The world's largest fast food chain once ran a commercial of hamburgers growing in garden patches. For millenia, slaughterhouse torture has been hidden from children and adults. AETA, passed with the help of slaughterhouse state senators, California Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband Richard Blum and the FBI, is an unconstitutional law which limits animal rights activists' 1st amendment rights to expose brutality to animals. Now Minnesota,
Iowa and Florida legislators want to hide further the abbatoir torture caught in video such as those above. A ban on filming would help those who profiteer from mongering cancerridden, ecoli saturated cadavers of murdered animals. One Minnesota Health Dept official said giving rare meat to a child is a form of chlid endangering akin to driving 95 mph on the highway. A California dairy operation film showed injured cows being pushed with forklifts into a chain link fence.
Iowa and Florida legislators want to hide further the abbatoir torture caught in video such as those above. A ban on filming would help those who profiteer from mongering cancerridden, ecoli saturated cadavers of murdered animals. One Minnesota Health Dept official said giving rare meat to a child is a form of chlid endangering akin to driving 95 mph on the highway. A California dairy operation film showed injured cows being pushed with forklifts into a chain link fence.
Legislators In 3 US States Seek To Ban Slaughterhouse Investigations & Films.. to Consolidate The Mongering of Filthy Meat and Hide Animal Torture
.
http://mercyforanimals.org/hatchery
Iowa chicks crushed alive
http://mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy
Ohio cows pitchforked, kicked in udders and faces
http://mercyforanimals.org/calves
Texas calves tortured
http://animalrighter.blogspot.com
States to Outlaw Factory Farm Investigations? (Part 3 of 4)
A series of interviews with leading animal advocates: Today, founder & Executive
Director of Mercy For Animals, Nathan Runkle
As I wrote in my first post of this series, three state legislatures (Florida,
Iowa and Minnesota) have introduced bills to criminalize taking photos and
videos of animals being mistreated on factory farmswhile doing absolutely
nothing to stop the widespread animal abuse that these undercover investigators
document. Today's installment: my interview with founder and Executive Director
of Mercy For Animals (MFA), Nathan Runkle.
Photo courtesy of MFA
Runkle grew up on a farm in rural Ohio, and founded MFA there as a high school
student in 1999 in response to a local pig farm cruelty case he got involved in.
He has led teams of undercover MFA investigators in exposing animal cruelty at
factory farms and other agriculture operations, including the state's four
largest egg producers. In the course of his investigative work, Runkle has also
rescued and helped rehabilitate dozens of abused and neglected farm animals. In
addition, he coordinates MFA's outreach, advocacy and media campaigns, and is a
nationally-recognized speaker on farm animal advocacy who has given hundreds of
interviews to major newspapers, radio shows and television programs.
Anyway, here's Runkle's take on the proposed bans of undercover factory farming
investigations:
AR: Why do you think agribusiness and some politicians are pushing so hard to
pass these bills?
NR: Because undercover investigations have been so effective at exposing the
inhumane treatment of animals inside factory farms and slaughterhouses. They
have led to civil and criminal animal cruelty convictions against employees and
companies, major corporate policy changes, and passage of landmark legislation
banning veal and gestation crates, battery cages, and some forms of painful
mutilation. They've also elevated the level of awareness and discussion among
consumers about the plight of farm animals.
Agribusiness knows that their practices are out of step with most American's
values, so they're desperately scrambling to conceal factory farming cruelties
from public view with these bills. Obviously, rather than blinding consumers to
what they're doing, it would make a lot more sense for the industry to be
proactive about improving conditions for animals. Instead, they're resorting to
censorship because it's essentially cheaper and easier than improving animal
welfare.
One of the most common claims made in defense of these bills is that
investigators "selectively edit" them to make it seem like there's more cruelty
going on than there actually is. Some people even accuse investigators of
"staging" the acts of animal cruelty they capture on video. Personally, I don't
see how that's possible, especially given that the footage basically depicts
other employees abusing animals.
