Australia

Foie gras was never an important Australian industry. Historical materials and contemporary reporting describe no commercial production of foie gras in Australia. Codes of practice for poultry and goose production explicitly prohibited force‑feeding. The Victorian Code of Accepted Farming Practice for the Welfare of Poultry (adopted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986) states that “poultry must not be force fed for any purpose except for therapeutic reasons”1 and that “geese must not be force fed for any reason including pâté production”2. These provisions, mirrored in other states (e.g., Western Australia’s poultry code), effectively outlawed the gavage necessary to produce foie gras. Because commercial foie‑gras production depends on force‑feeding, this prohibition meant there were no commercial producers, no domestic output and no employment or economic value associated with foie gras. Australia’s culinary tradition did not feature goose or duck liver pâté. Unlike France or Hungary, foie gras was not part of holiday celebrations or elite dining in Australian culture. Occasional mentions of the product in the 1990s and early 2000s describe it as an exotic delicacy imported from Europe, served by high‑end restaurants to a niche clientele. The absence of a domestic industry meant that the production ban formalised a practice that was already de facto absent; however, it had symbolic importance in codifying animal‑welfare standards.

Although production was banned, importation and sale of foie gras continued. Animal‑welfare groups such as Sentient and Animal Liberation point out that Australia does not produce foie gras, but livers from force‑fed ducks and geese remain a delicacy imported from abroad3. Gourmet importers sourced foie gras primarily from France and Spain4. According to RSPCA Australia’s knowledge‑base, all foie gras sold in Australia is imported, because “the method of force‑feeding is not used in Australia”5. Import volumes were small; trade data suggests the country imported only a few hundred dollars’ worth of goose or duck liver products. Foie gras therefore existed only in a niche gastronomic market.

Australia’s foie‑gras market has always been import‑dependent. The product came from European producers and was sold by specialist importers to high‑end restaurants and gourmet retailers. A Melbourne gourmet importer described his stock as coming mostly from France and Spain and argued that the force‑feeding process was humane4. A Victorian chef told journalists that serving foie gras was a matter of personal choice6. Consumers were a narrow cohort of food enthusiasts; for most Australians the dish was unfamiliar or controversial.

The force‑feeding prohibition in state codes meant that there was no legal avenue for domestic foie‑gras production. Sources confirm that Australia has banned production within its borders but not consumption, sale or import7. When activists campaigned against foie gras in the late 2000s, they targeted restaurants and importers rather than farmers. There were no producers to grandfather or compensate, and the ban did not involve shutting down farms. Thus, the production ban did not cause economic disruption but prevented any future attempt to establish a domestic industry.

Australia’s foie‑gras ban is based on state animal‑welfare codes rather than a single federal statute. The Victorian Code of Accepted Farming Practice for the Welfare of Poultry (Revision 2) was made under section 7(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 19868. It declares that “poultry must not be force fed for any purpose except for therapeutic reasons”1 and specifically prohibits force‑feeding geese for pâté production2. Similar language appears in the Western Australian code. Since force‑feeding is necessary for foie‑gras production, these provisions effectively ban production across Australia. The ban targets force‑feeding and production, not consumption or sale. There is no federal prohibition on selling or importing foie gras. The Biosecurity (Conditionally Non‑prohibited Goods) Determination 2021 allows personal travellers to import shelf‑stable pâté or foie gras up to 1 kg or 1 litre9. Commercial importers must meet standard food‑safety requirements. Thus, while production is illegal, imports and sales remain legal.

Legislators appear to have focused on preventing cruelty on Australian farms rather than controlling consumer behaviour or trade. Imposing an import ban could have raised challenges under World Trade Organization rules and free‑trade agreements. The absence of a domestic industry meant that a production ban achieved animal‑welfare aims without provoking trade disputes. Animal‑welfare advocates therefore pursued voluntary campaigns to persuade restaurants to stop serving foie gras rather than pushing for an import prohibition.

Because production never existed, the ban did not shrink a domestic industry, but it did signal higher animal‑welfare standards. After activists began targeting foie‑gras sellers, some restaurants removed the product from menus. In 2008, Queensland campaigner Jaylene Farrell launched a campaign urging restaurants to drop foie gras; she wrote to chefs and asked diners to complain. An ABC report noted that production was prohibited but imports remained legal10. The same report quoted an RSPCA spokesman describing the cruelty of force‑feeding—birds’ beaks forced open and tubes inserted to enlarge their livers up to ten times normal size11—and publicised the campaign. Some high‑end restaurants responded by removing foie gras, while others defended it as a culinary tradition6. Animal‑rights organisations such as PETA targeted specific Melbourne restaurants in 2014, urging consumers to email the establishments and demand they stop serving foie gras12. A Change.org petition (2019) likewise called on restaurants and shops to end sales, emphasising that production was banned but the dish was still sold13. These campaigns, along with media coverage, made foie gras increasingly controversial. While quantitative data on sales is lacking, evidence suggests that foie gras became harder to find: many top restaurants refused to serve it14, and some importers switched to products marketed as “ethical” foie gras.

