DOCSLIB.ORG

The Case Against Fur Factory Farming

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Case Against Fur Factory Farming The Case Against Fur Factory Farming A Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’ P. O. Box 6500, Nottingham NG4 3GB Tel: +44 (0)115 952 5440 Email: [email protected] www.respectforanimals.org Many images contained within this report ©Jo-Anne McArthur (www.weanimals.org) These images were taken in Europe and North America for the We Animals project and The Ghosts in Our Machine Executive Summary 4 A scientific review of animal welfare standards and ‘WelFur’ The global fur industry has grown rapidly, with increasing n The biological functioning of mink and foxes demand fuelled by growing affluence in developing farmed for fur is impaired, as indicated by levels economies, particularly China and Russia. Worldwide, of stereotypic (abnormal repetitive) behaviour, around 95 million mink and foxes were killed for their fur fur-chewing and tail-biting/self-injury, physical in 2014. Most fur sold globally is from farmed animals, deformities (bent feet) and high levels of with Europe and China being the largest producers. reproductive failure/infant mortality; While fur animals are included in general EU legislation n There is evidence of negative affective on animal welfare, transport and slaughter, there is (emotional) states in farmed fur animals, no detailed species-specific EU legislation setting including fear (as indicated by avoidance/ welfare standards for animals farmed for fur. Serious aggression towards humans), frustration (as concerns for the welfare of animals farmed for fur indicated by stereotypies) and boredom/ were highlighted in the 1999 Council of Europe under-stimulation (as indicated by fur-chewing ‘Recommendation Concerning Fur Animals’ and the 2001 and tail-biting, long periods of inactivity when report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and awake and heightened response to stimuli); Animal Welfare. Recent scientific studies add further n Animals farmed for fur are unable to perform weight to the substantial body of evidence many natural behaviours that they are demonstrating that the needs of mink and foxes motivated to perform and/or frustrated/ are not being met in current housing systems and stressed by the inability to perform, such as cannot be met in any housing system with the interacting with water (for mink), interacting undomesticated animals used by the fur industry. with a sand/earth floor (for foxes), using multiple nest sites, and foraging/ranging (as indicated by Mink and foxes used for fur stereotypic behaviour). production are not domesticated The ‘Five Freedoms’ are widely used internationally as a framework for animal welfare assessment, legislation and Domestication is an evolutionary process by which a assurance standards. Farming systems for mink and population of animals becomes adapted to humans foxes fail to satisfy any of the ‘Five Freedoms’: and captivity. The most important welfare aspect of n Freedom from hunger and thirst: Restrictive domestication is the unique ability of domesticated feeding of overweight animals in preparation species to interact with humans in a positive way. for breeding results in hunger and increased Although, experimentally, mink and silver foxes stereotypic behaviour. can be domesticated, this has not, and cannot, n Freedom from discomfort: Mink and foxes occur on fur farms because changes in the coat farmed for fur in cages have very little control that are characteristic of domesticated animals are over their physical and social environment. incompatible with the fur industry’s demands. On fur Foxes are mostly kept without access to a nest farms, the emphasis is on selection for traits associated box. Handling procedures cause significant with pelt colour and quality, body size and litter size. stress and discomfort. These animals are not adapted to close contact n Freedom from pain, injury and disease: with humans and cannot be considered in any way Common problems include fur-chewing, injuries domesticated. Fear of humans in the undomesticated (both self-inflicted and from other animals), high animals used by the fur industry makes them levels of infant mortality, deformities (bent feet), fundamentally unsuitable for farming. difficulty in moving, diarrhoea and inhumane The welfare of mink and foxes killing methods. n Freedom to express normal behaviour: The farmed for fur in Europe is small and largely barren cages used to house mink and foxes on fur farms do not allow the extremely poor animals to swim, climb, run, dig, hunt/forage or range/disperse. Maternal deprivation and social Approaches to assessing animal welfare can be broadly stress can result from abrupt early weaning, summarised as ‘biological functioning’ (i.e. are the isolation in individual housing, aggression in animals physically and mentally healthy?), ‘affective group housing and the close proximity of (emotional) states’ (i.e. are the animals happy/feeling socially dominant animals. good?) and ‘natural/motivated behaviours’ (i.e. ‘do the animals have what they want?’). Whichever approach n Freedom from fear and distress: Fear is a is emphasised, the welfare of mink and foxes farmed major welfare problem for animals farmed for for fur is seriously compromised because: fur because the mink and foxes used on fur farms are not domesticated. 