Purpose

The purpose of this document is to evaluate whether and how to pursue a national foie gras ban in the United States. It lays out the strategic case for and against undertaking this effort, identifies the key unresolved questions, and presents a preliminary architecture for how a ban could be achieved. This includes a high-level funding strategy, major strategic pathways, expected constraints, and rough cost estimates. The document is intended to clarify the decision space, outline viable strategic models, and provide a foundation for determining whether and how to move forward.

-​

●​ Victory = U.S. industry permanent eradication: ○​ Making foie gras production in the U.S. economically and politically impossible; ○​ shutting down all domestic farms and preventing functional import substitution. ●​ Two-Part Definition:​ (1) Eliminate all major domestic producers (HVFG and La Belle).​ (2) Secure strong policies (city/state/federal) that prevent foie gras sales and choke off imports.

●​ Domestic production volume: Track tonnage falling from ~370 tons toward zero. ●​ Number of animals: Track ducks from ~500k toward zero as a moral and strategic metric. ●​ Revenue and financial output: Dollars of business may be the single most telling indicator of collapse. ●​ Market availability: Percentage of U.S. retail/restaurant markets legally closed off.

●​ Number of Farms Remaining: ●​ Number of States where Foie Gras Production is still legal

●​ Primary objective: Shut down Hudson Valley Foie Gras and La Belle Farm — the only actors with deep, long-term incentives to defend foie gras in the U.S. ●​ Why they matter: They fund all legal, political, and PR defenses; they are the backbone of supply; they fight every ban. They are the actors actually causing the majority of harm to foie gras. They are gone, domestic production would need to rebuild, which would be hard and likely stamped out before reestablished. ●​ Impact of closure: Once they are gone, the landscape becomes far more favorable for policy, imports become easier to restrict, and the industry loses its core political engine. ●​ Two pathways toward closing them fundamentally, and likely both need to happen to some extent and at some time, but one i believe is m,ore directly pursuable than the other. The first and more pathway is economic attrition - primarily by removal of markets through local sales bans, other economic attrition by by increasing costs of dong business . The second, more evnetual, and final pathways is through production bans - specially New York state, but ideally nationwide at some point.

Perhaps economics attrition is teh wrong word for this, but there’s essentially two prongs here: the supply and the demand. On the supply side, it’s less important, but part of the bankruptcy equation for sure. Increase the costs of doing business. Their fixed costs are the same, they can’t just so easily scale bank production. There’s things that can happen thati increase fixed costs such as lawsuits, policy ifhts. The more important side in the analysis is the dmeand side, the dmeand is largely restaurants, luxury restaurants located in cities. Ther’es lots of ways of getting these restaurants to drop foie gras, but the most powerful is by policy menas where it’s literally forbidden to sell it in an area. This leads to policital and cultural momentum and literally cuts off a market. While we want to loook at ways atdriving up costs for them, the writing presents itself as on the wall for them the more that these political victories happen literally through the economic logic of cutting off markets. ●​ Raise costs + shrink demand: The path to closure is increasing operating costs (legal, political, reputational) while shrinking market opportunities. ●​ Demand suppression deters new entrants: Fewer buyers = no incentive for new farms or foreign suppliers to expand. ●​ Asymmetric warfare: Choose actions that cost us very little but force the farms to spend heavily on lawyers, lobbyists, compliance, and PR. ●​ Every hit to HVFG/La Belle is beneficial: Any financial, political, or narrative damage moves the industry closer to collapse. Because the primary way for shrinking demand is city and state policies forbidding the sales of this, we are going to lay out why this is the most important lever, and then more concisely describe the logic of removal that we will more thoroughly explore in a later document. We will then lay out an adjacent strategy as well.

●​ The core objective is industry collapse: the permanent shutdown of Hudson Valley Foie Gras (HVFG) and La Belle Farm. If these two facilities close, U.S. foie gras production ends. ●​ Policy is the only tool that can: ○​ Remove markets at scale ○​ Impose structural costs ○​ Lock in permanent decline ●​ In practice, collapse comes from: ○​ City sales bans in key metros, especially NYC, Chicago, DC, Boston,

○​ A New York State production ban that eliminates both farms in one step. ●​ Hard states and metros like Texas, Florida, Nevada are not necessary for collapse. The industry cannot survive the loss of NYC + Chicago + a handful of East Coast and Mountain West wins.

Policy does three things that consumer campaigns and voluntary pledges cannot: it erases markets, drains the farms’ resources, and builds momentum toward a definitive end.

●​ Foie gras demand is overwhelmingly restaurant-driven and hyper-concentrated in a few metros. ●​ When a jurisdiction bans foie gras sales, that entire regional market disappears overnight. ●​ A single city—New York City—accounts for roughly a quarter of national demand (~25–27%). Losing NYC is a massive structural blow, not a marginal loss.

●​ Every proposed ban forces HVFG and La Belle to engage in legal, lobbying, and PR defense. ●​ They cannot ignore precedents; each victory against them encourages the next jurisdiction. ●​ There is no broad industry to spread these costs across—only two farms. Even small fights hurt.

●​ City bans are usually easier to pass; state bans are stronger and harder to overturn. ●​ Each win normalizes the idea that force-feeding is politically unacceptable, making subsequent bans easier and reducing the odds of industry reconstitution. ●​ NYC is the clearest case: one city win has both enormous economic impact and high symbolic value.