In the 2020s, innovation in cultured meat offered an alternative. In June 2025, the Australian regulator Food Standards Australia New Zealand approved the sale of cell‑cultured quail products by the company Vow. The Guardian reported that Vow planned to sell a cultured foie gras called Forged in upscale restaurants; the synthetic foie gras was described as cheaper than conventional foie gras and aimed at ethically minded diners1516. This development demonstrates how market forces can create non‑animal alternatives when traditional production is prohibited.

Advocacy against foie gras in Australia emerged from the broader animal‑welfare movement that gained traction in the 1990s and 2000s. Organisations such as RSPCA Australia, Animal Liberation, Sentient and PETA framed foie gras as a symbol of cruelty. Activist Jaylene Farrell’s 2008 campaign exemplified grassroots efforts: she wrote to restaurants asking them to remove foie gras, launched an online petition and invited customers to voice disapproval10. Media outlets covered her campaign, giving the issue national attention.

Animal welfare groups continued to emphasise the cruelty of force‑feeding and the diseased state of the birds’ livers. PETA’s campaign argued that production was banned in more than a dozen countries including Australia but that foie gras was still sold; it urged consumers to boycott and email restaurants14. Animal Liberation explained that male ducks are preferred because they have larger livers, and described injuries such as torn throats, broken bones and stress during force‑feeding17. The RSPCA cited scientific evidence that livers swell up to six times normal size and that birds develop bone weakness18. These facts were publicised through media stories, petitions and social‑media campaigns.

Australia in the early 2000s saw growing concern about factory farming, live animal exports and intensive husbandry. Against this background, foie gras—an exotic luxury requiring extreme force‑feeding—was an easy target. Since there was no domestic industry to lobby against reform, politicians faced little opposition in maintaining bans on force‑feeding. In a 2021 UK parliamentary debate on the Australia–UK free‑trade agreement, a British minister praised Australia’s higher welfare standards, noting that Australia has banned some practices not banned in the EU, including production of foie gras19. This external recognition shows that the ban was viewed as evidence of progressive animal‑welfare policies.

Australian organisations relied heavily on overseas investigations into foie‑gras production. Videos and reports from France and the United States showed ducks and geese being force‑fed with metal tubes, suffering enlarged, diseased livers and unable to walk. RSPCA and PETA summarised these findings for Australian audiences. The RSPCA emphasised physiological harms: livers swelling up to six times normal size, bone weakness and inability to properly regulate food intake18. Animal Liberation described injured throats, torn feathers and high mortality rates17. Activists used this evidence to argue that even “ethical” foie gras is inherently cruel.

Campaigns framed foie gras as a symbol of gratuitous cruelty inflicted for a luxury food. Media stories often described the birds’ throats being forced open and tubes inserted to pump grain into their stomachs11. Activists compared the process to torture and emphasised that the resulting livers are diseased. Opponents stressed that Australia banned production precisely because it contravenes accepted welfare norms. Evidence of cruelty was more salient than environmental or public‑health concerns; these latter issues were not prominent in the Australian debate.

Because there was no domestic foie‑gras industry, opposition came mainly from importers, chefs and gourmet consumers. Importer Babak Hadi argued that not all foie gras production is cruel and that some producers use smaller feeding tubes to minimise suffering4. Chefs such as Russell Armstrong contended that serving foie gras should be a matter of personal choice6. Some restaurants continued to serve the dish despite activist pressure, and there were no legal penalties for doing so because sale and import were lawful.

Certain diners viewed foie gras as part of French culinary tradition and accused activists of imposing moral judgments. Media debate occasionally framed the issue as a clash between food culture and animal rights. However, given the small market, this resistance was limited. The absence of a domestic industry meant there were no lawsuits or major lobbying campaigns against the ban. The most significant struggle faced by advocates was their inability to secure a legislative ban on import and sale. Campaigns to end imports did not succeed, and as of 2026 foie gras is still legally imported into Australia, albeit in small quantities.

