Undercover investigations by the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals and other groups have exposed systemic animal cruelty at factory farms. The video footage has led to criminal convictions in Iowa, voter referendums in Florida, and consumer outrage at the most egregious animal welfare abuses.
Rather than put an end to these practices, though, corporations and agriculture industry groups have hit back with another plan: criminalize anyone who exposes their wrongdoing.
Iowa, Florida and Minnesota are all considering bills that specifically target anyone who documents the mistreatment of animals. In Minnesota, for instance, the bill criminalizes the recording, or mere possession, of an "image or sound" of animal suffering in a sweeping list of "animal facilities" and "crop facilities."
Behind the scenes, the supporters of these bills have financial interests in seeing them become law. The Iowa Poultry Association helped draft the Iowa bill, and Iowa State Representative Annette Sweeney, one of its proponents, is the former executive director of the Iowa Angus Association. Simpson Farms, Florida's second biggest egg producer, helped draft the bill in that state. And Minnesota's bill is co-sponsored by Representative Rod Hamilton -- past president and current member of the Minnesota Pork Producers.
Whether these special interests like it or not, distributing video and audio footage of factory farms, animal experimentation labs, and other facilities is protected by the First Amendment. If any investigators have trespassed or destroyed property, there are already laws on the books to charge them. To the proponents of these bills, though, these videos are not free speech, nor are they petty crime. As Florida state senator Jim Norman has said of undercover investigators: "It's almost like terrorism."
Sound outrageous? It's not a gaffe. This is all part of an on-going campaign by corporations, and the politicians who represent them, to demonize their opposition as "eco-terrorists." In my book Green Is the New Red, I document the rise of this rhetoric, beginning in the early 1980s and culminating, in recent years, with the FBI's labeling of the animal rights and environmental movements as the "number one domestic terrorism threat."
For more than two decades, corporations have lobbied for designer laws to criminalize animal advocates and environmentalists. About 39 states have laws that single out these activists for disproportionately harsh sentences or financial penalties.
The language in the Iowa, Florida, and Minnesota bills is quite similar to provisions in model "eco-terrorism" legislation created by a corporate front group. The American Legislative Exchange Council is a non-profit funded by corporations, who contribute tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for having a say in drafting model bills. The bills are then introduced by state lawmakers across the country. ALEC's model bill is so broad that it includes undercover investigations, photography, videotaping and non-violent civil disobedience as "eco-terrorism."
So why is all this happening? It is not, as some industry groups have claimed, that investigators may pose a threat to the animals. Nor is it the outlandish claim that the Humane Society is merely documenting cruelty as part of a fundraising racket. Corporations want to label these undercover investigations as "eco-terrorism," and hit investigators with disproportionate criminal charges and sentences, for one simple reason: they are effective.
Paul McCartney has often said, "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian." That may be true, but not everyone lives near these facilities. Undercover investigators shed light on practices that most Americans would not otherwise witness.
This transparency can prompt individuals to change their diets, as McCartney says, and it can also lead to industry-wide reforms that benefit workers and consumers, along with the animals -- reforms that corporations resist because they cut into profits. A hundred years ago, Upton Sinclair documented his experiences working at a meatpacking plant. His descriptions led to an overhaul of the unregulated industry. If Sinclair were around today, I think the muckraker would be doing the same thing as these investigators: uploading videos to YouTube.
Because while books like Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer have become mainstream, and Oprah Winfrey and Ellen DeGeneres regularly talk about veganism on their shows, there is still no substitute, there is still nothing more powerful, than photographs and videos of what happens in these places.
For industries dependent on secrecy and ignorance, that is indeed a threat.
Will Potter is the author of Green Is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege, published this month by City Lights Books
Cory Booker: My Birthday Wish to End Animal Cruelty
Kurt Michael Friese: The Factory Farm Environmental Degradation and Animal Cruelty Protection Act
Michael F. Jacobson: Introducing Food Day!
Senate barely passes animal-cruelty bill
Animal cruelty bill clears Senate
Progress on Mississippi's Animal Cruelty Bill | Change.org News
"Rather than put an end to these practices, though, corporations and agriculture industry groups have hit back with another plan: criminalize anyone who exposes their wrongdoing."
This is the evidence that shows how corporations run our country by trying to make it illegal for people to report illegal activity. What’s next, a citizen will be arrested for reporting a robbery and then sued and criminally prosecuted for reporting the robbery by the robber.
While we are on the subject of individual pig stalls - farrowing stalls prevent sows from laying on their new babies. Also, if a sow is enclosed in a farrowing stall, she cannot EAT her babies as sows will do if they are agitated by the little piglets. It is in the best interest of the babies and sows to keep them in individual housing - the sow gets individualized care, won't be ganged up on in the group pens and get to eat her fill while the piglets can access their mother's milk and run around in the pen without aggravating their movie and potentially becoming dinner.
