Protected under the First Amendment, whistleblowing has underscored our evolution as a nation—catalyzing critical changes in support of the best interests of people, animals and the environment. Landmark cases have proven that the drive for profits can silence the conscience. Public exposure and legislative action correct that imbalance. Safer, fairer and more humane business practices often result, but not without a fight.
At a time when consumer demand for transparency is shaking up the food industry, Big Ag is hard at work to keep citizens in the dark by criminalizing whistleblowing through “ag-gag” legislation. These laws vary from state-to-state, but in general, are designed to prevent undercover investigations of agricultural operations—including large dairy, poultry and pork farms.
Iowa, for example, has criminalized secretly videotaping on a farm without permission. In North Carolina, anyone who takes unauthorized photographs or videos on non-public business premises can face penalties of up to $5,000 per day. Laws in other states like Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, and Kansas have made it illegal to smuggle cameras into industrial operations. Many of these laws also include provisions for punishing anyone seeking employment under false pretenses.
In his article entitled “Ag-Gag Laws in America: The Ugly Truth,” Modern Farmer’s Andrew Amelinckx is quick to point out that if Upton Sinclair exposed his meat-packing-industry atrocities today (instead of in 1906); he could face criminal prosecution and huge fines in some states.
At the heart of the battle is the simple fact that we live in an age where images and videos can be shot, uploaded and viewed around the world in a matter of minutes. And the visual medium tells a believable story that is often so shocking, it quickly goes viral. (Imagine if Sinclair had videotaped his research.) But do pictures and video threads accurately provide context? Do they tell the whole story? Industry interests contend they do not.
As Amelinckx reports, Kay Johnson Smith, president and CEO of Animal Agriculture Alliance, says ag-gag laws are meant to protect farm families from having “highly-edited videos—that aren’t really about stopping animal cruelty—from being used to try to ruin them financially.”
In an email to Amelinckx, she states the following: “They are designed to shock branded companies, policy makers and consumers, with the goal of driving farmers who raise animals out of business, because [activists] feel people should not eat meat, milk and eggs.”
But the ever-growing list of the animal and environmental abuses, working conditions and food safety hazards uncovered by whistle blowers points to a larger motivator: Shining a bright light on the underbelly of the food system. Transparency.
It is simply in our best interest to know about “pink slime” beef and diseased downer cattle entering school systems’ food supplies. Same goes for the appalling, disease-spreading practice of forced cannibalism at pig farms. These are just a few of the scores of incidents that never would have seen daylight under “ag-gag” laws, which a New York Times editorial calls “nothing more than government-sanctioned censorship of a matter of public interest.”
Iowa led the pack of eight other states—Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota and North Carolina—in enacting ag-gag laws. But Idaho’s law has already been overturned by a judge in the federal District Court of Idaho, who determined it was unconstitutional based on First Amendment protections for free speech. Organizations involved in animal protection, consumer rights, food safety, and whistleblower protection are hoping to get reversals in the other eight states.
As a conscious eater, you have to ask yourself—with public and environmental health on the line, along with the welfare of workers and animals, does it make sense to support entities that want to hide problems instead of solving them? Do we really want to chip away at whistleblower protections?