Celebrity chef José Andrés has entered a contentious local debate over Initiative 86, the proposed District of Columbia ballot measure that would prohibit the sale of foie gras, the fatty liver product produced by force-feeding ducks and geese. Andrés’s public remarks align him with members of the restaurant community who argue the ban would unfairly target culinary traditions and local businesses.
High-profile opposition meets animal welfare campaigners
Andrés, who operates restaurants internationally and founded the relief nonprofit World Central Kitchen, responded on the social platform X to a backer of the ban, comparing restrictions on foie gras to broader limits on other animal products and raising the issue of global hunger. His post read in part:
"Let's ban beef and pork and chicken ... and also vegetables too because is [sic] a study that says that maybe indications of suffering," Andrés wrote. "We have children hungry in USA and the World ... lets end hunger and then we talk."
The remarks underscore two themes running through the debate in Washington: the ethics of how food is produced and the economic concerns of restaurateurs who say the ban would harm their menus and livelihoods. Animal rights advocates pressing for the measure emphasize cruelty in the force-feeding process used to enlarge duck livers; restaurateurs and some chefs counter that foie gras is a longstanding culinary practice and an important ingredient for fine dining.
Restaurants mobilize
Local restaurant owners have begun organizing publicly against the ban. Bart Hutchins, owner of Butterworth’s in D.C., wrote an op-ed defending foie gras and the farming practices behind it, and announced a special event tied to the campaign against the initiative. Hutchins said Butterworth’s would host a four-course tasting called "Foie Gras at the End of the World," running every day from Oct. 27 through Election Day.
Hutchins told Axios D.C. that he would continue to serve foie gras even if the ballot measure passes, and that he would consider relocating his business to Virginia rather than remove the dish from his menu. That stance highlights a practical consequence of the vote for some proprietors: the potential loss of certain menu items or even the willingness to keep a business in the District.
What the initiative means for voters
Initiative 86 will appear on the D.C. ballot this election cycle. The campaign is effectively a referendum on whether the city will criminalize the sale of a product that animal welfare groups describe as produced by cruel methods. Opponents frame the measure as an attack on culinary craft and a threat to small businesses that rely on specialty ingredients.
- Proponents: Animal welfare activists seeking to end the sale of foie gras in the District due to concerns about force-feeding.
- Opponents: Restaurateurs, chefs, and others arguing the measure would harm businesses and erase culinary traditions.
- Notable voices: José Andrés and Butterworth’s owner Bart Hutchins have publicly opposed the ban.
The dispute captures a broader pattern in local ballot fights where ethical campaigns intersect with industry concerns — and where national figures can influence a local electorate.
Political and practical stakes
For local politicians and business groups, the outcome could set a precedent for how the District addresses animal welfare and food production in future policy. For restaurateurs, the vote raises concrete choices about menu planning and potentially where to locate a business.
| Item | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Initiative 86 | Proposed ban on the sale of foie gras in D.C. |
| José Andrés | National chef opposing the ban via social media commentary |
| Bart Hutchins / Butterworth’s | Local restaurateur organizing events and threatening relocation if ban passes |
Voters will decide at the ballot box whether the District formally outlaws the sale of foie gras. Until then, the debate is likely to intensify as both sides court voters by framing the issue in moral, economic and cultural terms.
As campaign activity ramps up in the weeks before the vote, the clash underlines how local initiatives can draw national attention and compel public figures to weigh in on what might otherwise be considered niche regulatory questions — with tangible consequences for Washington’s dining scene and for small businesses operating here.
