Foie gras (ˈfwä-ˈgrä) - French for "fatty liver" refers to a luxury food made from the diseased liver of a duck or goose. Foie gras is typically produced by force-feeding ducks and geese until their livers fatten to as much as 10 times their normal, healthy size. This process has been widely denounced as inhumane by both veterinary professionals and the general public. After enduring weeks of being force-fed multiple times a day, the birds are slaughtered and their livers are processed to be sold as foie gras.In addition to animal welfare concerns, foie gras production poses a risk to public health and the environment. Because of the constant abuse they suffer, ducks and geese on factory foie gras farms have weakened immune systems. This makes them especially susceptible to avian influenza (bird flu). Bird flu is a zoonotic disease that can spread to humans. The foie gras industry also produces many environmental hazards, including: wasting large amounts of water and energy, polluting air and waterways with manure and slaughter waste, and threatening wild endangered species.Oregon law recognizes all animals as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress, and fear (ORS 167.305). It also provides that animals should be cared for in ways that minimize pain, stress, fear, and suffering. The City of Portland also has a vested interest in promoting responsible and sustainable business practices. As such, it is in the public's interest to codify laws related to the humane treatment of animals and environmental protection by banning force-fed poultry products from the marketplace.Similar sales bans have been passed in the State of California; Brookline, Massachusetts; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Twenty-eight countries around the world have banned either the production, sale, or import of foie gras. Portland has led on regulatory measures that promote sustainable business practices throughout our history and it's long past time we join other communities around the world on this one.
Official proposal and impact statementWhat is Portland deciding about add Code to prohibit the sale or provision of certain force-fed poultry products (add Code Chapter 17.110)?
Foie gras (ˈfwä-ˈgrä) - French for "fatty liver" refers to a luxury food made from the diseased liver of a duck or goose. Foie gras is typically produced by force-feeding ducks and geese until their livers fatten to as much as 10 times their normal, healthy size. This process has been widely denounced as inhumane by both veterinary professionals and the general public. After enduring weeks of being force-fed multiple times a day, the birds are slaughtered and their livers are processed to be sold as foie gras.In addition to animal welfare concerns, foie gras production poses a risk to public health and the environment. Because of the constant abuse they suffer, ducks and geese on factory foie gras farms have weakened immune systems. This makes them especially susceptible to avian influenza (bird flu). Bird flu is a zoonotic disease that can spread to humans. The foie gras industry also produces many environmental hazards, including: wasting large amounts of water and energy, polluting air and waterways with manure and slaughter waste, and threatening wild endangered species.Oregon law recognizes all animals as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress, and fear (ORS 167.305). It also provides that animals should be cared for in ways that minimize pain, stress, fear, and suffering. The City of Portland also has a vested interest in promoting responsible and sustainable business practices. As such, it is in the public's interest to codify laws related to the humane treatment of animals and environmental protection by banning force-fed poultry products from the marketplace.Similar sales bans have been passed in the State of California; Brookline, Massachusetts; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Twenty-eight countries around the world have banned either the production, sale, or import of foie gras. Portland has led on regulatory measures that promote sustainable business practices throughout our history and it's long past time we join other communities around the world on this one.
Official impact statementSee the official legal title
Add Code to prohibit the sale or provision of certain force-fed poultry products (add Code Chapter 17.110)
What this proposal would actually do.
Plain-language orientation first. Every substantive statement below links to its official basis.
The reviewed sources do not clearly identify every existing policy, service, contract, or obligation that would remain unchanged.
Official matter recordThis proposal concerns other city business and requires action through Portland’s public legislative process.
Official matter classification and recordPortlanders have organized demonstrations at various businesses in the past demanding that force-fed poultry products be removed from their menu, causing disruptions for business. This proposal provides a mechanism by which Portlanders can pursue similar outcomes and provide room for continued business operation. One concern that some stakeholders within the food scene have articulated before is that they may experience some challenges in coming into compliance with a ban as they sell off their remaining stock of force-fed poultry products. To accommodate this concern this proposal has additional lead time built into its implementation to allow for impacted businesses to sell their remaining stock as they come into compliance.
Official community impact statementWhat the record establishes and what it does not.
Votes show choices. They do not, by themselves, prove why a member made that choice.
Passed · 7–5
Read the exact motion or vote question
Final action on 2026-149: Add Code to prohibit the sale or provision of certain force-fed poultry products (add Code Chapter 17.110)
We will not turn the roll call into invented arguments.
The vote above establishes who supported or opposed that exact motion. A source-validated account of the competing reasons will appear only after human review of the meeting transcript and documents.
This ordinance does not adjust or reallocate resources for staffing. Implementation by the administration may require prioritization of allocated resources as businesses come into compliance with the regulatory framework outlined in code.
Official financial impact statement- The source-linked record has not yet received a human review of competing arguments. A yes or no vote alone does not establish a Councilor’s rationale.
- What implementation evidence will show whether the intended result occurred?
Official testimony on this decision has closed. Residents can still contact their district Councilors about implementation and follow-up.
Official Council agendaInspect the complete research record.
Official text, source files, exact motions, roll calls, provenance, and the technical completeness check remain available without crowding the explanation above.
Official documents10 sources
The operative official record after Council action.