We get many hours of footage from each investigation, which we then have to edit
down to hold viewers' attention. People are used to watching short YouTube
videos that are a few minutes long, and that's generally the amount of time we
have to present the evidence. Plus the footage is so shocking and painful to
watch that most people can only take it in small doses.
Whether it's raw footage or the YouTube version, however, our undercover videos
accurately depict what actually happens to animals on factory farmsand law
enforcement officials can testify to that. That is, whenever we document what we
believe are violations of animal cruelty laws during our investigations, we hand
over all of our unedited footage to law enforcement, who then review it for
applicable violations. We have a history of successfully criminally and civilly
charging companies and individuals for animal cruelty based on our undercover
videos. So, if the footage is so strong that law enforcement is willing to take
action, and it's used as evidence in a court of law to convict factory farmers
of animal cruelty, then of course our videos are true-to-life representations of
the abuse being perpetrated in these facilities.
So why then do some people insist that investigators manipulate video footage
for their own ends?
I think they're habitual liars who know that the public will not, under any
circumstances, find animal abuse acceptable. They therefore have to claim that
we've staged acts of animal cruelty. What it boils down to is that we've caught
them red-handedliterally, with blood on their handsand they cannot defend
what's going on, so they're trying to shoot the messenger. What they really need
to do is look at these investigations, admit that they have real problems, and
address the endemic cruelty taking place in their facilities. Instead, the
industry is showing how little regard they have for animal welfare and public
opinion, and that they are willing to tell outrageous lies to maintain the
status quo and their profit margin.
For example, State Representative Annette Sweeney, who introduced the bill in
the Iowa House, is a cattle rancher, and she's just been spewing outright lies
to the media about how undercover footage is staged by animal activists. MFA has
directly contacted Sweeney's office asking for any proof or evidence of a single
instance in which undercover farm investigation footage has been staged. They've
refused to respond, so I think it's safe to assume she doesn't actually have any
facts to support her accusation.
These bills seem to especially emphasize how tight the relationship is between
agribusiness and some politicians. What are your impressions?
Iowa is the largest egg producing state in the nation and one of the largest
pork-producing states. Agribusiness therefore has tremendous economic pull,
which translates into political power in the legislature. The organizations
lobbying in support of this bill, companies like Monsanto, for instance (along
with all the major meat, dairy and egg production companies and trade
organizations), have a lot of money and financial clout. However, we hope that
legislators will have the backbone to stand up to these special interests by
rejecting these bills.
We also hope lawmakers realize that, aside from preventing the documentation of
animal abuse, these bills would essentially shield farming operations from
public scrutiny in terms of environmental regulations, workers' rights
violations, tax frauda whole host of issues. If employees witness any type of
laws being broken, they would be legally prevented from documenting them, which
makes it much more difficult for regulators to hold these companies accountable.
Take the Hallmark/Westland case in California, for example, which resulted in
the largest beef recall in U.S. history and animal cruelty convictions as a
direct result of an undercover exposé. If someone was there saying "Sick and
injured cows are going into the human food supply" but they weren't able to
document their claims, that recall and those convictions would have never
happened.
And that's essentially what agribusiness wants: to operate in secrecy without
any public scrutiny or regulation. Factory farmers want to create a one-way
communication system in which they can promote their sanitized, glamorized,
propagandized view of farming without any alternative views contradicting it.
The problem is that lack of transparency leads to abuse of power, and makes it
impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about what they buy and eat.
Critics also accuse animal protection groups of not really caring about animals
because investigators who witness animal cruelty may wait several weeks before
reporting it to law enforcement. How would you respond to that charge?
Each case is different, and there are instances in which there are technically
no legal violations: that is, the cruelty is just standard industry procedure
and therefore exempt from animal welfare laws, so there's no one to report it
to. Often the owners and managers are engaged in the abuse, so there's no one in
the workplace to report animal welfare violations to. When we document
violations, we do bring our evidence to law enforcement as quickly as possible.