Sales bans are the primary mechanism for shrinking the market because they directly remove foie gras from menus.

City bans are usually the most realistic and can deliver outsized national impact.

●​ New York City: ~25–27% ●​ Chicago: ~10–12% ●​ Washington DC Metro: ~8–10% ●​ Las Vegas: ~9% ●​ Florida metros (Miami, Orlando, etc.): ~10% ●​ Texas majors (Houston, DFW, Austin/San Antonio): ~10%

Even ignoring difficult venues (Las Vegas, Texas, Florida), winning Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, Boston, Denver, Portland severely weakens the industry.

●​ City bans are viable even where state-level change is impossible. ●​ They do the majority of practical work in shrinking the national market. ●​ NYC is legislatively won; its status now depends entirely on litigation.​

●​ Broader and more durable​ ●​ Harder to overturn​ ●​ Useful for eliminating city-level loopholes​ In states where one metro dominates consumption, the additional economic impact beyond that city is modest (e.g. New York beyond NYC; Pennsylvania beyond Philadelphia; Colorado beyond Denver). But state bans are still valuable because they: ●​ Lock in the win​ ●​ Reduce legal vulnerability​ ●​ Provide a platform for adding production bans​

Small and mid-sized cities (Evanston, Boulder, Aurora, etc.) have minimal direct economic impact but provide: ●​ Activist skill-building and leadership development​ ●​ Media and cultural signaling​ ●​ Incremental pressure on nearby major metros​ ●​ Proof of concept that “this can be done”​

bounty/mini-grant model.

Cities cannot regulate production. Only states can prohibit force-feeding and foie gras production outright.

●​ California’s production ban eliminated one of the three U.S. producers, causing a ~20% national contraction (from ~450 to ~370 tons).​ ●​ A New York State production ban would eliminate the remaining two producers—HVFG and La Belle—in one step.​ ●​ This is the endgame mechanism: once New York bans production, domestic foie gras is over.​

●​ If the NYC ban is struck down, it strengthens the argument that the issue must be resolved at the state level.​ ●​ If the NYC ban is upheld, the state can:​ ○​ Extend the sales ban statewide, and​ ○​ Add a production ban that eliminates the farms entirely.​ Either way, the production-ban path remains viable and decisive.

●​ A New York production ban is politically harder than a sales ban, but order-of-magnitude more impactful.​ ●​ It can be pursued as part of a combined sales + production package.​ ●​ Production bans elsewhere have limited direct impact but may carry symbolic or momentum value, especially post-collapse.​ ●​ Once HVFG and La Belle shut down or declare bankruptcy, pushing production bans in other states—or federally—becomes much easier, as there is no organized domestic opposition left.​

●​ Prohibit only the sale of foie gras.​ ●​ Simple, intuitive, and widely used formula.​

●​ Ban all products derived from force-fed animals (not just foie gras).​ ●​ Focus on the practice (force-feeding) rather than a single dish.​ ●​ Hit multiple product lines and thus broaden economic impact.​ ●​ Jurisdictions like Pittsburgh have used this framing.​

●​ Producers could attempt to market alleged “non–force-fed alternatives,” complicating enforcement.​ ●​ The force-fed framework is morally and strategically stronger, but requires careful legal drafting and political vetting.​

○​ How much of the national market does the jurisdiction represent?​ ○​ After California, production dropped by ~20%.​ ○​ A surviving NYC ban could drive a similarly large contraction and destabilize the entire industry.​

○​ Can we realistically pass a ban with the political conditions and resources available?​ ○​ Is lobbying sufficient, or is a ballot measure required (and possible)?​

○​ Does a jurisdiction meaningfully:​ ■​ Build activist infrastructure?​ ■​ Generate favorable media?​ ■​ Increase pressure on more important targets?​

●​ NYC (~25–27%) – crown jewel; already won legislatively; litigation is decisive.​ ●​ Chicago (~10%) – essential for most “fast-collapse” paths.​ ●​ Las Vegas (~9%) – big market, politically hard.​ ●​ DC Metro, Miami/Palm Beach, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, DFW, New Orleans – collectively a large share of demand.​ ●​ A long tail of metros (Seattle, Atlanta, Orlando, Honolulu, Denver, Austin/San Antonio, Phoenix/Scottsdale, Portland, Minneapolis–St Paul, Charleston, etc.) and dozens of mid-sized cities contributing the remaining ~15–20%.​ I’d keep the full table in an Appendix: Top Foie Gras Markets, with ducks / pounds / dollars.

●​ Add little direct economic damage.​ ●​ Do a lot for:​ ○​ Local activist development​ ○​ Movement morale​ ○​ Media narrative (“foie gras is disappearing from civilized cities”)​ ●​ Slightly increase win probability in nearby major metros.​ They are political accelerators, not economic drivers.

●​ All U.S. foie gras bans to date—NYC, Pittsburgh, Brookline, Chicago’s brief ban, California’s retail ban—came through legislative lobbying, not ballot measures.​

●​ More durable, harder to repeal.​ ●​ More expensive and resource-intensive.​ ●​ More visible, which can cut both ways (more support, but more opposition).​

●​ Washington DC​ ●​ Denver​ ●​ Portland​ ●​ Possibly Las Vegas​ ●​ Possibly Miami​ ●​ Possibly some Texas metros (depending on local law)​

●​ Chicago​ ●​ Philadelphia​ ●​ Boston​

Because foie gras is low-salience, quiet legislative lobbying is usually superior: ●​ Lower cost​ ●​ Less opposition mobilization​ ●​ Faster wins​ Chicago may be a rare exception where a ballot measure could be worth considering to lock in a strong, durable ban, but only if the political math is favorable.