Open at Portland.govShow 4 more documents
Read the full official text
The City of Portland ordains.Section 1. The Council finds:"Foie gras" is a food item produced from the diseased and enlarged liver of a duck or goose. The production of foie gras usually involves systematically force-feeding the animal until their liver becomes diseased and has enlarged up to ten times its normal size.The humane treatment of animals is of particular concern to residents of the City of Portland.The practice of force-feeding birds for foie gras production is widely considered by veterinary professionals to be inhumane because it involves inserting a metal or plastic tube down a bird's throat and injecting unhealthy quantities of feed into the stomach. Force-feeding induces liver disease in the birds, which is painful and often fatal. The process also causes the animals significant injury and illness, including bacterial and fungal infections, malnourishment, and/or lameness.The modern foie gras production industry contributes to environmental degradation and climate change by keeping animals in conditions of intensive confinement that require large amounts of water and energy, pollute air and waterways, and threaten wild endangered species.As a result of the treatment and conditions they are subjected to, birds on foie gras factory farms have weakened immune systems, making them especially susceptible to avian influenza (bird flu) infections, which can spread to humans and lead to disease outbreaks. This is of particular concern in light of the recent Covid-19 pandemic.It is in the public interest to avoid supporting animal cruelty, unsustainable environmental practices, and zoonotic disease risks by removing force-fed products from the marketplace. It is also in the public interest to codify values related to the humane treatment of animals, public health, and environmental stewardship. Therefore, the Council finds it necessary to enact this regulation in the City of Portland in order to achieve these goals.This Ordinance will not require additional funds for implementation.NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:Add City Code Chapter 17.110 as shown in Exhibit A.Section 17.110.030 Prohibited Conduct shall be in effect 180 days following the effective date of this ordinance to allow the public and affected businesses and institutions time for the necessary transition.
Meetings, motions, amendments, and votes3 meetings · 5 votes
Recorded amendments
Motion to amend the ordinance as shown in Zimmerman 1: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (5): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Clark, Zimmerman, Smith; Nay (7): Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Green, Avalos, Dunphy). Motion failed to pass.
Motion to amend Clark 1 to change ordinance to be in effect 180 days following the effective date of the ordinance: Moved by Green and seconded by Kanal. (Aye (9): Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Avalos, Smith, Dunphy; Nay (3): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Zimmerman)
Motion to amend ordinance as shown in Clark 1 as amended: Moved by Clark and seconded by Smith. (Aye (12): Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Zimmerman, Avalos, Smith, Dunphy)
Motion to appeal fails. The ruling of the presiding officer stands and the item is passed to second reading as amended. Passed to second reading as amended June 4, 2026 at 2:00 pm.
Read all 5 exact motions
Motion to amend the ordinance as shown in Zimmerman 1: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (5): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Clark, Zimmerman, Smith; Nay (7): Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Green, Avalos, Dunphy). Motion failed to pass.
Motion to amend Clark 1 to change ordinance to be in effect 180 days following the effective date of the ordinance: Moved by Green and seconded by Kanal. (Aye (9): Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Avalos, Smith, Dunphy; Nay (3): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Zimmerman)
Motion to amend ordinance as shown in Clark 1 as amended: Moved by Clark and seconded by Smith. (Aye (12): Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Zimmerman, Avalos, Smith, Dunphy)
Motion to appeal the ruling of the presiding officer and put the following question before the Council, “Shall the ruling of the presiding officer stand to move item to second reading?”: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (6): Kanal, Morillo, Novick, Green, Avalos, Dunphy; Nay (5): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Clark, Zimmerman, Smith; Absent (1): Koyama Lane).
Motion to appeal fails. The ruling of the presiding officer stands and the item is passed to second reading as amended. Passed to second reading as amended June 4, 2026 at 2:00 pm.
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Jun 4, 20265 yes · 7 no
Motion to amend the ordinance as shown in Zimmerman 1: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (5): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Clark, Zimmerman, Smith; Nay (7): Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Green, Avalos, Dunphy). Motion failed to pass.
Final Council action · Jun 4, 20267 yes · 5 no
Final action on 2026-149: Add Code to prohibit the sale or provision of certain force-fed poultry products (add Code Chapter 17.110)
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · May 27, 20269 yes · 3 no
Motion to amend Clark 1 to change ordinance to be in effect 180 days following the effective date of the ordinance: Moved by Green and seconded by Kanal. (Aye (9): Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Avalos, Smith, Dunphy; Nay (3): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Zimmerman)
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · May 27, 202612 yes
Motion to amend ordinance as shown in Clark 1 as amended: Moved by Clark and seconded by Smith. (Aye (12): Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Zimmerman, Avalos, Smith, Dunphy)
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · May 27, 20266 yes · 5 no · 1 absent
Motion to appeal the ruling of the presiding officer and put the following question before the Council, “Shall the ruling of the presiding officer stand to move item to second reading?”: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (6): Kanal, Morillo, Novick, Green, Avalos, Dunphy; Nay (5): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Clark, Zimmerman, Smith; Absent (1): Koyama Lane).
Data quality, timeline, and provenanceRules v2
Unreviewed keyword matches and machine-extracted fragments are not presented as authoritative findings. Only 0 human-reviewed findings are available for this matter.
Technical information-completeness check · Ready With Caveats
This checks whether decision-relevant categories appear in the published packet. It does not recommend approval or opposition.
The official title and operative text identify the requested action.
Official text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.
The official impact statement includes financial information.
The impact statement identifies funding information without an explicit unresolved-source qualifier.
9 linked supporting documents found; presence alone does not verify their internal completeness.
The text references exhibits. This guide has not yet automatically verified that each referenced exhibit is present, populated, and internally consistent.
The reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.
A direction, reporting requirement, or deadline appears in the official text.
Stability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.
- First discovered
- Aug 13, 2026, 1:04 PM PDT
- Last checked
- Sep 13, 2026, 2:23 AM PDT
- Evidence hash
- 4371e2ee1701cce9
- Guide status
- Deterministic baseline
- SOURCE UPDATED
Passed as amended by council
- DOCUMENT PUBLISHED
Observed in the official source.
- Council Action
Passed as amended
- Council Action
Passed to second reading as amended
- Council Action
Continued