Subscribe
Previous Post
Iowa recently approved a bill that has outraged a lot of animal rights activists. And rightly so. House File 589 just passed in the state’s legislature and has reached the governor’s desk. If signed, the measure would prevent people from photographing or filming a factory farm without the owner’s consent. Essentially, it would ban the undercover work that has previously exposed animal abuse on factory farms. And now, that exposure could be a crime.
Activists groups like PETA, Mercy for Animals and the Humane Society are urging people to ask Governor Terry Branstad to veto the measure because approving it would only contribute to more animal abuse.
PETA wrote on their blog:
If this bill is signed, it could deprive animals of the already minimal protection that they have under the law and hide from the public the truth about what happens behind the closed doors of factory farms.
Matthew Dominguez, a spokesman for the Humane Society of the United States told the Huffington Post:
The intent behind the legislation is to put a chilling effect on whistleblowers on factory farms. It begs the question of, what exactly does animal agriculture have to hide?
And that’s a good point. If these factory farms were treating animals humanely and following all of the rules and regulations, then they shouldn’t care if someone goes undercover to film them. What’s wrong with documenting what is actually happening, unless it’s something the farms don’t want people to see?
By the way, even if you don’t live in Iowa, you should still be concerned about this bill because there’s a good chance that some of the meat you consume comes from there. In fact, Iowa is the nation’s leading pork and egg producer, and its farms typically have more than 19 million hogs and 54 million egg-laying chickens in barns and confinement buildings. Meat-eaters, vegetarians, vegans, we should all care about where our food comes from and how it got to our plate.
These undercover films are what originally turned me into a vegetarian. Seeing the horrific abuse and treatment of some of these cows, pigs and chickens made me stop and really think, “What right do I have to contribute to that?” It’s important information to get out to the public so people can decide what’s right for them.
As expected though, some farmers are huge proponents of the bill. Iowa grain and hog farmer, John Weber says it’s just too easy for people to get the wrong message with these videos and photos.
It became clear to everyone that agriculture did need some type of protection because it was just too easy for people to infiltrate or to lie on job applications for the purpose of sabotaging a business.
I don’t think anyone would be sabotaging their business if there wasn’t anything to sabotage.
By the way, if this bill passes, lying on a job application to get access to a factory farm would be considered a serious misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1,500 and imprisonment up to one year. A second offense could be punished with a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for two years.
Tell us what you think. Should undercover videos and photos be allowed at factory farms to help protect the animals?
Photo: treehugger.com
Most all deadly epidemics start from third world countries that penalize undercover investigators and are not regulated properly. Will it take a pandemic and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people to get the government to change their minds? If Americans would look up outbreaks of serious illnesses, they would be surprised by how many are reported. The meat industry needs to be regulated by the public, not the meat industry.
How DARE a state pass a law that keeps me from knowing what i am eating!! Not one US citizen would agree with this law!! This law shouldn’t be passed for greedy financial gain but passed by the people, only after giving the general public the raw facts about health issues concerning the animals. Europe has proven, the humane treatment of any animal consumed by a personis much healthier for individuals who choose to eat meat. The treatment directly reflects the quality and long term benefits in their health for these people and children who do eat meat.
Undercover investigations play a crucial role in exposing cruelty to farmed animals and environmental violations. They also help to ensure food safety and protect workers’ rights. Undercover investigations by Mercy For Animals and other groups have led to landmark corporate animal welfare policy reforms, felony convictions of animal abusers, and other positive developments. Clearly factory farms have a lot to hide if they are willing to go to such despicable measures to hide their cruel and abusive practices from the public. Consumers have the right to know where their food comes from and how animals are treated before they reach their plates. This is a good, short video to watch about this topic: MeatVideo.com. Or visit ChooseVeg.com for information on adapting a more compassionate lifestyle.
Big Ag always tells us how well they treat their property (animals). So why is it every time a nonprofit group goes undercover, they find filth, disease and abuse? I grant you not every investigation turns up criminal-level animal cruelty, but let’s face it – the laws aren’t made to protect animals, they’re made to protect industry, and this law is no exception. It will surely be challenged, and while the courts sort it out, it won’t stop groups like Mercy For Animals, who already said they would continue investigating Iowa Factory Farms.
How about this- farmers, ALL farmers care about the health and safety of their animals. This is why when you enter a farm, you minimally have to put on a hairnet, disposable coveralls, and booties over shoes. Some farms even demand a mandatory shower in/shower out policy. Bills like this have their place because Peta can no longer put a bounty on the videos that compromise the health of the animals. You’re articles are completely ignorant, one sided, and biased.
Well this is a blog after all. (Isn’t it?) Blogs are primarily opinion driven… you shouldn’t expect to hear both sides from the writer, as nice as that would be.
I do wonder if there is more to this issue than just animal rights, though. There are privacy laws against filming or taking pictures on someone’s private property, and it would be awfully tricky for the courts to say it’s ok depending on the photographer’s moral imtentions.