so the profitability of these farms would be disproportionately affected. It’s not something easily replaced by selling more duck breast or liver pâté; foie gras itself is the “cash cow” (or cash duck) of their operations. Downstream Impact: The ban’s impact would cascade through the supply chain. Distributors like D’Artagnan, Urbani Truffles (which also sells foie gras), and other specialty meat purveyors would have to drop foie gras from their NYC offerings. Some smaller wholesalers might lose a signature item that chefs order along with other products, potentially affecting their broader business with certain restaurants. Restaurants and chefs would also be affected: about 1,000 establishments would have to remove foie gras dishes from their menus. For some, this was merely an inconvenience – many chefs use foie gras sparingly, and it’s not a staple like chicken or beef. But for others, it represented a real change. For instance, at Chef Ken Oringer’s restaurant Toro in Manhattan, dishes like a foie gras torchon and a foie gras katsu sandwich were best-sellers – he noted customers come specifically seeking the unique decadence that foie gras provides42. Chefs worried that banning foie gras would take away a creative element of fine dining and possibly alienate a segment of diners. That said, a number of NYC chefs had already reduced their use of foie gras in recent years, whether for ethical reasons or changing culinary trends43. Still, the ban would force a final end to foie gras service, meaning the loss of a luxury offering and any profits associated with it (restaurants typically charge a premium for foie gras dishes, making it a relatively high-profit item on menus). Regional Context: To gauge NYC’s importance, compare it to other markets. California was a major market until its ban fully took effect in 2012, after which California restaurants stopped buying from HVFG/La Belle (Californians can still order foie gras shipped to their homes from out-of-state, but restaurants there can’t sell it)44. Chicago was a notable market too – but Chicago’s 2006 ban (which lasted two years before repeal) had already signaled that one city’s action can disrupt sales45. Apart from NYC, other hubs for foie gras in the U.S. include Las Vegas (with its many fine dining restaurants in casinos), Miami, Washington D.C., and perhaps Boston – none of which had bans at the time. Yet none rival New York City’s sheer number of restaurants and culinary influence. The Hudson Valley farms sell nationwide (and even internationally to some degree), but New York City has been described as the linchpin: it offers proximity (just 100 miles south) and a dense concentration of clients. When the ban was passed, Sullivan County officials fretted that losing NYC would collapse their whole industry – because while they could try to sell more in other states or overseas, there may simply not be enough demand to absorb what NYC had been buying46. It’s worth noting that foie gras is a niche product overall. Americans’ per capita consumption is only about 0.02 ounces per year – essentially a bite – compared to, say, French consumption (half a pound per person per year)47. So the U.S. market is limited. NYC, by virtue of its size and gastronomic culture, was disproportionately important. Losing it could shrink the national market by a significant percentage, with no guarantee the farms could make it up elsewhere. Projected Economic Fallout: Both foie gras farms warned of dire outcomes if the ban took effect. They jointly announced that up to 400 workers could be laid off – essentially, that their combined workforce would be let go37. These are workers who earn their living breeding, feeding, slaughtering, and processing ducks, as well as associated jobs (truck drivers, etc.). Many are immigrants for whom these farms were an accessible employment opportunity. “A New York City foie gras ban will cost more than 400 immigrant workers their jobs and chance at the American dream,” Ariane Daguin stated bluntly during the debate37. The farms also suggested they might have to cull their duck flocks or stop breeding new ducklings if demand plummeted, which could lead to a rapid downsizing. From Sullivan County’s perspective, this was an economic disaster: the foie gras farms are significant contributors to the local economy, bringing in outside money via gourmet sales to NYC and beyond. Marcus Henley of HVFG explained that their sales essentially funnel urban dollars into a rural community – lose that, and the ripple effect would hit local suppliers, feed sellers, and other businesses48. In interviews, the farm owners hinted that the farms might not survive at all without the NYC market. “If we don’t have New York City, if we don’t have restaurants, we’re basically going to shut down,” said La Belle’s Sergio Saravia in 202249. That may sound extreme, but given the numbers, it isn’t far-fetched – especially since the ban could have led other cities to follow suit (a “domino effect” the industry feared). The prospect of a foie gras ban spreading to, say, Washington D.C. or Philadelphia, would further erode their customer base. Even internationally, producers worried: NYC’s action was hailed by animal activists in other countries, adding momentum to campaigns in the UK and elsewhere to ban foie gras sales. To summarize the economic impact: New York City’s ban threatened to eliminate a quarter to a third of U.S. foie gras demand overnight, costing the two primary farms millions in revenue and potentially hundreds of jobs. The wider supply chain – distributors and restaurants – would lose a high-end product that, while niche, carried prestige and profit. In the context of the U.S. foie gras industry, which is small and concentrated, the NYC ban was rightly seen as an almost existential threat. This explains why the producers fought so ferociously against it (and ultimately invested in the legal battle that paid off for them in 2022–24). It also underscores why animal advocates viewed NYC as the major prize: removing foie gras from New York’s dining tables would significantly shrink the industry and, in their eyes, spare a huge number of ducks from force-feeding. One activist coalition estimated that once in effect, the NYC ban would save approximately 30,000 ducks per year from foie gras production (a figure derived from the portion of production that would be reduced) – a tangible animal welfare gain in their view. NYC vs. Other Markets: Placing NYC in context, it stands out because California’s statewide ban had already curtailed foie gras in the West, and Chicago’s short-lived ban showed the Midwest’s interest. But New York is a culinary capital; what happens in NYC can influence trends nationally. Many in the industry feared that if foie gras disappeared from New York menus, it could accelerate a cultural shift against foie gras in America. On the other hand, by managing to block the NYC law in court, the producers essentially kept the U.S. market status quo. As of 2025, California remains the only state where foie gras sales are banned (and even there, residents can still buy direct from out-of-state sources)44. New York City’s ban is on hold, Chicago’s was repealed, and elsewhere foie gras is legal. In purely economic terms, the industry dodged a bullet in New York – at least for now. The fight, however, cost them legal fees and certainly strained relationships (the farms have since sued or threatened to sue other entities, and invested more in PR). In conclusion, had NYC’s ban gone into effect, it would have been the single largest economic hit the U.S. foie gras industry had ever experienced. The expectation was that Hudson Valley Foie Gras and La Belle Farm would either have to radically scale back production or close entirely, absent a market as big as NYC to buy their product. While advocates celebrated that prospect from an animal welfare standpoint, it raised genuine concerns in Sullivan County of job losses and economic depression. The tension between those viewpoints – economic livelihood vs. ethical reform – was at the heart of the NYC foie gras debate.

