Timeline of California’s Foie Gras Ban (2004–2025)

February 19, 2004: California State Senator John Burton introduced Senate Bill 1520, sponsored by a coalition of animal protection groups (including Farm Sanctuary, Viva!USA, and others)1. Burton argued that force-feeding ducks/geese to enlarge their livers for foie gras was inhumane and noted several countries had already banned the practice2. August–September 2004: SB 1520 passed the Legislature with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 29, 20043. Schwarzenegger, after receiving pleas from celebrities like Sir Paul McCartney, emphasized that the law provides foie gras producers “seven-and-one-half years” to develop humane production methods4. The law specifically bans force-feeding birds to produce an enlarged liver and prohibits the sale of any product derived from force-fed birds5. A violation could incur fines up to $1,000 per day67. Importantly, the ban’s effective date was delayed until July 1, 2012 to give producers time to transition or find alternatives8. Support and Opposition: Animal welfare organizations (Farm Sanctuary, Humane Society of the US, etc.) hailed the bill as a humane landmark, citing evidence that force-feeding causes suffering (e.g. diseased, 10x enlarged livers)910. Even California’s sole foie gras farmer, Guillermo Gonzalez of Sonoma Foie Gras, initially supported the compromise – he publicly thanked the governor and agreed to cease production by 2012 if no humane method emerged1112. However, culinary industry groups and some farmers opposed the legislation, arguing that foie gras can be produced humanely and that the ban threatened culinary tradition and business1314. At the time of passage, Gonzalez expressed hope that his free-range feeding practices would eventually be deemed acceptable, and noted that the law did “not ban the food product” outright if a humane method could be found1516.

Grace Period and Attempts at Alternatives: The nearly 8-year gap before implementation was intended to encourage alternative foie gras production methods4. In practice, producers did not develop any commercially viable humane technique by 201217. Sonoma Foie Gras continued operating during this period under the protection of the law (which preempted certain lawsuits)18. Animal Welfare Advocacy: Awareness of foie gras cruelty grew in California. Over 100 restaurants voluntarily removed foie gras from menus before the ban took effect19. Major cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego even passed resolutions praising restaurants for dropping foie gras and urging others to follow19. High-profile chefs such as Wolfgang Puck came out in support of the ban on animal welfare grounds (Puck wrote to fellow restaurateurs urging compliance with the law)20. Major grocery retailers including Whole Foods, Safeway, Costco, and Target also refused to sell foie gras, aligning with the ban’s intent21. Industry and Culinary Opposition: Many chefs and foie gras aficionados derided the coming ban as government overreach into cuisine. As 2012 neared, a group of prominent chefs formed the Coalition for Humane and Ethical Farming Standards (C.H.E.F.S.) to fight the ban22. By May 2012, 100+ chefs (largely from high-end California restaurants) signed a petition urging that the ban be repealed or replaced with stricter foie gras farming standards rather than an outright prohibition2322. They proposed welfare standards – cage-free housing, gentler feeding techniques, audits by veterinarians – as an alternative to a ban2224. These chefs argued the law would drive foie gras underground (a “black market”) and claimed humane foie gras was possible, citing practices like free-range feeding and avoiding individual cages2513. Guillermo Gonzalez, the Sonoma producer, supported this last-minute repeal effort, insisting “when done correctly, [foie gras farming] is not harmful or hurtful to the animal”13. He lamented that a promised scientific study to evaluate his farm’s methods was never funded, leaving his business “unexonerated” despite his belief in its humanity16. Political Response: SB 1520’s original sponsor, John Burton, reacted angrily to the eleventh-hour repeal campaign. “I gave them seven years… now they’re all saying, ‘Oh my God, how are we going to survive?’” Burton said in 2012, calling the chefs’ push bad faith26. No lawmaker ultimately agreed to carry a repeal bill, and the ban’s start date remained in place2728. Animal protection groups (Humane Society, ASPCA, Farm Sanctuary, etc.) also mobilized to defend the law, condemning what they called an attempt to “gut” a hard-won animal welfare statute2629.