You don’t need every step of the duck-count math in the main text, but you do need the headline story.

●​ ~500,000 ducks/year​ ●​ ~740,000 lbs/year​ ●​ ~$47M market​

●​ ~135,000 ducks​ ●​ ~200,000 lbs​ ●​ ~$12.5M​ → Roughly 27% of national demand​

●​ ~365,000 ducks​ ●​ ~540,000 lbs​ ●​ ~$34.5M​

●​ NYC holds → industry at ~73% of original.​ ●​ Add DC, Philadelphia, Portland, Denver, and follow-on state bans in PA and MA → industry shrinks to ~50% of original.​ ●​ Add Chicago → down to ~40–45%, likely below operational viability for a two-farm industry.​ ●​ Add West Coast / Mountain states (WA, OR, CO, HI) → ~34–35%. At that point, collapse is a question of “when,” not “if.”​

●​ The combination of NYC + Chicago + DC + Boston + Philadelphia + a handful of city/state bans moves the industry into the 30–40% range, which is probably nonviable for HVFG and La Belle.​ ●​ These states are high-cost, low-odds fights. They are optional, not core.​

●​ You can replace NYC in the model with a New York State sales + production ban, which removes the same underlying production and a similar share of demand.​ ●​ The collapse curve is slower without an immediate NYC win but still converges on the same outcome once New York State and Chicago are secured.​ Full scenario trees and detailed tables belong in an Appendix: Collapse Pathways and Market Scenarios.

Policy is the only mechanism that reliably removes markets, imposes structural costs, and accumulates political momentum in ways that HVFG and La Belle cannot withstand. Three dynamics give policy its power:

●​ Foie gras demand is restaurant-driven and geographically concentrated. ●​ When a city prohibits sales, the entire regional market disappears overnight. ●​ Losing a single major metro wipes out a material share of national demand (NYC ≈ 25%).

●​ Every ban forces the farms to engage in legal and political defense. ●​ They cannot ignore precedents; they must fight each attempt. ●​ Even small jurisdictions create costs they cannot spread across a large industry (because there is no large industry—only HVFG and La Belle).

●​ City bans are easier to pass; state bans are stronger and harder to overturn. ●​ Wins at either level build inertia and legitimacy for broader action. ●​ NYC demonstrates that a single city can inflict massive economic harm.

Sales bans are the main policy tool because they directly remove foie gras from the market.

Cities are the most feasible venue and often deliver disproportionate national impact.

●​ New York City – ~25% ●​ Chicago – ~10–12%​ ●​ Washington DC – ~8–10%​ ●​ Las Vegas – ~9%​ ●​ Florida metros – ~10%​ ●​ Texas majors – ~10%​

Even without difficult metros (Las Vegas, Texas, Florida), wins in Chicago, D.C., Philadelphia, Boston, Denver would severely weaken the industry.

●​ City bans are realistic even in states where statewide action is impossible.​ ●​ They do the majority of practical work in shrinking the national market.​ ●​ NYC is legislatively won; litigation determines whether it becomes operative.​

●​ Broader and more durable. ●​ Harder to overturn in court. ●​ Likely to follow after key city wins. However, in states where one metro dominates demand, the marginal economic impact of going statewide is modest.​

●​ New York State beyond NYC ●​ Pennsylvania beyond Philadelphia ●​ Colorado beyond Denver

●​ Eliminating loopholes ●​ Hardening the policy​ ●​ Building precedent for a future production ban​

●​ Build activist capacity ●​ Create political/press momentum ●​ Increase odds of wins in nearby major metros​ ●​ Show feasibility at low cost​ These can be done by small local groups; a bounty/mini-grant model could accelerate them.

Cities cannot regulate production; only states can.

●​ California’s production ban eliminated one of the three U.S. producers outright.​ ●​ A New York State production ban would eliminate both remaining farms (HVFG and

●​ This is the endgame mechanism: total termination of domestic production in a single policy action.​

●​ If NYC’s ban is struck down → strengthens the case for the state to step in.​ ●​ If NYC’s ban is upheld → state can extend it statewide and also end production entirely.​ Either way, the production-ban route remains viable and decisive.

●​ A New York State production ban is harder than a sales ban, but infinitely more impactful.​ ●​ A sales + production ban could be combined in one legislative package.​ ●​ Production bans in other states have little practical impact unless they have symbolic or momentum value.​ ●​ Once HVFG and La Belle collapse or go bankrupt, pushing production bans elsewhere—including federally—becomes far easier.​

●​ Only target foie gras. ●​ Simpler, familiar, widely used.

●​ Ban all products derived from force-fed animals. ●​ Focus on the underlying practice rather than one dish. ●​ Broader economic impact because it hits multiple product lines. ●​ Jurisdictions like Pittsburgh have used this framing.

●​ Producers may attempt to claim non–force-fed “alternatives,” creating enforcement ambiguity. ●​ The force-fed framing is morally and strategically stronger but needs more legal and political vetting.