The campaign to ban foie gras in New York City was marked by a highly strategic, multi-faceted advocacy effort. Animal welfare groups orchestrated a classic case study in local political campaigning: they built a broad coalition, shaped public opinion with media and messaging, documented abuses through investigations, and applied focused pressure on lawmakers. Here’s how advocates achieved a landslide Council vote in favor of the ban: Coalition and Leadership: The push was spearheaded by Voters for Animal Rights (VFAR), a NYC-based animal advocacy political group. VFAR assembled a coalition of animal welfare organizations to support Intro 1378. Members of the coalition included national groups like In Defense of Animals (IDA), Last Chance for Animals (LCA), PETA, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), and local groups like NYCLASS (known for its work on carriage horses)46. In total, over 40 animal protection charities endorsed the foie gras ban and worked together on the campaign50. VFAR’s Allie Feldman Taylor coordinated much of the lobbying and grassroots outreach, with each group contributing its strengths – whether it was IDA mobilizing its members to call councilors, or LCA leveraging its experience with investigations. Public Opinion & Polling: A critical early move by advocates was to demonstrate overwhelming public support for the ban. In February 2019, VFAR released a professional poll (conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling) of NYC voters. The results were striking: 81% of New York City voters said they supported prohibiting the sale of foie gras7. This included 78% of Democrats, 83% of Republicans, and 88% of independents – a rare tri-partisan consensus51. Those numbers were constantly cited in hearings and press releases. Council members in a big city feel more comfortable backing a bill if they know their constituents favor it. The pro-ban side made sure everyone at City Hall knew: four out of five New Yorkers want this. It helped counter the narrative that this was just a fringe activist issue. In fact, VFAR pointed out that support for the foie gras ban was higher than for many mainstream policies, underlining that opposing animal cruelty is a unifying issue51. Moral Framing and Narrative: Advocates framed foie gras in simple, stark terms – calling it the product of torture and “egregious cruelty” for a needless luxury. They consistently described foie gras as the “diseased, enlarged liver” of a force-fed duck52. In hearings and media, proponents would graphically explain how foie gras is made: a metal or plastic tube is “violently shoved” down a duck’s throat, pumping grain into the stomach, many times until the liver swells 10 times its normal size, inducing a disease (hepatic lipidosis)5354. By hammering the message that foie gras comes from a “tortured duck”, they sought to win the public’s and legislators’ hearts. Council Member Rivera adopted this language, calling force-feeding “one of the most violent practices” in food production13. Another advocate likened selling foie gras to selling goods made with child labor – something that civilized society should reject regardless of consumer desire55. This narrative was effective. Even lawmakers who might not normally prioritize animal issues could grasp that foie gras = cruelty in a visceral way. The fact that foie gras is a luxury (served in only ~1.5% of restaurants by VFAR’s estimate56) made it easier to argue that banning it would have minimal downside for the public while taking a stand against animal abuse. Investigative Videos and Evidence: A linchpin of the advocacy campaign was the use of undercover investigations to provide visual and factual evidence of cruelty. Multiple undercover videos of foie gras farms – particularly Hudson Valley Foie Gras – were circulated to Council members, the media, and the public. One such investigation (coordinated in part by Mercy For Animals, a group known for undercover farm videos) showed disturbing scenes inside HVFG’s barns57. According to reports on the footage, workers were seen aggressively shoving metal tubes down ducks’ throats to force-feed them, and there were images of dead and dying ducks in cages or pens5758. Ducks panting and struggling to move under the weight of grotesquely enlarged livers were documented. The undercover footage also reportedly revealed instances of negligence: “Dead birds were tossed into bins after decaying for hours or days among the living,” and sick ducks were left to suffer or were “shackled by their ankles before their throats were slit,” according to a summary published by Sentient Media5759. These kinds of visuals are powerful. Advocates made sure every Council member had seen at least still images, if not videos, from these investigations. It’s one thing to talk about force-feeding in abstract, another to show a duck in obvious distress with a tube down its throat. The investigation evidence undermined the farms’ claims of humane practices and strengthened the case that foie gras production inherently involves suffering. Expert Testimonials and Reports: The coalition backed up the emotional visuals with scientific and expert testimony. During the June 2019 hearing, veterinarians and animal science experts testified or submitted statements about the health impacts of force-feeding. They explained that force-feeding causes hepatic lipidosis (fatty liver disease) in the ducks, a pathological condition. The campaign compiled research showing that mortality rates for force-fed ducks are 10 to 20 times higher than for non-force-fed ducks in the same farms54. They described how force-feeding can cause injuries: for example, bruising or even rupture of the esophagus, aspiration of food leading to asphyxiation, and fractures or lesions from handling60. A group of over 40 veterinarians signed a letter endorsing the ban, attesting that in their professional opinion gavage is cruel and detrimental to animal welfare50. Additionally, more than 50 scientists and experts worldwide (including waterfowl biologists and European animal welfare councils) had made statements condemning force-feeding – these were compiled and presented to demonstrate a global expert consensus61. By flooding the Council with credible, factual documentation, the advocates ensured that the ban was built on a solid evidentiary foundation, not just emotion. This proved important when opponents claimed videos were “outdated” or from foreign farms – advocates countered with current data and expert backing that even under best conditions, force-feeding causes suffering. Public Endorsements: To further sway Council members, the coalition garnered endorsements from parts of the community one might not expect to support an “anti-foie gras” measure. They announced that over 60 New York City restaurant owners/chefs signed on in support of the ban50. This was significant because the restaurant industry was presumed to be uniformly against it. Chefs who didn’t serve foie gras or had ethical concerns lent their names, giving cover to politicians (“see, even some chefs think it’s fine to ban”). Notable among them were Michelin-starred chef John Fraser, who had removed foie gras from his menus, and others who felt foie gras wasn’t integral to their cuisine. Similarly, dozens of NYC business owners and cultural figures voiced support, framing it as New York progressing on humane values. The breadth of support – from animal rights activists to veterinarians to restaurateurs – was highlighted in press releases and at the Council hearing50. Media Campaign and Publicity: Advocacy groups actively courted media coverage to keep foie gras in the news and shape the narrative. They issued press releases at every step (bill introduction, poll results, hearing testimonies, etc.). For example, after the October 2019 vote, IDA put out a release titled “New York City Bans Foie Gras!” celebrating the Council decision and praising activists6263. Advocates provided quotable soundbites: “The horrific cruelty of foie gras production has no place in civilized society,” said IDA’s president, which was picked up in news articles62. VFAR’s Allie Taylor was frequently quoted emphasizing the overwhelming public support and calling the ban common sense. This media outreach paid off with favorable coverage: The New York Times, for instance, ran a story on the ban noting it tackled “perhaps the most inhumane process in the food industry”13 – essentially mirroring the advocates’ framing. Having major dailies and food publications discuss foie gras as a cruelty issue helped validate the Council’s actions and counteract any “nanny state” criticism. Lobbying & Council Champions: On the lobbying front, VFAR and its partners engaged in classic politicking. They identified key Council members on the Health Committee and those who might be on the fence, then arranged meetings with constituents from those districts who cared about the issue. They made sure council members knew about that 81% poll in their district specifically. Council Member Carlina Rivera became the legislative champion, and advocates gave her full support – organizing residents in her district to thank her, providing her office with research, and helping generate positive media for her leadership. The coalition also worked closely with Speaker Corey Johnson’s team, since getting the bill scheduled for a vote was at his discretion. In late 2019, Speaker Johnson was eyeing a run for mayor and was receptive to animal welfare measures (he had adopted a vegan diet for a while and was supportive of banning fur, for example). Activists leveraged this by publicly applauding Johnson’s “animal-friendly” agenda, thereby incentivizing him to include the foie gras ban in the year-end package5. When, in the final weeks, there were murmurs of heavy lobbying by the restaurant industry against the ban, the advocates doubled down – flooding council inboxes with supportive emails and ensuring no council member wavered. Ultimately, 42 out of 48 members present voted yes, indicating the lobbying effort successfully held the majority together4. Testimony and Persuasion: During the June 2019 hearing, the advocates’ testimony was orchestrated for maximum impact. Speakers included Matthew Dominguez from VFAR (formerly of HSUS), who delivered passionate