“Last Supper” Frenzy (Early 2012): In the months before the July 1, 2012 foie gras ban took effect, California foodies and restaurants indulged in farewell feasts. Many restaurants hosted elaborate multi-course foie gras dinners for patrons seeking a last legal taste3031. Diners went on eccentric “foie gras crawls” to sample the delicacy at multiple establishments, and some even requested foie gras on unusual dishes (from french fries to sushi) as the deadline approached3233. This rush was widely reported in local media and underscored the divide in public sentiment. July 1, 2012 – Ban Takes Effect: On this date, California Health & Safety Code §§25980–25984 became operative, outlawing the production and sale of foie gras made from force-fed birds in the state57. Artisan Sonoma Foie Gras (California’s only producer) shut down its gavage operations. Restaurants and retailers faced a $1,000 fine per violation if they continued selling foie gras made via force-feeding7. Jennifer Fearing of HSUS praised the ban’s implementation, calling force-feeding “fundamentally inhumane” and a practice that California would no longer tolerate34. Some members of the dining public likewise approved, describing foie gras production as “gruesome” and cruel34. Defiance and Loopholes: Despite the law, a number of chefs were open about plans to circumvent the ban. Within days, some restaurants began offering “foie gras complements” for free – serving foie gras as an unpaid “gift” alongside other menu items – arguing that since no money changed hands for the foie itself, it wasn’t a “sale”35. Others adopted a “BYO foie gras” policy: diners could bring in foie gras purchased elsewhere, and the chef would prepare and serve it (often humorously charging a plating fee or “foikage” – a play on corkage – like $20 for toast and service)36. This creative workaround allowed determined patrons to still enjoy foie gras in restaurants immediately after the ban36. California authorities and animal advocates quickly took notice of these maneuvers, maintaining that giving away foie gras or cooking customer-supplied liver still violated the spirit and letter of the law (which banned any distribution of force-fed products for human consumption). Enforcement Actions: Animal rights groups actively monitored compliance. In November 2012, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) sued La Toque, a Napa Valley restaurant, for allegedly serving foie gras in violation of the ban37. Such enforcement suits signaled that animal advocates would use legal avenues to ensure restaurants obeyed the ban. The California Department of Public Health also reminded food businesses of the new law. By and large, most restaurants removed foie gras from menus (often substituting other rich spreads), though a few “underground” supper clubs and speakeasies continued to serve it discretely to willing patrons. The public reaction in 2012 was mixed: animal welfare proponents applauded California for putting ethics above gastronomy, while many chefs and gourmands complained of “culinary prohibition” and lamented the loss of a storied dish.

July 2, 2012 – Industry Lawsuit Filed: Just one day after the ban took effect, a coalition of foie gras producers and restaurant owners filed a federal lawsuit (Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris) challenging the California law38. Plaintiffs included Hudson Valley Foie Gras (a large New York producer), the Canadian farmers’ association (Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec), and Hot’s Restaurant Group in Southern California – all directly affected by the ban39. They argued that the law was unconstitutional on several grounds: (1) it was vague, claiming uncertainty over what feeding practices were prohibited; (2) it violated the Commerce Clause by impeding interstate and foreign producers from accessing California’s market; and (3) it violated Due Process by depriving them of the right to conduct a lawful business without clear standards40. The lawsuit sought to overturn the ban or at least halt its enforcement via injunction41. Injunctions Denied (2012–2013): The foie gras producers immediately sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to suspend the ban during litigation. These efforts failed. U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles first denied an emergency injunction on July 18, 2012, keeping the law in force42. He then denied the preliminary injunction on September 19, 2012, finding the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits4340. The plaintiffs appealed the injunction denial, but in August 2013 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Judge Wilson’s decision40. The Ninth Circuit panel (3–0) ruled that the foie gras law, as written, did not likely violate due process or the Commerce Clause40. In particular, the appellate court saw no serious Commerce Clause issue at that stage, noting the law only regulated in-state sales and thus did not improperly control out-of-state conduct40. This early defeat meant the ban remained in effect pending full trial. (Notably, the Ninth Circuit also held that California’s Attorney General could be sued to challenge the law, but it dismissed the Governor and State from the case under 11th Amendment immunity44.) Animal Advocates Intervene: During this period, a consortium of animal welfare groups that had backed the foie gras ban (Farm Sanctuary, HSUS, ALDF, etc.) sought to intervene in the lawsuit to help defend the law45. Judge Wilson denied their intervenor status, but they remained active as amici curiae, submitting briefs in support of the state’s position46. Their involvement underscored the high stakes – California’s law was seen as a precedent-setting animal welfare regulation. January 7, 2015 – Ban Overturned in District Court: After prolonged litigation, Judge Wilson delivered a major surprise: he ruled that California’s ban on the sale of foie gras (Section 25982) was preempted by federal law47. Specifically, the court held that the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) – a federal law regulating poultry ingredient requirements and food safety – precluded California from imposing its own ingredient standard by forbidding foie gras47. The judge reasoned that because foie gras is an approved poultry product under federal regulations, California could not ban its sale on the basis of how it was produced (i.e. the feeding method)47. He issued an injunction stopping California authorities from enforcing the sales ban47. Effect: This 2015 ruling effectively lifted the ban on selling foie gras in California, catching many by surprise. Restaurants rejoiced – after two and a half years of “duck liver prohibition,” foie gras was suddenly legal on menus again4849. Many establishments promptly resumed serving foie gras dishes in early 2015, since the production ban (force-feeding birds in California) remained but out-of-state foie gras could now be sold legally. Foie gras purveyors celebrated the win, and California gourmets savored the return of the delicacy. However, the victory for foie gras proponents was short-lived, as the state of California immediately appealed the decision.

