Tuesday, April 19, 2011

States to Outlaw Factory Farm Investigations? (Part 1 of 4)

An interview with HSUS's End Factory Farming campaign Senior Director, Paul Shapiro

Photo courtesy of HSUS
If you've seen disturbing videos and photos of animals being beaten, tortured and otherwise abused in factory farms, slaughterhouses and other food production facilities, chances are those horrific images were brought to you by undercover investigators working for animal protection groups. If not for these courageous muckrakers, the public would probably never know about the hidden cruelty that billions of animals are subjected to every year behind agribusiness' fortified walls of secrecy and denial. That's why politicians in some states are now trying to protect their campaign contributors in the meat, dairy and egg industries from damningly negative publicity by outlawing this powerful form of animal advocacy.

Legislators in three states—Iowa, Florida and Minnesota—have recently proposed bills that would criminalize taking videos or photos of farm animals without their so-called owners' consent, and gaining employment at agribusiness facilities with intent to document conditions there. That is, rather than address the systemic animal cruelty that undercover investigations have exposed time and time again, some lawmakers want to put those who reveal these abusive practices to the American people behind bars. The proposed penalties for these “crimes” by state are as follows:

- Iowa: A felony punishable by fines of up to $7,500 and up to five years imprisonment
- Florida*: A felony punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison
- Minnesota*: First offense would be considered a gross misdemeanor, with felony prosecutions for any subsequent offenses

The first of these bills was introduced several weeks ago, so I'm admittedly somewhat late on the draw in writing about them. Since author Mark Hawthorne already persuasively articulated the animal rights perspective on this issue in his Striking at the Roots blog last month, I decided to approach it from a different angle than I've seen taken so far. Basically, I asked official representatives from the “Big Four” animal protection groups most known for doing undercover factory farm investigations to tell their side of the story in their own words. Thus begins a four-part series of interviews with these individuals that I will post as follows:

- Today:  Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of The Humane Society of the United States' (HSUS) End Factory Farming campaign
- Friday, April 22: Erica Meier, Executive Director of Compassion Over Killing (COK)
- Monday, April 25: Nathan Runkle, founder and Executive Director of Mercy for Animals (MFA)
- Thursday, April 28 Friday, May 13: Jeff Kerr, General Counsel for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)  

Photo courtesy of HSUS
My first guest is Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of HSUS' End Factory Farming campaign. Shapiro was something of an animal protection prodigy, founding the Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization Compassion Over Killing in 1995 while still in high school. He served as the group's Campaigns Director for a decade, during which time he went undercover on factory farms with camera in hand to document animal cruelty. Shapiro transitioned to a leadership role at HSUS in 2005, and has since been a major force behind the successful passage of landmark farm animal welfare legislation in states from Maine to California.

Here's what Shapiro had to say about the proposed bans on undercover factory farm investigations:

AR: Strategically speaking, why does HSUS conduct undercover factory farm investigations?

PS: Undercover investigations are an effective way to blow the whistle on agribusiness' mistreatment of farm animals, and these exposés play an important role in our society by shining a very bright light on the dark world of factory farming. They reveal not only animal welfare violations committed by individual workers and the industry as a whole, but other types of illegal activities, as well.

For example, when we investigated California's Hallmark/Westland Slaughter Plant in 2008, we uncovered criminal activity as far as animal cruelty is concerned, as well as serious food safety violations that resulted in the largest recall of meat in U.S. history—over 143 million pounds of beef. Our investigation also led to closure of the plant, which was a large supplier to the National School Lunch Program. Much of that meat would have otherwise been eaten by children, and, unfortunately, some of it was because it could not be reclaimed quickly enough. At the Bushway Slaughter Plant in Vermont in 2009, we not only uncovered criminal activity that resulted in an animal cruelty conviction for the plant's owner, but disciplinary action was also taken against the on-site U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector for not doing his job.

