by MATT MCINTOSH
Secretly filming farms is a criminal offence in certain parts of the United States, but representatives from Ontario's agricultural sector say enacting similar laws here would be ineffective, and run contrary to the industry's commitment to transparency.
Canadian agriculture, they say, should be both farmer and public friendly.
Over the past few years, states like Utah, Iowa, and Arkansas have adopted laws that make it illegal for employees, or anyone else, to film farm operations without the owner's permission.
These were enacted to discourage a common investigative tactic used by animal rights groups like Mercy For Animals (MFA): activists working for animal rights organizations acquire a job as a farm labourer and use a hidden camera to gather evidence of animal abuse.
A MFA press release from March of 2012 maintains these “ag-gag laws” – a term coined in a New York Times article – will "perpetuate animal abuse" and are detrimental to the public, who deserve more "transparency in the food system."
That effect on industry openness is why people like Crystal Mackay, executive director of Farm Food Care Ontario, also do not support such laws.
"While we appreciate the sentiment of these laws, the concept behind them is not good," says Mackay. "The Canadian agriculture sector is strongly committed to opening the barn door, not closing it, and ‘ag-gag' laws like those seen in parts of the United States would contradict that commitment."
Bill Mitchell, director of public affairs at Egg Farmers of Ontario, shares a similar point of view.
"Our advertising tries to promote transparency and connect consumers with producers," he says. "It's the whole reason we have things like the 'Who Made Your Eggs Today' campaign. Besides, maximizing animal health is in the farmers’ best interest; it's their livelihood after all."
Mackay says ag-gag laws may also be ineffective because of the determination of animal rights activists.
"It's important to remember the overall goal of organizations like MFA is to get rid of animal agriculture all together," says Mackay. "They're very determined, and I can't see these laws keeping them from making more videos."
Still, Mackay stresses that a balance needs to be found between farmer livelihoods, the law, and public opinion.
On the farmer's part, that balance could be found, she says, by keeping the barn doors open, and making sure that everyone involved in the farm's operation follows a strict animal welfare code-of-conduct.
For groups like MFA and their Canadian counterpart, Mackay says releasing all recorded footage instead of short, edited video clips would be a start.
"In Canada last year, for instance, MFA produced a short clip showing the inhumane treatment of pigs on a Manitoba farm. Both Manitoba's chief veterinarian and an independent panel asked MFA for the entire video when conducting their investigation, but were refused," she says. Correction: The video was supplied to the chief veterinarian but not to the expert panel. End of correction. "This happens all the time; MFA also needs to be open about their work."
Clarification: Anna Pippus, Mercy for Animals Canada's Director of Legal Advocacy, says the organization only received a request for full footage from Manitoba's chief veterinarian.
The Manitoba Pork Council, says its chair Karl Kynoch, requested but did not receive full footage from reporters with W5, a news program on Canadian broadcaster CTV. The reporters were covering the issue and had shown the board an edited version of the video while seeking comment. Kynoch says the board did not contact MFA directly for the footage. End of Clarification
The most recent example of the undercover method comes from Alberta, where an agent working for Mercy For Animals Canada found employment at two large, conventional egg farms.
While there, the agent gathered footage, in secret, of unethical farming practices. That footage was later compiled, edited and sent to W5, a news program on Canadian broadcaster CTV, which featured the video on Oct. 19. BF
Comments
Dear Bill Mitchell,
It's great that you want to promote transparency and connect consumers with producers.
Why not film the full process of egg production yourselves, and show the complete video, unedited, to the public?
The public should also be made aware of what the full agenda is for groups like Mercy for Animals when it concerns the feather and livestock Agriculture Industries.
They may want to introduce compulsory meditative chants in public schools, force everyone to drive a Prius or to encourage the building of more nuclear reactors till one melts down and produces a nature preserve the size of Pennsylvania. All that matters here is the indisputable cruelties they've revealed and the public's reaction to it. Treat animals with unfailing compassion and you will have thwarted their master plan.
Actually its the Media's reaction to it.Thousands of farmers treat their animals with with profound respect and compassion but that will never make the headlines.
Its been shown over and over that negative headlines sell and generate more response.
As director of legal advocacy for Mercy For Animals Canada, I personally ensured that the Chief Veterinary Office in Manitoba was hand-delivered a full, unedited copy of our footage, contrary to Crystal Mackay's assertion.
The reality is that confining pigs in gestation crates is one of the most inhumane agricultural practices in existence--so inhumane that gestation crates have been banned by the entire European Union, Australia, New Zealand and nine U.S. states. However, the public has no appetite to sit through hours of footage documenting ongoing abuses, which is why an edited version is provided.
I agree that an open-barn policy is best, and encourage the industry itself to provide the public with full, real-time footage of all aspects of their operations, as slaughterhouses in Europe have begun doing.
Anna Pippus
let's call a spade a spade. sows stalls aren't the real issue for mercy for animals canada they want to stop all animal production and everyone switch to being a vegan. farmers can make all the changes you ask for, but you will not be happy until all barns are empty.
I readily admit I, for one, would be delighted to see the end of meat production. I was raised on a farm, killed many an animal before I'd thought it through, but have been happily vegan for many years, now.
But none of that has any bearing on the cruelties shown by MFA and others. Even those who eat meat, generally, do not want those meat animals to suffer, and their concerns, more than those of relatively few, for now, vegans, drive existing humane slaughter laws—which I'm sure you'd like to see done away with—and efforts to expose their violation.
Gestation crates were implemented because sows are AGGRESSIVE, group housing at the time was decreasing animal welfare because the sows were getting injured. In order to protect the welfare of animals, gestation creates were used, but now that the industry has evolved to using electronic feeders, sow aggression is reduced and those animals can be group-housed without killing eachother. The fact of the matter is things cannot be taken out of context. Rather than saying it is the most inhumane practice in existence, animal welfare experts need to work with producers. Technology is constantly evolving and the treatment of animals will continue to evolve with it, but the way that certain groups try to being about changes is NOT the way to do it. Hens are in cages to protect from parasitic infections, hens were put in cages to protect their welfare, but now that we have discovered that hens have a preference for a nest-box to lay their eggs, it is reasonable to ask that egg producers use enriched cages that allow hens access to nest-boxes (which many producers have changed on their own!) No one can expect change overnight and no one should be insulting the current practices because they were all implemented for a reason. There is always room for improvement, but tying people's hands are only going to force people to knuckle under.
If the ag industry in Canada wishes to be transparent, how about 24/7 cameras in each barn, accessible online to anyone. It Wouldn't be expensive. Or are they all talk ?
Ty Savoy
Lake Echo, NS
how about cameras in everyone's house so we can see how every child and pet is treated in this country.
This is the fallacy of the Weak Analogy, an analogy that bears only the most superficial similarity to the matter at hand. Producing meat for sale puts a merchant in the public sphere, required to acquire appropriate licenses and to produce their product in a responsible fashion, in keeping with the public good. There is no equivalence in putting a camera in my home, unless you plan to buy my cat and eat him. The fact that you imply factory farms should be as private as our homes suggests you believe the public has no right to know what's going on in them, a concept our society has already rejected.
There are cameras where we work there are cameras where we shop there are cameras in our streets so why is it so hard to put cameras in farms and slaughter houses if you have nothing to hide the camera should not be a problem to the employees or to the owner of the place. Don't make a big deal out of something that is fairly easy to have some control over it.
Post new comment