The Ag Gag Debate

In the article "Animal Farm: a look at the 'Ag Gag' laws that are making it tough to film cruelty," Lessley Anderson explores the emerging legal restraints that are being put on activists in the business of bringing animal abuse in ranches and farms to light. The issue has been a hot topic over the last few decades as fast food businesses have grown to global proportions – and with it, the voice of the people questioning the businesses’ practices. Popular documentaries such as “Food, Inc” exposed the public to the world of mass animal production, and the public outcry against the whole industry as a result of the viscerally disturbing imagery shown in such documentaries meant significant changes in the way fast food businesses could operate. 

As a way of controlling future press coverage, laws fondly dubbed “Ag Gag laws” are now in the works – their purpose is, essentially, to limit the damage activists with hidden cameras and a bone to pick can do. The laws take three forms: one would make the act of taking photos or video in slaughterhouses or farms illegal, another would penalize the people who lie about their intent to gain access to these facilities, and the final one subjects people with incriminating evidence to a hefty fine if they do not present their evidence to the authorities within 24 to 48 hours of capturing it. Those in support of the laws, such as Republican senator  Cliff R. Pirtle of New Mexico, argue that these laws protect the misrepresented benign majority of farmers: “There are a few operators out there giving agriculture a bad name,” he concedes, “but for the most part the biggest lovers of animals are the farmers and ranchers.”  Casey Guernsey, a Republican representative, would agree with Pirtle, and cites that "if you are just initially introduced to some of these [farming] practices, it’s kind of a culture shock,” (specifically, in reference to crowded barns). Both make the case that the public may be overly and falsely swayed by what they see. 

Opponents of the legislation argue against the Ag Gag laws that limit the duration of time in which you can present your evidence; their argument is that the laws make it exponentially more difficult to present a solid case in court. Historically, their point of view is solid – under current legislation, the case against former beef supplier Hallmark Meat Packing Co. led to the largest beef recall in US history, was made based on six weeks of evidence that the supplier was allowing sick cows to be left in the system. But, as Stevie Ipsen put it, “During that six weeks, unhealthy animals were put into the food chain for children to consume.” One on hand, the new laws would make it more difficult to bring companies that supply bad food to justice, but on the other hand, if the evidence were presented in a timely manner, and acted on, the contaminated food would be out of the supply much more quickly. The conflict leads to the question: which do voters value more, the absence of tainted food or the incriminating evidence needed to shut down those who supply it in the first place?

The article ended with a suggestion: to increase public awareness of farming practices, livestock farms and slaughterhouses should install 24/7 webcams.

Which side of the Ag Gag laws do you find yourself on?

 Should legislation limit the rights of those exercising free speech because of its impact on an industry?

Which of the three variants of the Ag Gag laws do you think would be most effective in practice?

Would webcams be useful in increasing public awareness, or would it make any difference?