5 THE CASE AGAINST FUR FACTORY FARMING The Farm Animal Welfare Council considers that minimum European citizens are opposed legal requirements should be such that an animal has a ‘Life worth Living’. Levels of fear, stereotypic behaviour, to fur farming fur-chewing/tail-biting, physical deformities (bent feet) and reproductive failure/infant mortality clearly indicate The fur industry’s ‘Origin Assured’ labelling scheme does that the needs of mink and foxes on fur farms are not not stipulate any specific production standards and being met. Mink are semi-aquatic and show ‘inelastic unenforceable industry codes of practice are sufficient demand’ for water (i.e. they will continue to work for for a country to be ‘Origin Assured’. The ‘Origin Assured’ access to it, despite increasing costs). Mink accustomed label is used on fur produced in small wire cages, to the provision of water, and foxes accustomed to which have inherently low welfare potential and are having access to a clean dry substrate, may show stress opposed by the majority of European citizens. Most when they can no longer enjoy these resources. Access consumers would not consider these conditions to be to these resources would clearly be included within the consistent with the scheme’s claims of humane treatment. Farm Animal Welfare Council’s description of a ‘Life The majority of European citizens recently polled in worth Living’. ten countries, including countries with substantial The welfare of mink and foxes farmed for fur is fur production, is opposed to the farming of animals seriously compromised in current farming systems, for fur in cages. A number of European countries which fail to satisfy all five of the ‘Five Freedoms’ have already implemented bans and there is and do not provide a ‘Life worth Living’. Even if widespread support for a ban at EU level. domesticated animals were to be used, current farming systems could not meet the needs of mink or foxes. 6 A scientific review of animal welfare standards and ‘WelFur’ ‘WelFur’ cannot address the major welfare issues for mink and foxes Conclusion and farmed for fur recommendation The current regulatory framework for the The European Fur Breeders’ Association launched the protection of fur animal welfare in the European ‘WelFur’ project in 2009 to develop on-farm welfare Union is inadequate. Enrichment of existing assessment protocols for mink and foxes. These: housing systems is not sufficient to address n have been specifically designed around the the serious welfare problems inherent in cage very serious limitations of current housing systems. The use of undomesticated animals systems and generally reward the status quo, by the fur industry means that fear of humans even where this is known to compromise welfare, and difficulties in handling and management rather than encouraging the development of would present insurmountable obstacles to the systems with the potential to provide a higher adoption of more extensive systems. It is therefore level of welfare; impossible for the needs of mink and foxes to be met by the fur industry. A ban is the only viable n do not adequately penalise practices that fail to solution to the serious welfare concerns meet existing minimum standards set out in highlighted in this report. the Council of Europe Recommendations; n do not address inhumane handling and killing The farming of mink and foxes for fur should methods and the lack of training for all personnel be prohibited in accordance with Council carrying out killing of fur animals; Directive 98/58/EC: “No animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably n downplay the importance of serious injuries be expected, on the basis of its genotype or that are associated with extreme suffering; phenotype, that it can be kept without n will underestimate the true levels of mortality detrimental effect on its health or welfare” and stereotypies; and the Council of Europe Recommendation Concerning Fur Animals: “No animal shall be n use inadequate measures of hunger, human- animal relationships and positive mental states; kept for its fur if: a. the conditions of this Recommendation cannot be met, or if b. the n use complex scoring systems to combine animal belongs to a species whose members, different welfare measures into a single category despite these conditions being met, cannot indicating the overall welfare level, which may adapt to captivity without welfare problems.” allow high scores on some elements to mask serious failings on others; n will not achieve WelFur’s stated aims of ensuring ‘a high level of animal welfare’ on fur farms and functioning as ‘the new scientific reference’ for fur-farmed species; n do not take account of societal concerns and score welfare only up to a ceiling of ‘best current practice’; n would be misleading if used as the basis for a labelling system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Full Report
