Tag Archives: animal

Farmageddon – the true cost of cheap meat Updated for 2026





Whatever happened that led a great part of humankind to give the animal kingdom such a lowly status in the overall evolutionary pattern of life on Earth?

How is it that we have subjected millions and millions of our animal cousins to concentration camp conditions so utterly abhorrent that to call their brief time on the planet ‘living’ would constitute a serious misnomer?

One of the critical factors that drove me to develop a mixed organic farming system back in the mid 1970’s, was to give the cows, pigs, sheep and hens that formed the basis of my farming enterprise, the chance to grow up in a setting designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions that these creatures would experience in their native environment.

It is important to recognise that farming is an enclosed agricultural system which has built-in compromises deemed necessary for the controlled raising of both livestock and crops. Within this context we have to be aware that the word ‘natural’ does not accurately describe this scenario, even when the best and most humane principles and methods are applied.

However, those who embark upon an organic farming management practice commit to a set of standards that places strong emphasis on animal welfare as well as forming a close affinity with the soil and the cyclic patterns of nature that underlie rotational, non chemical farming practices.

Under such a system the farmer has the chance to develop a strong affinity with nature and a deep respect for the animals and plants under his or her care. But unfortunately, the great majority of people living in post industrial Westernised societies ingest a daily diet that has little or nothing to do with such a caring approach.

On the contrary, the majority of individuals negotiating their way through 21st century urban and suburban life styles demand cheap, uniform foods that, in order to fulfil the consumers’ supermarket groomed expectations, are grown according to methods that are about as different from ‘natural’ as plastic is to wood.

Enter the factory farm …

Philip Lymbery and Isobel Oakshot, in their book ‘Farmageddon – the True Cost Cheap Meat‘ have gone to great lengths to raise awareness of just how devious and deceptive is the globalised ‘cheap food’ conveyor belt that churns out the Western World’s daily diet.

Philip Lymbery is the director of Compassion in World Farming, a remarkable farmer pioneered organisation formed in 1967 which now has worldwide offices and an equally eclectic swelling membership.

I met Philip on a number of occasions during the 1990’s and recall his quietly profound concerns about the state of our toxic food chain with its heavy reliance upon animals given next to no chance to express their normal psychological needs and fundamental freedoms.

At that time Philip was somewhat sceptical of the Soil Association’s welfare standards for organically raised livestock which I and my colleagues were moulding and refining for publication, seeing any form of commercial farming as synonymous with animal exploitation.

I understood his reticence: too many organisations make unrealistic and sometimes downright untruthful claims for the production methods that they espouse. Who hasn’t seen those adverts depicting perfect looking farmsteads full of ‘happy hens’, smiling cows and contented pigs rooting around in ye oldie traditional farmyards – and then ends by displaying a mass produced product that bears no relationship whatsoever with such scenes.

The hell we inflict on the animals that feed us

During their specially planned world trip that makes up the body of evidence in this book, Philip Lymbery and Elizabeth Oakshot, political editor of The Sunday Times, come across scenes which would incriminate the perpetrators to a lifetime in gaol if the World possessed a justice system that dispensed genuine justice for man and beast alike.

On describing their visit to the hen houses of the UK’s largest egg supplier in Nottinghamshire, the authors state: “The egg farm was a series of giant sheds clad in corrugated iron. Inside were a million hens. Throughout their short seventy two week life span (chickens can live eight to ten years) they would never see daylight.

“They lived in cages around five metres long, known in the business as ‘colonies’. Suspended lights brightened and dimmed at particular times to create the impression of night and day, all geared to regulating the egg-laying process.”

Pigs, suffer a very similar fate to hens and a chapter in the book is devoted to laying bare the tortuous conditions suffered by the great majority of large scale pig farms which supply the main supermarket chains.

In the part of the voyage that takes them to the USA the authors report how, in California, thousands of dairy cows (8,000 in one herd is not unusual) are milked to death in vast purpose built mechanised sheds featuring robotic cow carousels and antibiotic laced genetically modified feeds dispensed by automatic conveyors.

The whole thing working around the clock in what is the ultimate ‘factory farm’ format. The unfortunate animals that must endure this hideous regime are milked-out after just two to three years and sold off into the ubiquitous hamburger trade.

There is an alternative!

By contrast, my organically managed Guernsey herd of forty cows lived an average of fourteen years, very rarely needing any form of vetinary intervention throughout their milking careers.

This is due to the fact that we never pushed our cows to produce maximum yields, always treating them with respect and love while feeding them a diet of home grown grasses and clovers plus other green matter that fulfils the natural needs of herbivorous ruminant quadrupeds.

The glorious unpasteurised milk and cream that resulted was eagerly purchased by the local community and I seldom needed to go further than ten miles to complete my sales round.