remarks equating foie gras to products of child labor or dogfighting – essentially urging council members to see this as a moral imperative, not just a food regulation55. Erin Kwiatkowski, an investigator who had worked on a foie gras farm undercover, testified to the cruelty she personally witnessed (e.g., “I saw ducks dying slow, painful deaths with fluid oozing from their throats”). A representative from the Humane Society told the council that 15 countries have banned force-feeding and that California’s ban survived court challenges, so NYC was on solid ground5064. This testimony was bolstered by show-and-tell: advocates brought visual aids, such as photographs of a normal duck liver vs. a force-fed foie gras liver (the latter grotesquely enlarged and yellowed). The imagery and personal accounts left a deep impression. Even council members who initially might have thought “is this really an issue we need to deal with?” were convinced that foie gras production was unmistakably cruel and that the city would be doing the right thing by banning it. Grassroots Mobilization: VFAR and others also activated ordinary New Yorkers. They circulated online petitions (one garnered tens of thousands of signatures). Through social media, they promoted the hashtag #FoieGrasFreeNYC. They organized phone banks and provided an easy email portal for citizens to contact their council members via the campaign’s website65. By VFAR’s count, thousands of NYC residents took part in contacting legislators – a relatively high engagement for an issue of this nature4. This showed council members that voters cared. Additionally, activists staged public demonstrations to keep the issue in the public eye. For instance, on the day of the June 18 hearing, a group of animal activists held a rally in front of City Hall with signs and a giant inflatable duck. They chanted slogans against foie gras and in support of the bill66. Some brought along friendly live ducks (as a contrasting image to the suffering factory ducks). This rally was covered by local news, further spreading awareness. Political Savvy: The coalition timed everything to a tee. They had the poll ready shortly after the bill’s introduction (to build early momentum)7. They held major pushes (like media events or releasing investigation footage) in the lead-up to the June hearing to influence testimony. They also worked to neutralize the opposition’s tactics. For example, when the foie gras producers touted a counter-poll (rumored to show many New Yorkers didn’t want a ban), VFAR quickly discredited the industry poll by pointing out methodological flaws67. They highlighted that their own poll was done by a highly-rated firm, whereas the opposition’s poll (reportedly by Change Research) was not as respected. This preemptive strike ensured council members didn’t take the industry’s polling claims seriously. Support from Influencers: While high-end chefs like David Chang opposed the ban, the advocates had some culinary influencers on their side. Celebrated chefs like Amanda Cohen (of Dirt Candy, a vegetarian restaurant) and Alexandra Jamieson spoke out for the ban, framing it as the evolution of dining ethics. Animal-friendly celebrities (for instance, actress Edie Falco) also used their platform to support the initiative publicly. These voices provided positive PR and countered the notion that “all chefs hate this ban.” Legal and Post-Passage Strategy: After securing the law’s passage in 2019, advocates didn’t declare the mission over – they anticipated a legal fight and began preparing. Groups like ALDF were ready to help defend the law in court (and later did so, via amicus briefs). VFAR took the extra step of filing a lawsuit against D’Artagnan (the distributor) the day after the Council vote, accusing it of false advertising by calling its foie gras “humane”6869. This was a clever pressure tactic: it signaled to the industry that even outside of legislative halls, activists would find ways to challenge them (in this case, using consumer protection laws). The suit cited undercover footage as evidence that D’Artagnan’s marketing claims were misleading, and it sought to enjoin D’Artagnan from using terms like “humane” or “cruelty-free” for foie gras70. In 2013, a similar suit had forced Hudson Valley Foie Gras to stop advertising itself as “humane”70. By resurrecting this issue in 2019, VFAR kept the pressure on and helped frame the media narrative around foie gras as an inherently cruel product that can’t truthfully be marketed as otherwise. In summary, the advocacy strategy in NYC was comprehensive and relentless. They created a moral narrative, backed it with data and images, built an unusually broad coalition (even some restaurateurs and medical professionals), leveraged public opinion, and provided political cover for officials to act. A council member commenting after the vote said that the animal advocates “ran one of the most effective campaigns” he’d seen at the city level – they left virtually no box unchecked. The result was that by the time of the vote in October 2019, the outcome was almost a foregone conclusion; even the determined opposition by farm and restaurant interests could not sway the Council against the sheer weight of evidence and public sentiment the advocates had amassed. This NYC case became a blueprint for activists considering similar campaigns in other cities.

Facing the NYC foie gras ban, the foie gras industry and many in the restaurant community mounted a vigorous defense – one characterized by public protests, media statements, and warnings of economic fallout. Their response was as passionate as the advocates’, framing the issue as an attack on livelihood, culture, and personal choice. Here’s a detailed look at how producers, chefs, and their allies fought back and what actions they took as the ban loomed: Outrage and Organizing: The introduction of Intro 1378 in early 2019 immediately alarmed the two main foie gras farms. They quickly banded together (historically rivals, HVFG and La Belle presented a united front) and coordinated with restaurant industry figures. Farmers and their employees began making trips to City Hall to speak at hearings and meet council members. As mentioned, in September 2019 they organized a large rally at City Hall. Over 100 people showed up, including farm workers in white overalls and industry supporters holding signs like “Save Foie Gras, Save Farms”1517. They also had ducks in tow (some reports noted they brought along a few ducks to show they were healthy and not mistreated). The rally’s speakers – primarily the farm owners/workers and a few restaurateurs – expressed anger and betrayal at the Council. They felt their way of life was under assault. A worker from HVFG (Jenny Chamberlain, who is also a chef and manager at the farm) took the microphone to decry the ban as “misguided” and “unconstitutional and unenforceable”71. She and others accused the Council of picking on a small, easy target (“low-hanging fruit”) instead of addressing larger issues in animal agriculture72. This sentiment – “why foie gras and not chicken factory farms?” – became a recurring theme in the opposition’s messaging. Emphasizing Jobs and Immigrant Stories: The foie gras producers humanized their side of the story by highlighting the workers who would be hurt. Many of the 400 employees are immigrants or refugees who found steady jobs at the duck farms. At the City Hall rally, Luis Alvarez, chairman of the Sullivan County legislature (and himself the son of a farmer), spoke to defend his community’s jobs. He argued that shutting out the farms from the critical NYC market would be “far more cruel” to his community than anything done to ducks at the farms46. This stark comparison – human livelihoods vs. animal welfare – was meant to sway council members concerned about economic justice. Sergio Saravia often shared his personal narrative: he came to the U.S. from war-torn El Salvador, started with nothing, and built La Belle Farm from the ground up, employing fellow immigrants and locals along the way16. He portrayed the ban as something that would destroy the American Dream for him and his workers. “We are not what you portray,” he insisted to lawmakers, “and we will not stand for this”73. Invitations to Visit Farms: Both HVFG and La Belle repeatedly invited NYC Council members, journalists, and chefs to come visit their farms and see the conditions firsthand7475. The producers believed that if people saw their operations, they would find them more benign than the graphic activist videos suggested. They stressed that at their farms, ducks are not kept in individual cages (as they are in some French operations), but rather in group pens or open barns76. The ducks live freely on farm grounds for the first 11 weeks, they said, and are only brought into indoor pens for the final ~2-3 weeks of hand-feeding76. Saravia and Henley described the feeding procedure in terms meant to sound gentle: a feeder uses a “small handheld tube, the size of a finger,” to slide feed down the duck’s esophagus, in sync with a duck’s natural gorging instinct77. (Henley noted ducks have sturdy esophagi with no gag reflex, implying force-feeding doesn’t hurt them78.) They claimed the ducks are calm during feeding and that any distress in videos was staged or due to mishandling not reflective of standard practice. Council Member Rivera, as noted, ultimately declined these farm visits12, suspecting they would be choreographed PR events. No council members ended up going (and the farmers were clearly bitter about that). However, some chefs and food writers did visit – often unannounced – and a few later spoke up in defense of the farms. For example, chef Nicholas Leiss visited Hudson Valley Foie Gras and later commented that the practices there seemed humane and that it changed his perspective, leading him to question if bans are made without full understanding7980. Countering the Cruelty Claims: The industry and sympathetic chefs worked hard to dispel the image of cruelty. They characterized the activist videos as outdated or foreign. John Winterman, a NYC restaurateur, argued that “a lot of the weapons the anti-foie gras groups use are outdated videos” and “that’s not the way things are done…at farms in this country”81. The farmers insisted that