“Ag Gag” Laws: Censorship in Every Bite

Richard Van Dyke

Sylva Miller

ENG 121 1N4

5-5-2014

“Ag Gag” Laws: Censorship in Every Bite

Since the advent of video recorders, animal rights advocates such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and other organizations have been busy recording and exposing corporate animal maltreatment, and unsanitary conditions across the country.  With the rise of “Ag Gag” laws over the last twenty years, this effort, on the part of those who cannot advocate for themselves, and for the public at large, has been aggressively abridged.  The idea behind the bills being proposed (and in some cases signed into law) is to keep organizations from exposing these illicit activities by making the very act of filming them a crime.  Branding animal rights advocates “terrorists”, lobbying to make it a crime to clandestinely record animal abuse, and advocating for legislation to silence whistleblowers makes one wonder what these conglomerates have to hide.  Consumers have the right to know how the animals that are used in the food they eat are treated, just as corporate whistleblowers should have the right to expose corporate “bad actors” without fear of reprisal under the law.  State and federal Legislators must vote “no” on pending “Ag Gag” bills, and work to repeal the laws already on the books.   Our First Amendment rights demand it.

To understand the significance of these laws and how they stifle free speech, we first must explore what they entail, and how the industry came to believe there was a need for them.  Spurred on by what they perceived as a serious threat to their industry from animal rights groups, meat producers lobbied for laws that they felt would better protect their interests (Pitts, 97).  Under the guise of “public safety”, “Ag Gag” law is arguably designed to prevent animal abuse and other illegal practices perpetrated by these conglomerates from getting any public exposure (Genoways, 46). The majority of these laws make it a crime, “to enter an agricultural facility under false pretenses", to include walking in through the front door (Pitts, 97).  This is principally targeted at thwarting animal rights activists, whose sole intention to obtain employment is to record animal abuse (Pitts, 97-99).  Actual employees of these firms are being targeted as well.  The law in Missouri requires facility employees to turn over to law enforcement, any video they have filmed that they suspect contains abuse, within 24 hours (Pitts, 98).  If they violate this law they can face steep fines and possible jail time (Pitts, 98). 

The history of these laws has been played out in the halls of state and federal government for over two decades. The first state to enact “Ag-Gag” legislation was Kansas in 1990, shortly followed by North Dakota, and Montana in 1991 (Pitts, 97-98).  In 2012, Iowa instituted the nation’s first modern Ag Gag law (Flynn, para. 7).  As of July of 2013, initiatives to pass these laws have succeeded in four states, were ongoing in nine, and have failed in five (Genoways, 45).  The corporations promoting these laws have deep pockets and strong incentive to keep the pressure on lawmakers to achieve their goals.  With more and more state legislatures taking up “Ag Gag” initiatives, the need for educating the public on the specifics and history of these issues has never been greater.

State enacted “Ag Gag” laws are problematic on many levels, but when federal legislators weigh in on these matters the problems are compounded.  The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was enacted by congress in November, 2006 (Hill, 264).  The AETA makes “interfering” with any animal enterprise (read as “corporation”) a crime at the federal level (Hill, 264).  This would include videotaping corporate animal abuse by animal rights groups.  The law is further designed with the intent of, “thwarting domestic terrorism threats” and, “preventing violent attacks by extremists" (Hill, 657).  Unfortunately, the manner in which the AETA is written makes it, “susceptible to abuse and misinterpretation” and it could have the chilling effect of, “hindering whistleblowing or other traditionally protected activities” (Hill, 658).  In a post 9/11 world, the label “terrorist”, and the harsh sentences that prosecutors can pursue for those accused of crimes branded as such, make these issues all the more serious. 

State and federal representatives, spurred on by “Big-Ag” campaign contributions, and promises of support from lobbyists, continue to champion these laws in both state and federal government.  Legislators at the state and federal level walk a careful line between the public’s tolerance of perceived cronyism and the need of corporate dollars to fund expensive reelection campaigns.  To gain reelection, a legislator must secure enough votes to defeat their opponent. The cost of securing them is high, and entails accumulating, “sufficient money to purchase the publicity and endorsements to obtain those votes” (Pitts, 106).  Corporate lobbyists are well aware of this fact, and promise big donations to politicians who will help them secure legislation that will advance their industry’s agenda (Pitts, 106). The balance between the demands of the citizenry, the demands of corporate donors, and the desire to get reelected, creates a treacherous loggerhead for lawmakers (Pitts, 106). Calculating negative public opinion against their need for these contributions is a complicated game all politicians play (Pitts, 107).   “Spinning” the issues as, “beneficial to the people as well as industry” is integral to the process (Pitts, 106).  There is a strong urge to maintain the status quo among the corporate and political elite, even when it comes at the expense of the governed.

