U.S. Adults Widely Support Bans On Foie Gras

Foie gras is French for “fatty liver.” To make it, producers force-feed ducks or geese through a tube. The birds, who endure this for 12 to 15 days before being slaughtered, develop livers seven to 10 times their normal size. Critics cite a range of welfare harms tied to this process. These include pain and injury from the feeding tube, breathing and mobility problems, and death rates 10 to 30 times higher than normal.

Foie gras remains a niche product in the U.S., mostly served in high-end restaurants. More than 85% of domestic production comes from New York state. Several countries and a few U.S. jurisdictions, including California and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, have already banned force-feeding or foie gras sales. In New York City, however, enforcement of a 2019 sales ban has been delayed by ongoing legal challenges. Ultimately, while a few smaller, localized surveys have hinted at public opinion, little is known about broader attitudes and behaviors or effective advocacy messaging around foie gras.

Testing Public Opinion And Messaging

This study aimed to learn what U.S. adults know, believe, and do about foie gras, and how much support exists for banning it. It also tested whether removing foie gras from a menu changes people’s odds of dining somewhere, and examined which persuasive messages build the most support for a ban.

Researchers surveyed 5,665 adults across 10 states where policies were being considered. These included Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Maryland, as well as Washington, D.C. They collected data online between December 2025 and January 2026, and weighted the results to match U.S. demographics and political makeup.

The survey included two experiments:

1. Menu experiment: Respondents randomly saw one of two versions of a real restaurant menu, one with foie gras dishes and one without. They then reported how likely they would be to eat there.
2. Messaging experiment: Respondents read a statement on efforts to ban foie gras in the U.S. and abroad before being randomly assigned to one of five groups. Four groups read the same anti-ban message, followed by one of four pro-ban messages. The pro-ban messages all emphasized the animal welfare harms of force-feeding. Three also highlighted either foie gras’ minimal economic impact, possible health risks, or conflict with mainstream values. The fifth group, the control, read no additional messaging. All respondents then answered questions about their support for foie gras bans.

Most People Rarely Buy Foie Gras, And Most Already Oppose It

Most respondents had little firsthand experience with foie gras. In fact, 81% had never ordered it at a restaurant, and 92% had never bought it from a store. Among those who had ordered or bought it, 83% did so only once or twice a year. Only about half (51.5%) correctly identified force-feeding as how foie gras is produced. More than a third (34%) believed a different, inaccurate description involving confinement and overfeeding.

Even without any persuasive messaging, most respondents already held negative views of the product. Only around one in 10 believed it’s a healthy food (10%) or produced humanely (9%). About 63% saw it as a symbol of class and wealth.

Including Foie Gras On A Menu Turns Diners Away

When the researchers tested actual menus, including foie gras dishes measurably hurt a restaurant’s appeal. Only 28% of respondents said they would likely dine at a restaurant whose menu featured foie gras. That compares to 40% of those shown the same menu with foie gras removed — a 12-percentage-point drop, or roughly a 30% relative decline. Only 12% of those who saw the foie gras menu planned to order those dishes. Separately, 61% said they would be more likely to visit a restaurant that dropped foie gras for animal welfare reasons.

Welfare Messaging Builds Even More Support For Bans

Support for banning foie gras was already strong without any for-or-against arguments (at least 73%), and every message tested increased it further. Combining everyone surveyed, whether or not they saw a persuasive message:

• 81% supported banning the sale of foie gras generally (at the state level)
• 87% supported banning the sale of foie gras from force-fed birds specifically (at the state level)
• 89% supported banning force-feeding outright (at the state level)

Support was consistently high across all 10 states, varying by only one to five percentage points, with Florida and Colorado slightly lower. The animal welfare message alone was generally the most persuasive; in most cases, it outperformed the messages that also raised economic, health, or values arguments.

Simply specifying that a ban targeted force-fed foie gras, rather than foie gras in general, boosted support by about five percentage points. After reading any of the messages, 94% of respondents agreed that force-feeding causes unnecessary suffering. Fewer than 8% believed it can be done humanely.

Limitations To Keep In Mind

The researchers chose the 10 surveyed states because they were actively debating foie gras policies, not at random. So even after weighting, results may not fully reflect opinion in states with different political or cultural contexts. The menu and messaging experiments also relied on respondents’ stated intentions rather than their real-world dining or purchasing behavior, and these don’t always match up. The menu experiment tested a single restaurant’s offerings, which may not represent how people would respond to foie gras on every type of menu.

Turning Support Into Policy Change 

The study’s authors conclude that bans on foie gras sales and production align with most U.S. adults’ values. For advocates, this suggests campaigns may not need to spend heavily on winning over public opinion. Strong majority support already exists, even before any messaging. The more valuable next step may be converting that existing support into direct pressure on policymakers. This could mean testimony, petitions, or voter outreach in cities or states weighing similar bans. The finding that animal welfare messaging tends to outperform economic or health arguments offers a useful template for campaign materials. Finally, restaurants themselves may also be a worthwhile audience. The data show diners aren’t deterred when a restaurant stops serving foie gras, and are sometimes even more drawn in. This gives advocates working with restaurants a ready, source-backed answer to the worry that dropping foie gras from their menus will hurt business.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (~50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries, and research on niche topics. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.