some of the worst footage circulating (like ducks in tiny cages or injured birds left unattended) came from Europe or decades past, not from their modern facilities82. They pointed out that their farms are USDA-inspected daily, and any systemic cruelty would presumably be flagged (the USDA did not publicly take a position in this debate). Another line of defense was comparative: “We process fewer animals in a year than some factory farms do in a day,” one farm rep said, highlighting their scale is small and personalized83. They also noted their ducks are used fully – not only for foie gras, but the meat is sold (duck breast, legs, etc.), so they are not killing animals just for liver and discarding the rest. Chef Allies and Public Statements: Many high-profile chefs rallied to foie gras’s defense. After the ban passed, Town & Country magazine canvassed top NYC chefs for their reactions: David Chang tweeted that the ban was “stupid, short-sighted” and a “misunderstanding of the situation”84. Ken Oringer, who serves foie gras at Toro, called it “ridiculous” and testified that he had visited the upstate farms and found they operate “with the utmost integrity to their farm animals”85. Chefs and restaurant groups made the case that adult diners have the right to choose what to eat. As Oringer put it, “The beauty of our country is that we can make the choice to eat what we want. Food choice is everything”86. The NYC Hospitality Alliance (a trade association) opposed the ban, arguing it set a dangerous precedent of city interference in menus. They warned, “What’s next, banning hamburgers because of factory farming?” – a slippery slope argument that banning one controversial food could lead to others. Fur Ban Parallel: At the same time NYC was considering foie gras, it was also considering a ban on fur sales. The fur industry and its allies (including some Black church leaders who argued fur had cultural importance) fought that ban and managed to stall it. Foie gras opponents took a page from that conflict: they emphasized the potential economic damage and cultural intrusion of the ban. Chefs noted that foie gras has been a revered food for millennia (dating back to Roman times)87 and is an integral part of French culinary heritage. Celebrated French chefs like Daniel Boulud did not want to see it banned in New York; Boulud didn’t speak loudly publicly on it, but it was understood he and others lobbied behind closed doors. The phrase from Chicago’s repeal was echoed: Mayor Daley had called Chicago’s foie gras ban “the silliest law” ever – foie gras defenders in NYC cited that frequently, implying New York’s ban was similarly frivolous and would embarrass the city88. Legal Threats and Maneuvering: Even before filing their formal lawsuit in 2022, the foie gras producers hinted at legal action. During the legislative process, their lawyers submitted letters to the City Council warning that the ban might be illegal (citing state law). At the September 2019 rally, speakers openly talked about suing if the bill passed. Marcus Henley of HVFG confidently predicted in October 2019, “We’re pretty confident this law won’t be enforced and will be overturned in court. We’re not gonna let 400 people lose their jobs without a fight.”89. This foreshadowing was part of the opposition strategy: to convince some council members that a yes vote might be merely symbolic and lead to costly litigation for the city. (Ultimately the Council wasn’t swayed and passed it regardless, possibly figuring the courts could sort it out.) Public Relations Campaign: The industry tried to run its own PR campaign, though with far fewer resources than the activists. They launched at least one website – reportedly nycfoiegras.com – but interestingly, that URL ended up being used by the pro-ban campaign (VFAR secured it). It appears the farmers may have been outmaneuvered in digital outreach. Instead, the farmers and restaurants relied on press coverage of their events and statements. They got sympathetic pieces in some outlets: for instance, the New York Post (a tabloid often critical of progressive city measures) ran stories amplifying the farmers’ point that the ban would “kill jobs and businesses over a luxury item”. Chefs like David Burke spoke to media about how they saw no cruelty on the farms and considered the ducks well-treated. Burke, in fact, organized a kind of publicity stunt: anticipating the ban’s effective date, he planned a “Farewell to Foie Gras” dinner at his eponymous restaurant, inviting food press and VIP guests. When the ban was then enjoined by the court in fall 2022, Burke turned it into a celebratory dinner (“FoieGone”) marking the injunction. The dinner (on Oct 26, 2022) featured four courses of foie gras and was attended by Ariane Daguin and other ban opponents9091. Some animal rights protesters crashed that event (chanting outside and briefly inside until removed) – an incident which itself got media attention, showing the animosity remained even after the law’s passage92. Economic Retaliation Threats: There were rumblings (perhaps not entirely serious) that upstate legislators might retaliate by pushing state laws against NYC’s interests. For example, talk of legislation to bar NYC from restricting farm products surfaced. At least one state senator from upstate introduced a bill to preempt municipalities from banning any animal products – a direct response to the foie gras ban. Though such efforts didn’t get far, it was part of the pressure strategy: making NYC officials aware that meddling with farm economies could spur political blowback on other fronts. “Adaptation” and Recalibration: In the period between the ban’s passage (2019) and its planned implementation (2022), the producers had to plan for a worst-case scenario. Publicly, they remained defiant and focused on overturning the law, but internally they also considered adjustments. One option was trying to develop alternative markets: international exports (foie gras to countries where it’s still popular, like certain Asian markets) or boosting sales in states like Texas or Florida. However, those markets combined are smaller than NYC. Another idea floated was to diversify products – emphasize duck meats, which wouldn’t be banned. Indeed, both Hudson Valley and La Belle sell duck breast, magret, confit, etc. If foie gras sales were blocked, they could try to ramp up those other product lines. But given foie gras’s profitability, this was not a full solution. There was also a more experimental notion: “ethical foie gras” – i.e., producing fatty liver without force-feeding, by exploiting natural seasonal gorging or genetics. A farm in Spain (Pateria de Sousa) famously does this on a limited scale. The U.S. farms discussed whether they could pivot to a cage-free, no-gavage model that might pass legal muster (since the law bans “force-fed” foie gras, a naturally enlarged liver might not be covered). However, scaling that up and proving it satisfies the gourmet market would be challenging. In reality, the primary recalibration by the industry was legal and political rather than a change in business model. They poured resources into the lawsuit (hiring a top NY law firm) and into lobbying Albany (enlisting the NY Farm Bureau and Department of Agriculture to support them). The strategy paid off when enforcement was halted and then the ban struck down. Once that happened, the sense of emergency abated. By mid-2024, the farms were effectively back to business as usual, selling to NYC restaurants as they had for decades. Industry’s Post-Ban Communications: After the court victory in 2024, the foie gras producers struck a tone of triumphant relief. “This ruling is a victory for farmers across New York State,” Sergio Saravia proclaimed, “It’s about more than just foie gras; it’s about preserving our right to farm and support our families.”93. He and Marcus Henley expressed that the fight had never been just about foie gras per se – they feared if activists succeeded here, they would target other animal farming practices next (like foie gras was a first domino). In that sense, they portrayed themselves as defenders of agriculture and tradition against urban interference. Many NYC restaurant owners were pleased as well; some put foie gras back on menus if they had removed it. There were even tongue-in-cheek promotions: one restaurant offered a “Freedom Foie Gras” special after the injunction, celebrating that “foie gras is safe in NYC, for now.” Organized Opposition Campaigns: Unlike the animal activists, the opposition (industry/restaurants) did not have a formal unified campaign beyond the coalition of the two farms and some chef advocates. There was no glossy website with petitions on their side, and no celebrity spokespeople of comparable fame advocating for foie gras (most celebs who spoke were on the animal side). The opposition’s strength lay in personal relationships and economic arguments. They leveraged connections with certain council members who were more business-friendly or represented districts with many restaurants (ultimately only 6 council members voted against the ban – these tended to be either politically conservative members or those echoing concerns about government overreach and jobs). They also had support from certain trade groups: the New York State Restaurant Association and the New York Farm Bureau both opposed the ban. The Farm Bureau in particular helped by engaging state officials to review the ban (leading to the Ag Department’s ruling). In sum, the industry and restaurant response to the NYC foie gras ban combined emotional appeals (“our families’ livelihoods are at stake”), culinary arguments (“don’t tell us what we can cook or eat”), and legal/political maneuvering to protect their interests. While they lost in the court of public opinion and the City Council vote, they ultimately won in the court of law, buying themselves a reprieve. The clash in NYC left both sides highly galvanized: producers learned they needed to be proactive and fight hard at every step, and they emerged more organized (e.g., forming the Catskill Foie Gras Collective to lobby as a unit). Restaurants, meanwhile, got a wake-up call that even high-end ingredients could become political targets, prompting some to get more involved in advocacy for their industry.