These examples illustrate that exposés play a vital whistle-blowing role that is very important to society as a whole. Yet they wouldn't have been possible if the draconian laws now being proposed had been in place in the states where we conducted them. The factory farming industry should be improving its animal welfare policies and food safety procedures, but instead it's trying to prevent Americans from learning about what actually happens to farm animals.

A common accusation the bills' supporters make against animal advocacy groups is that they “selectively edit” their investigative footage somehow to make it seem as though animal cruelty is taking place when it's actually not, and that undercover investigators even “stage” acts of cruelty themselves to further their animal rights agenda. How do you respond to such allegations?

First and foremost, no one has ever presented any evidence that any animal protection group has staged acts of animal cruelty at a factory farm or slaughter plant. Of course, if it had happened, the guilty parties would be charged with violating the law, because it's illegal to fabricate footage and then use it to malign the reputation of a company. That's defamation and libel, and companies would have already sued someone over this if it had been done.

The fact that the industry has never pursued such legal action speaks volumes about their claims. Anyway, these bills don't aim to crack down on people who would stage videos. Their purpose is to criminalize all undercover videos because they accurately depict the mistreatment and abuse of animals on factory farms, which is an unpleasant reality that agribusiness desperately wants to keep hidden from Americans.

Agribusiness proponents also routinely accuse animal advocacy groups, especially HSUS, of waiting several weeks before reporting animal abuse uncovered during investigations to authorities. They say that if HSUS really cared about animals, you'd report the abuse right away. 

Unfortunately, the abuse that we document often happens right out in the open where everybody at the facility already knows about it: it's just that nobody does anything to stop it. Many times the managers and owners themselves are perpetrating the abuse. In fact, both our Hallmark and Bushway investigations resulted in criminal convictions of the managers or owners of those plants for personally breaking animal welfare laws. More importantly though, the fact remains that, if we were to uncover one act of abuse during an investigation and release that information to authorities, it would probably be dismissed as merely an isolated case. To prosecute people who violate animal cruelty laws, we often need to demonstrate a clear pattern of abuse. That is exactly what we've been able to show through many of our investigations, but only by gathering evidence over a few weeks.

I also understand that a lot of the cruelty you document isn't even illegal: it's just standard operating procedure throughout the industry. In these cases, there would be no one to report the abuse to, right?

Yes, and while some exposés result in criminal convictions, we deliberately conduct other investigations to document the industry's standard operating procedures. Though these practices may be legal, most people would agree that they are still inhumane and cruel to animals. So sometimes our main goal in conducting an investigation is to expose common industry practices that are abusive rather than blow the whistle on criminal acts.

You mentioned before that HSUS has documented USDA inspectors not doing what they're paid to do. This makes me think that undercover investigations not only make agribusiness look bad, but the government as well. So, do you think that the government is actively working with the industry to pass these bills because they don't want people to know how complicit regulatory agencies are in the animal cruelty being perpetrated on factory farms?

Our investigations have often shown that government inspectors, while they are witnessing animal abuse, do nothing about it. At Hallmark, there were six USDA inspectors there, and the abuse was going on right out in the open: none of the inspectors or managers ever stopped it. At Bushway, one of the USDA inspectors told our investigator, on hidden camera, not to let him know when he found live calves in piles of dead calves because then he'd have to shut the plant down. Also on hidden camera, he told workers who were skinning a live calf, while the animal was fully conscious and kicking, that if another inspector saw them do that he could shut the plant down.

However, the government isn't a monolith: it's made up of different kinds of people with different values. Some USDA inspectors really do want to prevent egregious cruelty and try to stop it. There are people who hold positions of power in state or federal government who would like to see these types of laws passed, and there are others who wouldn't. But it wouldn't be accurate or fair to generalize about everyone who is part of the regulatory system, because some of them do want to help animals.

These proposed bills, however, really seem to highlight the close relationship between agribusiness and some elected officials. Can you comment on that?

Agribusiness is a very influential lobby in most states, and certainly at the federal level. The response to that from the animal protection movement needs to be to become an even more influential political force than the animal agriculture industry, and the way we do that is by getting more politically involved. There are a lot more animal advocates out there than people in animal agribusiness, and we need to be as vocal as possible about animal issues in terms of talking to our legislators if we are to make real, lasting progress for animals. 

