What do Florida and Iowa have in common when it comes to animal agriculture? They’ve both been hot spots, past and present, for the movement to combat some of the worst abuses in industrial agribusiness. And now the factory farming industry is fighting back in both states—and their latest methods represent their biggest overreach yet.

In Florida, The HSUS and other groups pushed for the adoption of the first statewide law in the country to restrict the extreme confinement of animals on factory farms. In 2002, voters there passed Amendment 10, to phase out the caging of breeding sows in gestation crates. In Iowa, HSUS and other animal welfare groups have conducted a series of undercover investigations (see the video below) to expose cruelty in the nation’s biggest factory farming state.

Now, these two states have something else in common. They are trying to make it a crime to photograph or videotape farm animals. They don’t want to criminalize animal cruelty, but they do want to make criminals of people trying to document abuse and to put an end to the cruelty. Lawmakers have introduced bills in both states to establish criminal penalties for going undercover at agricultural facilities and simply taking pictures.

Mind you, if this legislation is enacted, it won’t just be a setback for animal welfare. Shabby, squalid, overcrowded conditions for animals on factory farms are also a food-safety threat for Americans, with millions of Americans sickened every year by contaminated food. It was, of course, an Iowa egg factory farm that was forced to recall half a billion eggs last year because of a Salmonella outbreak, creating one of the biggest food product recalls in American history.

With a potentially dramatic pare-back of funding for federal inspections of animal-agriculture operations looming, at production and slaughter facilities, these new proposed policies to bar the exposure of unhealthy and unsafe practices could not come at a more inopportune time. The industry has long argued for self-regulation, and with government inspection programs stretched so thin, they now want no meddling animal advocacy groups looking either.

Our exposés aren’t just important for raising public awareness about the mistreatment of animals. HSUS investigations have led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history, misdemeanor and felony cruelty convictions, closure of rogue slaughter plants, and disciplinary actions for government inspectors not doing their jobs. None of these important services we fulfill would be possible if such far-reaching and stifling laws are enacted.

It’s precisely because of what past factory farm investigations have uncovered—cruelty at egg farms, pig farms, and other settings—that such exposés are critical to the movement for animal welfare and food safety. With some members of the agriculture industry, including Dr. Temple Grandin, calling for more transparency at animal-raising facilities, these bills run in the opposite direction, seeking to criminalize efforts even to take a picture or to produce a video. They want to criminalize whistle-blowers who bring abuses to the attention of regulatory agencies, or even snap a photo on a cell phone.

I can understand why factory farmers don’t want the public seeing images of their business practices. The images of almost featherless hens, so crowded the animals are living on top of each other, or pigs being struck with metal bars by workers coarsened to their duties are deeply disconcerting. The response should not be, as in some country ruled by a dictator or a junta, to have the strongmen grab the cameras and smash them to the ground or melt them in a fire, as the authorities do in order to hide the beating and shooting of pro-democracy advocates. It’s the same principle at work for the strongmen in these state legislatures. Their scheme is a neater way to smash those cameras to the ground and hide what’s going on. Ironically, they want to prevent their very own customers, America’s consuming public, from learning about the production practices that bring food to their tables and plates.

They’d be best advised to follow the original lead of Florida and other states that have adopted modest animal welfare reforms. Ban the extreme confinement of laying hens and pigs in small cages and commit to sound and safe animal husbandry practices. Transparency is a bulwark in a democratic society, and it’s also critical in an era of systemic animal mistreatment and food safety threats.

Originally published on Wayne’s blog at HSUS

Photo: Pigs in confinement. The HSUS Taking a photo like this one without permission would be illegal under proposed bills in Iowa and Florida.

When faced with gruesome images of mistreatment of farm animals, rather than simply condemning the cruelty, some in agribusiness just can’t leave it at that. They feel the need also to attack the compassionate investigators who put themselves at great risk to go undercover and blow the whistle on such abuse.

For example, a new Mercy for Animals investigation involved videotaping workers at one of the nation’s largest pork companies throwing piglets by their ears and legs across the room, cramming pigs into cages barely larger than their own bodies for months on end, and even leaving pigs with untreated prolapses, sores and other health problems.