               In the early part of the twentieth century, the phrase, “sanitary working conditions”, and the concept of, “humane treatment of animals”, were unknown in the slaughterhouses and poultry farms of the United States.  Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle, published in 1906, largely changed this (McIntyre, 8).  The “Federal Meat Inspection Act” of 1906 was largely in response to Sinclair’s scathing manuscript (Matson, 30).  The sweeping changes to the industry this legislation brought about cannot be overemphasized.  Prior to 1906, “rats scurrying onto piles of diseased meat” (Matson, 30), and a host of other noxious practices were the norm.  Only by shining a light on these insanitary conditions and exposing them to the public at large, did change finally come to the industry.  The creation of the modern Food and Drug Administration’s, Food Code can principally be credited to the efforts of Sinclair and other “muckrakers” of his time (McIntyre, 8).  This journalistic practice of exposing corruption for the good of the common man continues to this day.

The attention grabbing tactics PETA and other animal rights groups use have been instrumental in facilitating reform in the meat and poultry industries.  Shock advertising, a common tactic used by PETA, helps to draw attention to their cause (Matusitz and Forrester, 85).  The ad campaigns and public relations stunts carried out by PETA over the last thirty years have been immensely successful at changing public perception, and have become a well-known element of our cultural lexicon (Matusitz and Forrester, 87).   PETA members going undercover to film video of animal abuse has also been effective.   In the summer of 2008, in Greene County, Iowa, PETA executed one of its most successful clandestine operations ever (Genoways, 45).   Two activists, posing as employees, obtained hidden-camera footage that exposed systemic animal abuse at the MowMar Farms hog confinement facility (Genoways, 46).  The video was broadcast nationwide, and Hormel, the company who owned the plant, roundly condemned the cruel practices it showcased (Genoways, 46).  The individual filmed dealing out the abuse was the first person ever to be convicted of criminal livestock neglect in US history (Genoways, 46).  The perpetrator ultimately made a plea deal with prosecutors, and accepted six months’ probation, along with a $625.00 fine (Genoways, 46).  Though they felt the penalties should have been more severe, PETA considered this a major win (Genoways, 46).  Ironically, if this same film was released under similar circumstances today, it wouldn’t necessarily be the animal abuser being prosecuted.  The two activists who filmed that abuse would also be committing a crime, and not just any crime, an act of terrorism.   

Consumers have shown that they are extremely interested to know what goes into the production of the food they eat, and are quick to eschew companies and products they feel violate safety standards and ethical norms.  The recent “pink slime” controversy that monopolized the headlines for two months in 2012, and chronicled by Jessica Pitts in her work, “"Ag-Gag" Legislation and Public Choice Theory: Maintaining a Diffuse Public by Limiting Information”, effectively illustrates this point (109).  It was well known in the meat industry that what they referred to as “lean beef trimmings” was routinely added as filler to inexpensive ground beef and certain types of sausage (Honan, para. 9) (Pitts, 109).  This information, however, was not being related to the consumer on the product packaging (Honan, para. 9).  When this fact was exposed to the public, the ramifications for the industry were far reaching.  Many food retailers such as Costco, Whole Foods, and McDonalds’ have now pledged not to use pink slime in the meat they sell (Honan, para. 10) (Pitts, 109).  If the journalistic organizations who first reported this thought that their actions might expose them to criminal prosecution they may not have pursued them.  This would have been a net loss for consumers.

Industry lobbyists and other proponents of “Ag Gag” laws argue that these measures are needed to protect their corporate interests.  In Ted Genoways’ article addressing the rise of these laws, “Gagged by Big Ag” for MotherJones.com he writes, “Cindy Cunningham, spokeswoman for the National Pork Board, told me she thought such legal protections could be appropriate. And that she likened it (clandestine recording) to somebody walking into your living room and taking video" (44).  Backers of the laws further state that the actions of many animal rights groups are a form of terrorism, referring to videos PETA has released as “the 9/11 event of animal care in our industry” (Genoways, 46).  The claims made by the meat and poultry industry are not reflected by the reality on the ground, and as we have seen, are easily refuted. 

“Ag Gag” laws are little more than a new way for moneyed interests to paint activism as terrorism in an effort to stifle free speech.  If we as a country allow them, corporations and the politicians who do their bidding will continue to skillfully obfuscate their true intentions.  Industrial whistleblowers and others who expose corporate corruption and injustice are a vital part of a free press.  Without the tireless work of our “fourth estate” many aspects of our system that we routinely take for granted would simply not exist.  From exposing political graft, and holding the line on truth in advertising, to uncovering animal abuse and maltreatment, the legacy of the relentless activism of organizations like PETA is a safer, more humane world.   Without courageous authors like Upton Sinclair who were (and are) willing to bring issues of industrial hygiene and safety to the public’s attention, food borne disease would travel unfettered, from the slaughter houses and poultry farms, to the market, and ultimately to the dinner tables of every American home.  Speaking “truth to power” ensures that those who wield that power are accountable to the people.  We are, altogether, better off as a society with the transparency that they force on those who would otherwise hide their misdeeds.  Without it, we are lost.