Agribusiness' response in the states trying to pass these bills is to basically shoot the messenger. But I'm sure you've read in trade journals in recent years that some industry experts are acknowledging, mainly because of the results of undercover investigations, that agribusiness' treatment of animals is out of step with current societal values. These individuals openly call on the industry to initiate farm animal welfare reforms that reflect consumers' expectations. Does HSUS ally itself with those in the industry who desire change?

Yes, absolutely. We work with anybody who wants to raise the bar on farm animal welfare. Sometimes people within the industry want to do that, whether for business reasons or ethical concerns or both, and we're always happy to join forces with them. One example among many of this type of partnership is when HSUS jointly drafted legislation with the California Cattleman's Association to ban the tail-docking of dairy cows throughout the state last year. Tail-docking without anesthesia is not only intensely painful for cows, but it leaves them more vulnerable to fly bites because they can no longer swat insects away. The cattlemen wanted to get rid of the practice, so we worked with them to draft language for a bill that the legislature passed, and then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law.

If the bans were to pass, how would it affect HSUS's ability to conduct undercover investigations in those states?

It really depends on what gets enacted, if anything. These bills are still in process and have many variations, so it would depend on how they were worded as actual statutes on the books.

If undercover investigations do become illegal in some places, how will the animal protection movement let the public know what's actually happening inside factory farms in those states?

There will be a black hole: it will be very difficult for anyone to know what's really happening.






- Iowa Residents: Use this convenient HSUS Action Alert to encourage your state senator to oppose S.F. 431. Also contact your state senator directly, and ask him or her to oppose this bill.

* The Florida and Minnesota bills have both been defeated since I posted this interview. However, New York legislators proposed an Ag Gag bill afterwards. 

15 comments:

  1. Thank you for writing this. It is heartbreaking but people must be made aware of what is being done to these innocent animals. I hope that everyone who reads this will take a moment to tweet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Barbara:

    Thanks for reading. I think your suggestion that people tweet about this issue is excellent: people living in FL, IA & MN especially need to know what's up so they can urge their legislators to fight these misguided efforts to censure animal protectionists.

    Mat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous6:37 PM

    What is called when someone knows about animal abuse for a month before they report it?????

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous, Shapiro explained in the interview why HSUS does not always immediately report animal abuse to law enforcement: 1) Much animal abuse that takes place on factory farms is exempt from animal welfare laws and technically legal, and 2) when violations of animal welfare laws are committed, investigators typically need to gather evidence by documenting a clear pattern of abuse (rather than "isolated incidents") before law enforcement will take action.

    A more important question is, what is it called when factory farm workers, managers and owners routinely commit acts of illegal animal abuse that can go on for years because government inspectors literally turn a blind eye to their lawbreaking? I'd call that a criminal failure of the system.

    Undercover investigators are dedicated to protecting animals from abuse, while those who run factory farms actually abuse and kill animals for profit. So why are you questioning the motives of investigators who are trying to stop animal suffering rather than those who actually commit acts of animal cruelty as part of their daily lives?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:35 AM

    How come the investigator NEVER show a farm that is doing things right? I am a farmer. we train our employees on the RIGHT way to handle our animals and also have a WHISTLEBLOWER policy that REQUIRES them to report animal abuse IMMEDIATELY so that it CAN BE STOPPED. Your investigators do not speak up. They do not say "hey you shouldn't be doing that." They do not report it to the boss immediately. They watch for a few weeks, then hide it for a month. Even after done filming. then do they go to the boss? or authorities?? no, they play it on TV. They have no interest in stopping abuse immediately. It is a source of funding for them. They only have a VEGAN goal. That is what it comes down to. ADMIT IT.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous,

    Investigators DO show farmers doing things "right" by following animals "welfare" laws like grinding up baby chicks right after their born because they are economically worthless, slicing the throats of fully-conscious chickens, packing hens in battery cages where each one has less space than a sheet of paper for her entire life, cutting pigs' tails off without painkillers, etc.

