HUDSON VALLEY, NY — Duck farmers in Sullivan County and their supporters are celebrating a major victory as the New York Supreme Court in Albany has ruled against New York City’s ban on the sale of foie gras.
“I feel great,” Marcus Henley, vice president of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, told Patch. “The whole thing has been very disturbing.”
Local Law 202 was passed in 2019 prohibiting the sale of foie gras within city limits.
Interested in local real estate?Subscribe to Patch's new newsletter to be the first to know about open houses, new listings and more.
HVFG and La Belle Farms Inc., both based in Ferndale, New York, challenged the city’s ban in court, arguing that it unlawfully targeted their farming practices and threatened their livelihood.
It was enjoined by the New York State Department of Agriculture, which argued it violated state agricultural laws designed to protect farming practices and promote agricultural commerce.
Interested in local real estate?Subscribe to Patch's new newsletter to be the first to know about open houses, new listings and more.
New York City sued the state in 2023. Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin sent the case back to the agriculture department for a thorough review of the legislative history of the law. In this new decision, he noted that the history now in the case record showed definitively the law was intended to protect the welfare of birds, rather than the health or safety of humans.
The past five years have been problematic even though NYC was unable to enforce the ban, Henley said.
“Uncertainty about how to run our business, uncertainty for restaurants,” he said. “It was pressing our opportunity to sell even though we were still able to. You had some restaurants saying ‘we’re not going to mess with that.'”
The two farms’ sales are over $100 million a year. “Not all of that is foie gras, but when you pull a block from the tower it becomes unstable,” Henley said.
Plus, there is the economic multiplier — the two farms benefit the Sullivan County economy at a rate of 3:1. Not to mention the 500 people they employ.
“We’re very proud of Sullivan County,” he said. Loss of the economy based around the two farms “would be devastating to our community.”
The court agreed, saying that local laws cannot unreasonably restrict state-protected agricultural practices.
The decision also pointed out precedent. If NYC could ban an agricultural product produced legally somewhere else, then they could take it further.
“It is easy to envision sales bans being based on concerns about other aspects of ‘farm operations,’ such as the treatment of farm workers or the effect of agricultural practices on the environment,” Platkin said, citing other examples such as eggs produced by caged chickens or beef produced by corn-fed cattle.
“Local Law 202 is an animal welfare statute enacted for the sole purpose of affecting force-feeding practices on farms outside New York City,” the decision said. “The City has no power to directly command the Farms to restructure their farm practices, and it cannot avoid review … by resorting to an indirect form of regulation.”
With this decision, New York City remains prohibited from enforcing its ban on foie gras, allowing restaurants and retailers to continue offering the culinary delicacy to their patrons. It comes at a complicated time for the restaurant industry, specially given the effects of inflation, Henley said.
“Really the whole thing has been very disturbing,” he said. “The fundamental, primary, first thing about the City Council decision that foie gras is not responsible animal agriculture is simply not correct.”
Henley said he was in a group that went to the city in 2019 to meet with council members or their staffs. “We provided them with scientific information,” he said. “We invited them to come and see what we do. Not a single member or staffer came to visit.”
The farm offers tours routinely, he said. “We’ve always been very open because our practices are questioned.” In addition to guided tours, Hudson Valley Foie Gras has been known to hand skeptics a map and invite them to look at what they want. “Or we even ask them to come unannounced,” he said.
The decision was also hailed by U.S. Rep. Marc Molinaro (NY-19).
“I’ve been fighting alongside our farming community in hopes that the court would see New York City’s ban as it is: government overreach,” he said in a statement issued Tuesday. “Today’s decision marks another victory in our fight. New York City should not be allowed to meddle in Upstate New York’s agricultural industry.”
While it might not be a federal issue, the congressman appealed directly to New York City Mayor Eric Adams to drop the ban in light of the importance of the industry to Sullivan County. In a letter 18 months ago, he urged the city to accept the Agricultural Commissioner’s decision, pointing out not only the huge economic problem it posed the Hudson Valley but also the wider effects.
“New York City’s attempt to impose authority on legal farming practices that happen outside of its jurisdiction would establish an alarming precedent for all farmers and food producers in New York State. NYSDAM recognized the legislative overreach of this law and ruled accordingly,” Molinaro said.
SEE ALSO: High Court Upholds Foie Gras Ban In California
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.