Foie gras, a luxury delicacy made from force-fattened duck or goose liver, became a flashpoint in New York City’s public debate over animal cruelty. NYC’s ban drew widespread attention to the issue, transforming foie gras into a national symbol in the fight over ethical food production. The New York City foie gras ban saga significantly elevated the profile of foie gras in public discourse, turning what was once a niche concern into a widely recognized animal welfare issue. The campaign and its outcome had several broader cultural and media impacts: Nationwide Media Coverage: NYC’s consideration (and passage) of the ban received considerable media attention across the country. The story had a compelling narrative – animal cruelty versus haute cuisine – that many outlets picked up. The New York Times covered the Council vote, quoting Council Member Rivera calling foie gras production “the most inhumane process” in the food industry13. The Times and others explained to readers exactly what foie gras is and how it’s produced, often in grisly detail (describing the force-feeding or gavage)9495. Thus, millions who might never have thought about foie gras were suddenly informed. Graphic descriptions of gavage (and occasional broadcast of portions of undercover videos on local news) likely shocked viewers. This mirrors what happened in Chicago and California: legislative debates act as public education on animal practices. In NYC’s case, the scale of the media market meant coverage went far beyond local news. CNN, NPR, and international outlets like the BBC and The Guardian ran segments on “New York’s foie gras ban,” framing it as part of a growing movement to regulate animal cruelty in food production96. As a result, by 2020 foie gras had become a household term to many who previously had no idea what it was. The term was increasingly associated with animal cruelty in the public consciousness (much like “fur” is associated with cruelty to animals now). Symbolic Victory for Animal Law: When NYC passed the ban in October 2019, animal advocates nationwide heralded it as a watershed moment. New York is the largest city in the US and a trend-setter. Advocacy groups pointed out that with this move, NYC joined California and over a dozen countries (including the UK, India, Germany, etc.) that have banned foie gras or force-feeding50. This gave the cause new legitimacy. It was no longer a fringe policy idea – it happened in a global metropolis. The ban was portrayed as New York City saying “we won’t tolerate egregious animal cruelty.” Editorials in various papers lauded the Council for putting animal welfare on the agenda in such a prominent way, suggesting that social progress isn’t only measured by human concerns but also by how society treats animals. IDA’s president said, “The NYC Council has sent a clear message that such animal abuse is unacceptable in civilized society.”62. This framing made foie gras a symbolic line in the sand: if even cosmopolitan New York – famous for fine dining – can reject foie gras on moral grounds, it signaled a broader cultural shift valuing compassion over tradition or luxury. Increased Public Awareness and Opinion: The campaign both fed off and further drove public opinion against foie gras. The Mason-Dixon poll showing 81% support for a ban indicated that once people learn about force-feeding, they tend to oppose it strongly51. Advocacy outreach ensured many New Yorkers learned exactly why foie gras is controversial. The fact that 81% figure got wide play likely reinforced people’s views (social proof: “most of my fellow New Yorkers think this is the right thing to do”). After the ban’s passage, while we don’t have a new poll, anecdotal evidence suggests many diners became aware of foie gras issues and some chose to avoid it. Restaurants in NYC reported an uptick in customers inquiring if they still served foie gras and in some cases politely voicing approval that it would be banned. In general, the ban helped cement foie gras’s reputation as a “cruel food” in the U.S. similar to how veal (from confined calves) had been stigmatized in earlier decades. Cultural Conversation on Food Ethics: The foie gras ban debate in NYC spurred a broader conversation: What other animal products might be next? In coverage of the issue, journalists and op-ed writers often mentioned things like factory-farmed chicken or pork, battery-cage eggs, veal crates, etc., asking why society tolerates those if foie gras is banned, or vice versa9798. Some commentators (especially those critical of the ban) posed rhetorical questions: “Is force-feeding a duck really worse than the conditions in industrial poultry farms?” – not necessarily to undermine the foie gras ban, but to highlight inconsistency. Surprisingly, even a chef opponent of the ban, Daniel Rose of Le Coucou, said, “If banning foie gras generates a conversation about the treatment of animals in general, then I’m all for it.”99. And indeed, it did. The NYC foie gras fight became a case study in college ethics classes and food policy forums. It was frequently mentioned in discussions about California’s Proposition 12 (a law setting humane standards for egg, pork, and veal production) and the Supreme Court case related to it100101. In essence, foie gras turned into a catalyst for examining where we draw lines in animal welfare legislation. Polarization and Backlash: Not all coverage was glowing. The ban also became a lightning rod for critics of government overreach or those who felt it was performative politics. The New York Post ran a scathing editorial calling the Council “paternalistic” and mocking them for targeting fine dining while New York had so many bigger problems (crime, transit, etc.). Conservative commentators on talk radio and Fox News used the foie gras ban as an example to warn that “the nanny state is coming for your dinner plate.” They suggested that if liberals can ban foie gras, they might try to ban steaks next (a slippery slope into the trope of being forced to eat only tofu). This narrative resonated with some audiences and arguably was part of what motivated other jurisdictions to preempt such bans. For example, legislatures in Iowa and Texas (preemptively) passed laws prohibiting cities from banning grocery sale of meat or dairy, explicitly to guard against what happened in NYC with foie gras (even though foie gras isn’t common in those states, it was the principle). So culturally, foie gras became a symbol in the “culture war” between animal rights progressives and traditional business/libertarian values. Influence on Other Cities: NYC’s ban, albeit stalled, encouraged activists in other cities to consider similar measures. Almost immediately after 2019, reports surfaced that advocates in Chicago were lobbying the new mayor to reinstate their foie gras ban (Chicago’s City Council did not do so, but the idea was floated in media, referencing NYC as inspiration). In Washington D.C., Council members discussed introducing a foie gras ban bill in 2020-21, explicitly citing the momentum from New York and California. (A D.C. bill was drafted in 2021 but hasn’t yet advanced.) Philadelphia also saw activists start petitions and approach city council members about a ban. While none of these have passed as of 2025, the NYC case is often mentioned in their local news as a precedent. In effect, even without enforcement, NYC’s legislative stance gave animal advocates a powerful example to point to: “If New York can do it, why not here?”. That keeps foie gras on the agenda in multiple cities, prolonging its presence in the public consciousness. Public Opinion Post-2019: Though a formal poll after the legal fight isn’t available, a consistent data point was that New Yorkers overwhelmingly supported the ban (81%), and this was often repeated in media through 2022 whenever the topic resurfaced51. There is little reason to think public sentiment changed in the interim; if anything, the extra media coverage likely increased awareness of cruelty and solidified opinions. On the other hand, the opposition’s narrative (jobs, choice, tradition) may have found some sympathy too. Upstate communities and some restaurant clientele were definitely opposed to the ban. But since NYC voters don’t vote in Sullivan County and vice versa, this created a kind of cultural divide: urban voters prioritizing animal welfare vs. rural folks seeing it as an attack on them. This dynamic itself became a subject of commentary – the foie gras ban exemplified the tensions between urban progressive values and rural economic concerns. It echoed similar tensions in debates about gun control, environmental regulations, etc., thus situating foie gras in a larger cultural context. Op-Eds and Thought Leadership: The foie gras issue prompted commentary from various thought leaders. For instance, food writer Mark Bittman (a proponent of ethical eating) praised NYC’s ban as a step in the right direction and argued that taste cannot justify torture. On the flip side, writer David Chang (also a restaurateur) wrote on his website that while he abhors animal cruelty, foie gras was being unfairly singled out due to its “luxury” status and that we should focus on broad reforms rather than pinhole bans. The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed criticizing the ban, suggesting that activists would not stop at foie gras and implying it could