The lion’s share of realistic wins sits at the city level.

●​ New York City (won; litigation pending)​ ●​ Chicago​ ●​ Washington DC​ ●​ Philadelphia​ ●​ Boston​ ●​ Denver​

●​ Las Vegas​ ●​ Texas Triangle (Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston, Austin)​ ●​ Miami​

The core point is: some cities matter disproportionately, and they are the hinge points of the entire campaign.

●​ Suitable for local activists.​ ●​ Practically trivial for us to support.​ ●​ Provide momentum, signaling, and incremental pressure on major metros.​ They are not economic drivers but political accelerators.

●​ Stronger and more enforceable than city bans.​ ●​ Eliminate all intrastate loopholes.​ ●​ Only venue where production bans are possible.​ ●​ Multiple states adopting bans (sales or production) makes industry rebirth unlikely.​

●​ New York → decisive (production + sales).​ ●​ Pennsylvania → meaningful because of Philadelphia.​ ●​ Colorado → Denver is the main prize; a statewide extension is feasible.​ States like Texas and Florida are currently unrealistic for political reasons.

All U.S. foie gras bans to date (NYC, Pittsburgh, Brookline, Chicago’s brief ban, California retail ban) were won via legislative lobbying, not direct democracy.

●​ More durable (less vulnerable to legislative rollback)​ ●​ More expensive​ ●​ More visible (bigger public spectacle)​

●​ Washington DC​ ●​ Denver​ ●​ Portland​ ●​ Possibly Las Vegas​ ●​ Possibly Miami​ ●​ Possibly Texas metros (depending on home-rule structure)​

●​ Chicago​ ●​ Philadelphia​ ●​ Boston​

Foie gras is low-salience and flies under the radar, making quiet legislative paths more efficient: ●​ Less cost​ ●​ Less opposition mobilization​ ●​ Faster wins​ Chicago might be a rare case where a ballot measure could lock in a stronger, more durable ban—but only if the political math makes sense.

●​ City sales bans do most of the real-world work in eliminating the market.​ ●​ State sales bans harden the policy and close loopholes.​ ●​ State production bans (especially in New York) are the final, definitive mechanism for ending domestic foie gras production.​ ●​ Force-fed product bans have broader potential impact but need more research.​ ●​ Small-city wins matter for momentum, not markets.​ ●​ Ballot measures can be powerful but are situational; lobbying wins are usually cheaper and quieter.​ ●​

●​ Economic impact: How much market volume the jurisdiction controls. ○​ Post-California contraction: Production fell from ~450 to ~370 tons after CA’s ban — a ~20% national contraction. ○​ NYC’s potential impact: A surviving NYC ban could deliver another massive contraction and destabilize the entire industry. ●​ Winnability: Can the policy realistically pass with available resources and political conditions?

●​ New York City (~27%) ●​ Chicago (~10%) ●​ Las Vegas (~9%) ●​ Washington DC Metro (~8%) ●​ Miami / Palm Beach (~6%) ●​ Boston (~5%) ●​ Philadelphia (~4%) ●​ Houston (~4%) ●​ Dallas–Fort Worth (~3.5%) ●​ New Orleans (~3.5%) ●​ Seattle (2%) ●​ Atlanta (2%) ●​ Orlando (2%) ●​ Honolulu (1%) ●​ Denver (1%) ●​ Austin/San Antonio (1%) ●​ Phoenix/Scottsdale (1%) ●​ Portland (0.7%) ●​ Minneapolis–St Paul (0.7%) ●​ Charleston (0.5%)

% of U.S.

~135,000 ducks ~200,000 lbs ~$12.5M

~50,000 ducks ~74,000 lbs ~$4.7M

~45,000 ducks ~67,000 lbs ~$4.2M

~40,000 ducks ~59,000 lbs ~$3.7M

~30,000 ~44,000 lbs ~$2.8M

~25,000 ~37,000 lbs ~$2.3M

~20,000 ~30,000 lbs ~$1.9M

~20,000 ~30,000 lbs ~$1.9M

~17,500 ~26,000 lbs ~$1.6M

~17,500 ~26,000 lbs ~$1.6M

~10,000 ~15,000 lbs ~$0.95M

~10,000 ~15,000 lbs ~$0.95M

~10,000 ~15,000 lbs ~$0.95M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

~3,500 ~5,200 lbs ~$0.33M

~3,500 ~5,200 lbs ~$0.33M

~2,500 ~3,700 lbs ~$0.23M Dozens of mid-size U.S. cities

~35,000 ~52,000 lbs ~$3.3M ●​ NYC (crown jewel; ~25%+ of U.S. demand; largest single blow) ●​ Chicago ●​ Las Vegas ●​ Washington, DC ●​ Denver ●​ Boston ●​ Philadelphia ●​ Texas metros (Houston, DFW, Austin/San Antonio)

●​ Cities like Evanston, Boulder, and Aurora have little direct economic impact. ●​ But they: ○​ Build activist capacity ○​ Demonstrate movement viability ○​ Increase political momentum ○​ Signal cultural decline of foie gras ○​ Slightly raise win probability in larger nearby metros

●​ Moral revulsion builds political power: Cultural change enables big policy wins and discourages new entrants. ●​ Shrinking market = weaker future defenses: Less money and lower confidence reduces the farms’ ability to fight.

