As ballot-driven animal rights activism continues to evolve, Oregon’s Initiative Petition 28 (dubbed the “People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions”, or PEACE, Act) stands out as one of the most far-reaching proposals the animal agriculture community has seen in recent years.
At a glance, IP 28 is framed by proponents as an effort to strengthen animal abuse laws and “end animal cruelty.” In practice, it would criminalize animal agriculture (and activities such as hunting, fishing, and trapping and pest control) because it involves killing animals.
Current animal welfare laws across the country, including in Oregon, recognize long-standing exemptions for agriculture, hunting, veterinary care, and other necessary activities that could involve death or injury of an animal. IP 28 would remove those exemptions, fundamentally altering Oregon’s animal abuse statutes in way that criminalizes lawful and necessary activities across agriculture, natural resource management, and daily life.
For livestock production, that raises immediate concern. IP 28 would redefine “sexual assault” to include routine breeding practices, potentially applying this classification to livestock, equine operations, and even domestic pets. This would expose farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, breeders, and animal owners to criminal liability for standard, humane practices that are essential to animal health, food production, and genetic management.
The implications extend well beyond the farm.
If the legal standard underpinning IP 28 were applied as written, meat, dairy, and poultry production in Oregon would face significant disruption. Oregon citizens would be forced to adopt a vegan lifestyle (what we would contend is the true intention of the proponents) or would become increasingly dependent on out-of-state or imported animal protein. That shift carries consequences not only for producers, but for processors, distributors, retailers, restaurants, and the broader rural economy that supports them.
There are also downstream considerations for consumers. Reductions in local supply can contribute to higher costs and increased reliance on longer supply chains, raising questions about affordability, consistency, and food system resilience.
At the same time, IP 28 is not limited to agriculture. By removing exemptions tied to hunting, fishing, and pest control, the measure would intersect with wildlife management and land stewardship practices that are currently grounded in science and already overseen by existing regulations.
IP 28 is currently in the signature-gathering phase, with proponents working to collect 117,173 valid signatures by July 2. As of March 30, more than 105,000 signatures had already been submitted, indicating the measure is on a viable path to qualification. If the threshold is met and the initiative is certified, it will receive an official ballot title and number ahead of the November 2026 election.
Whether or not it ultimately passes, the proposal itself is instructive.
Ballot initiatives like this allow complex legal changes to be presented to voters in simplified terms. They also provide activist groups an opportunity to test concepts that may later be introduced in other states or through different policy pathways. Extreme measures like IP 28 also allow activities to present alternatives that they can position as more “moderate” in comparison.
From our vantage point at the Animal Agriculture Alliance, this is where the conversation needs to stay grounded. The question is not only whether IP 28 becomes law in Oregon (which we hope is unlikely), it’s what the measure represents and the broader implications for the meat and agriculture communities nationwide. By their own admission on the campaign website, supporters “hope to bring similar initiatives to every date until the killing of animals is against the law nationwide.”
As this effort moves forward, early awareness and clear communication will be critical. Once an issue reaches the ballot, the ability to shape understanding becomes more limited. At the same time, this moment presents an opportunity not only to defeat the measure, but to elevate the role of animal agriculture in Oregon and reinforce its importance to the state’s economy, food system, and communities.
The stakes are not limited to one state or one ballot. How this conversation unfolds will help shape how animal agriculture is understood, valued, and governed moving forward. If you’d like to get more information or support local efforts in Oregon, visit HERE