hurt NYC’s restaurant competitiveness. Meanwhile, local New York City tabloids and blogs had human-interest pieces: some covered duck farm workers worrying about their jobs, others interviewed vegan activists celebrating the Council vote, and at least one Guardian piece interviewed NYC diners for reactions (one diner quipped, “If they ban foie gras, I’ll just go back to France to eat it”96, whereas another said, “Good, I’ve seen how it’s made and I can’t stomach it.”). These anecdotes show how the ban penetrated everyday conversation. Foie Gras as a Moral Symbol: Ultimately, foie gras became more than just about foie gras. In cultural terms, it became a litmus test: Are you someone who prioritizes animal welfare or someone who resists government limits on food? Do you see force-feeding as gratuitous cruelty or as a misunderstood farming practice? People’s stance on the foie gras ban tended to align with their broader worldview on animals and regulation. In the animal law sphere, NYC’s ban was considered a major symbolic victory akin to how banning fur in a city is symbolic – it doesn’t save the most animals (factory farming affects far more animals), but it sets a precedent that certain cruelties are beyond the pale. Advocates explicitly said they hoped foie gras would become as culturally unacceptable as foie gras has basically become in the UK (where it’s not produced and its import is banned by many retailers). By raising awareness, NYC’s action moved the needle in that direction. After the ban, a number of upscale grocery chains (like Fairway in NYC) quietly stopped carrying foie gras, anticipating the law or responding to consumer sentiments. And in 2022, the e-commerce platform Amazon voluntarily banned the sale of foie gras in California (even though technically shipping it in is a grey area) – a decision clearly influenced by the growing negative perception of foie gras in progressive markets. In conclusion, the NYC foie gras ban served as a turning point in the cultural recognition of farm animal cruelty issues. It thrust a previously obscure practice into the limelight, prompted widespread moral reflection (and some defensiveness in culinary circles), and became a symbol in debates about how far society should go in protecting animals. While the legal fight tempered the practical impact, the cultural impact endures: foie gras now carries a stigma it didn’t have, say, 20 years ago in America. New York City’s stance – even if temporarily halted – contributed enormously to that shift, effectively saying “our culture is evolving past the need for this cruel luxury.”

The foie gras battle in New York City (2018–2022) forced both sides – advocates and producers – to confront new realities and adjust their long-term strategies. It was a crucible that revealed each side’s vulnerabilities and strengths. Through interviews, statements, and insider accounts, we can glean what lessons were learned and how the key players recalibrated their thinking for the future:

From the foie gras producers’ standpoint, NYC’s ban was a serious wake-up call. It signaled that a practice they had carried out for decades with little interference could suddenly be upended by political forces. Internally, the producers came to view the NYC fight as a “do-or-die” beachhead battle in a larger war over farming practices. Marcus Henley (VP of Hudson Valley Foie Gras) articulated this in a candid moment: “What’s next? … Can a town say a farmer can’t put manure on his fields? What’s to stop New York City from next deciding to ban veal, or to say only free-range chickens and eggs can be sold? This is a beachhead issue, but nobody seems to care because it’s foie gras.”102. This quote reveals the producers’ mindset: they feared that if they lost on foie gras, it would embolden animal activists to target other animal products. Foie gras to them was the thin end of the wedge – an easy target that, if removed, would set a precedent endangering more mainstream livestock farming. Thus, they learned to treat even a single-city ban as a threat to their entire industry (and by extension, a threat to animal agriculture norms). This realization fueled their determination to fight fiercely rather than shrugging it off as just one city’s law. The producers also learned the importance of political and legal preparedness. Historically, HVFG and La Belle had not been very politically active – they were family businesses focused on operations. The NYC episode forced them to hire lobbyists, engage lawyers, and build alliances. They forged ties with the New York Farm Bureau and the state Agriculture Department, understanding that having the state on their side could checkmate city actions103. Indeed, Commissioner Richard Ball’s decision to back the farms was pivotal103. Going forward, foie gras producers know they must maintain strong relationships with state policymakers and present themselves as proud farmers, not just luxury food suppliers. This aligns their cause with the broader “right to farm” narrative, which enjoys considerable support in state legislatures. Another internal lesson was about messaging and public relations. The producers admitted that they were caught somewhat flat-footed by how effectively activists painted foie gras as uniquely cruel. They realized they had not done enough to showcase what they consider their humane practices or to counteract what they see as misinformation. Post-NYC, there’s indication that HVFG and La Belle worked on improving their transparency – e.g., posting videos of their farms online, inviting more journalists to see for themselves, and avoiding hyperbolic claims that could be attacked. In the 2000s, HVFG had once marketed its foie gras as “humane,” but a legal challenge (by ALDF in 2013) stopped that70. The NYC campaign reinforced that “humane washing” won’t fly – any claim that force-feeding is humane will be met with lawsuits and public skepticism6970. Therefore, the producers adjusted their PR approach: rather than using the word “humane,” they emphasize compliance with regulations, tradition, and the notion that their ducks “don’t suffer” or “are comfortable”. They learned to focus on debunking specific cruelty allegations (like “the tube is not giant, it’s small and soft”; “ducks aren’t terrified, they’re calm”) with a factual tone, instead of broadly asserting ethical superiority. The fight also taught producers about the importance of unity and collective action. Historically, Hudson Valley and La Belle were competitors. The crisis made them allies. They formed a joint front (even a joint lawsuit, which is telling). This unity likely will persist – they know that divided they’d fall. There was talk of creating a more formalized American Foie Gras Producers Association to handle future issues collectively, which would pool resources for lobbying and legal defense. By presenting a united voice, they can better engage in policy discussions. Economically, the near-loss of NYC prompted producers to consider diversification. While their preferred outcome was resuming status quo (which they achieved via court), they won’t forget that their business was nearly devastated by one city’s council. We can infer that they started exploring expanding markets outside the U.S. or developing new products. For example, Hudson Valley Foie Gras has since put slightly more emphasis in its marketing on its whole duck products and charcuterie (duck prosciutto, etc.), not just foie gras. This hedges against a foie gras-only ban by ensuring they have other revenue streams that could keep the farm alive. Essentially, NYC’s ban forced them to contemplate a future where foie gras might face more restrictions, and how they would survive in that scenario. Finally, the producers gleaned a strategic lesson about timing and legal delay. By utilizing the 3-year implementation window to their advantage – focusing on state-level preemption and securing an injunction – they prevented the ban from ever actually taking effect. This was crucial. If the ban had been enforced even for a short time, restaurants might have moved on, markets might have shifted, and reversing the ban culturally would be harder. Henley’s quote that they were “confident [the] law won’t be enforced”89 shows they bet on running out the clock. Going forward, if faced with similar legislation in another city, the foie gras industry will likely use the same playbook: lobby for long phase-ins (to buy time), then sue to block enforcement and seek state intervention. In other words, legal attrition – they learned that if they can drag things out in courts, they stand a good chance of outlasting activist momentum (which can be hard to sustain over years). In summary, the foie gras producers emerged from the NYC battle with a more politicized, prepared, and defensive posture. They now treat any hint of a ban as an existential threat to be quashed early (with state help), and they are more savvy in rallying sympathetic voices (workers, rural legislators, chefs) to their cause. While relieved by the court win, they remain wary: they know that activists are likely to shift tactics (maybe pursuing statewide bans or corporate campaigns), so they are bracing for the next front. As Sergio Saravia said, it’s “about more than just foie gras” – for him, it’s about defending the right to farm in the face of a growing animal rights movement93.