Farmageddon also plunges into the fish farming phenomena; another form of concentration camp where fish are kept in intense confinement with high rates of mortality and where sea lice proliferate leading to a catastrophic decline of wild fish stocks.

‘The illusion of cheap food’ is smashed to smithereens as the reader is taken behind the largely closed doors of a ruthless global multinational industry supplying the World’s largest supermarket chains and industrial food giants.

To the authors’ credit, they never sensationalise the shocking scenes they witness, preferring to simply convey the facts and expose the reality of a brazenly exploitive empire conveniently sanitized and dressed-up as a caring, quality controlled production system bringing you, the consumer, everything you could ever wish for and all in the air conditioned convenience of your local hypermarket food dispenser.

Fortunately, the reader is guided towards both personal and more general solutions, under such headings as “how to avoid the coming crisis” and “consumer power – what you can do”. They are both pragmatic and realistic guides for the perplexed – sensibly encouraging readers to buy ‘local’ from producers one comes to trust and respect. Not wasting food by over-buying and avoiding over-eating meat products.

Human health is recognised as being dependent upon soils, animals and plants being treated as vital living organisms whose optimum growth is achieved by using natural ingredients and through the adoption of a caring, loving attitude, that is the antithesis of the subhuman battle ground that epitomizes the twenty first century factory farm.

All in all, I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants a grounded, undiluted account of the machinations of the global food industry and its devastating affect on the lives of millions of sentient beings, including ourselves.

 


 

The book:Farmageddon – the True Cost Cheap Meat‘ is written by Philip Lymbery and Isobel Oakshot and published by Bloomsbury.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, broadcaster and activist. He is currently the President of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. His most recent book ‘In Defence of Life – A Radical Reworking of Green wisdom’ is published by Earth Books. Julian’s website is www.julianrose.info.

 

 




389904

TTIP is a lethal attack on food safety and animal welfare Updated for 2026





The EU’s recently published Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) proposals for the chapter on food safety and animal welfare – under negotiation this week – is a regulatory train crash in which governments will abrogate their powers to remote international bodies and committees of trade experts.

The proposed text, an analysis by Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) reveals, will undermine existing health and safety regulations in both the EU and the US with potentially disastrous results for food safety and animal welfare on both sides of the Atlantic.

With the release of the document, says FOEE, “it is now clear that the over-riding objective is the maximization of trade.” The regulatory powers of national governments are to be shifted from the EU and national and state governments to a new ‘trade committee’, removing their ability to set higher standards.

There is the also the new prospect of novel foods including GMOs, cloned animals, and nano materials being introduced after minimal health and safety checks – while provisions for animal welfare are non-binding.

Food standards in both the EU and the US will have to be those established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – and its industry-dominated Codex Alimentarius Commission – preventing the adoption of more demanding standards anywhere within the trading bloc.

“This trade agreement is a Trojan Horse that will threaten our food safety and environment”, says Adrian Bebb, Food and agriculture campaigner with FOEE – echoing the ‘Trojan horse’ theme at today’s boisterous demo at the European Commission in Brussels, organised by FOEE and Global Justice Now

“Trade officials whose primary objective is to increase trade and boost corporate profits will have first say over future food safety rules. A trade agreement is not the place to decide about our food safety.”

Based on the available text, warns FOEE, “we fear that TTIP is likely to restrict efforts to build healthier, fairer and more sustainable food systems on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Or as Renée Vellvé of GRAIN puts it: “There is nothing in here that will advance the interests of consumers, small farmers or public health.”

Maximizing trade at all costs

The clearly stated purpose of the TTIP agreement is to facilitate trade “to the greatest extent possible”. Article 2.1 of the proposed chapter on food safety, plant and animal health and welfare, recognises governments’ rights to “protect human, animal or plant life and health” in their territories.

But it appears that regulatory authorities will in fact be unable to realize this right, given the emphasis on increasing trade between the EU and the US, and because each and every regulation must be justified as “least trade restrictive”.

Under Article 13, even countries’ rights to inspect food and agricultural imports at the port of entry – a key measure which has been used to safeguard public health – will be limited to “exceptional cases”, e.g. to check for “regulated pests”.

And under Article 8, in nearly all cases those checks will be carried out by the exporting country. Any attempt by the importing country to re-inspect imports would be banned as “redundant” (Article 8).

And while Article 3 of the text requires countries to “avail themselves of the resources necessary to implement the chapter” , there is no requirement to ensure the more extensive resources needed to protect human, animal or plant life and health. As FOEE observes, “Trade appears to have more of a priority than safety.”

As for rules on food safety, plant and animal health and welfare, these can be challenged by investors and governments who think they are too exacting – but not by members of the public concerned their failure to adequately protect human, animal or plant life and health.

    Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Director of Internal Strategies at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, fear that the proposals will effectively put a stop to efforts taking place in many countries to create safe and sustainable food production and supply networks.

    “People in many states are rebuilding their food systems from the ground up”, she says. “The proposals in the SPS chapter could create new obstacles to cut that process short.”

    Shifting power from governments to trade experts

    Under Article 18 of the text, the EU proposes that responsibility for initial decisions on food health and safety will be transferred away from national governments and agencies to a wholly unaccountable joint EU-US management committee, made up of trade and regulatory experts and, potentially, industry representatives.

    The proposal appears to match the demands put forward by the US biotech lobby organisation, BIO, to US trade representatives in May 2013. And of course, trade experts tend to see safety rules as technical trade barriers rather than as reflecting the needs and demands of society.

    Under this system, for example, any review of safety procedures for GMO crops in the EU would be considered by the trade committee first, before undergoing an impact assessment, and comprehensive consultations with national governments in the European Union.

    “Trade experts are likely to see measures to introduce or extend moratoria on products as barriers to trade”, points out FOEE. “This would put at risk existing protection measures, such as the moratorium on several growth hormones, scheduled for review.”

      Local standards will be over-ruled

      There are concerns that the Commission’s proposal will undermine measures introduced at the local, US state, or EU member state level intended to raise standards – measures which have historically led to standards being increased across the board.

      Under Article 6, any new rules set at the EU or federal level in the US, would apply throughout the territory, apart from zones with known plant or animal diseases. So EU countries and US states would be unable to pass more stringent regulations to make up for deficiences in EU / US regulations as they now can. In many cases, progress on higher standards starts at the local level and builds upwards.

      “This threatens to undermine even existing rules designed to raise standards”, says FOEE, “such as measures to ban small cages for battery hens in California or to reduce antibiotic use in the farming sectors in France and Denmark.”

      This could also make it more difficult to restrict imports should conditions or enforcement standards change in the future.

        Novel foods – a free for all

        The EU’s proposals will affect regulations on ‘novel’ foods or food ingredients, such as foods derived from cloning, genetic modification or synthetic biology.

        The purpose of the draft proposal, in Article 7.1, is to ensure that regulations should be applied so as to minimize negative effects on trade “while ensuring the fulfilment of the importing Party’s requirements”.

        As such, any new products being brought to market (“new trade”), which are not covered by existing rules, could escape regulation as any new regulation could be seen as a ‘barrier to trade’.

        “This would undermine all existing efforts at regulating new technologies like nanotechnology, synthetic biology, animal cloning and genetically engineered animals”, says Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst for Emerging Technologies at the Center for Food Safety. “These technologies need careful and precautionary reviews before they are used in our food, not a free trade pass to avoid review.”

        As Hanson points out, nanomaterials, which are increasingly being used for food-related products, or foods derived from new techniques for genetic modification in plants or animals, could be traded in the absence of regulation specific to those technologies.

        Also novel foods imported into the EU from the US would face minimal safety checks, as the US lacks regulations for novel food, warns FOEE: “The US does not regulate the new kinds of genetic engineering of plants, animals and microbes being introduced through synthetic biology, unless plant pests are involved.”

        And any new regulations imposed at any level could be interpreted by investors as a ‘barrier to trade’, providing an opportunity for legal action under the proposed Investment Settlement Dispute Mechanism.

        The threat is a very real one – the American Chemistry Council has already urged the US Trade Representative’s Office to indicate that it would challenge at the WTO and EU requirement to label nanomaterials as a ‘barrier to trade’.

        And we are already feeling the effects as regulators hasten to be ‘TTIP-ready’. The EU is currently watering down regulations for novel foods, allowing offspring from cloned animals (including live animals, embryos or semen) to be imported.

        A clear example of TTIP’s chilling effect on future legislation is evident in the Commission’s refusal to extend the proposed ban on cloned animals to descendants of clones because it would hinder the negotiation process. Moreover cloned animals, while restricted in the EU, are not tracked in the US, so it is possible that they could enter the food supply.

        This is of particular concern as the long-term consequences of cloning are as yet unknown; it is however known that animals bred to maximise production can have serious health problems.

        Animal welfare – a race to the bottom

        There are also concerns that the wording in the EU’s proposals – which recognise in Article 17.1 that animals are sentient beings, thus are able to suffer and feel pain and fear – is so weak that it may will animal welfare standards at risk.

        Moreover it is immediately followed by Article 17.2, which proposes an alignment of regulatory standards between the two regions – which is next to impossible given the differences in existing legislation.

        “While the US has no federal animal welfare legislation except rules on the slaughter of livestock”, argues FOEE, “the EU has a series of regulations and directives covering different species at all stages of the farming process.”

        In particular the wording on “collaboration to further develop good animal welfare practices” is non-binding – and there is nothing in the text to suggest that products from animals raised under significantly lower welfare standards (e.g. eggs from battery hens) could be barred from import.

