Anti-whistleblower “ag-gag” laws help global pandemics grow and spread

A teen in British Columbia recently became critically ill after becoming infected with H5N1. H5N1 is a highly pathogenic strain of bird flu.

Outbreaks of avian influenza (bird flu) in livestock and flocks on industrial-scale chicken and dairy farms—so-called factory farms—in the United States are raising alarm bells for public health across the world.

Mainstream commercial animal agriculture is conducted in an intensive way in often cramped and unhygienic environments. These conditions are ideal for new viruses to jump from animals to humans.

Beyond potentially lethal pathogens, the conditions in factory farms also raise concerns about air and water contamination and greenhouse gas pollution that exacerbates climate change. Meanwhile, dangerous conditions for workers and considerable animal suffering add compounding concerns for an already controversial industry.

Often, the only light shed on these shadowy, dirty and densely populated spaces comes from hidden-camera investigations by journalists, activists and whistleblower employees. But new laws in Canada—often referred to as “agriculture-gag” laws—are making such investigations illegal.

These laws do a disservice to all Canadians.

Documenting cruelty

In 2020, a worker nicknamed Elijah wired himself with a hidden camera to secretly record conditions at Paragon Farms, a large-scale pig breeding facility in Putnam, Ont. Elijah’s exposé showed a worker carving open the abdomen of a conscious pregnant pig to obtain her live piglets.

The pig in question had suffered from a prolapse and, instead of being humanely euthanized, was kept alive until her piglets were viable outside the womb. Once the piglets were just old enough to survive long enough to be slaughtered for meat, the mother was subject to an illegal C-section—without anesthesia. Only at this point was she finally put out of her misery and euthanized.

For weeks, Elijah documented additional footage, including pigs allegedly being deprived of water for days and being kicked in the face.

After the footage was broadcast on CTV’s W5, Paragon Farms was charged and pleaded guilty to animal cruelty, resulting in a $20,000 fine.

The Paragon Farms exposé led to some industry accountability. But shortly after the footage went public, the Ontario government responded in a puzzling way. Instead of strengthening regulations for animal agriculture, it criminalized whistleblowers who expose these conditions by adopting an “ag-gag” law.

Ag-gagged

Ag-gag laws refer to various types of legislation meant to discourage undercover journalists, activists and/or whistleblower activities in farms or slaughterhouses. Today, if an undercover journalist wants to film conditions on a factory farm, they may face stiff penalties.

In the past several years, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and P.E.I. have all adopted “ag-gag” legislation. Federally, ag-gag bills have been introduced twice. Though neither attempt has been successful.

Legal experts in Canada have raised concerns that ag-gag laws hinder freedom of speech and may be unconstitutional. However, pressure from agribusiness has led governments across the globe, such as Australia and the United States, to adopt various types of ag-gag laws.

The modern model of ag-gag laws is the brainchild of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a U.S.-based conservative think tank. ALEC first drafted model ag-gag legislation in the 1990s to criminalize undercover activities in animal agriculture facilities.

Our recent research shows that Canadian farm industry groups have also strongly supported ag-gag laws. At the same time, Canadian governments have exhibited a close, collaborative relationship with industry groups. This is an unhealthy relationship for both people and animals.

Hidden-camera investigations of farms and slaughterhouses from whistleblowers like Elijah can inspire public deliberation and reflection. Researchers believe that emotions like moral disgust can spur societies to become less violent—including towards animals.

On the flip side, ag-gag laws prevent people from confronting potentially distressing information about both legal and illegal practices in animal agriculture. On the surface this seems like a win for industry. However, research has shown that the perceived lack of transparency actually causes a drop in trust and increased support for tougher animal welfare regulations.

Scenes of animal abuse lead to public outrage, while silencing whistleblowers gives the impression that the industry must have something to hide. In other words, ag-gag laws are not the solution—behaving humanely and ending cruelty to animals is.

Promoting bio-insecurity

So how do governments justify ag-gag laws?

In our research we found that Canadian governments chiefly cite biosecurity as the justification for ag-gag laws. They claim that whistleblowers and animal activists could spread diseases. To our knowledge, there is no evidence that whistleblowers or animal activists have ever spread animal-borne diseases in this way.

Meanwhile, modern animal agriculture is itself a hotbed for diseases like avian influenza—including H5N1. Viruses spread and mutate easily in concentrated populations of chickens, dairy cows and pigs.

Industry and government officials have also painted animal activists as “domestic terrorists” who pose a threat to farmers and their children. Likewise, such claims appear to be baseless.

Despite the power of the agricultural industry, non-profit organizations like the Ontario-based Animal Justice have won some victories in pushing back-against ag-gag laws.

Instead of shielding animal agriculture from public scrutiny and deterring dissent, governments should shift away from an animal welfare regime that expects industry to voluntarily regulate itself.

Governments should adopt more rigorous, mandatory and proactively enforced regulations such as reducing overcrowding on farms. Such interventions would not only align with contemporary values for the humane treatment of animals, but could also prevent the next pandemic.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.