    I'm sorry you feel victimized as a farmer who works within the law - and for all I know you don't operate a factory farm where the practices mentioned above are standard operating procedures. (Readers should note, however, that 98% of the meat, dairy and eggs produced in the US comes from factory farms.) As for your accusations that it is the responsibility of undercover investigators who are brand new employees - rather than the facility's veteran employees, managers, owners, or USDA inspectors - to report and stop animal abuse, and that animal advocacy groups are only in it for the money, I really have to wonder whether you've even read these interviews. My three subjects have provided sufficient answers to your questions, so if you have read the interviews and still make these accusations, I can only conclude that you are uninterested in any facts that contradict your beliefs. As Upton Sinclair once wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    The animal abuse documented by undercover investigations is happening out in the open - the employees, managers, owners, and government inspectors all know about it. So please, enlighten us, how exactly is a new employee supposed to stop it? And, once again, why are you questioning the motives of investigators who are trying to stop animal suffering rather than those who actually commit acts of animal cruelty as part of their daily lives? Seriously, I'd like some answers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous4:03 PM

    The people you are interviewing are full of it. Really. It is the resposibility of EVERY employee whether it is their first day or not to report animal abuse IMMEDIATELY to their supervisor or the farm owner. MFA and H$u$ have NEVER shown a video from a farm doing the right thing because to them the only right thing is the elimination of animal agriculture.

    ADMIT YOUR VEGAN AGENDA!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous,

    It’s very interesting how you claim that my interviewees are “full of it” – despite the fact that their investigations actually provide documented video evidence of both legally-exempt and illegal animal cruelty being perpetrated on factory farms that has been submitted as EVIDENCE IN COURT and led to animal cruelty convictions. You, on the other hand, have provided NO facts whatsoever to support your unfounded conjectures (and that’s all they are without proof), and refuse to even answer my most basic questions:

    - HOW exactly is a new employee supposed to stop animal abuse when it is the facility manager and/or owner who is the abuser and the USDA inspector repeatedly ignores or condones the abuse?
    - As Nathan Runkle noted, when MFA reported animal abuse by employees to management, they admitted that they already knew about it and yet they did nothing to stop it even after the investigator brought it to their attention. Tell us, what course of action is the new employee to take then?
    - When the animal abuse witnessed is technically exempt from animal cruelty laws, and the investigator is documenting standard industry practices, who is he/she supposed to report the abuse to?
    - And (I’m asking for the THIRD time now) why are you questioning the motives of investigators who are trying to STOP animal abuse rather than those who actually COMMIT acts of animal cruelty on a daily basis?

    Also, your claim that “H$U$” (oh, the dollar signs for S’s – not at all predictable) is only in it for the money is very telling and quite hypocritical. I mean, according to your “logic,” it’s great when people make BILLIONS of dollars from KILLING animals – but only a greedy swindling non-profit organization that relies on donations would raise money to SAVE animals from abuse and death. While we’re on the subject, let’s just take a quick look at the numbers:
    - Total HSUS Revenues, 2009: $102,137,681 (http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/publications/2009-annual-report/financial_operations_report.pdf)
    - Total US Meat & Poultry Sales (not including dairy or eggs), 2009: $154.8 BILLION (http://www.meatami.com/ht/d/sp/i/47465/pid/47465) – in other words, more than 1,515 TIMES the amount of money HSUS took in for that year

    You also claim that investigators “have NEVER shown a video from a farm doing the right thing,” and I already pointed out that they do this all the time – by documenting workers following animal "welfare" laws like grinding up baby chicks right after their born because they are economically worthless, slicing the throats of fully-conscious chickens, packing hens in battery cages where each one has less space than a sheet of paper for her entire life, cutting pigs' tails off without painkillers, etc. Do you have some OTHER definition of the “right” way to raise animals and kill them for profit when they are just a few months old and have lived only a fraction of their natural lifespans?