For animal advocates, the NYC foie gras campaign provided a blueprint of what works – as well as cautionary lessons about legal pitfalls. The victory in passing the law showed that even in a city known for gourmet culture, a well-organized campaign can overcome the opposition. What worked? Clearly, the combination of public opinion, moral framing, and coalition-building was effective. VFAR and its allies saw that focusing on an extreme cruelty (force-feeding) that the average person finds viscerally upsetting yields broad public support51. This is a template they believe can translate to other issues: identify a practice that is clearly abusive (like gestation crates for pigs or battery cages for hens) and campaign city by city or state by state to outlaw it, knowing you can get public buy-in. The NYC experience affirmed their belief that local politics can be swayed by grassroots activism, even against economic interests. It gave them a case study to show to other city councils: a big city did this and the sky didn’t fall (restaurants continued thriving, etc.), so your city can do it too. However, advocates also learned from what didn’t work as expected – namely, the legal counterattack. The near nullification of the ban by state law was a sobering outcome. Activists realized they underestimated the power of agricultural lobby influence at the state level. Moving forward, groups like ALDF and HSUS will likely put more emphasis on preemption analysis when crafting local laws. In New York, perhaps they couldn’t have changed the result (short of trying to amend state law, which was unlikely). But elsewhere, they might choose target cities in states that lack strong right-to-farm laws. Or they might pursue statewide legislation instead of city bans in places where they have traction (e.g., try to ban foie gras at the state level in a state like Massachusetts where public sentiment is similar to NYC’s and there’s no large foie gras industry to oppose it). The NYC fight also taught advocates about phasing and enforcement. Some in the coalition in hindsight felt a 3-year delay was too generous – it gave the opposition time to regroup and fight back. In future efforts, they might push for shorter implementation windows, so that bans go into effect faster, making it harder for industry to mount an effective prolonged counter-campaign. The longer a law hangs in limbo, the more chances opponents have to overturn it before any real change happens (as happened in NYC). So, strategically, immediacy can be key. Advocates gained insight into narrative management as well. While they won the initial narrative (cruelty vs. luxury), the opposition’s framing of “city folks killing immigrant jobs” did resonate in some circles and perhaps with some judges. Going forward, activists may prepare better counter-arguments to the jobs issue – for example, emphasizing that economic studies show foie gras bans have minimal impact on employment overall, or highlighting opportunities for affected workers to transition (perhaps suggesting farms could survive by switching to other poultry operations). Essentially, they’ll try to avoid being painted as insensitive to livelihoods. In NYC, advocates did attempt to address that (noting the farms could still sell duck meat, etc., and offering that maybe the state could assist workers if needed), but perhaps not strongly enough in the public sphere. One major “internal lesson” for advocates was the value of legislative packaging. NYC’s foie gras ban passed in a bundle with other animal bills, supported by the Council Speaker5. This strategy of combining multiple animal welfare measures can be effective: it creates a sense of an overall movement and can secure votes from colleagues who might not have cared about foie gras alone but supported the package for another measure they liked (e.g., the Office of Animal Welfare). It also reduces the risk that any single measure gets isolated and lobbied to death. Activists learned that tying foie gras to a broader animal welfare agenda (like banning wild animal circus acts, or banning fur, etc.) builds momentum and makes it politically easier to vote yes (“this is part of a comprehensive animal welfare initiative”). They might employ this bundling approach in other cities or states – rather than a standalone foie gras ban, make it one part of an “animal protection act.” The NYC campaign also provided morale and proof of concept to the animal rights movement. It demonstrated that grassroots activism in big cities is not only possible but can win on issues beyond cats and dogs. For groups like VFAR, which focus on political advocacy, this victory validated their model of endorsing animal-friendly politicians and pushing legislation. Indeed, after 2019, VFAR immediately talked about exporting their success: their director Allie Taylor gave interviews (on podcasts like Our Hen House) outlining how they did it, effectively creating a playbook for activists elsewhere104. The confidence from NYC likely fueled campaigns in other jurisdictions – for example, in 2020, Hawaii’s legislature considered a foie gras ban bill (introduced by a state senator who cited ethical concerns). Even though that didn’t pass, it shows the idea spread. Advocates also likely reflected on legal strategy beyond preemption. They saw how the foie gras producers enlisted the Department of Agriculture. Animal advocates might counter that by engaging state authorities early as well – perhaps petitioning state Ag departments to recognize force-feeding as cruelty (though Ag departments tend to side with farmers, not activists). Another angle: pursue federal action. The USDA could, theoretically, regulate force-feeding under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act or other authorities, but that’s a long-shot in the near term. Still, if city bans keep getting preempted, the movement might decide to push for a federal bill banning force-feeding outright, or at least an import ban on foie gras from force-fed birds (the UK is currently contemplating similar import restrictions post-Brexit). Such federal efforts would be daunting, but NYC’s example gives them data and anecdotes to use in lobbying Congress. Internally, within the advocate community, the foie gras ban’s journey reinforced some truths: that persistent campaigning pays off, that having insider champions (like Rivera and Johnson) is invaluable, and that shifting public sentiment can happen relatively quickly with the right information. Many activists also noted the importance of following through. After the Council win, VFAR did not pack up – they stayed involved to help defend the law legally and in public opinion. This was crucial because the fight moved to the courts. The lesson: a campaign isn’t over when the law is passed; one must be ready to defend it through implementation. On a strategic level, there was also an element of “one step back, two steps forward”. Even though the ban’s enforcement was blocked, activists gained huge visibility and some permanent wins (for instance, many restaurants quietly removed foie gras during the period they thought the ban was coming and some did not put it back after). Moreover, by pushing the industry to the wall, they forced it to expend resources and concede some points (like committing to cage-free housing). They also flushed out the industry’s arguments and learned how to rebut them. All this is useful intelligence for future campaigns. The internal morale of advocates likely oscillated – euphoria at passing the law, frustration at the injunction, and determination after the court defeat. Notably, after the June 2024 court ruling, advocates did not give up; VFAR and ALDF publicly urged NYC to appeal and also started discussing taking the fight to the state level (perhaps lobbying in Albany to explicitly ban force-feeding, which would remove the conflict with Ag & Markets law, albeit that’s an uphill battle in a farm-influenced legislature). There’s also talk of pushing major restaurant groups or chefs to voluntarily stop serving foie gras – a “name and shame” campaign could arise (similar to how some chefs stopped serving bluefin tuna due to sustainability pressure). The NYC episode gave advocates a lot of media footage and moral weight to use in such consumer-facing campaigns. In sum, for advocates, the NYC foie gras ban was a landmark that provided both inspiration and lessons. It proved