    As we look back over the four years since we announced the Perdue Commitments to Animal Care, it has been a journey of listening, learning and evolving. The Perdue Commitments to Animal Care was shaped with input from diverse stakeholders – including some of our harshest critics – and we continue to seek their input. We learn from a wide range of perspectives, whether they be farmers, our associates, advocates, customers or consumers, in formal and informal ways. Cumulatively this has resulted in 65 initiatives designed to address one of the Five Freedoms or one of the other three pillars of our program. And perhaps more importantly, these initiatives have moved from studies or intentions to programs and best practices that are now embedded in how we do business every day. We’re proud of our progress and eager to continue our journey. The following pages report on the most recent and core ongoing initiatives as well as our future goals. Highlights of our recent progress include: • Expanding the number of farms with free-range, outdoor access • Testing the feasibility and benefits of on-farm hatching to improve early chick care • Collaborating on animal welfare research with Mercy for Animals • Conducting our second farmer contest to tap into their experience and expertise in raising chickens • Opening our third Poultry Learning Center, viewing farms which offer a transparent, interactive experience to learn about poultry farming and proper animal care • Holding our fourth Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and our leadership, in July 2019. Our next summit will be held in October 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering and Vegan Outreach
    Paez, Eze (2016) Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach. Animal Sentience 7(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1101 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.087: Paez Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Eze Paez Department of Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona Abstract: Ng’s strategic proposal seems to downplay the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals and omit what may be the most effective strategy to reduce the harms farmed animals suffer: vegan outreach. Eze Paez, lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, studies normative and applied ethics, especially ontological and normative aspects of abortion and the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. He is a member of Animal Ethics. upf.academia.edu/ezepaez Underestimating the importance of wild animal suffering. Ng’s (2016) view is not that animal advocates should focus only on farmed animals, to the exclusion of those that live in the wild. He concedes that our efforts must also be directed toward raising awareness of the harms suffered by animals in nature. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest that these efforts should be minimal relative to those devoted to reducing the harms farmed animals suffer. Ng underestimates the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals in terms of net reduction in suffering perhaps because he is overestimating people’s resistance to caring about wild animals and to intervening in nature on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty on Animals and Related Rights
    PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020) CRUELTY ON ANIMALS AND RELATED RIGHTS Maithili Chaudhury1, Nilanjan Chakraborty2 1,2 Asst. Professer, Faculty of Legal Studies, Siksha O Anusandhan Email: [email protected], [email protected] Maithili Chaudhury, Nilanjan Chakraborty: Cruelty On Animals And Related Rights -- Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214x Keywords: Animal Rights, Animal Husbandry, Anti-cruelty ethic, Social Ethic ABSTRACT Businesses and occupations must remain consistent with social ethics or risk losing their freedom. An important social ethical issue that has arisen over the past four decades is animal welfare in various areas of human use. The ethical interest of the society has outgrown the conventional morality of animal cruelty, which originated in biblical times and is embodied in the laws of all civilized societies. There are five major reasons, most notably the substitution of husbandry-based agriculture with industrial agriculture, for this new social concern. This loss of husbandry to industry has threatened the traditional fair contract between humans and animals, leading to significant animal suffering on four different fronts. Because such suffering is not caused by cruelty, it was necessary to express social concerns with a new ethic for animals. Since ethics is based on pre-existing ethics rather than ex nihilo, society has looked for its properly modified ethics for humans to find moral categories that apply to animals. This concept of legally encoded rights for animals has emerged as a plausible vehicle for reform. The paper provides brief summary of the animal welfare board of India, legal capacity in order to possess rights and tries to establish relation between legal personhood and rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumers' Evaluation of Animal Welfare Labels on Poultry Products
