Skip to main content
Evergreen Ledger

SHB 1735

In Committee

House

Force-feeding of birds

Prohibiting the force-feeding of birds.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: February 3, 2026
Last Action: February 4, 2026
Status: H Rules R
View Bill Text (HTML) (opens in new tab)View Bill Text (PDF) (opens in new tab)

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill bans the force-feeding of birds in Washington to produce foie gras, a fatty liver product, and prohibits the sale or distribution of such products. It allows force-feeding only for veterinary health purposes and sets civil penalties for violations.

  • Prohibits force-feeding birds (including chickens, turkeys, geese, and ducks) for the purpose of enlarging the liver beyond its normal size.
  • Allows force-feeding only when directed by a veterinarian for health reasons, such as treating illness or injury.
  • Bans the sale, possession, transport, or distribution of foie gras (defined as the enlarged liver of a force-fed bird) or any product containing it.
  • Imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, with additional penalties for each day the violation continues.
  • Creates a new chapter in Title 16 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) to codify these rules.

Who is affected

  • Poultry farmers and foie gras producers — Poultry farms that currently produce foie gras would no longer be allowed to force-feed birds for that purpose; existing operations may need to shift to alternative production methods or cease foie gras production.
  • Restaurants, grocers, and food distributors — Retailers, restaurants, and food distributors would be prohibited from selling, possessing, transporting, or distributing foie gras produced by force-feeding, requiring changes to sourcing and inventory practices.
  • Veterinarians — Veterinarians retain the ability to use force-feeding as a medical treatment when directed for a bird’s health, so their professional practices would not be affected for therapeutic uses.
  • Consumers — Consumers who purchase or consume foie gras would no longer have access to products made via force-feeding in Washington, though imports or out-of-state purchases may still be possible (though not encouraged or facilitated under this law).
Effective: 2028-01-01Fiscal impact: The bill authorizes civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, with penalties accumulating daily for ongoing violations; revenue from fines would go into the state general fund, though the actual fiscal impact depends on enforcement activity and number of violations.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 7:15 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)

  • Eliminates a widely condemned animal cruelty practice (force-feeding to fatten livers) that causes significant suffering in birds, aligning Washington’s animal welfare standards with evolving public values and reducing psychological harm to workers who may be uncomfortable with the practice.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2

  • Reduces demand for and normalization of a product derived from a practice many consider ethically unacceptable, reinforcing Washington’s leadership in humane agriculture and potentially reducing consumer exposure to industrialized animal suffering.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3

  • Civil penalties provide a measurable deterrent against violations and generate modest revenue for the state general fund, supporting enforcement and related administrative costs without relying on criminal prosecution or incarceration.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4

  • Preserves veterinary discretion to use force-feeding for therapeutic purposes, balancing animal welfare with legitimate medical needs and avoiding unintended harm to birds requiring urgent care.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2

  • Creates a clear, uniform standard across Washington that simplifies compliance for businesses and reduces confusion about legality of foie gras sales, especially compared to patchwork local bans in other jurisdictions.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3
Potential Concerns (5)

  • Small-scale poultry farms and specialty producers that rely on foie gras production (even if only as a niche product) may face significant operational disruption or exit the market entirely, potentially resulting in job loss or business closure for a small number of Washington-based producers and associated workers.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3

  • Restaurants and grocers—especially high-end or specialty food retailers—may face minor compliance costs in updating sourcing practices, inventory tracking, and staff training to avoid selling prohibited products, though these costs are likely low given the current rarity of foie gras sales in Washington.

    Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3

  • Enforcement of civil penalties ($1,000 per violation, daily accrual) could impose financial hardship on small operators who inadvertently violate the law (e.g., through mislabeled shipments or minor inventory errors), though the bill does not include criminal penalties or intent requirements, raising fairness concerns for minor infractions.

    Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4

  • The ban on possession and distribution may create minor enforcement challenges for local law enforcement and consumer protection agencies, especially regarding intent and traceability of imported products, though the rarity of enforcement cases suggests minimal strain on public safety resources.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3

  • Local governments may be asked to assist in enforcement (e.g., through agricultural inspectors or health departments), but the bill does not allocate new funding for enforcement, potentially creating unfunded mandates or requiring reallocation of existing resources.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 4

Who Is Most Affected

Poultry farmers and foie gras producersNegative Impact

Very few Washington farms currently produce foie gras; those that do would need to cease the practice or shift to non-force-fed production. This is a small, specialized segment—most poultry farms are unaffected. Impact is negative but highly concentrated.

Restaurants, grocers, and food distributorsNegative Impact

Restaurants and grocers that currently sell or stock foie gras (a rare occurrence in WA) would need to discontinue sales, but the cost is low due to low volume and availability of alternatives. Most food businesses face no meaningful impact.

VeterinariansMixed Impact

Veterinarians retain full professional discretion to use force-feeding for medical purposes, so their practice is unaffected for legitimate health interventions. No negative impact.

ConsumersPositive Impact

Consumers who oppose animal cruelty may benefit from reduced access to a product tied to inhumane practices. Those who value foie gras may lose a niche product, but demand is low and substitutes exist. Net benefit to public welfare.

Animal welfare and ethics advocacy groupsPositive Impact

Animal welfare advocates and ethics-focused organizations gain a policy win, reinforcing Washington’s commitment to humane treatment of animals. This is a symbolic and practical win for advocacy groups.