> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://handbook.proanimal.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://handbook.proanimal.org/for-organizers/campaign-guides/2026-ballot-campaigns-quick-comms-guide.md).

# 2026 Ballot Campaigns / Quick Comms Guide

### 1. Focus on animal cruelty.

Avoid consumer health, environmental, or public health arguments entirely. [A recent study](https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/animalhumanpolicy/ahpc-study-finds-strong-public-support-for-and-limited-impacts-to-restaurants-from-foie-gras-bans/) found that animal cruelty messaging alone is the most effective way to increase support for ending force-feeding. Adding health, economic, or social norms arguments on top of animal welfare messaging actually performed worse. This held true across all major demographic groups.

Focus on vivid descriptions of the tube insertion, the fact that force-feeding causes liver disease, and how [a recent investigation](https://proanimal.org/2026-hudson-valley-investigation-reveals-ducks-force-fed-with-metal-tubes-living-in-filth/) revealed ducks crowding into the corners of their pen to avoid the feeding tube -- proof that they are uncomfortable and a clear expression of their agency.

### 2. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Describe the force-feeding process in clear, concrete detail to make an emotional impact, without relying on charged adverbs/adjectives (i.e. calling it a ‘torture product’ or saying it’s horrific or brutal) that can be perceived as us telling voters how they should feel.&#x20;

[Pax Fauna's Narrative Research](https://paxfauna.org/reports/evolving-together-executive-summary-of-an-18-month-messaging-study-on-animal-farming/#toc--2) found that the general public tends to view animal advocates as emotionally manipulative, and any exaggeration confirms that stereotype and gives them permission to dismiss us. Describing the force-feeding process in plain language is shocking enough.

### **3. Always specify “force-fed”.**

Remember to specify that our initiatives only target products made from force-feeding (i.e. "force-fed foie gras"), not foie gras generally. While it is technically possible to produce foie gras without force-feeding, it's nearly impossible to purchase.

[CSU's Animal Human Policy Center](https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/animalhumanpolicy/ahpc-study-finds-strong-public-support-for-and-limited-impacts-to-restaurants-from-foie-gras-bans/) messaging study that this distinction alone increases voter support for a prohibition by 5–10%, and nearly 10% in Denver.&#x20;

### 4. Never say “ban”.

We’re ending / stopping / prohibiting / phasing out the sale of force-fed foie gras, not banning it. Product bans can trigger government overreach and personal choice concerns in voters.&#x20;

Our legislation includes a seven month phase out period, and does not restrict the actual consumption or possession of force-fed products.&#x20;

### **5. Keep the scope narrow.**

**This campaign is focused on stopping one specific practice: force-feeding.** It's fine to talk about how Pro-Animal Colorado or Pro-Animal DC work to end or phase out factory farming, but don't lead with it or spend significant time on it with voters.

### **6. Be pro-business.**

We express our genuine care and concern for local businesses, and communicate with confidence that *no businesses will be harmed* and *no jobs will be lost* as a result of this ordinance.&#x20;

**Why?** Research suggests that removing foie gras could boost restaurant sales. In a [controlled experiment,](https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/animalhumanpolicy/ahpc-study-finds-strong-public-support-for-and-limited-impacts-to-restaurants-from-foie-gras-bans/) respondents were randomly assigned to read one of two nearly-identical menus, one with foie gras and one without. Researchers found that including foie gras on a menu made participants 12% less likely on average to dine there.

### **7. Choose messengers wisely.**&#x20;

**The most effective messengers for our campaign are local chefs, restaurant owners, veterinarians, scientists, duck experts / duck farmers, or anyone who has seen force-feeding firsthand.**&#x20;

When possible, prioritize messengers who eat meat but are troubled by force-feeding specifically. Avoid having animal activists, vegans/vegetarians, out-of-towners, or representatives of out-of-state / national orgs speak on behalf of the campaign.

### **8. Use common language.**

**Meticulously avoid any words and phrases that are unfamiliar to the general public.** In Denver, the phrase “ballot measure” is commonly used, while in DC, it's typical to say “ballot initiative”. When speaking to voters or to the press, refer to the org by our local chapter names (Pro-Animal DC / Pro-Animal Colorado). In Denver, our law is an 'initiated ordinance' but in DC, it is a 'municipal regulation'.

Always refer to DC as “DC” or “the District” (never Washington, the District of Columbia, or Washington, DC) and refer to DC electeds as “DC Council” (never “City Council”). Use “the DMV” to refer to the metro area surrounding DC.&#x20;

### 9. Address futility head-on.

**Voters who otherwise support us often disengage because they can't see how one law in one city changes anything.** Remind voters that many countries, cities, and states have already passed similar legislation and explain how if enough major cities say no to force-feeding, we can shut down the two foie gras factory farms in the U.S. in a matter of decades.&#x20;

### 10. Demonstrate our people power.&#x20;

**Highlight how many voters signed the petition and how many people volunteered to gather those signatures.** This is a grassroots effort led by the community, and the numbers prove it.\ <br>

<br>


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:

```
GET https://handbook.proanimal.org/for-organizers/campaign-guides/2026-ballot-campaigns-quick-comms-guide.md?ask=<question>&goal=<endgoal>
```

`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.

The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.