Through the lens: The importance of documenting animal abuse

Originally published April 2013 in Discordia online zine.

So-called "ag-gag" bills being introduced in several US states threaten to suppress those uncovering gross abuses in the farming industry. The bills aim to deter whistle-blowers and animal advocacy groups from documenting animal abuse on farms.

In my latest article, Through the lens: The importance of documenting animal abuse, I challenge the rationale of ag-gag bill proponents, and look at why undercover surveillance in slaughterhouses and farming operations is fundamentally important. 

Ultimately, I urge readers to reflect on the role they play in the exploitation of animals, via their purchase and consumption of animal products.

---

The scenes are chilling.

Individuals being beaten and kicked, jabbed in the eyes, jolted with electric shocks, and rammed with machinery. And then, in a finale of ferocity, the terrified souls are thrust to their deaths.

This house of horrors once produced cow meat for human consumption. It was even tasked with supplying meat for children’s lunches under the National School Lunch Program in the US.

But clandestine footage recorded by The Humane Society revealed the now-bankrupt slaughterhouse brutalising “downed” (very ill) cows before butchering them for food, prompting the largest meat recall in US history. 

Despite the compelling public interest argument for these kinds of exposés, bills being introduced in several US states threaten to suppress those uncovering gross abuses in the farming industry. So-called “ag-gag” bills aim to deter whistle-blowers and animal advocacy groups from documenting animal abuse on farms.

It presents a backwards, “shoot the messenger” situation where those unearthing cruelty are painted as villains as their activities are criminalised, while the abusers can virtually act with impunity under inadequate industry regulation.

Catalogue of cruelty

In addition to animal protection, ag-gag laws have implications for issues of food safety, labour, free speech, and freedom of the press. The conditions of the bills vary, but apply uniformly to journalists, employees of farming facilities, and activists.

Some jurisdictions deem it illegal to take photographs or footage at a farming operation. Other provisions obligate prospective farm employees to disclose any links to animal advocacy groups. Several versions of the bill require individuals to turn any footage over to authorities within a short timeframe, or risk being found guilty of an infraction.  

An undercover activist working with Mercy for Animals argues that this time constraint can hinder thorough investigations, which are required to determine if abuse uncovered is systemic and who is involved. He reveals that ag-gag laws have stifled his work, as filming in states where ag-gag bills have been enacted is a “no-go”.

There is a concern that these laws could be duplicated around the world.

Covert investigations have long played a central role in exposing brutality within the farming industry, and in supplying valuable evidence leading to prosecution and closure of facilities.

In the UK, Animal Aid footage recently caught slaughterhouse workers viciously beating pigs and burning them with cigarettes, leading to the convictions of two of the thugs involved.

In Australia, a Victorian slaughterhouse lost its licence after Animals Australia footage showed animals being beaten to death with sledgehammers, and revealed breaches of stunning protocols. Unfortunately, charges against the owner were recently withdrawn.

In March, sickening footage recorded by Animal Liberation at a Sydney Ingham’s turkey slaughterhouse showed employees routinely beating, kicking, punching, stomping on, and committing other horrendous acts against turkeys. The footage, which shows workers celebrating the violence, was provided to police for investigation.

Clandestine footage led to the forced closure of a Sydney slaughterhouse last year, after it revealed pigs being belted and pummelled by staff with implements believed to be iron bars. Breaches of stunning rules and overzealous use of cattle prods were also recorded.  

Harrowing images emerged from Wally’s piggery near Canberra last year. Disgusting scenes filmed by Animal Liberation included pigs being beaten, attacked with sledgehammers and hacked at the throat by employees, pigs bleeding to death, dead piglets decomposing in stalls beside their mothers, and pig corpses abandoned for days and eaten by other pigs and stray cats. Inconceivably, this piggery continues to operate.  

Footage aired on Lateline in February showed the abominable treatment of baby dairy cows (“bobby calves”) in a VIC slaughterhouse. The video shows the frightened calves, who are separated from their mothers within hours of birth, being thrown and taunted by staff on their way to slaughter. These calves don’t serve any profitable purpose to the dairy industry, since the milk that is meant for them is stolen for human consumption. The doomed baby cows, deprived of their own mother’s milk, are treated like garbage.

This string of appalling incidents, spotlighted by secret footage, confirms that these are not merely “rogue” operators. Conversely, these are examples of the violence and control which inhabit the very core of the animal production industries.

These incidents can be viewed as structural elements, and inevitable side effects, of industries which forcefully transform the bodies and secretions of animals into consumer food products. Dominance and suffering are the essential fabric of this process.

This is why undercover footage is so valuable: it exposes the inherent violence characterising these industries.

Setting the agenda

Two of the main arguments from ag-gag bill proponents centre on issues of privacy and context. I believe these arguments are problematic for several reasons.

Animals incarcerated within the food production system are at the complete mercy of operators. The fact that they are considered as property, as mere commodities, places them at great vulnerability. Against this backdrop, how is it appropriate for the privacy of operators to supersede the scrutiny of their treatment of the sentient creatures under their “care”? How can it override the public’s right to know how their food is produced?

Farmers profess concern that common animal treatment practices could potentially be misunderstood or taken “out of context” by the public. This not only trivialises the public’s ability to decipher between acceptable and unacceptable treatment, but ignores the fact that the industries themselves – which have a vested interest in assuaging the public, and which often fight to reduce animal living standards in order to increase profits - frame the context. 

Industry practices should be analysed in a framework transcending industry interpretation. We must beware the illusion that “context” provides a stamp of legitimacy.

Horrendous “standard” practices should be analysed independently of industry spin; for example, debeaking, dehorning, mulesing, and tail docking – all without anaesthetic; the routine gassing or mincing alive of male chicks born into the egg industry; and the forced removal of hours-old calves from their mothers in the dairy industry.

It is obviously in any industry’s best interests to have full control over the message, and, correspondingly, the perception of the product. This allows deceptive marketing campaigns (i.e., images of egg-laying hens wandering sprawling pastures) and the use of euphemistic terms (“humane meat”, “happy cows”) to conveniently gloss over oppressive conditions within the farming system.

Additionally, high-level abuse of animals, and welfare regulation breaches, are often explained by industry within the context of an “anomaly”, or “rogue” behaviour. They don’t want us to know how common they actually are. (For example, eight out of nine slaughterhouses filmed by Animal Aid UK from 2009-2011 were breaking animal welfare laws.)

Exposing the violence

It’s plain to see why farming groups are intent on shrouding their business operations in a veil of secrecy. The objective is to safeguard profits, and this will always trump animal “welfare” concerns. 

But independent evidence-gathering is vitally important, and especially so when documenting industries where the vulnerable cannot speak out for themselves.

For most people, acquiring animal products generally amounts only to a supermarket transaction. This allows them to maintain a separation and a disconnect from any role in the production process. Therefore, it is crucial for people to observe, understand, and accept responsibility for what their money is sanctioning.

There will always be violence, abuse and misery in a system where animals have the status only as commodities, rather than recognised as sentient beings with the capacity to suffer profoundly. Violence simply cannot be extricated from such a system.

Undercover footage and images pose the question to all consumers: how can this system’s continued existence be justified? Examine your conscience. 
--

Originally published April 2013 in Discordia online zine.