State’s Appeal: California’s Attorney General (Kamala Harris at the time) appealed Judge Wilson’s 2015 decision to the Ninth Circuit, defending the foie gras law. The state argued that the PPIA regulates poultry slaughter and ingredient purity, not farming practices – and that feeding method is “not an ingredient” of foie gras50. Therefore, they contended, the foie gras ban was a permissible exercise of the state’s power to ban a cruel product, not a food safety or labeling standard that would trigger federal preemption50. A slew of animal welfare groups filed supporting briefs, while foie gras producers and some agribusiness groups backed the lower court’s reasoning. September 15, 2017 – Ninth Circuit Reverses: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed the district court, ruling that California’s foie gras sales ban is not preempted by federal law51. The appellate decision (sometimes called “Ass’n des Éleveurs v. Becerra (Canards II)”) found that the state was not imposing any additional ingredient requirement on foie gras itself, but rather prohibiting an inhumane method of production5253. The court noted producers were free to force-feed birds and sell foie gras in other states; California was simply choosing not to be a market for products made by force-feeding5453. The judges also rejected the argument that the law interfered with interstate commerce. They emphasized that only in-state sales were barred, so any incidental influence on out-of-state producers did not amount to an unconstitutional extraterritorial regulation53. With this ruling, the California ban was reinstated, although the court stayed its mandate for 90 days to allow foie gras proponents to seek further review55. No En Banc; Supreme Court Petition: The foie gras plaintiffs sought an en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit, but the court declined to rehear the case in 201856. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that California’s law conflicted with federal jurisdiction over poultry products and imposed California’s moral standards on producers nationwide (a Commerce Clause issue). January 7, 2019: The Supreme Court denied certiorari, refusing to take the case5557. This left the Ninth Circuit’s pro-ban decision in place, meaning the foie gras sales ban was again fully enforceable in California as of early 201958. Animal advocates celebrated this as a final validation of the law’s constitutionality57. After the Supreme Court denial, the ban on selling foie gras within California was firmly back in effect (and California’s brief foie gras legal window, 2015–2017, closed once more). Legal Arguments Highlighted: Throughout this legal saga, both sides’ arguments were thoroughly aired: Pro-Ban (State/Advocates): California asserted its sovereign right to bar cruel practices and prevent commerce in products of animal cruelty within the state. They maintained the law targeted an inhumane feeding process rather than imposing any poultry ingredient standard, thus avoiding PPIA preemption50. On the Commerce Clause, the state argued the ban was an even-handed law applied to all foie gras sales in California, not protectionist (since in-state and out-of-state foie gras were equally forbidden) and with only incidental out-of-state effects. Humane organizations also pointed to states’ longstanding authority to regulate food for ethical reasons (analogizing to state bans on horsemeat or products from poached wildlife). Anti-Ban (Producers/Chefs): The challengers argued that California’s law was overreaching and unconstitutional. They claimed the vague definition of “force-feeding” left producers uncertain how to comply41. They contended the ban effectively dictated farming methods beyond California’s borders (since virtually all foie gras sold in CA was produced elsewhere), amounting to an extraterritorial regulation violating the Dormant Commerce Clause53. Moreover, they argued federal law fully occupies poultry regulation – asserting that California’s attempt to ban a USDA-approved poultry product (foie gras) on moral grounds was an impermissible state intrusion into federal turf47. The foie gras industry also stressed the economic impact, saying the ban hurt farms in New York and Canada and deprived California consumers of a lawful product59. In the end, the courts sided with California on these issues, upholding the state’s ability to ban the sale of products made by force-feeding birds.

