Ag-Gag?

Ag-gag is a term typically used to refer to state laws that prohibit filming or photography of activity on farms unless the owner of the farm consents to such activity. These laws are usually targeted at animal welfare groups and activists that send persons undercover into farming operations to document alleged animal abuse. In most states, farm animals are not protected by animal cruelty statutes, so many animal rights activists see this activity as a necessary means for both ensuring animal welfare and securing a safe food supply.

The following introduction to a poll taken by BEEF Magazine illustrates a common reply in favor of such laws:

“’But, Amanda, I know animal abuse is real; I’ve watched all those videos on YouTube of factory farmers beating their animals.” This is a statement made by a college student from Michigan who toured our ranch last summer. Of course, I don’t tolerate the bad apples in our industry -- those who mistreat their animals, that is -- but, I know these individuals are few and far between. Why judge an entire industry based on a few bad actors?

I asked this individual to define factory farming. After all, I don’t know any factory farmers. With 98% of farms and ranches in the U.S. family owned and operated, I know that today’s food is grown by people who care about the animals, the environment and the final retail product.

What’s more, I also know that PETA and HSUS supporters are usually behind these terrible videos depicting animal abuse. And, if they aren’t behind the camera catching the action, they are usually the ones initiating the abuse. And, these organizations strategically release these videos to wreak havoc on the agriculture industry, which usually results in litigation, loss of jobs and a direct shot at the markets.”

Many of the comments to that post, many made by farmers, echoed the author’s sentiments. The comments ranged from “sometimes you need to strike cattle to move them,” to “they’ve never encountered such abuse on their farms and would never tolerate it.” In either case it appeared that the majority of those who commented believed ag gag laws were necessary in order to protect the industry from potentially deceptive journalism. 

Earlier this month, however, in an important, perhaps “landmark,” decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the court found that Idaho’s version of an “ag gag” law was an unconstitutional restraint on First Amendment free speech protections. Chief U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found the law served to violate protected speech on a vital issue. “The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.” As there are many “ag-gag” laws, similar to Idaho’s, in place throughout the country, it will be important to keep an eye on this issue as those laws come under similar scrutiny.