And what’s the response of the president of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, Dr. Butch Baker? Quite simply: These types of investigations “really are an attack on the rural lifestyle of America.”

Wow.

Since when does “rural lifestyle”  equate with rampant animal cruelty, and since when did the head of a veterinary trade group (who you’d think would focus on protecting animals) become qualified to comment on such sociological phenomena? It would be interesting to see just how many folks in rural America think a video decrying obvious animal cruelty is really an attack on their lifestyle. Perhaps those in big agribusiness perceive it that way, since cruelty is far more endemic in the meat, egg, and dairy industries than many may think, but alleging that anti-cruelty whistleblowers are somehow victimizing rural Americans would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling.

Another example is the recent Humane Society of the United States investigation into a Vermont dairy calf slaughter plant. The investigator worked as a floor cleaner for a total of 21 days, videotaping days-old calves—some with their umbilical cords still hanging from their bodies—who were kicked, electrically prodded, and in at least one case, even skinned alive.

What’s the response of the exposed plant’s leadership? Rather than accepting blame when caught red-handed, they claimed the investigator actually “provoked” at least some of the abuse by instructing a worker how to act.

Seriously.

Forget about the fact that after reviewing the unedited segment of the video that would show the allegedly “provoked” scene, the Burlington Free Press reported that no such provocation is on the tape. Forget about the fact that the USDA had cited the plant for inhumane handling three times in 2009—and the plant was shut down two of those times—all prior to HSUS’ investigation.  Just consider how plausible it would be for a brand new floor cleaner, the lowest person on the totem pole, to somehow have the authority to “instruct” anyone to do anything. And it’s especially absurd when you consider that the co-owner of the plant himself is seen in the video abusing animals with gusto—relentlessly shocking, cursing at, and making fun of calves who were too weak even to stand.

These throwback reactions and denials certainly reflect poorly on agribusiness. But there are more welcome signs—a recognition that the real problem isn’t with the taping of cruelty on factory farms, but with the reality of animal cruelty itself.

Agribusiness industry trade publication Feedstuffs recently editorialized about these investigations conducted by animal organizations. To its credit, the paper’s editorial board didn’t recommend continuation of the current strategy of blaming animal advocates for the abuse they merely document. They in fact wrote: “It’s important to understand that companies and producers can’t just say ‘bad apple’ and move on because—to consumers who have seen these videos again and again—there are no bad apples anymore. The bad apple, to consumers now, is the industry.”

I couldn’t agree more.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about my hope that President-elect Barack Obama would ask his Agriculture Secretary nominee, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, to break the hold of Big Agribusiness on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to broaden the agency’s outlook and constituency. Following Obama’s election, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote two trenchant columns about renaming the agency the Department of Food, to reflect that we all have a stake in how food gets to our tables and that USDA can no longer be the handmaiden of Big Ag. In addition to mentioning the need to address animal welfare, Kristof echoed author Michael Pollan’s view that we cannot solve our nation’s big problems of energy policy, national security, and global warming without enacting serious reforms to America’s agricultural policies.

Today, the Senate Agriculture Committee will hold its hearing on the Vilsack appointment, and we expect to see some of these issues aired out. But yesterday, we saw some movement on this issue—at the state level.

California’s stepping up again and I am in Sacramento to participate in a press conference called by California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez to announce a newly constituted Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture. Sen. Florez will chair the committee, and it is no longer going to be dominated by lawmakers from rural areas who are beholden to agribusiness. While the committee will certainly attend to the needs of production agriculture, it will also look at animal welfare, food safety and security, nutrition, and the environment.

When it comes to farm animal welfare, California agriculture was ground zero for The HSUS’s work in 2008. We started the year by releasing the results of an investigation into the Hallmark/Westland slaughter plant in Chino, exposing the gross mistreatment of spent dairy cows. Our investigation led to the nation’s largest-ever meat recall. Then in November, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 2, adopting a phase-out of some of the most extreme confinement methods for 20 million farm animals in the state.