    Journal of Applied Communications Volume 104 Issue 1 Special Issue: Association for Article 1 Communication Excellence 2019 Conference Consumers’ Evaluation of Animal Welfare Labels on Poultry Products Rexanna Powers Nan Li Texas Tech University Courtney Gibson Texas Tech University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/jac Part of the Mass Communication Commons, and the Public Relations and Advertising Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Powers, Rexanna; Li, Nan; Gibson, Courtney; and Irlbeck, Erica (2020) "Consumers’ Evaluation of Animal Welfare Labels on Poultry Products," Journal of Applied Communications: Vol. 104: Iss. 1. https://doi.org/ 10.4148/1051-0834.2310 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Applied Communications by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Consumers’ Evaluation of Animal Welfare Labels on Poultry Products Abstract As the public has expressed increasing concerns regarding the humane raising and handling of farm animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry organizations have developed a series of standards enforcing animal welfare in the poultry industry. Labels and value-added claims were created and defined to differentiate products and to inform consumers’ purchasing decisions. This study identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in the U.S. grocery stores, including both the mandatory labels and third-party, voluntary labels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2016 The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation Courtney G. Lee Pacifc McGeorge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Animal Law Commons Recommended Citation Courtney G. Lee, The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation, 95 Neb. L. Rev. 194 (2016). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Courtney G. Lee* The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 195 II. Background of the Animal Welfare Act ................ 196 A. Enactment and Evolution.......................... 196 B. Early Amendments ................................ 197 C. Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act of 1985 .............................................. 198 D. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees .... 201 E. IACUC Effectiveness .............................. 203 III. Coverage of the AWA .................................. 205 A. What Is an “Animal” under the AWA? .............
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products
    sustainability Review Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products Li Lin-Schilstra * and Arnout R. H. Fischer Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands; arnout.fi[email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 8 May 2020; Accepted: 11 June 2020; Published: 13 June 2020 Abstract: More and more consumers, at least in Western developed countries, are attentive to the sustainability aspects of their food, one of which concerns animal welfare. The conflict of harming an animal for the joy of eating meat causes a moral dilemma, affecting consumers’ reactions to, and choices of, animal-friendly products. This systematic review identified 86 studies from Scopus and Web of Science. The review outlines: (1) What are the personal antecedents among consumers regarding moral conflicts?; (2) In what situation do moral conflicts occur in consumer food choice?; (3) How do consumers emotionally experience the moral dilemma?; (4) How do consumers resolve moral conflicts over animal products? Researchers have studied personal factors and situational factors that arouse consumers’ moral dilemma and how the dilemma is solved, during which emotions and dissonance come into play. When synthesizing these findings into a comprehensive model, we notice that the current research is lacking on how personal factors change and interact with situations, which limits the understanding of the real-life context of consumers’ moral dilemma as well as their choices of animal-friendly products. More in-depth studies are needed to find situational factors that contribute to this complex psychological process. Keywords: consumer behavior; moral dilemma; meat; animal-friendly products; systematic review 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Meat Chickens: Challenges and Priorities for Good Animal Welfare © RSPCA Australia 2020