    If you were really so concerned about showing people the “right” way to farm, you’d be INVITING investigators with video cameras into your farm to openly document your practices rather than trying to outlaw them. But you’ll NEVER do that – no one in the animal agriculture industry will – because you know deep down that no matter HOW you slaughter animals, most people will find it nauseating and abhorrent. The industry’s only hope is to keep their violent practices hidden from the public and distract people by making baseless and patently ridiculous accusations against animal advocates.

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  9. You also keep exhorting me to “ADMIT (MY) VEGAN AGENDA” – which indicates, again, that you have not even bothered to read these interviews. For, if you had, you would have seen that Nathan Runkle said “we also strongly encourage people to completely remove their financial support from the animal agriculture industry by going vegan.” So why do you act like we’ve got some kind of SECRET PLAN to turn the world vegan? The farm animal advocacy movement’s goals are as plain as day – we would LOVE to eliminate the exploitation of animals for food (and other uses) by shutting down the entire animal agriculture industry! Is that going to happen anytime soon? Absolutely not: I’ll be lucky if I live to see the number of vegans double.

    I and my interviewees are all vegans who believe it is unethical to harm or kill animals for any unnecessary reason – and slaughtering them for meat is clearly unnecessary. (Having said that, while those who work for HSUS’s End Factory Farming campaign are probably vegan, many other HSUS employees eat animal products, so that particular organization’s goal is clearly to reform rather than end animal agriculture – a sore point among many farm animal advocates.) We vegans pride ourselves on having empathy for other species and are working towards a world where they are no longer abused and killed. So, please explain to us, what is so horrible about that? We vegans are not the ones who need to explain our ethics, motivations or goals – those who hurt and KILL animals for profit DO. SO ADMIT YOUR KILLING-ANIMALS-FOR-YOUR-OWN-PROFIT AGENDA!

    By repeatedly insisting that I “admit” the farm animal advocacy movement’s supposedly hidden vegan agenda, you illustrate just how scared you and the rest of the animal agriculture industry are by the vegan message: that people can live healthy, satisfying lives by withdrawing their financial support of animal abuse and killing. Apparently you believe that we vegans, though we represent less than 1% of the US population, are SO powerful that we have the inherent ability to impose our collective will on the entire world, and that our underhanded strategy for achieving this nefarious plan is to first convince everyone that animals are suffering and dying on factory farms by the billions (never mind the fact that they actually ARE). Honestly, that seems like a pretty paranoid worldview. I mean, as an activist, I wish I had such faith in the animal protection movement’s ability to end the pain and death caused by animal agriculture now and forever! But, based on my experience, nothing like that seems even remotely realistic.

    Finally, I find it interesting that you post your comments as “anonymous” – all the while harping on my and my interviewees’ allegedly “secret” vegan agenda. My name is Mat Thomas, I am a writer living in San Francisco, my email address is mathomas@gmail.com – all of this information is clearly indicated on my blog and website, www.animalrighter.org, both of which also include my photo. Paul, Erica and Nathan all use THEIR real names and photos in the course of their work, but YOU choose to HIDE your identity – WHY?! I assume because you’re too cowardly to tell people who you actually are. Hey, prove me wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Mat,

    Thank you for these and related posts, we've truly enjoyed reading and learning from them.

    GMO Journal
    www.gmo-journal.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can't stand watching them for a long period of time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very interesting blog. A lot of blogs I see these days don't really provide anything that attract others, but I'm most definitely interested in this one. Just thought that I would post and let you know.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi, Really great effort. Everyone must read this article. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice post, things explained in details. Thank You.

    ReplyDelete
  15. “Benjamin Briel Lee was very professional at all times, keeping me aware of everything that was happening, If I had any questions he was always available to answer. This was my first home purchase, I didn’t know much about the loan process, he made it very easy to understand the things I had questions about. I really enjoyed working with him.”  
    He's a loan officer working with a group of investor's who are willing to fund any project or loan you any amount with a very low interest.Contact Benjamin Briel Lee E-Mail: 247officedept@gmail.com  Whats-App Number: +1-989-394-3740.

    ReplyDelete