The fact is, we would have needed neither the undercover investigation at Chino nor a ballot initiative like Prop 2 if agribusiness had paid more attention to public attitudes and been held by lawmakers to a higher standard of animal welfare. The reorganization of this committee is in large part a reaction to Hallmark and Prop 2—which cast a spotlight on the failures of agribusiness.

There are other problems with animal agriculture in California and the rest of the nation that still need attention, including painful mutilation of animals without anesthesia, the rampant use of antibiotics on factory farms, and enormous waste generated by these industrialized operations.

We look forward to working with Sen. Florez and all of the other committee members and stakeholders to address these problems. In the past—and as it is in every other state—the Senate Agriculture Committee was a dead-end street for meaningful dialogue and reforms, but now in California we have the prospect of participating in a robust examination of important policy matters.

But this conversation can’t happen without you. The table may be set, but we have to pull up a chair, create the menu, and join in the discussion. You can provide your thoughts on what the focus and agenda of this new committee should be by visiting www.californiasafefood.com. Leave a message for Sen. Florez and his colleagues about key animal welfare issues you’d like to see addressed. It is an extraordinary opportunity, and we should make the most of it.

Photo: de.laville

The Humane Society has brought a wave of national attention this year to the cause of the fair treatment of farm animals, beginning with the video of a slaughterhouse in Chino, California that displayed for the world the terrible treatment that cows in our food chain are receiving.  Now, The Humane Society is sponsoring Proposition 2, which, if passed with a vote of “yes” tomorrow on California’s ballot, would require pregnant sows and veal calves enough space to turn around and stretch their legs, and would require hens the space to spread their wings.  The ballot initiative has received so much national attention, even bringing the President of The Humane Society, Wayne Pacelle, to Ellen and Oprah’s stages.  Naomi Starkman spoke with Wayne Pacelle to ask him about what will follow Proposition 2′s vote tomorrow.

Civil Eats: You’ve changed the way we view the treatment of farm animals in America. What’s next after Proposition 2?  What are some of the initiatives the Humane Society is working on?

Wayne Pacelle: We hope voters approve Prop 2, and if they do, it will add momentum to our ongoing campaign to urge people to think about their food choices, to stop particularly inhumane treatment of farm animals, and to develop humane and sustainable food policies. We look forward to working with groups and individuals with synergistic concerns, such as environmental groups and the Slow Food movement, to usher in an era with more sensible agricultural policies and practices.

The Humane Society of the United States is also focused on a wide range of other animal protection initiatives, including combating dogfighting and cockfighting, seal killing and the slaughter of other marine mammals, puppy mills and pet overpopulation, abusive hunting and trapping practices, the trade in exotic animals, and much more. We also respond to human-caused and natural disasters for animals and maintain the nation’s largest network of animal care facilities.

CE: Is Yes on Prop 2 a sure thing?  What’s standing in the way of it being a slam dunk?

WP: It is not a slam dunk, but we are making good progress in educating the public about the threats that factory farming poses to animals, the environment, food safety, and small farms. Large factory farming agribusiness companies from throughout the nation are pouring money into the No on 2 campaign and trying to confuse voters. They’ve donated about $9 million and invested that money on television advertisements to tell us that white is black and black is white. They make the ludicrous argument that it’s better for the animals to be confined in tiny cages for their entire lives and also that it promotes food safety to trap them in cages and cluster tens of thousands of animals in windowless buildings. We think the public will see through their charade, but in politics, you cannot take anything for granted. That’s why we have the most powerful grassroots campaign for Prop 2 that California has seen in a long time.

CE: If Prop 2 passes, will the Humane Society or other groups reach out to help factory farms change their infrastructure? To train them to use new techniques?

WP: We are certainly willing to help, but factory farms have plenty of resources to consult in shifting to more humane farming practices. More and more farmers are paying closer attention to animal welfare and environmental concerns. In fact, many egg factory farms are already producing cage-free eggs because of the growing demand for these more humanely produced animal products.

Some industrial farmers may need to learn about animal husbandry anew because they’ve been operating animal factories and actually know very little about caring for the animals.

CE: The undercover video in Chino brought a lot of attention to the treatment of animals and issues of transparency at slaughterhouses. How do you see the “animal protection” movement changing?