Post-2019 Enforcement: With the ban back in force after 2019, California agencies and animal advocates resumed vigilance. The Animal Legal Defense Fund reactivated its lawsuit against Napa’s La Toque (which had been on hold during the ban’s suspension), and even set up a public tip portal for reporting illicit foie gras sales6057. Most restaurants again complied by removing foie gras. Still, some die-hards quietly continued “BYO foie” practices or sourced foie gras via creative means. Notably, e-commerce and shipping presented a gray area that soon became the next legal flashpoint. The Shipping Workaround: The text of California’s law bans any person or entity from selling (or offering to sell) foie gras in California if it is a product of force-feeding5. Foie gras aficionados wondered: could a California consumer legally buy foie gras from an out-of-state vendor (for example, a New York farm) and have it shipped to their home? In other words, is the transaction considered to occur out-of-state and thus beyond California’s reach? Many individuals began ordering foie gras online from producers in New York or Canada, since the law did not explicitly ban possession or out-of-state purchases for personal use. This de facto loophole started to undermine the ban’s impact, and the issue returned to Judge Wilson’s courtroom in 2019 as part of the ongoing litigation. July 14, 2020 – Judge Wilson Clarifies “Out-of-State” Sales: In yet another twist, Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that California’s law “does not bar out-of-state foie gras producers from sending the meat to California” under certain conditions6162. He interpreted the statute’s wording to mean that if the sale occurs entirely outside California – i.e. the seller is out of state, the payment and title transfer happen out of state – then the mere delivery of the product to a California consumer is not an in-state “sale” prohibited by the law6263. Wilson found no evidence that the Legislature intended to ban possession or receipt of foie gras, as opposed to sales within California62. In practical terms, this 2020 judgment allowed California residents to purchase foie gras from out-of-state retailers for personal use without breaking the law6164. However, Judge Wilson was careful to note that once foie gras enters California, it still cannot be resold or served by any California business, even via creative arrangements6265. The state’s lawyers argued this interpretation created an absurd loophole, but the court maintained a distinction between regulating a transaction (which the state can’t if it’s out-of-state) and regulating in-state commerce66. This ruling essentially lifted the ban on direct-to-consumer shipments – a significant win for foie gras producers, who claimed they had lost a third of their U.S. sales due to California’s embargo67. (Notably, Judge Wilson even warned that if the plaintiffs persisted in re-litigating already-decided constitutional claims, he might impose sanctions68 – signaling an exhaustion of patience with the pro-foie gras camp’s repeated challenges.) 2021–2022 Appeals: California’s Attorney General (now Xavier Becerra, later Rob Bonta) appealed the shipping ruling, seeking to close the loophole. May 6, 2022: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Wilson’s interpretation, upholding the narrow allowance for out-of-state foie gras sales to Californians64. The appellate panel agreed that the statute forbids only in-state sales, and that an online/phone transaction where title passes outside California is not an “in-state sale” by the law’s definition6970. The court thus held that California cannot block its residents from ordering foie gras from out-of-state sources for personal consumption64. Importantly, the ruling reaffirmed that restaurants and retailers in California are still barred from selling or even giving away foie gras within the state71. The “personal use” exception was carved out as a very limited one: only a direct sale from an out-of-state seller to an end consumer is allowed. A California restaurant still may not procure foie gras (even from out of state) to serve to customers, since that would constitute an in-state commercial use. An HSUS attorney underscored that this was a “narrow” transaction type left untouched by the law – effectively, 40 million Californians can buy foie gras online, but no California business can trade in it7271. Foie gras producers declared partial victory, celebrating that Californians could once again (legally) enjoy their product at home, though they continued to argue the law as a whole was unconstitutional73. Further Appeals Denied: Foie gras opponents and proponents each contemplated further appeals (the producers even signaled they might seek a larger Ninth Circuit review or head back to the Supreme Court)7473. However, in 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear any new appeals related to the California foie gras law5575. This effectively closed the book on major litigation: the core ban on foie gras stands, with the only caveat being the allowance for individual imports.