    Meat chickens: Challenges and priorities for good animal welfare © RSPCA Australia 2020 RSPCA Australia PO Box 265 Deakin West ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6282 8300 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rspca.org.au Contents Introduction 4 Genetics 5 Stocking density 6 Housing 7 Enrichment 9 Handling 11 On-farm euthanasia 12 Depopulation 13 Transport 14 Stunning and slaughter 15 Hatchery 17 Breeder birds 18 Next steps 19 Bibliography 20 Introduction RSPCA Australia believes that good animal welfare must be an inherent part of all farm animal production. This goes beyond preventing pain, suffering or distress and minimising negative experiences, to ensuring animals can express their natural behaviour in an enriching environment, feel safe, have healthy positive experiences and a good quality of life. Providing good animal welfare means providing animals with all the necessary elements to ensure their physical and mental health and a sense of positive individual wellbeing. This document highlights the key animal welfare challenges for the meat chicken industry in Australia and sets out RSPCA Australia’s priorities, informed by current best practice and international animal welfare science, to address these challenges, with the aim of ensuring all chickens experience good animal welfare throughout their lives. The key challenges and priorities set out in this document will inform the future review of the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standard for meat chickens. The review process considers the relevant animal welfare science, the extent to which improvements can be implemented across the entire production chain and the commercial practicality of proposed changes, but always with the underlying aim of ensuring continuous improvement to the welfare of chickens farmed under the Scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Reporting and the New Wave of Ag-Gag Laws
    PUNISHING ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS FOR ANIMAL ABUSE: RAPID REPORTING AND THE NEW WAVE OF AG-GAG LAWS MATTHEW SHEA* In the last few years, several states have proposed so-called “ag-gag” legis- lation. Generally, these bills have sought to criminalize (1) recording vid- eo or taking pictures of agricultural facilities without the consent of the owner and/or (2) entering an agricultural facility under false pretenses or misrepresenting oneself in job applications with the intent to commit an unauthorized act. These bills have gained little public support and have mostly been defeated in the past two years. However, a third type of ag- gag legislation is gaining traction in state legislatures across the country. This new type of law would require individuals to turn over any video footage of animal abuse to the police within 24, 48, or 120 hours of obtain- ing the evidence. Though these laws are promoted as a sincere effort to guard against animal abuse, critics argue that a pattern of abuse must be documented in order to build a strong case for prosecution, and that these industry-supported bills would force undercover journalists and activists to blow their cover after one incident, allowing facility owners and opera- tors to claim the incident was just a one-time occurrence. I. INTRODUCTION On January 30, 2008, the Humane Society of the United States released a video of workers at the Hallmark Meat Packing Company in Chino, California “kicking sick cows and using fork- lifts to force them to walk.”1 As a result, the now defunct * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Pain Perception
    An HSUS Report: Fish and Pain Perception Stephanie Yue, Ph.D. * Abstract In several arenas—legislative, academic, corporate, advocacy, and scientific—the welfare of fish has increasingly attracted attention due in part to the expansion of the aquaculture industry, as well as the growing understanding that many handling methods, management systems, and slaughter practices can induce pain and therefore reduce animal welfare. Unlike other animals raised for human consumption, however, general consensus has not always afforded fish the presupposition that they are, in fact, capable of feeling pain. The typical arguments in support of or against attributing pain capacity to fish revolve around their neuroanatomical development, behavioral and cognitive complexity, physiology, and anatomy. After reviewing the current scientific evidence and exploring the many arguments, it is irrefutably substantiated that fish are capable of experiencing pain. Introduction Aquaculture, as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is “the propagation and rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or selected environments for any commercial, recreational or public purpose.”1 Described as the fastest-growing food production sector in the world, aquaculture’s growth is expected to continue.2 Indeed, simply to satisfy current worldwide fish consumption, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations predicted in 2006 that worldwide aquaculture production must nearly double in the next 25 years. 3 In the last two decades, the aquaculture industry † has expanded approximately 8% per year, and it is expected that the number of farmed fish will continue to rise, 4 perhaps surpassing the number of wild-caught animals from the world’s fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Jallikattu’ in Tamil Nadu, India