But the industry's abuse is long-standing: it goes on year after year in these
places, and it would continue unchallenged if our investigators didn't expose
it.
It's really the obligation of these companies to monitor their operations, but
our investigations show they're not doing that. For example, at Willet Dairy we
filmed an employee bragging about abusing animals, and management acknowledged
that they knew about this ongoing abuse. This employee worked there for 19
years, but it was only after our exposé that they fired him and he was charged
with animal cruelty. So who was actually turning a blind eye to criminal
behavior: the investigator who'd been there a few weeks, or the company that
employed this guy for almost two decades?
When we wrap up these investigations, we have experts and veterinarians analyze
the footage to determine whether laws have been broken. We try to present the
strongest possible evidence so that we can have the company held criminally
accountable for what's going on there. Making a case for prosecution requires a
long-term investigation that establishes an ongoing pattern of abuse rather than
just a single instance of cruelty.
It seems like most of the animal advocacy groups doing undercover investigations
would be strategically categorized as reformists or pragmatists rather than
strict abolitionists. Is there a connection?
I think so, because whenever we do an investigation, we look at how we can help
the greatest number of animals possible. On the other hand, we also strongly
encourage people to completely remove their financial support from the animal
agriculture industry by going vegan. But there are enormous opportunities with
these exposés to make real-world changes through the introduction of
legislation, criminal prosecution, and removing the worst abusers from these
facilities. All of these tactics reduce animal suffering to some degree, and we
have an obligation to push for these outcomes in every single investigation we
do. They also generate discussion and focus attention on the cruelty and
exploitation that farm animals are subjected to, which elevates people's
awareness of this issue and motivates more consumers to explore veganism as a
compassionate alternative.
Economically speaking, is one motivation behind these bills to attract
agribusiness to these states? That is, wouldn't factory farms be enticed to move
their operations there because they'd be legally protected from unwanted
exposure?
Iowa is already an attractive state for factory farmers because it doesn't have
a ballot initiative process, and if they can shield producers from public
scrutiny by banning undercover exposés of animal cruelty, obviously that's going
to elevate agribusiness' interest in doing business there. Yet all of these
factory farmers using cruel methods are out of step with how most Americans want
animals to be treated, and I think this disdainful attitude is going to hurt
producers financially in the long run.
Another claim is that investigators get these jobs under false pretenses, and
that this is somehow illicit and dangerous. What's your response to that?
We have certainly never been prosecuted or pursued for that. Our investigators
provide their real names and social security numbers, and apply for jobs at
these facilities just the same way anyone else would. There are also existing
laws to prevent fraudulently applying for employment. Agribusiness is trying to
sell these bills under a larger umbrella of issues that are already covered by
other laws for the sole purpose of trying to make them seem legitimate. I mean,
they can't just come right out and say they want to prohibit people from taking
and distributing undercover videos of farm animals because they're bad for
business: they have to invent false claims to make these bills appear reasonable
and necessary.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was the first, and remains the only, federal
law that protects a particular industry, specifically agribusiness, and provides
harsher penalties for people who hold particular beliefs, specifically in animal
rights. Are these proposed bans an extension of this type of discriminatory law?
Yes, on the state level, at least. Outlawing investigations could easily be
applied to, say, someone who works in a nursing home, daycare center or hospital
secretly videotaping incidents of abuse. If these bans on undercover exposés are
legitimate, why then do they apply only to animal enterprises? Obviously, we
don't want anyone to be restricted from exposing abuse, whether the victims are
humans or animals. But the fact that these bans would apply only to animal
enterprises makes them discriminatory and unconstitutional.
- Watch MFA's undercover factory farm investigation videos.
- 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.
- Florida residents: Use this convenient Farm Sanctuary Action Alert to
encourage your elected officials to oppose S.B.1246. Also contact your state
senator and state representative directly and ask them to oppose this bill.