●​ Make succession unattractive: The next generation of HVFG/La Belle leadership must see no future in the business. ●​ Perceived decline accelerates actual decline: Industry players become less willing to invest in a future that looks increasingly doomed.

●​ Post-California contraction: Production fell from ~450 to ~370 tons after CA’s ban — a ~20% national contraction. ●​ NYC’s potential impact: A surviving NYC ban could deliver another massive contraction and destabilize the entire industry.

●​ Symbolic victories: Cities like Pittsburgh matter mainly for momentum, not direct economic harm. ●​ Cumulative effect: Even small bans matter when added to a pile of pressure points.

The objective is industry collapse: the permanent shutdown of Hudson Valley Foie Gras (HVFG) and La Belle Farm. If these two facilities close, U.S. foie gras production ends. Restaurant and corporate pressure can support the effort, but the core mechanism is policy-based market removal: Remove markets → Destroy revenue → Collapse the farms. This entry models collapse pathways using estimated consumption data (ducks, pounds, dollars) for each city and state. These numbers are not precise statistics but are directionally accurate enough to evaluate the strategic significance of specific victories.

●​ ~500,000 ducks/year​ ●​ ~740,000 lbs/year​ ●​ ~$47M market​

●​ NYC: 135k ducks / 200k lbs / $12.5M​ ●​ Chicago: 50k ducks / 74k lbs / $4.7M​ ●​ Las Vegas: 45k ducks / 67k lbs / $4.2M​ ●​ Washington DC Metro: 40k ducks / 59k lbs / $3.7M​ ●​ Miami/Palm Beach: 30k ducks​ ●​ Boston: 25k ducks​ ●​ Philadelphia: 20k ducks​ Every sales ban removes these numbers directly from the national industry.

●​ 135,000 ducks​ ●​ 200,000 lbs​ ●​ $12.5M​ → 27% of national demand​

●​ ~365,000 ducks​ ●​ ~540,000 lbs​ ●​ ~$34.5M​ → 73% of original​ This 73% becomes the new baseline for collapse modeling.

% of

al

~365,000

+ DC (40k) ~325,000

+ Philadelphia (20k) ~305,000

+ Pennsylvania ~285,000

+ Boston (25k) ~260,000

+ Massachusetts ~240,000

+ Chicago (50k) ~190,000

+ Denver (5k) ~185,000

+ Portland (3.5k) ~181,500

+ Washington State (10k) ~171,500

Industry becomes nonviable below ~180,000 ducks/year.

●​ NYC​ ●​ Chicago​ ●​ DC/DMV​ ●​ Boston + Philadelphia​ This combination removes the core consumption + prestige markets.

Combined impact: ~68,500 ducks (≈14% of national market).

+ NYC Hold

NYC holds; DC, Philly, Portland, Denver pass; PA & MA follow their cities.

●​ NYC → 73%​ ○​ DC → 65%​ ○​ Philly → 61%​ ○​ Portland → 60%​ ○​ Denver → 59%​ ○​ Pennsylvania → 56%​ ○​ Boston → 53%​ ○​ Massachusetts → 50%​

Industry shrinks to ~50% — near the collapse threshold, without Chicago, Las Vegas, Texas, or Florida.

●​ 50k ducks / 74k lbs / $4.7M (~10%)​

●​ ~240,000 ducks → ~190,000 ducks​ → ~44% of original​ This crosses the operational failure line. Chicago is required for most fast-collapse timelines.

●​ are not politically winnable​ ●​ rely on chef-driven demand rather than cultural embeddedness​ ●​ can be pressured by non-legislative means​ Collapse does not depend on winning these states.

●​ Active campaigns + NYC hold → ~59% remaining​ ●​ Add PA + MA → ~50%​ ●​ Add Chicago → ~44%​ ●​ Add WA + OR + CO + HI → ~34% (terminal zone)​

●​ Removes the same 135k ducks​ ●​ Collapse timeline remains identical​ ●​ State framing avoids NYC-specific legal vulnerabilities​

●​ Begin collapse curve at 100%​ ●​ Slower path​ ●​ Requires:​ ○​ Chicago​ ○​ PA + MA​ ○​ WA + OR + CO​ ○​ Another Northeast win​ ●​ Stabilizes at 55–60% before further erosion pushes below viability​

●​ City sales bans in major metros are the main engine of collapse.​ ●​ State bans consolidate city wins and accelerate decline.​ ●​ Chicago is the single most important missing victory.​ ●​ Hard states (TX, FL, NV) are not needed for collapse.​ ●​ With realistic wins, the industry reaches 34–44% of original size — below survival threshold.​

The core mechanism for ending foie gras in the United States is policy-based market removal: ●​ City sales bans in key markets​ ●​ followed by state sales bans​ ●​ and ultimately production bans in decisive jurisdictions (especially New York)​ These policies remove markets, collapse revenue, and push Hudson Valley Foie Gras (HVFG) and La Belle toward bankruptcy. Once weakened, production bans can finish the industry permanently. However, policy fights are hard, and HVFG in particular has resisted existential threats for decades. They fight aggressively in the courts, oppose ballot measures, mobilize restaurant communities, and challenge every major ban. To win policy battles in major metros, supporting strategic efforts are needed. These efforts make policy passage more likely, strengthen messaging, improve public narrative, weaken the farms’ ability to fight, and drain their financial resources. The following sections outline these complementary efforts.

