A campaign to prohibit foie gras sales in Washington, D.C., is drawing attention over its financial backing, proposed restrictions and potential impact on local restaurants. Public campaign-finance reports show that the Pro-Animal DC received approximately $474,190 in contributions between September 2025 and October 2026, with a national animal-rights organisation providing most of the funding.
The campaign is promoting Initiative 86, officially called the Prohibiting Force-Feeding of Birds Act of 2026. The proposal would prohibit force-feeding birds to enlarge their livers and restrict the sale and distribution of products made through the practice, including foie gras.
However, the initiative has become controversial beyond its animal-welfare goals. Restaurant owners and other critics question whether its wording could affect additional poultry-liver products. Supporters say the proposal specifically targets products associated with force-feeding.
With Washington residents scheduled to vote on November 3, the debate has developed into a wider discussion about animal welfare, campaign financing, restaurant businesses and government regulation.
Pro-Animal DC Reports Nearly $475,000 in Campaign Funding
Campaign-finance disclosures filed with the District of Columbia’s Office of Campaign Finance provide details about the money supporting Initiative 86.
According to the latest reports covering September 23, 2025, through October 26, 2026, Pro-Animal DC reported receiving $474,190.62 in contributions.
Pro-Animal Future, a nonprofit based in Portland, Oregon, supplied $386,435.77 of that amount. This makes the national organisation the campaign’s largest reported financial backer.
The filings also describe how the campaign spent its resources.
One major expense involved $126,780.36 in stipends paid to campaign organiser Cady Witt. The reports also listed $89,224 in payments to 64 people working as petition circulators or consultants.
Those payments covered 293 individual transactions during the reporting period.
The figures show that Initiative 86 operated with substantial financial resources for a local ballot campaign. They also provide a clearer picture of the staff and petition-gathering activities behind the proposal.
The District’s Office of Campaign Finance makes campaign disclosures available through its public reporting system.
What Is Initiative 86, and What Would It Ban?
Initiative 86 is a citizen-led ballot proposal focused on force-feeding birds for foie gras production.
Foie gras is a food product made from the enlarged liver of a duck or goose. Producers traditionally use a feeding process known as gavage, in which feed is delivered through a tube to increase the size of the bird’s liver.
Animal-welfare organisations oppose the practice because of concerns about animal health and suffering.
Under Initiative 86, the District would prohibit force-feeding birds to enlarge their livers beyond their normal size. It would also restrict the sale, distribution and commercial importation of products resulting from the practice.
The proposal includes foie gras but does not use that term as its only product category.
Its legislative text defines a fattened bird liver product as food or byproducts made from the livers of birds fattened through any method or practice. The definition specifically mentions pâtés, spreads and processed meat products.
This wording has become one of the main sources of disagreement surrounding the measure.
Why Restaurant Owners Are Concerned About the Proposal
Some restaurant owners argue that Initiative 86 could affect more products than its supporters intend.
The concern centres on the measure’s definition of fattened bird liver products. Critics say the language could potentially cover certain poultry-liver foods even when their production does not involve force-feeding.
Bart Hutchins, chef and co-owner of Butterworth’s in Washington, has raised concerns about the possible effect on restaurant menus.
He told Fox News Digital that the wording could potentially affect at least 20 products beyond foie gras. He also indicated that his restaurant might consider legal action if voters approve the initiative.
Former D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and attorney Jon Mandel have also raised questions about the proposal’s wording in discussions reported by CityCast DC.
These concerns are not limited to restaurants. Food producers and suppliers could also face uncertainty if the measure’s definitions are interpreted broadly.
However, supporters reject the suggestion that the proposal is intended to prohibit ordinary poultry products.
Pro-Animal Future Spokeswoman Natalie Fulton said the campaign’s objective is to stop foie gras production involving force-feeding. She also indicated that the D.C. Council could clarify the language if voters approve the measure.
The disagreement highlights an important distinction between the campaign’s stated objective and the full legal wording voters are being asked to approve.
Animal Rights Organisations Say the Campaign Is Part of a Wider Strategy
Pro-Animal Future describes its work as part of a broader effort to improve animal welfare and change agricultural practices.
The organisation has supported local campaigns aimed at restricting certain animal-farming methods. Its activities include efforts in Washington, D.C., and Denver, as well as work connected to Portland’s foie gras restrictions.
Another organisation mentioned in the campaign’s wider network is Pax Fauna, a nonprofit based in Denver.
In a 2024 strategy document, Pax Fauna outlined a 10-year plan focused on developing local animal-rights campaigns and eventually pursuing broader restrictions on factory farming.