- Minnesota residents: Use this convenient HSUS Action Alert to
encourage your elected officials to oppose S.F. 1118 and H.F. 1369. Also contact
your state senator and state representative directly, and ask them to oppose
this bill.
Tune in again on Thursday, April 28 DATE TO BE DETERMINED
for my interview with Jeff Kerr,
General Counsel for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
See also:
mercyforanimals.org/hatchery">mercyforanimals.org/hatchery
mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy
Related
* http://animalrighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/states-to-outlaw-factory-farm_25.html
* http://worldanimalnet.org
.
http://mercyforanimals.org/hatchery Iowa chicks crushed alive
http://mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy Ohio cows pitchforked, kicked in udders and faces
http://mercyforanimals.org/calves Texas calves tortured
http://animalrighter.blogspot.com States to Outlaw Factory Farm Investigations? (Part 3 of 4)
A series of interviews with leading animal advocates: Today, founder & Executive
Director of Mercy For Animals, Nathan Runkle
As I wrote in my first post of this series, three state legislatures (Florida,
Iowa and Minnesota) have introduced bills to criminalize taking photos and
videos of animals being mistreated on factory farmswhile doing absolutely
nothing to stop the widespread animal abuse that these undercover investigators
document. Today's installment: my interview with founder and Executive Director
of Mercy For Animals (MFA), Nathan Runkle.
Photo courtesy of MFA
Runkle grew up on a farm in rural Ohio, and founded MFA there as a high school
student in 1999 in response to a local pig farm cruelty case he got involved in.
He has led teams of undercover MFA investigators in exposing animal cruelty at
factory farms and other agriculture operations, including the state's four
largest egg producers. In the course of his investigative work, Runkle has also
rescued and helped rehabilitate dozens of abused and neglected farm animals. In
addition, he coordinates MFA's outreach, advocacy and media campaigns, and is a
nationally-recognized speaker on farm animal advocacy who has given hundreds of
interviews to major newspapers, radio shows and television programs.
Anyway, here's Runkle's take on the proposed bans of undercover factory farming
investigations:
AR: Why do you think agribusiness and some politicians are pushing so hard to
pass these bills?
NR: Because undercover investigations have been so effective at exposing the
inhumane treatment of animals inside factory farms and slaughterhouses. They
have led to civil and criminal animal cruelty convictions against employees and
companies, major corporate policy changes, and passage of landmark legislation
banning veal and gestation crates, battery cages, and some forms of painful
mutilation. They've also elevated the level of awareness and discussion among
consumers about the plight of farm animals.
Agribusiness knows that their practices are out of step with most American's
values, so they're desperately scrambling to conceal factory farming cruelties
from public view with these bills. Obviously, rather than blinding consumers to
what they're doing, it would make a lot more sense for the industry to be
proactive about improving conditions for animals. Instead, they're resorting to
censorship because it's essentially cheaper and easier than improving animal
welfare.
One of the most common claims made in defense of these bills is that
investigators "selectively edit" them to make it seem like there's more cruelty
going on than there actually is. Some people even accuse investigators of
"staging" the acts of animal cruelty they capture on video. Personally, I don't
see how that's possible, especially given that the footage basically depicts
other employees abusing animals.
We get many hours of footage from each investigation, which we then have to edit
down to hold viewers' attention. People are used to watching short YouTube
videos that are a few minutes long, and that's generally the amount of time we
have to present the evidence. Plus the footage is so shocking and painful to
watch that most people can only take it in small doses.
Whether it's raw footage or the YouTube version, however, our undercover videos
accurately depict what actually happens to animals on factory farmsand law
enforcement officials can testify to that. That is, whenever we document what we
believe are violations of animal cruelty laws during our investigations, we hand
over all of our unedited footage to law enforcement, who then review it for
applicable violations. We have a history of successfully criminally and civilly
charging companies and individuals for animal cruelty based on our undercover
videos. So, if the footage is so strong that law enforcement is willing to take
action, and it's used as evidence in a court of law to convict factory farmers
of animal cruelty, then of course our videos are true-to-life representations of
the abuse being perpetrated in these facilities.