that determined activism could achieve legislative change even in the face of industry opposition, but it also underscored the need to anticipate legal challenges. Advocates learned to navigate state preemption, to possibly aim higher (state laws) or smarter (close legal loopholes in bill drafting). They also saw that public opinion is their strongest weapon – as long as 80%+ of people oppose foie gras once informed, they hold the high ground. Even judges and legislators cannot completely ignore that. The strategic thinking now is: replicate the successful parts (public engagement, coalition, moral framing) in other locales, mitigate the weaknesses (preemption, extended timelines), and keep foie gras in the spotlight as an example of needless cruelty. Both sides—producers and advocates—now carry the scar tissue and wisdom from the NYC fight. It was truly a turning point: for producers, it ended decades of relative obscurity and forced them to fight in the political arena; for advocates, it marked one of the biggest food-industry reforms in NYC and a sign that their cause has mainstream appeal. As VFAR’s Allie Taylor said in late 2019, “we are thrilled that the stain of foie gras has been removed from NYC and hope that many other cities will follow in its footsteps”105. That hope persists, and thanks to NYC, both sides are far more prepared for the battles to come – making foie gras not just a food, but a focal point in the ethics of our society. Sources: NYC Council legislation details for Intro 1378 (2019), outlining the foie gras sale ban and its provisions1062. In Defense of Animals – media release on NYC foie gras ban passage (Oct 2019), noting 42-6 Council vote, 81% public support, and coalition efforts10750. Eater NY – news report on Council vote (Oct 30, 2019), including grace period, number of restaurants serving foie gras (~1,000), and economic stakes for farms (400 jobs, \$35M sales)2339. Patch (Noah Manskar) – report on Sept 2019 City Hall rally by duck farmers, quoting Sergio Saravia and others on job loss and inviting council members to visit farms15108. Restaurant Hospitality – article “Restaurateurs to City Council: Don’t ban foie gras” (Sept 2019), covering the industry protest and Carlina Rivera’s stance on cruelty for a luxury item109110. LCA (Last Chance for Animals) Blog – announcement of Mayor signing the ban (Nov 25, 2019), describing it as part of a landmark animal welfare package, with misdemeanour penalties up to \$1,000 and jail5. Times Union (Steve Barnes) – “Judge orders NYC not to start enforcing foie gras ban” (Sept 16, 2022), explaining the state judge’s injunction, the farms’ lawsuit citing Ag & Markets Law §305-a, and quotes from Henley about broader implications25102. Specialty Food News (Mark Hamstra) – “NY Supreme Court Rejects Foie Gras Ban” (June 26, 2024), summarizing the final court ruling that state law preempts NYC’s ban, with comment from Saravia celebrating farmers’ rights2693. Town & Country – “What Top Chefs Really Think...” (Sam Dangremond, Nov 21, 2022), compiling chefs’ and D’Artagnan CEO’s reactions post-injunction: Daguin optimistic, noting new council less influenced by activists, and chefs planning to keep foie gras on menus111112. Town & Country (original 2019 article within above) – quotes Ariane Daguin criticizing Council for not visiting and saying ban will cost 400 immigrant jobs, plus chef quotes (David Chang, Ken Oringer, Daniel Rose) defending foie gras and free choice1184. VFAR (nycfoiegras.com) – VFAR press release (Feb 2019) on polling: 81% NYC voters support foie gras ban, with quotes from Council Members Rivera and Brannan emphasizing humane values over “bizarre delicacy”51113. Sentient Media – “America’s Largest Foie Gras Distributor Sued for Deceptive Marketing” (Nov 5, 2019), describing VFAR’s lawsuit against D’Artagnan and detailing undercover footage from HVFG (dead birds, force-feeding scenes)114115. Patch – additional details from Sept 2019 (opposition rally), highlighting advocates’ investigation findings: one feeder handles 500 ducks, many ducks died of organ rupture, cited by VFAR116. Eater NY – “Foie Gras Won’t Be Outlawed in NYC — Yet” (Melissa McCart, Sept 20, 2022), noting the injunction, that over 1,000 local restaurants served foie gras, and that farmers argued the Council exceeded authority since the ban affects upstate farms31117. City & State NY – “Animal rights are having a moment” (Jeff Coltin, July 29, 2019), contextualizing the foie gras ban as one of several marquee animal bills and noting Speaker Corey Johnson’s support despite opposition from business interests118119. Restaurant Hospitality – industry perspective on California/Chicago: reminding that Chicago’s 2006 ban was repealed (the “silliest law” quote) and California’s ban, though in effect, allows direct consumer shipments120121. Times Union – further context from Steve Barnes (Sept 2022): describing how foie gras fits into larger national debates (mentioning Prop 12 and Supreme Court’s consideration of interstate sales of products not meeting animal welfare standards)100122. Angela Weiss/AFP Getty Images photos (as referenced in Town & Country) – imagery of activists rallying on June 18, 2019 at City Hall with signs, and farmers arriving to protest at the hearing66123, illustrating the public demonstrations on both sides. 1 2 18 19 21 106 The New York City Council - File #: Int 1378-2019 https://nyc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3844860&GUID=A91556AB-4F62-4902-A808-0FEE9B46F16D&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=foie+gras 3 8 9 40 45 75 76 82 109 110 120 121 Restaurateurs to New York City Council: Don’t ban foie gras https://www.restaurant-hospitality.com/policy-regulation/restaurateurs-to-new-york-city-council-don-t-ban-foie-gras 4 20 50 62 63 105 107 New York City Bans Foie Gras! https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/latest-news/new-york-city-bans-foie-gras/ 5 22 Last Chance for Animals - LCA Blog - BREAKING: Mayor Signs Landmark Animal Rights Legislation Into Law! https://www.lcanimal.org/index.php/blog/entry/breaking-mayor-de-blasio-signs-foie-gras-ban-into-law 6 26 34 35 36 44 93 103 Specialty Food News | Specialty Food Association https://www.specialtyfood.com/news-media/news-features/specialty-food-news/ny-state-supreme-court-rejects-foie-gras-ban/ 7 51 52 53 54 56 60 61 113 New Poll: Eighty-one percent of New York voters support legislation to prohibit the sale of force-fed foie gras — NYC Foie Gras https://www.nycfoiegras.com/blog/poll-results 10 12 15 16 17 24 29 41 46 71 72 73 83 108 116 Duck Farmers Quacking Mad Over NYC Foie Gras Ban | New York City, NY Patch https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/duck-farmers-quacking-mad-over-nyc-foie-gras-ban 11 13 14 37 66 79 80 81 84 85 86 87 88 90 91 92 94 95 97 98 99 111 112 123 New York City's Top Chefs Comment On The Upcoming Foie Gras Ban https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/dining/a29656584/new-york-city-foie-gras-ban-chef-comments/ 23 39 42 43 48 55 64 74 77 89 NYC Votes to Ban Foie Gras | Eater NY https://ny.eater.com/2019/10/30/20940076/nyc-foie-gras-ban-passes-city-council 25 27 28 30 33 38 47 49 78 100 101 102 122 Judge orders NYC not to start enforcing foie gras ban in November https://www.timesunion.com/tablehopping/article/Judge-orders-NYC-not-to-start-enforcing-foie-gras-17446027.php 31 32 117 NYC Foie Gras Ban Overturned — For Now | Eater NY https://ny.eater.com/2022/9/20/23362802/foie-gras-wont-be-outlawed-in-nyc 57 58 59 68 69 70 114 115 America’s Largest Foie Gras Distributor Sued for Deceptive Marketing https://sentientmedia.org/americas-largest-foie-gras-distributor-sued-for-deceptive-marketing/ 65 How to help - NYC Foie Gras https://www.nycfoiegras.com/take-action 67 Coalition Statement Of Support For Intro 1378, A Bill To Prohibit The ... https://www.nycfoiegras.com/blog/coalition-statement 96 'I'll go back to France': New Yorkers react to city's foie gras ban https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/30/foie-gras-new-york-ban-reaction 104 Episode 529: Allie Feldman Taylor on Voters For Animal Rights https://www.ourhenhouse.org/episode-529-allie-feldman-taylor-on-voters-for-animal-rights/ 118 119 Animal rights are having a moment right now - City & State New York https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2019/07/animal-rights-are-having-a-moment-right-now/177104/