What about the deep bedding/hoop barn method?
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/hooped.html
Anyway, I was discussing this issue with some friends. One friend suggested that meat packers, feedlots and large farms should have surveillance cameras. It sounded like a good idea to me. Cameras would benefit the owner and/or manager in two ways. First, he (or she) would know what employees were doing behind his back, including the way they treated the animals. Second, he could spot any infiltrators from MFA and likeminded groups. Just look for the guy (or gal) who pulls out the camera when he thinks the boss isn't looking. It would also mean the owner/manager would have a hard time feigning ignorance if an employee thought the conditions were bad enough to blew the whistle. Whether or not the whistleblower was associated with MFA should have no bearing on the case.
signed,
very happy fan :)
So, how can we believe groups that think just by virtue of being a farm animal, an animal is being abused (exploited, raped, enslaved)? Because that's what the groups who produce these videos think. They even have a new pejorative for animals that are treated WELL -- "HAPPY MEAT." In other words, these groups are NOT EVER going to find a farm with well treated animals because to them, there is NO SUCH THING.
I have huge problems with ABUSE of animals on farms. That is why I buy "happy meat" for my family.
I also have huge problems with the VILIFICATION of farmers that I see coming from the left and right, but mostly the left. This really p/5535 me off because I'm about as left as you can get -- the subsidy debate is bad enough, but when these videos are made public, I hold my breath, because I really don't know what to believe. Is it true that they have found a truly ugly, abusive farm or facility (and, more power to them if they have, because I have no use for these facilities)? Or, have they framed someone? It is not believable that ALL farmers are abusive toward animals. What these groups are doing is ly ing, imo, IF THEY ARE NOT ALSO able to show us footage, or otherwise document, farms that DON'T abuse, farms that they "randomly picked" that DO NOT beat their cows on the heads with hammers.
God Bless Logic! Hazzah!
Last year, there were over 2 million farms in this country. To keep things simple, I will only talk about the ones with cattle, there were over 930,000 farms with them (if I talked about the ones with all animals combined, that would be close to all farms). To me, in order to claim knowledge of any "norm," they (meaning all groups doing this) must surely have visited AT LEAST 5% of those farms, more than 46,500, since they've been doing these farm "visits." I would be willing to bet all the AR groups together haven't visited a fraction of 1%.
cont...
www.mercyforanimals.org
HuffPo should do a story on this!
"Let's look at some recent processor behavior:
-Plant Managers who get testy when called before municipal authorities to account for code violations.
-Companies that hire undocumented workers, then cut them loose in the community with no support when the feds get wind.
-Companies that balk, negotiate or even sue or counter-sue when fines and judgments are levied against them.
-Companies and executives that do not participate in the community, try to fly under the radar and bristle at any kind of attention from neighbors or authorities.
-Companies that maintain unsafe facilities, opting instead to pay the fine when someone gets hurt rather then tighten up the ship.
Most folks reading this piece know at least one company guilty of these transgressions. It needn't be a large company, and in fact some of the MOST EGREGIOUS VIOLATORS ARE SMALLER FARMS. No matter; they often are too important to the community in which they are located for the authorities to do much about them." - Lisa M. Keefe, editor
(emphasis added is mine)
Looks like the 'small farms = good farms' myth was just shot down by their own people. ; P
"Awareness is bad for the meat business. Conscience is bad for the meat business. Sensitivity to life is bad for the meat business. DENIAL, however, the meat business finds indispensable."
-John Robbins, Diet for a New America
I urge people, before they take FAF's comments seriously, to have the guts to view the footage yourselves and decide. Someone risked a lot - for people & animals - to obtain this: www.mercyforanimals.org
People truly interested in animal welfare will support farmers who take good care of stock, whether they are large or small, and NOT pander to groups who want to get rid of all of us.
I think you know I am not happy about the corporate takeover of the hog business, and I don't think much of outfits with 10000 or more hogs on one farm. But, a farm with a couple thousand hogs will probably have a lagoon, as will most dairies, and many beef farms. In this day and age it will take at least a thousand hogs to make any living at all. As for killing home values, all I can say is I would not attempt to move my farming operation into town. When town people move into the country they need to remember people are farming out here. If you don't like the dust from combines, dirt roads and odor from livestock, perhaps you better stay in town.
Finally if I think keeping pigs in buildings is good, that is a judgement call. Keeping pigs in confinement is what makes it possible to handle thousands on one farm. With profits often in the $1-$5 per head range, making a living requires lots of them, that requires confinement. Good or bad, that's the way it is.
Humans are also animals, in case you missed out on biology class as well as religious studies.