Have you heard about or visited the new website www.ag-gag.org?
It’s a clever name for an unworthy cause.
The site was created by the Farm Forward organization, an activist group dedicated (so it seems) to undermining conventional food production in favor of smaller scale, labor-intensive, organically minded farming operations. Their mission is based on the premise of making food production more sustainable and its environmental impact less detrimental.
The group, which recently secured a six-figure grant from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to “develop a true alternative to the factory farm for poultry”—which already exists on hundreds of farms broadly characterized as alternative agriculture operations, by the way—pitched its cause as follows:
“Billions of farmed animals live and die in cruel, unhealthy, and unsustainable factory farm conditions. Secrecy is what makes this system possible but hundreds of undercover investigations are slowly helping to end it.
“That is why the agribusiness lobby is trying to pass ag-gag/anti-free speech laws that would punish, or even jail, anyone who makes an unauthorized recording on a farm.
“In recent months corporate backers of factory farming are trying harder than ever to pass ag-gag bills. Sign our petition and join us in taking a stand to protect consumer rights to knowledge, not corporate rights to secrecy.”
The message that Farm Forward wants people to forward to Congress says, “I believe that citizens have a right to know about how food animals are raised and slaughtered. Ag-gag is a bad idea because we should punish the people who commit animal abuse, not the people who report it.”
An alternative scenario
Now, at first glance, it may seem plausible that when abuses at any production site come to light via an undercover video clip, it should be reckoned as a good thing. Bad actors need to be drummed out of any industry.
But what about occasions when unauthorized, clandestine videotaping takes place, yet there is nothing usable in the footage, when no actionable abuses are recorded? Is everyone at Farm Forward comfortable with the notion that anyone can videotape anything, just as long as once in a while something untoward or illegal is uncovered? Are there any privacy issues to be considered, or is any business fair game for anyone to spy on, regardless of the outcome?
Or to put a finer point on it, would the activists who cheer on the operatives who obtain employment and/or access to production operations, then go about recording hidden video footage—as long as it’s a “factory farm”—be equally at ease with similar tactics if they occurred in another setting?
For instance: Would it be equally appropriate to launch a “Med-Scope” website to petition lawmakers to repeal HIPPA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and other medical privacy laws, using the following pitch:
“Each day, tens of thousands of patients are treated by doctors who misdiagnose disease conditions, who overprescribe often dangerous medications and who order unnecessary tests and risky surgery—just so they can fatten their already bloated bottom lines.
“Is all that painful suffering, needless expenses and even occasional deaths something American consumers must be forced to tolerate? We need to expose these deadly deficiencies. Tell your legislator to protect the people who secretly videotape medical procedures so we can save our loved ones from the horrors of medical malpractice. Isn’t the well-being of your loved ones more important than some greedy doctor’s new Porsche?”
Some of that fake screed might ring true, I admit. There are quacks out there, as well as doctors who, as is true of any profession, are simply not very good at what they do. Often they do make mistakes, and those errors can cause serious problems for their patients.
But would anyone really try to argue that invading operating rooms or hospital wards for the purpose of taping “bad docs” at work really be something that supports a larger social good?
Hell, no.
None of us would stand for that noise.
Nor do ordinary citizens support the idea that it’s fine and dandy to commit industrial espionage. One of the biggest employers out here in western Washington is Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer and military contractor. Somebody gets caught videotaping assembly operations at one of the company’s new airplane production lines—even for the purpose of uncovering workplace violations, let’s say—and the local reaction isn’t going to be, “Wow, what an heroic act!” It’s going to be more along the lines of, “Somebody string that guy up!” Especially if that footage led to a foreign competitor gaining proprietary information that could cost jobs.
The point is, we have plenty of laws to cover transgressions in virtually every industry. Plus, there is the judicial system if local, state or federal officials don’t take action—not to mention the court of public opinion—all of which are well-equipped to handle cases of inappropriate behavior or outright malfeasance.
Not only is amnesty for people who violate the privacy and proprietary privileges of farmers and producers a bad idea for them, it’s an even worse idea for society.
Nobody at Farm Forward would be too happy if thieves broke into their offices or hackers compromised their computer data, simply because they didn’t like their politics.
When it comes to activists conducting unauthorized surveillance at a farm or feedlot, then publicizing the resulting video footage, what’s the difference?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.
Comments (2) Leave a comment