●​ Reveal current conditions: disease, mortality, water issues, worker harms, animal abuse.​ ●​ Provide updated evidence that prevents farms from claiming “reform.”​ ●​ Supply compelling visuals and facts for lobbying, council meetings, and media.​ ●​ Give advocates fresh, specific material for messaging.​

●​ Helps refine arguments most effective for city and state decision-makers.​ ●​ Produces polling and framing data that policy groups can directly use.​ ●​ Keeps cruelty, public health issues, and environmental harms central in discourse.​

●​ Avoids duplication across organizations.​ ●​ Provides a unified evidence base for campaigns nationwide.​ ●​ Tracks progress toward collapse (markets removed, ducks reduced, revenue eliminated).​ ●​ Supports long-term coordination between groups.​

●​ Lawsuits force HVFG/La Belle to spend heavily on defense.​ ●​ PR-sensitive cases create reputational crises and require additional spending.​ ●​ Time spent on litigation reduces their capacity to fight policy battles.​

●​ Well-targeted cases are inexpensive for advocates but expensive for the farms.​ ●​ Multiple cases create sustained legal entanglement and cumulative financial exhaustion.​

●​ Negative media coverage increases marketing and crisis-management costs.​ ●​ Damages the farms’ standing with lawmakers and city officials.​ ●​ Undermines the willingness of the next generation to continue running the business.​

●​ Restaurant or distributor drop-offs shrink available outlets.​ ●​ Chain-level pressure impacts multiple cities at once and shifts industry norms.​ ●​ Having respected restaurants oppose foie gras helps prevent repeal fights later.​

●​ In some cities, aggressive protest tactics can make legislators hesitant.​ ●​ Activism should be aligned with policy strategy to support—not undermine—legislative goals.​

●​ Weakening HVFG and La Belle’s ability to fight​ ●​ Creating stronger, more persuasive messaging​ ●​ Improving media and narrative conditions​ ●​ Reducing opposition resources​ ●​ Building a public climate hostile to foie gras​ ●​ Supporting activists with evidence, infrastructure, and tools​ ●​ Making policy campaigns easier to win and easier to defend after passage​ They are not substitutes for policy—but they are essential support systems that make policy victories more likely and accelerate industry decline.

●​ Provides an abolitionist, momentum-building victory against a small, weak industry that can realistically be beaten. ●​ Demonstrates that extreme cruelty can be removed from the market through organized pressure. ●​ Targets one of the most publicly indefensible practices in animal agriculture; public opinion is already overwhelmingly aligned. ●​ Creates a clear moral narrative around gratuitous cruelty, reinforcing broader abolitionist framing. ●​ Builds organizing capacity, media attention, and political relationships that can translate to larger campaigns. ●​ Offers a symbolic victory with outsized cultural resonance relative to the number of animals affected. ●​ Establishes precedent for banning specific cruelty-based products, lowering barriers for future bans.

●​ Affects a relatively small number of animals, limiting the direct impact on suffering. ●​ U.S. foie gras production is niche and largely self-sustaining; banning it may not meaningfully reduce global production. ●​ Imports from France, Hungary, or other countries could replace domestic production if demand persists. ●​ Without reducing consumer demand, supply may shift rather than disappear. ●​ Political capital spent here may compete with opportunities that benefit far more animals. ●​ Could be criticized as a symbolic campaign with limited material impact. ●​ Risk of diverting organizing energy from campaigns that build broader political or economic leverage.

●​ Pursue fur sales bans, which affect far more animals and have strong public support. ●​ Target cruelty-defined products (e.g., force-fed frogs, exotic skins) where industry power is low.

●​ Support Prop 12 / EATS / Save Our Bacon–related defense or expansion efforts. ●​ Push crate-free or cage-free expansions where political coalitions already exist. ●​ Develop state or city minimum-standards laws covering far larger animal populations.

●​ Reinvest in corporate commitments (poultry welfare, cage-free enforcement, broiler reforms). ●​ Use corporate wins to build leverage, coalition power, and public momentum before re-entering politics.

●​ Advance bans or restrictions on wildlife killing contests, trapping, or cruel hunting practices. ●​ Support wildlife coexistence and urban animal welfare policy reforms with broad public sympathy.

●​ Build local and statewide political infrastructure (organizing, endorsements, candidate support). ●​ Invest in ballot-measure readiness, polling, and relationship-building for future large campaigns. ●​ Strengthen pro-animal representation in city councils, legislatures, and agencies.

●​ Fund plant-based defaults and institutional adoption in schools, hospitals, universities. ●​ Support public procurement reforms that shift large food systems without direct bans. ●​ Invest in marketing and cultural work that drives down demand for animal products.

●​ Strengthen training programs, leadership pipelines, volunteer capacity, and organizer development. ●​ Support cross-state networks and coalitions preparing for bigger legislative fights. ●​ Fund high-impact litigation, research, and policy shops that shape long-term wins.

●​ Prioritize areas where scale, political opportunity, or movement leverage are significantly higher. ●​ Deploy resources where there’s clearer evidence of mass impact and a stronger theory of change.