Australia’s foie‑gras ban fits within a broader arc of animal‑welfare reforms. The early 2000s saw heightened scrutiny of live animal exports, battery cages and sow stalls. State codes of practice were updated to reflect public expectations for humane treatment. The prohibition on force‑feeding geese sits alongside bans on docking pigs’ tails without anaesthetic, phasing out battery cages for egg‑laying hens and regulating live‑export conditions. Because foie gras production was absent, the ban functioned more as a symbolic affirmation of welfare standards than as a contentious reform.

Several factors explain why Australia could ban foie‑gras production relatively easily: Economic marginality: There were no domestic producers. Banning force‑feeding did not threaten farmers or workers, making the policy politically costless. Legal mechanism: The ban was embedded in state animal‑welfare codes rather than enacted as standalone foie‑gras legislation. It quietly prohibited force‑feeding without attracting major opposition. Cultural context: Foie gras was not part of mainstream cuisine. Most Australians had little attachment to the product, reducing cultural resistance. Broader welfare movement: The ban aligned with growing public concern about intensive farming and aligned with other reforms, reinforcing its legitimacy. International precedent: Advocates pointed to bans in countries such as Israel and Turkey, showing that force‑feeding was internationally condemned. This provided moral support for local prohibition.

The Australian case offers several lessons: Banning production is easier when there is no domestic industry. Jurisdictions seeking to ban foie gras should recognise that economic interest matters. Where producers exist, compensation or phase‑outs may be necessary. Embedding prohibitions in broader animal‑welfare codes can be an effective strategy. Australia avoided trade disputes by targeting production methods rather than imports, a useful model for countries bound by trade agreements. Public advocacy can still reduce consumption despite legal imports. Activists’ focus on restaurant campaigns and public education led to declining availability even without a sales ban. However, persistent niche consumption shows that voluntary measures alone do not eliminate the product. Market innovation may provide alternatives. Cultured or plant‑based foie gras can satisfy culinary demand without involving animal suffering1516. Unique circumstances caution against overgeneralisation. Australia’s success relied on the absence of producers, high welfare standards in other domains and limited cultural attachment. Jurisdictions with entrenched foie‑gras industries, such as France or the United States, face different political dynamics. Overall, the Australian foie‑gras ban is best understood as a preventive and symbolic measure within a comprehensive animal‑welfare framework, reinforced by activism but largely uncontested due to the product’s economic and cultural marginality. The case demonstrates how prohibiting cruel farming practices can be politically straightforward when no domestic economic interests are at stake, and how civil society can still shape consumption patterns through advocacy and innovation. 1 2 Code of Accepted Farming Practice for the Welfare of Poultry | Victorian codes of practice for animal welfare | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | Animal Welfare Victoria | Livestock and animals | Agriculture Victoria https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/livestock-and-animals/animal-welfare-victoria/pocta-act-1986/victorian-codes-of-practice-for-animal-welfare/code-of-accepted-farming-practice-for-the-welfare-of-poultry 3 17 What is Foie Gras? — Animal Liberation | Compassion without compromise https://www.al.org.au/what-is-foie-gras 4 6 10 11 Dishing up foie gras ruffles feathers - ABC News https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-11/dishing-up-foie-gras-ruffles-feathers/506172 5 18 Is eating foie gras an animal welfare issue? - RSPCA Knowledgebase https://kb.rspca.org.au/categories/farmed-animals/poultry/general/is-eating-foie-gras-an-animal-welfare-issue 7 What is foie gras? How is it made and is it cruel? | Farm Forward https://www.farmforward.com/news/what-is-foie-gras/ 8 G48-03 https://resources.reglii.com/VGG.2003.11.27.G48.pdf 9 aus220032.pdf https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/aus220032.pdf 12 Urge These Melbourne Restaurants to Stop Selling Foie Gras | PETA Australia https://secure.peta.org.au/page/40589/action/1 13 Petición · Stop the selling of foie gras in Australian restaurants - Australia · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-selling-of-foie-gras-in-australian-restaurants 14 Foie Gras: Delicacy of Despair - News - PETA Australia https://www.peta.org.au/news/foie-gras-delicacy-despair/ 15 16 Australia’s first lab-grown meat will be on menus within weeks | Australian food and drink | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/jun/18/australia-approves-sale-of-lab-grown-fake-meat 19 Agricultural Exports from Australia: Tariffs - Hansard - UK Parliament https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-05-27/debates/759585C3-375D-4EBA-BB6A-08B217C75017/AgriculturalExportsFromAustraliaTariffs