Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) is a ballot initiative for the 2026 Oregon election that proposes to ban the intentional injury, killing, and artificial insemination of all animals statewide, which includes a total ban on slaughter, hunting, fishing, and experimentation. IP28 goes far beyond any existing animal welfare policy. Current Affairs spoke to David Michelson, a spokesperson for the IP28 campaign, about why they’re pushing such a radical initiative.
Q: So why this initiative?
David Michelson: We believe this initiative will help shift society towards no longer using the killing of animals as a strategy to meet human needs. Given the radical nature of the campaign, we’re aware that it is almost certainly not going to pass in 2026. Despite that, we believe getting it on the ballot now will make it more likely to pass in a future election cycle, and that it will help us build the organization we’d need to keep getting it on the ballot. Our goal is to be persistent, and we take part of our inspiration from the U.S. Women’s Suffrage Movement, which used the same strategy to get the right to vote.
In Oregon in particular, women won the right to vote prior to the 19th amendment using the ballot initiative process—but their initiative was only successfully passed on their sixth attempt. Nationwide, they forced the vote 54 times in 30 different states, and ultimately 15 of those initiatives passed. Even though many individual initiatives didn’t pass, those votes stimulated widespread public discussion that raised our public consciousness (and in the words of one suffragist, the truths and arguments discussed prior to the elections were “like leaven” and “seeds” that took root and eventually “sprung up everywhere”).
Q: To be clear, this would have the effect of banning all animal slaughter, which many people would consider a radical result. But it does so only through a small change to the law, i.e. by saying that animal cruelty laws should be applied consistently and not include exceptions. Is part of the purpose here to show the public how strange it is that we create such broad exceptions to animal cruelty laws?
Michelson: It is definitely our hope that this initiative will draw attention to the vastly different ways we treat companion animals compared to animals currently on farms, in research labs, and in the wild. And you’re absolutely correct about how our initiative works. IP28 is quite simple: it removes exemptions from our current animal cruelty laws so that the exact same protections we already have for our companion animals are extended to all animals in the state.
In Oregon, animal abuse is legally defined as the intentional, knowing, and reckless injury of an animal. That definition makes sense, right? Except that we intentionally injure animals all the time when we slaughter them, hunt them, and experiment on them, and yet none of those are classified as animal abuse under the law. The reason is because those activities are written in as exemptions to our animal cruelty laws. We have quite a few exemptions currently in Oregon state law: animals being transported are exempt (so they don’t need to be given adequate space for exercise, potable water, protection from the elements, etc). So are animals in rodeos and exhibitions, animals on farms and those sent to slaughter, animals being hunted and fished, and animals being used for research. These exemptions would all be removed if IP28 were to pass.
Q: If IP28 passed, it would be disruptive in many ways, because so much economic activity is built around the killing of animals. How could we transition away without ruining farmers and food companies?
Michelson: I think the first step of talking about this transition is to empathize with the needs that people are currently attempting to meet by killing animals. Those who work in animal agriculture are likely trying to meet needs for economic stability, for contributing to their communities, and for sustenance. We want those needs to be met, we just want to propose meeting those needs in a way that also respects the needs of animals (and for us, respect for an animal precludes taking their needs away by killing them). Same with those who hunt and fish; they are likely attempting to meet needs for connection, sustenance, and recreation. All of those needs we share, we just want to make sure animals get the opportunity to meet their needs too—which they don’t get to do if they are being slaughtered, hunted, tested on, confined, or otherwise harmed by humans.
So, what would these alternative strategies be? Personally, I’m grateful for groups like the Farm Adaptation Network and the Transfarmation Project, which are two organizations that help farmers transition to plant-based agriculture. Some of the most talked about transitions have been helping turn chicken farms into mushroom farms. Growing these types of organizations would be instrumental in transitioning away from killing animals for food. The other types of critical programs are those that help with job retraining. While some jobs, like working in a slaughterhouse, would obviously go away it is likely that jobs in the plant-based food system such as flour milling and maize processing would increase. There was actually a report by the International Labour Organization claiming to be the first to document how shifting from meat consumption to plant-based foods would create jobs. They were focused on Latin America and the Caribbean specifically, and found that a shift in diet would result in “4.3 million fewer jobs in livestock herding, poultry, dairy, and fishing” but would “create 19 million more full-time equivalent jobs in plant-based agriculture.”
To this end, IP28 does create a Humane Transition Fund, which would be overseen by a council made up of representatives from the Department of Agriculture, Department of Fish and Wildlife, representatives from the nine tribal governments in Oregon, veterinary professionals, animal sanctuary workers, and quite a few others. This fund could be used for food assistance (either directly through food and cash benefits or indirectly by providing funds for grocery stores to improve food access), to replace lost income, to help with job retraining, to provide animal care, or to aid in conservation and rewilding efforts.
We’re confident that alternative strategies are out there for any human need we can think of. For research, we can use human tissues and cells, organs-on-chips, and computer models. For wildlife protection, we could use the introduction of sterile males or birth control. And if the perfect alternatives aren’t available yet, I do believe that necessity breeds invention. If we committed to not killing animals anymore, we would find a way. Our campaign doesn’t have a prescribed alternative that we think works best in every situation, but we do think that by recognizing animals as individuals with needs that we are committed to protecting, then we’ll be able to find or create alternatives together.
This Q&A, along with dozens more, is published in the most recent print edition of Current Affairs.