So why then do some people insist that investigators manipulate video footage
for their own ends?
I think they're habitual liars who know that the public will not, under any
circumstances, find animal abuse acceptable. They therefore have to claim that
we've staged acts of animal cruelty. What it boils down to is that we've caught
them red-handedliterally, with blood on their handsand they cannot defend
what's going on, so they're trying to shoot the messenger. What they really need
to do is look at these investigations, admit that they have real problems, and
address the endemic cruelty taking place in their facilities. Instead, the
industry is showing how little regard they have for animal welfare and public
opinion, and that they are willing to tell outrageous lies to maintain the
status quo and their profit margin.
For example, State Representative Annette Sweeney, who introduced the bill in
the Iowa House, is a cattle rancher, and she's just been spewing outright lies
to the media about how undercover footage is staged by animal activists. MFA has
directly contacted Sweeney's office asking for any proof or evidence of a single
instance in which undercover farm investigation footage has been staged. They've
refused to respond, so I think it's safe to assume she doesn't actually have any
facts to support her accusation.
These bills seem to especially emphasize how tight the relationship is between
agribusiness and some politicians. What are your impressions?
Iowa is the largest egg producing state in the nation and one of the largest
pork-producing states. Agribusiness therefore has tremendous economic pull,
which translates into political power in the legislature. The organizations
lobbying in support of this bill, companies like Monsanto, for instance (along
with all the major meat, dairy and egg production companies and trade
organizations), have a lot of money and financial clout. However, we hope that
legislators will have the backbone to stand up to these special interests by
rejecting these bills.
We also hope lawmakers realize that, aside from preventing the documentation of
animal abuse, these bills would essentially shield farming operations from
public scrutiny in terms of environmental regulations, workers' rights
violations, tax frauda whole host of issues. If employees witness any type of
laws being broken, they would be legally prevented from documenting them, which
makes it much more difficult for regulators to hold these companies accountable.
Take the Hallmark/Westland case in California, for example, which resulted in
the largest beef recall in U.S. history and animal cruelty convictions as a
direct result of an undercover exposé. If someone was there saying "Sick and
injured cows are going into the human food supply" but they weren't able to
document their claims, that recall and those convictions would have never
happened.
And that's essentially what agribusiness wants: to operate in secrecy without
any public scrutiny or regulation. Factory farmers want to create a one-way
communication system in which they can promote their sanitized, glamorized,
propagandized view of farming without any alternative views contradicting it.
The problem is that lack of transparency leads to abuse of power, and makes it
impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about what they buy and eat.
Critics also accuse animal protection groups of not really caring about animals
because investigators who witness animal cruelty may wait several weeks before
reporting it to law enforcement. How would you respond to that charge?
Each case is different, and there are instances in which there are technically
no legal violations: that is, the cruelty is just standard industry procedure
and therefore exempt from animal welfare laws, so there's no one to report it
to. Often the owners and managers are engaged in the abuse, so there's no one in
the workplace to report animal welfare violations to. When we document
violations, we do bring our evidence to law enforcement as quickly as possible.
But the industry's abuse is long-standing: it goes on year after year in these
places, and it would continue unchallenged if our investigators didn't expose
it.
It's really the obligation of these companies to monitor their operations, but
our investigations show they're not doing that. For example, at Willet Dairy we
filmed an employee bragging about abusing animals, and management acknowledged
that they knew about this ongoing abuse. This employee worked there for 19
years, but it was only after our exposé that they fired him and he was charged
with animal cruelty. So who was actually turning a blind eye to criminal
behavior: the investigator who'd been there a few weeks, or the company that
employed this guy for almost two decades?