Ban in Force: California’s law remains in effect, making it unlawful to produce or sell foie gras in the state if it was made by force-feeding birds5. In practical terms, since all commercial foie gras comes from force-fed ducks or geese, foie gras is generally not available in restaurants or stores in California. No legislative repeal or amendment has ever been passed to roll back the 2004 law, despite periodic efforts by the foie gras industry and some chefs. Attempts in 2012 to repeal or water-down the ban failed to gain traction2326, and the law stands as originally written. Workarounds and Personal Use: Californians who desire foie gras do have options to obtain it for personal consumption. Following the 2020–2022 court decisions, it is legal for an individual to purchase foie gras from an out-of-state retailer and have it shipped into California for their own use64. This means gourmet enthusiasts can order from producers like Hudson Valley (NY) or Québec farms and enjoy foie gras at home. However, any such foie gras cannot be resold or served by a California establishment – restaurants are explicitly not allowed to sell it, include it on menus, or even give it away as a freebie71. Enforcement agencies and animal welfare activists remain watchful; for example, ALDF continues to run a tip line for reporting illicit sales60. The legal consensus is that personal possession and consumption is not criminalized, but commercial sale within California is prohibited7677. Culinary and Public Impact: In California’s dining scene, the foie gras ban has largely been accepted as the new normal. Most high-end chefs have adjusted by removing foie gras or substituting products (some use duck liver mousse from non-force-fed birds or vegan “faux gras” alternatives). A few chefs have staged underground supper clubs or pop-up events in other states to skirt the law, but these are rare. Public opinion remains split: animal rights organizations praise the ban as a humane victory that aligns the marketplace with societal ethics, while some chefs and patrons view it as a loss of personal choice and culinary freedom. Chef Sean Chaney, one of the original lawsuit plaintiffs, reflected that he’s glad Californians “can continue to enjoy the foie gras products they buy online,” but he holds out hope “to be able to cook it for them soon again” in-state72. For now, however, California stands firm against foie gras in restaurants. Legacy: California was the first U.S. state to enact a foie gras ban, and despite years of litigation, its law is intact and enforceable78. The legal battles solidified precedent that states can ban sales of products on animal welfare grounds without running afoul of federal law or the Constitution. The foie gras ban’s saga – from a 2004 political compromise to a 2012 implementation, followed by a rollercoaster of court rulings – has been closely watched nationwide. It inspired other jurisdictions; for instance, New York City passed a similar ban on foie gras sales (though that has faced its own legal hurdles)7980. As of 2025, the practical reality in California is that foie gras may only be obtained via out-of-state purchase for personal use, and any local restaurant daring to serve it openly risks legal action. The state’s stance has been upheld at all judicial levels, confirming that California’s ban on foie gras (from force-fed birds) is here to stay7871. Sources: California Health & Safety Code §25980–25984 (Stats. 2004, ch. 904); Senate Bill 1520 (2004); Los Angeles Times (John Burton op-ed)8182; CBS/AP News2622; ABC News8336; Reuters/ENN484; The Guardian6471; Eater LA4885; U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Cir. (Ass’n des Éleveurs v. Becerra, 2017 & 2022)5153; Animal Legal Defense Fund5760. 1 2 3 5 8 17 30 35 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 50 51 55 75 78 California foie gras law - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_foie_gras_law 4 6 15 84 Environmental News Network - California Bans Foie Gras Force-Feeding Starting in 2012 https://www.enn.com/articles/13694 7 14 31 32 33 34 36 83 California's Foie Gras Ban Goes Into Effect - ABC News https://abcnews.go.com/US/californias-foie-gras-ban-effect/story?id=16687059 9 10 11 19 20 21 81 82 Foie gras isn't forever - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-apr-10-la-oe-burton-foie-gras-ban-20120410-story.html 12 18 An ending made in Hollywood for an epic fight over foie gras | The Independent | The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/an-ending-made-in-hollywood-for-an-epic-fight-over-foie-gras-551219.html 13 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Calif. chefs seek repeal of looming foie gras ban - CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/calif-chefs-seek-repeal-of-looming-foie-gras-ban/ 37 57 58 60 79 80 Foie Gras - Animal Legal Defense Fund https://aldf.org/issue/foie-gras/ 48 49 67 68 76 77 85 It’s No Longer Illegal to Have Foie Gras in California | Eater LA https://la.eater.com/2020/7/14/21324905/foie-gras-ban-california-lifted-not-illegal-ruling 52 53 54 69 70 cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/06/20-55882.pdf 56 Ninth Circuit Refuses Rehearing on CA Foie Gras Sales Ban https://natlawreview.com/article/no-rehearing-granted-california-s-state-foie-gras-sales-ban 59 64 71 72 73 74 California court okays import of foie gras from out of state, barred in 2012 | California | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/07/california-foie-gras-bans-partly-lifted 61 62 63 65 66 Judge Lifts California Ban on Out-of-State Foie Gras | Courthouse News Service https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-lifts-california-ban-on-out-of-state-foie-gras/