Why Iowa Bill that Bans Undercover Filming at Livestock Farms is a Bad IdeaPosted by Stephanie Ulmer, Guest Blogger on June 6, 2011
A post on kcrg.com reports that “Opponents of a measure aimed at helping agricultural operations guard against ‘gotcha’ videos secretly filmed inside livestock operations are raising food safety and other concerns in an attempt to keep House File 589 from reaching Gov. Terry Branstad’s desk this legislative session.” Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, said last month that the bill, which is backed by agricultural interests, not only raises concerns about constitutional rights, animal welfare, and employee rights, but carries food-safety implications in the wake of last summer’s salmonella outbreak that forced millions of eggs to be recalled. And how about the great beef recall in California in 2008?
The post states that the legislation, which has already passed the House on a 66-27 vote and is on its way to the Senate, seeks to create new criminal and civil penalties for anyone convicted of tampering or interfering with property associated with a livestock or crop operation or secretly recording on farms. It could carry a penalty of up to five years in jail, as the proposed penalties range from misdemeanors to felonies. Backers say the legislation is needed to stop animal-rights activists from disrupting farm operations and using selectively edited video or photographs to put the agriculture industry in a bad light. Critics counter that the measure puts a chill on whistleblowers who would otherwise report the inhumane and illegal treatment of animals at some operations. Animal law experts also say there are serious constitutional questions with Iowa’s bill.
McCoy also said, “This could impact other industries who will also ask for this protection – it could be nursing homes, child-care centers, hospitals, medical clinics or Planned Parenthood clinics that don’t want undercover video of their care and practices of people being shared as well…It’s a first amendment issue but it’s also a consumer protection issue.” To make his point clear, McCoy has drafted amendments to the bill seeking to expand the prohibition on secretly videotaping at livestock facilities to include other facilities, such as nursing homes and abortion clinics.
In an editorial that appeared in the Des Moines Register, Drake University law professors Jerry L. Anderson and Jonathan Rosenbloom tried to answer the following questions: what does the animal agriculture industry have to hide and how did it convince key state officials to campaign for a law which would violate a citizen’s first amendment rights? They argued that one reasonable response to these videos would be to adopt humane treatment standards for agricultural animals. And some states have responded in just this way, banning confinement crates for veal calves and pregnant sows. Other states have acted to regulate restrictive poultry cages. In Iowa, however, the Legislature proposes instead to ban the videos. The professors believe that the bill is clearly intended to completely chill depictions of livestock abuse.
Their conclusion on the Iowa bill seems right on… “rather than address the issue of humane treatment of animals, the Iowa Legislature wants to kill the messenger.” Is this really the answer? If the truth cannot come out, then how can the animals be adequately and properly protected? Shouldn’t the legislators be debating how to ensure animal safety rather than how to protect some farmers from continuing possibly inhumane and illegal practices? The fact that this bill is even coming close to being a reality is very disconcerting. Similar bills have been introduced this year in Florida, Minnesota and New York. How unfortunate. If it could be proven that a video or photo was falsified, improperly edited or misrepresented true conditions, then that would be one thing — and could already be properly remedied through existing fraud and libel laws. But to penalize just the action of taking a photo or film is unreasonable, and would unduly harm the animals that so need our protection.