    Vol. 11(3),pp. 20-30, March 2019 DOI: 10.5897/JMCS2018.0644 Article Number: 75BE85960500 ISSN: 2141-2545 Copyright © 2019 Journal of Media and Communication Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournlas.org/JMCS Studies Review The voices of culture, conservation and the media event around bullfight ‘Jallikattu’ in Tamil Nadu, India Jayashree B1*, Arul Aram1 and Yasmin Ibrahim2 1Department of Media Science, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Anna University, Chennai, India. 2International Business and Communication, Queen Mary, University of London, UK. Received 1 December, 2018; Accepted 11 February, 2019 In the Southern Indian ‘State of Tamil Nadu’, the traditional Jallikattu sport involving young men competing against bulls is described as one of the ancient living sports in the modern era. Based on petitions by animal rights groups, the Supreme Court of India banned the ancient sport of Jallikattu in 2014 on the grounds of animal cruelty. The ban of this traditional sport ignited protests culminating in a large-scale 15-day movement across the state from January 8 to 23, 2017 with a massive mobilization on the world’s second longest beach, the Marina in the state capital of Chennai. Largely propelled by the youths, the ban was perceived as an attack on Tamil culture and identity. The anger was directed at foreign animal rights activism and an unstable political situation gained momentum with media attention. This resulted in the promulgation of a central Act to overturn the ban and facilitate conduct of the sport. This paper examines the role of social media rallying the public and activism against the Jallikattu ban.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering Is Intractable
    DRAFT – do not quote or circulate without permission Please note: This is the penultimate draft of a paper forthcoming in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Please refer to the published version. The Online First version is available at http://bit.ly/2CQFjOD . Wild animal suffering is intractable Nicolas Delon and Duncan Purves1 Abstract Most people believe that suffering is intrinsically bad. In conjunction with facts about our world and plausible moral principles, this yields a pro tanto obligation to reduce suffering. This is the intuitive starting point for the moral argument in favor of interventions to prevent wild animal suffering (WAS). If we accept the moral principle that we ought, pro tanto, to reduce the suffering of all sentient creatures, and we recognize the prevalence of suffering in the wild then we seem committed to the existence of such a pro tanto obligation. Of course, competing values such as the aesthetic, scientific or moral values of species, biodiversity, naturalness or wildness, might be relevant to the all-things-considered case for or against intervention. Still, many argue that, even if we were to give some weight to such values, no plausible theory could resist the conclusion that WAS is overridingly important. This article is concerned with large-scale interventions to prevent WAS and their tractability and the deep epistemic problem they raise. We concede that suffering gives us a reason to prevent it where it occurs, but we argue that the nature of ecosystems leaves us with no reason to predict that interventions would reduce, rather than exacerbate, suffering.
    [Show full text]
  • Ag-Gag” Laws from Broad Spectrum of Interest Groups
    STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED “AG-GAG” LAWS FROM BROAD SPECTRUM OF INTEREST GROUPS We, the undersigned group of civil liberties, public health, food safety, environmental, food justice, animal welfare, legal, workers’ rights, journalism, and First Amendment organizations and individuals, hereby state our opposition to proposed whistleblower suppression laws, known as “ag-gag” bills, being introduced in states around the country. These bills seek to criminalize investigations of farms that reveal critical information about the production of animal products. These bills represent a wholesale assault on many fundamental values shared by all people across the United States. Not only would these bills perpetuate animal abuse on industrial farms, they would also threaten workers’ rights, consumer health and safety, law enforcement investigations and the freedom of journalists, employees and the public at large to share information about something as fundamental as our food supply. We call on state legislators around the nation to drop or vote against these dangerous and un-American efforts. American Civil Liberties Union Center for Science in the Public Interest American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana to Animals (ASPCA) Clean Water Network Amnesty International Compassion In World Farming Animal Legal Defense Fund Compassion Over Killing Animal Welfare Institute The Community Environmental Legal Defense Association of Prosecuting Attorneys Fund A Well-Fed World Consumer Federation of America
    [Show full text]