        This means that competition from farmers operating to lower standards in the US  could force European farmers to demand lower welfare standards in the E, since there are no requirements that either party comply with animal welfare laws of the partner with the highest levels of protection as a condition for trade.

        There is nothing in the draft to suggest that the EU might be able to positively influence and advance animal welfare standards – as has been claimed.

        Olga Kikou, European Affairs Manager at Compassion in World Farming, is clear as to the likely outcome: “References to an alignment of regulatory standards in the proposed SPS chapter have reinforced claims that TTIP will be detrimental for animal welfare and will lead to further intensification in the sector.”

        The proposal does includes plans for a ‘working group’ on animal welfare – but the provisions mentioned in the text are unenforceable. It is more likely that increasing pressure from agribusiness will result in further intensification of animal farming.

        Enforcing flawed, industry-dominated WTO international standards

        The EU draft re-emphasises that the TTIP agreement comply with the World Trade Organisation agreement on food safety, and agricultural plant and animal health (WTO SPS), which recognizes as authoritative standards set by the international Codex Alimentarius Commission.

        Under TTIP’s Article 7.7, new rules agreed by Codex must be adopted in EU and US regulation within 12 months, unless either the US or EU registers ‘reservations’ to the specific threshold decided at the Codex meeting.

        So in effect, TTIP would force both the EU and the US to accept the Codex standard, unless a ‘reservation’ had been formally registered. Also, it’s not clear that ‘reservations’ already raised about existing Codex rulings, due to concerns about the evidence used to set the standards, will continue to apply.

        And once the EU or US has adopted a Codex standard, it must maintain that standard, even if new scientific evidence shows the Codex standard inadequate to protect human health. “Codex is slow to request international risk assessments based on new science, and it cannot develop a new standard without such risk assessments”, explains FOEE.

        In addition, “The EU proposal appears to accept that once a Codex standard for a food has been fixed, the EU and US would lose their right to opt for stricter thresholds, even if new evidence of risks becomes available.” Indeed, under Article 7.7, the EU and the US could be bound by internationally agreed standards “even where clear evidence suggests a threat to public health.”

          As FoEE concludes, “This trade agreement is a Trojan Horse that will threaten our food safety and environment. Trade officials whose primary objective is to increase trade and boost corporate profits will have first say over future food safety rules. A trade agreement is not the place to decide about our food safety.”

           


           

          FOEE report:How TTIP undermines food safety and animal welfare‘.

          EU proposals for the chapter on food safety and animal welfare.

           




          389858

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803

Success for challenge to Idaho ‘ag-gag’ law Updated for 2026





A federal district court has allowed an anti ‘ag gag’ lawsuit to proceed against the state of Idaho.

The constitutional challenge is brought by a coalition of national nonprofits dedicated to civil liberties, animal protection, food safety, labor rights, and the environment, along with journalists.

Plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU), and Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The public interest coalition filed the federal lawsuit to overturn Idaho’s controversial ‘ag gag’ statute, which criminalizes whistle-blowing investigations at factory farms, and specifically targets animal advocates who expose illegal practices.

The coalition argues that Idaho’s ag gag law violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and is preempted by federal laws that protect whistle-blowers.

The 33-page ruling rejects Idaho’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and. The case will now move forward to the discovery phase of legal proceedings.

A violation of free speech

Under the controversial law, anyone who films or records on an agricultural operation without permission faces a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail – double Idaho’s maximum jail sentence for animal cruelty.

For a second offence the law allows a fine of $7,000 and nine months in jail.

The ag gag legislation, which was conceived and promoted by Idaho’s powerful dairy industry, followed the release of videos (see video embed, below) by Los Angeles-based vegetarian and animal rights group Mercy for Animals.

The videos show workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping on and sexually abusing cows. An animal welfare campaigner secretly filmed the extreme abuse after getting a job at the dairy.

Idaho governor C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter signed the law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, into effect in February 2014.

In clear breach of the US constitution

“I am confident that this law will be struck down under Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents”, said Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional law expert and dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

“The Idaho law is deeply distressing because it is aimed entirely at protecting an industry, especially in its worst practices that endanger people, at the expense of freedom of speech. It even would criminalize a whistle-blower who took a picture or video of wrongdoing in the workplace.”

Idaho is just one of a dozen states that have ag gag laws in place. Many of the laws are based on model legislation advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 2002.

If the constitutional challenge to the Idaho law succeeds, ag gag laws in other states are likely to go the same way.

 

A 2-minute version of the Mercy for Animals Bettencourt Dairy video.

 


 

The plaintiffs are ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education (IHCIRE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward,  journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. They are represented by in-house counsel, Public Justice, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

 

 




383803