When we wrap up these investigations, we have experts and veterinarians analyze
the footage to determine whether laws have been broken. We try to present the
strongest possible evidence so that we can have the company held criminally
accountable for what's going on there. Making a case for prosecution requires a
long-term investigation that establishes an ongoing pattern of abuse rather than
just a single instance of cruelty.
It seems like most of the animal advocacy groups doing undercover investigations
would be strategically categorized as reformists or pragmatists rather than
strict abolitionists. Is there a connection?
I think so, because whenever we do an investigation, we look at how we can help
the greatest number of animals possible. On the other hand, we also strongly
encourage people to completely remove their financial support from the animal
agriculture industry by going vegan. But there are enormous opportunities with
these exposés to make real-world changes through the introduction of
legislation, criminal prosecution, and removing the worst abusers from these
facilities. All of these tactics reduce animal suffering to some degree, and we
have an obligation to push for these outcomes in every single investigation we
do. They also generate discussion and focus attention on the cruelty and
exploitation that farm animals are subjected to, which elevates people's
awareness of this issue and motivates more consumers to explore veganism as a
compassionate alternative.
Economically speaking, is one motivation behind these bills to attract
agribusiness to these states? That is, wouldn't factory farms be enticed to move
their operations there because they'd be legally protected from unwanted
exposure?
Iowa is already an attractive state for factory farmers because it doesn't have
a ballot initiative process, and if they can shield producers from public
scrutiny by banning undercover exposés of animal cruelty, obviously that's going
to elevate agribusiness' interest in doing business there. Yet all of these
factory farmers using cruel methods are out of step with how most Americans want
animals to be treated, and I think this disdainful attitude is going to hurt
producers financially in the long run.
Another claim is that investigators get these jobs under false pretenses, and
that this is somehow illicit and dangerous. What's your response to that?
We have certainly never been prosecuted or pursued for that. Our investigators
provide their real names and social security numbers, and apply for jobs at
these facilities just the same way anyone else would. There are also existing
laws to prevent fraudulently applying for employment. Agribusiness is trying to
sell these bills under a larger umbrella of issues that are already covered by
other laws for the sole purpose of trying to make them seem legitimate. I mean,
they can't just come right out and say they want to prohibit people from taking
and distributing undercover videos of farm animals because they're bad for
business: they have to invent false claims to make these bills appear reasonable
and necessary.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was the first, and remains the only, federal
law that protects a particular industry, specifically agribusiness, and provides
harsher penalties for people who hold particular beliefs, specifically in animal
rights. Are these proposed bans an extension of this type of discriminatory law?
Yes, on the state level, at least. Outlawing investigations could easily be
applied to, say, someone who works in a nursing home, daycare center or hospital
secretly videotaping incidents of abuse. If these bans on undercover exposés are
legitimate, why then do they apply only to animal enterprises? Obviously, we
don't want anyone to be restricted from exposing abuse, whether the victims are
humans or animals. But the fact that these bans would apply only to animal
enterprises makes them discriminatory and unconstitutional.
- Watch MFA's undercover factory farm investigation videos.
- 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.
- Florida residents: Use this convenient Farm Sanctuary Action Alert to
encourage your elected officials to oppose S.B.1246. Also contact your state
senator and state representative directly and ask them to oppose this bill.
- Minnesota residents: Use this convenient HSUS Action Alert to
encourage your elected officials to oppose S.F. 1118 and H.F. 1369. Also contact
your state senator and state representative directly, and ask them to oppose
this bill.
Tune in again on Thursday, April 28 DATE TO BE DETERMINED
for my interview with Jeff Kerr,
General Counsel for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
See also:
mercyforanimals.org/hatchery">mercyforanimals.org/hatchery
mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy
Related
*
http://animalrighter.blogspot.com/2011/04/states-to-outlaw-factory-farm_25.html *
http://worldanimalnet.org