The document describes a strategy that begins with research and local organising before expanding to city-level and statewide initiatives.
According to the reporting on the campaign, the plan also included an ambition to establish as many as 10 local chapters during the 2025-2026 election cycle.
These documents offer context for understanding why Initiative 86 matters to animal-rights advocates beyond the immediate question of foie gras sales.
Meanwhile, a CodePink D.C. coordinator, Olivia DiNucci, appeared in a social media video supporting the initiative.
However, Pro-Animal Future said CodePink has no formal campaign role beyond DiNucci’s appearance in the video. Her involvement should therefore not be treated as evidence that CodePink organised or financed Initiative 86.
Campaign Financing Also Includes Petition Collection and Volunteer Support
The campaign’s financial disclosures provide insight into how supporters built the initiative’s local presence.
Petition circulation played an important role in getting Initiative 86 onto the ballot.
According to the campaign-finance reporting, Pro-Animal DC recorded $89,224 in payments to 64 people listed as petition-circulation consultants.
The organisation also reported spending $22,418.69 on Airbnb accommodations on July 31, 2026.
Pro-Animal DC said the lodging supported approximately 60 volunteers who travelled to Washington for a July signature-gathering effort called Goosapalooza.
The campaign promoted accommodation support as part of its volunteer recruitment activities.
The initiative ultimately collected enough valid signatures to qualify for the November election. The D.C. Board of Elections certified the measure for the ballot in August 2026.
The financial disclosures show how national organisational support, paid workers and volunteer activity contributed to the campaign’s development.
D.C. Officials Estimate More Than $300,000 in Implementation Costs
Another important question concerns how Washington would enforce the proposed restrictions if voters approve them.
According to a fiscal impact statement prepared by D.C. Chief Financial Officer Glen Lee, implementing Initiative 86 could cost approximately $314,000 between fiscal years 2026 and 2029.
The estimated amount includes:
- $274,000 for an additional inspector.
- $40,000 for public education and related activities.
The proposed enforcement responsibilities would involve the District’s Department of Energy and Environment.
The department would investigate complaints, inspect relevant businesses and coordinate with other government agencies.
However, the fiscal assessment raises practical questions about enforcement.
The department does not currently inspect restaurant kitchens and other back-of-house operations as part of its regular responsibilities. The fiscal analysis also indicates that it is unlikely to begin doing so under the existing inspection system.
Another issue involves determining whether a food product originated from a bird that was force-fed.
The initiative provides enforcement powers and allows officials to investigate potential violations. However, questions remain about how regulators would verify the production history of products sold by restaurants and retailers.
These details could become important if the proposal becomes law.
Restaurant Industry and Foie Gras Producers Watch the Vote
The proposed restrictions could affect businesses beyond Washington’s restaurant sector.
Two prominent American foie gras producers are Hudson Valley Foie Gras and La Belle Farm, both located in New York’s Catskills region.
Restaurant owners have expressed concern that losing access to the Washington market could create additional challenges for producers and suppliers.
The Catskill Foie Gras Collective has defended the production methods used by its member farms. The organisation says its farms raise ducks in cage-free conditions and use flexible feeding tubes.
It also argues that the feeding process does not cause the level of suffering described by animal-rights campaigners.
These claims remain part of the broader disagreement between producers and animal-welfare advocates.
Celebrity chef José Andrés has also questioned the possible wider consequences of the proposed restrictions. His comments reflect concerns among some restaurant figures about how far the measure could reach.
The debate therefore involves several competing interests, including animal protection, food production, restaurant operations and consumer choice.
When Will Washington, D.C., Vote on Initiative 86?
Washington, D.C., residents will decide the future of Initiative 86 during the November 3, 2026, general election.
A yes vote would approve the proposed restrictions, while a no vote would reject them.
If approved, the measure provides for an implementation date of July 1, 2027. However, provisions with fiscal effects would depend on their inclusion in an approved District budget and financial plan.
The proposal also establishes civil penalties ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 per violation. Repeated violations could lead to the suspension or revocation of a business license under applicable District law.
The outcome will determine whether Washington joins other American jurisdictions that have adopted restrictions on foie gras production or sales.
For now, Initiative 86 remains a ballot proposal rather than an active citywide ban.
Its supporters see the measure as an important step toward improving animal welfare. Critics, meanwhile, want clearer definitions and more certainty about its impact on food businesses.
As Election Day approaches, campaign funding, legal interpretation and enforcement costs remain central parts of the debate.