WP: The abuses of downer cows at Chino — a slaughter plant that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the industry held up as a model facility — was a wake-up call to Americans that we cannot trust the meat industry to self-regulate. We need standards and we need enforcement of these standards, for the health of the animals and the safety of our food. I see The HSUS and other animal protection groups devoting more attention to the treatment of farm animals, and that new focus and attention is desperately needed.

Photo: Beth and Ron

The plight of the animals we raise for food in this country rarely enters the forefront of our societal consciousness, but Californians are about to learn a whole lot more about what these animals go through when election season kicks off this fall.

That’s because they’ll cast their ballots this November on Prop 2—the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act—a measure endorsed by Slow Food Nation, the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Food Safety, and authors such as Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser.

This moderate measure merely seeks to provide certain farm animals with enough room to stand up, lie down, turn around, and extend their limbs. It really is that basic.

Unfortunately, the majority of egg-laying hens, calves raised for veal, and breeding pigs in the United States are confined in tiny cages and crates where they can barely move an inch their whole lives. In effect, Prop 2 will phase out the extreme confinement of these animals.

These three inhumane systems epitomize the abuse that can occur when we take industrialization of our food system to the extreme—abuse that the Slow Food movement has rightly objected to for years.

Perhaps the least well-known of the three systems is the so-called “battery cage” for egg-laying hens. In Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan writes:

“Egg and hog operations are the worst….Broiler chickens…at least don’t spend their eight-week lives in cages too small to ever stretch a wing. That fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who passes her brief span piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet. Every natural instinct of this animal is thwarted, leading to a range of behavioral ‘vices’ that can include cannibalizing her cagemates and rubbing her body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding. Pain? Suffering? Madness? The operative suspension of disbelief depends on more neutral descriptors, like ‘vices’ and ‘stress.’ Whatever you want to call what’s going on in those cages, the 10 percent or so of hens that can’t bear it and simply die is built into the cost of production.”

This routine cruelty we force upon egg-laying hens and other factory-farmed animals is perhaps the most egregious example of the abrogation of our responsibility to treat animals with a sense of basic decency.

In endorsing Prop 2, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asks, “The law punishes teenage boys who tie up and abuse a stray cat. So why allow industrialists to run factory farms that keep pigs almost all their lives in tiny pens that are barely bigger than they are?”

Kristof isn’t alone in wondering about this schism we face in terms of our love of dogs and cats and near-total disregard for even the most basic interests of farm animals who are capable of suffering every bit as much as the animals we welcome into families. The fact that we would never force our dogs and cats to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives begs the question of whether we should force farm animals to endure such misery, either.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that nearly 600 California veterinarians, along with the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), are endorsing the “Yes” vote on Prop 2. Dr. Jeff Smith, former president of the CVMA writes in the Modesto Bee, “As a veterinarian, I support Proposition 2 because I can think of no other animals confined to this degree that are deemed humanely housed.”

As to be expected, Prop 2 does indeed have some opponents. On the other side of this initiative is a cast of characters from the factory farming industry with a particularly sordid history of cruelty to animals and consumer fraud. Major financial contributors to the opposition have been caught abusing animals in undercover exposés, paid big bucks to settle criminal animal cruelty charges, and even paid $100,000 to settle allegations of 17 attorneys general—including California’s—that they were misleading the public about animal welfare.

These well-financed opponents are already planning on spending millions of dollars to confuse voters and deceive them about Prop 2. And one thing is for certain: The agribusiness industry doesn’t like to lose, especially in the nation’s top agricultural state. It intends to fight hard, meaning Californians will be hearing quite a lot about the treatment of farm animals in the next three months. Voters will have to sort fact from fiction.

Each one of us can help win a victory for animal welfare, the environment, food safety, and public health by getting involved and supporting the Yes on Prop 2 campaign. The opportunity for so many social movements to join together and fight for a common cause is exciting, and one that will likely yield positive results not only in this election, but for years to come.

Make sure to check out YESonProp2.com – and remember to vote where your mouth is by voting YES! on 2 this November.

Photos by Laurel Fan, Katie@! and Pikaluk