●​ We have resources, not execution capacity: We can’t directly run campaigns or command organizations to do specific actions; our leverage is funding, relationships, and strategic framing. ●​ We need to choose engagement types carefully: Because we lack direct control, we must be selective about which tactics and partners we empower. ●​ Goal: make the foie gras farms maximally vulnerable: These farms are the central, deeply invested industry actors; weakening them weakens the entire U.S. foie gras system. ●​ Aim for the worst, most devastating investigation possible: Identify what a “nightmare” expose would look like for the industry; understand the full range of angles, abuses, and structural weaknesses. ●​ Get current, extremely high-quality investigative footage: Up-to-date documentation of conditions on U.S. foie gras farms that surpasses previous investigations. ●​ Map every investigative angle available: Understand all possible lines of attack—welfare, labor, environmental, corporate governance, financial vulnerabilities, distribution, etc. ●​ Recognize that farms are the only actors with deep, long-term commitment: Restaurants and retailers don’t have ideological or structural investment; the farms are the ones who fight on every front. ●​ Objective: erode the farms’ capacity to fight future battles: Every unit of cost, distraction, or defensive posture weakens their ability to resist upcoming campaigns. ●​ Apply attrition through constant pressure: Small costs accumulate; each setback strains already thin profit margins and reduces resilience. ●​ Bring in organizations like We the Free for scalable education and exposure: Train and deploy groups that can operate nationally or globally to amplify the issue.: ●​ Educational and social-media-driven content must exceed historical quality: Improve the level of storytelling, visuals, and strategic messaging to reach broader audiences. ●​ Look for tactics that impose disproportionate cost on industry: Identify actions where the farm’s defensive or corrective costs are significantly higher than the activist’s or investigator’s costs. ●​ Use media nightmares as a force multiplier: Public scandals create cascading damage across sales, partners, labor morale, regulators, and investors ●​ Pursue secondary pressure targets: Identify which businesses—distributors, trucking companies, vendors, service providers—can be pressured to drop ties or increase scrutiny. ●​ Explore pathways to cut off critical markets: Political and regulatory attacks that remove access to high-value markets (e.g., major cities) force existential decisions for farms. ●​ Understand the farms’ limited ability to absorb financial hits: Their profit margins are small; legal defense, compliance upgrades, and market losses quickly become destabilizing. ●​ Make them confront hard decisions repeatedly: The objective is to force constant triage—legal costs, PR crises, distribution uncertainty—until strategic exhaustion sets in.​ It'd be interesting to get some kind of coalition of gourmet chefs and be like, "Oh God, yeah, I won't use foie gras because it's ridiculously cruel." You know, so you gotta answer the free choice thing, like the idea that a government even allows this kind of practice is certainly an interesting angle because that's going to be a sort of preventing thing. nanny state overreach, and I can't believe the government's doing this. It's just, oh, it's just like food. I can't believe they're telling me what to eat.

These are very rough estimates. These are primarily used to inform location based strategies for building political momentum, eliminating substantial markets for foie gras products in the United States.These are useful for illustrating the relative importance of the NYC foie gras ban holding up.

(Central estimates; all numbers are % of U.S. consumption ≈ 100%.)

Central est. % of U.S.

1

●​ PDF and external sources put NYC at 20–30% of total US sales and ~1,000 restaurants pre-ban fight; ●​ I use 27% as a midpoint. (Business Insider) 2

●​ Major Midwestern hub; ●​ had its own ban (2006–08) then strong rebound; ●​ lots of Michelin-level and steakhouse volume. 3

●​ Strip resorts + celebrity chef restaurants; ●​ PDF calls foie gras “pretty plentiful” and Eater finds dozens of venues. ●​ Vegas also soaks up some ex-California demand. 4

●​ High density of Michelin/French/power-dining; ●​ no bans, steady demand, plus affluent suburbs. 5

●​ Luxury hotel and resort dining + wealthy Palm Beach crowd;

Central est. % of U.S.

●​ foie burgers, seared foie, tasting menus. 6

●​ Strong French/New American + steakhouse scene; ●​ likely top market in Northeast after NYC. 7

●​ Solid fine-dining + quirky things like foie gras cheesesteaks; ●​ activist pressure but no ban. 8

●​ Oil-money steakhouses + chef-driven spots; ●​ luxury add-on ingredient. 9

●​ Similar profile to Houston with steakhouses and French/modern American fine dining. 10

●​ French-Creole heritage; ●​ foie woven into high-end local cuisine; ●​ likely high per-capita, modest total volume. Those 10 together = 80% of estimated U.S. consumption, which lines up with the PDF’s “top 10 cities ≈ ~80%” statement.

Central est. % of U.S.

11

●​ Some high-end demand but under activist pressure; ●​ niche and somewhat fragile. 12

●​ Growing fine-dining scene, especially in Buckhead/Midtown; ●​ foie present but not central.

Central est. % of U.S.

13

●​ Driven almost entirely by resort tasting menus (e.g., Disney’s Victoria & Albert’s) and convention-tourism fine dining. 14

●​ Luxury tourist market; foie as a prestige ingredient in hotel fine dining. 15

●​ A few upscale restaurants + ski-town spillover (Aspen/Vail); ●​ still pretty niche. 16

●​ Culinary city but with ethics-driven food culture; ●​ small and contested foie niche. 17

●​ One small producer (Au Bon Canard) and a handful of restaurants; ●​ survey data suggests most diners unfamiliar and supportive of bans. 18

●​ A few ambitious restaurants that use foie, but tiny relative to state beef/barbecue focus. 19

●​ Resort and retiree fine dining; ●​ foie is an occasional luxury item. 20

●​ “Punches above its weight” gastronomy; ●​ a couple of foie-using restaurants.

●​ “Other mid-size / long-tail U.S. cities” – ~7.3% ○​ Detroit, ○​ St. Louis, ○​ Kansas City, etc.: ○​ usually one or two restaurants per city, plus mail-order foie for home cooks.​

●​ Because California bans restaurant sales of force-fed foie gras, LA, SF, SD, Napa, etc. are effectively at ~0% of the restaurant market now. ●​ A 2020 ruling allows out-of-state mail-order for personal use, so there is some low-single-digit % consumption in CA, but it’s diffuse and home-kitchen, not restaurant-driven. The model above folds that into the “long tail” instead of giving those cities explicit shares.

Here I’ve aggregated the city/metro estimates into states, plus a few multi-state regions. Again: directionally right, numerically fuzzy.

Central est. % of U.S. foie gras consumption

1

~28% ●​ NYC alone ≈25–30%; a bit more for upstate/LI fine dining & retail. (Global News) 2

~9% ●​ Chicago dominates Midwest consumption. 3

~9% ●​ Strip resorts and celebrity chef restaurants. 4

~9% ●​ Combined effect of multiple big metro fine-dining/steakhouse markets. 5

●​ Two distinct luxury clusters (South Florida + Orlando resorts).

Central est. % of U.S. foie gras consumption

6

~8% ●​ D.C. proper + affluent Maryland/Virginia suburbs. 7

~4% ●​ Boston and suburban fine dining. 8

~4% ●​ Philadelphia and a bit in other cities. 9

~3% ●​ New Orleans-centric, small outside NOLA. 10

~2% ●​ Seattle focus. Totals = 100% by construction.

2.​ Approximate numbers of birds, pounds, and dollars alongside every %, scaled to your baseline:​ ○​ 370 tons/year ≈ 740,000 lbs​ ○​ ~500,000 ducks/year nationally (post-California contraction)​ ○​ National retail value ≈ $45–50M/year (farmgate + wholesale + restaurant multipliers)​ All numbers are central estimates, directional, and rounded.

(National baseline: ~500,000 ducks/year → ~740,000 lbs → ~$47M total market)

% of U.S.

~135,000 ducks ~200,000 lbs ~$12.5M

~50,000 ducks ~74,000 lbs ~$4.7M

~45,000 ducks ~67,000 lbs ~$4.2M

~40,000 ducks ~59,000 lbs ~$3.7M

%

~30,00 0 ~44,000 lbs ~$2.8M

~25,00 0 ~37,000 lbs ~$2.3M

~20,00 0 ~30,000 lbs ~$1.9M

~20,00 0 ~30,000 lbs ~$1.9M

% ~17,50 0 ~26,000 lbs ~$1.6M

% ~17,50 0 ~26,000 lbs ~$1.6M

%

~10,00 0 ~15,000 lbs ~$0.95M

~10,00 0 ~15,000 lbs ~$0.95M

~10,00 0 ~15,000 lbs ~$0.95M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

~5,000 ~7,400 lbs ~$0.47M

% ~3,500 ~5,200 lbs ~$0.33M

% ~3,500 ~5,200 lbs ~$0.33M

% ~2,500 ~3,700 lbs ~$0.23M

%

Dozens of mid-size U.S. cities 7 % ~35,00 0 ~52,000 lbs ~$3.3M

Mail-order (legal loophole) = blended into the long tail.

(Same national baseline: 500k ducks / 740k lbs / ~$47M)

%

~140,000 ~207,000 lbs ~$13.2M

%

rPounds

~45,000 ~67,000 lbs ~$4.2M

~45,000 ~67,000 lbs ~$4.2M

~45,000 ~67,000 lbs ~$4.2M

~45,000 ~67,000 lbs ~$4.2M

%

~20,000 ~30,000 lbs ~$1.9M

~20,000 ~30,000 lbs ~$1.9M

~15,000 ~22,000 lbs ~$1.4M

~10,000 ~15,000 lbs ~$0.95M

%

~6% ~30,000 ~44,000 lbs ~$2.8M

I would like to do investigations of Hudson Valley Foie Gras and La Belle Foie Gras, and at least figure out some ways. I'm looking at Au Canard and at Backwoods in Louisiana. That is the first thing I want to try to do, organize a global look at the foie gras, domestic foie gras industry production in the United States In relation to Hudson Valley foie gras in the United States, I have read that they purchase one day old hatch chickens. I mean ducks. It's ducks not chickens. I would like to find out about that. Like, what is going on in the hatchery situation? Just really get a sense of how each stage of the production cycle looks. The hatching, the initial sort of getting growing, and then the whatever majority of their life where they're in the big barn, and then the fattening, and then the ultimate slaughter. I just want to figure out how to get a look at each of these things at Hudson Valley and LaBelle. If LaBelle is truly doing its own food production, I'd like to see that as well. I would like to have an investigation that really just...look at everything. I want to get a total strategic analysis of each of those two major operations for sure. Just understand the workers' issues, like who is the demographics of the people working there, what's kind of like organizational chart look like, what has been the history of violations, is there anything they do on the environmental front, is there anything, is there anything that is...I guarantee there is...I need to go over the...I need to go over the...Wow! This has been a major investigation there.