Tag Archives: dairy

Why does the dairy industry oppose GMO labels? Updated for 2026





The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) is one of the corporate front groups suing Vermont in an attempt to block the state’s GMO labeling law.

The trade group is also lobbying for HR 4432, an anti-consumer, anti-states’ rights bill, introduced in April (2014) in the House of Representatives by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas).

The bill, dubbed by consumers as the ‘Deny Americans the Right to Know’ (DARK) Act, would pre-empt all state GMO labeling laws. HR 4432 would also legalize the use of the word ‘natural’ on products that contain GMOs.

IDFA President and CEO Connie Tipton has been an outspoken opponent of consumers’ right to know. In her address to this year’s Dairy Forum, she noted that consumers “can be harsh critics on topics such as genetically modified organisms” – and then went on to criticize “restrictive labeling requirements” as “a straightjacket on innovation and marketing.”

Tipton has also made it clear that not only does the IDFA oppose mandatory GMO labeling laws, the trade group also opposes retailers’ efforts to label voluntarily. For instance, when Walmart considered labeling the GMO sweet corn it sells (a promise that remains unfulfilled), Tipton went on the attack. Walmart, she said,

“announced this past summer it planned to sell a new crop of genetically modified sweet corn created by Monsanto. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of us were scratching our heads when Wal-Mart added that it would label the product as containing GMO ingredients – even though the Food and Drug Administration has already said the product is safe.

“Given Wal-Mart’s size and market share, there are legitimate concerns that its decision on GMO labeling will force other retailers to march in lockstep behind the industry giant.”

What’s to hide?

Why would the IDFA spend millions to defeat GMO labeling laws, including launching a lawsuit against Vermont?

Isn’t the dairy industry the ‘Got Milk?’ people, the ones who wear milk mustaches to get kids to drink what the industry promotes as healthy whole food? Doesn’t the IDFA represent the family farmers whose black-and-white cows graze happily on green grass outside picturesque red barns?

Truth be told, those idyllic images have nothing to do with reality. They’re part of a carefully orchestrated, and very expensive public relations campaign aimed at fostering the illusion that milk and other dairy products originate from small family farms – illusions that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In fact, the IDFA is just another wing of the processed food industry. And like the rest of the processed food industry, IDFA members have a lot to hide, where their products come from, and what’s in them.

Dairy products as delivery systems for GMO sweeteners

Milk consumption has been on the decline for some time now. Today, less than a third of dairy production goes toward making milk that people drink. To compensate, the industry pushes processed, dairy-based foods that contain a lot of decidedly non-dairy ingredients, including many that are genetically engineered.

Yogurt, ice cream, cream cheese, and flavored milk have become delivery systems for genetically modified sweeteners, especially high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – made from corn that has been genetically engineered by Monsanto to absorb Roundup herbicide and produce the Bt toxin.

It is also more toxic than regular sugar. A recent study compared two groups of rats, one fed HFCS and the other table sugar, both in doses equal to what many people eat. The rats fed HFCS had death rates 1.87 times higher than females on the sucrose diet. They also produced 26.4% fewer offspring.

Previous studies on rodents and humans tied HFCS consumption to metabolic problems such as insulin resistance, obesity and abnormal cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Yet HFCS is used by some of the most powerful brands in the IDFA leadership, including:

  • Skinny Cow, the low-fat ice cream brand of Nestle USA, which is represented on the IDFA board by Patricia Stroup, chair.
  • Blue Bunny, the flagship brand of Wells Enterprises, Inc., represented by Michael Wells, vice-chair.
  • Hood, represented by Jeffrey Kaneb, treasurer.

Consumer demand is pushing many food companies to remove HFCS from dairy products. For instance, IDFA member Yoplait has gone HFCS-free. But Yoplait still contains sugar, which likely comes from sugar beets that have been genetically engineered to absorb Roundup herbicide, and GMO corn starch.

You want GMO trans fat-laden cheese on that?

If you add non-dairy ingredients to cheese, it no longer meets the legal definition of cheese. So how is it that as much as one-fifth of what people think of as ‘cheese’ comprises vegetable oils (usually from GMO corn, soy, cottonseed or canola), including trans fats from partial hydrogenation?

By creating multiple definitions of ‘cheese’, regulators have created a system that allows the dairy industry to load up cheese with non-dairy products by renaming their products. A product containing at least 51% cheese can be called a ‘processed cheese food’. Products that contain less than 51% real cheese must be labeled a ‘processed cheese product’.

Prior to 2006, many of these cheese ‘foods’ and ‘products’ sold in grocery stores contained trans fats. But once the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began requiring packaged food makers to list trans fat content as a separate line item on the labels of foods sold in stores, most of the cheese made with trans fats has been sold through restaurants where it doesn’t have to be labeled.

That means consumers who frequently eat out are still eating a lot of trans fats with their cheese – they just don’t know it. Though as this article notes, consumers can still buy products at the grocery store that contain trans fats without knowing it-because food makers are allowed to claim “no trans fats” on the front of their package as long as the product contains less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, an amount even the FDA admits can be dangerous because of the cumulative effect.

Trans fat is the worst type of dietary fat. Trans fats create inflammation, which is linked to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and other chronic conditions. They contribute to insulin resistance, which increases the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.

They can harm health in even small amounts: for every 2% of calories from trans fat consumed daily, the risk of heart disease rises by 23%. There is no safe level of consumption.

Kraft, the nation’s largest manufacturer of cheese, has largely phased out trans fats, but it hasn’t dropped the GMOs.

When Kraft reformulated Cheez Wiz, the company removed the cheese, leaving a taste of “axle grease” – in the words of a former Kraft food scientist who helped invent the original product. But Cheez Wiz still contains GMOs, in the form of canola oil and corn syrup.

Kraft is represented on the IDFA executive committee by Howard Friedman.

Stretching the limits of what ‘dairy’ means

Genetically modified ingredients like HFCS and trans fats are super cheap. This has pushed the dairy foods industry to use such ingredients to the point of stretching the limits of consumers’ understanding of what’s actually a dairy product.

Enter government regulators, who have had to step in to define just exactly what is – and isn’t – a legitimate ‘dairy’ product.

A ‘Frozen Dairy Dessert’ can’t be called ‘ice cream’ if it contains less than 10% milk fat. Statistics on the market share of ‘dairy desserts’ versus ice cream is unavailable, but even Breyer’s, known for its ‘all natural’ ice cream has converted about 40% of its ice creams to ‘dairy desserts’.

Why would the dairy industry embrace a declining amount of milk in dairy foods? As it turns out, breaking milk into its constituent parts and selling them separately has been an efficient way for the industry to eliminate waste and increase profits, even if there might be less actual milk in any one particular product.

Skim milk used to be a waste product that was either discarded or fed to farm animals. Now it’s sold as skim milk and fat-free dairy products (even though there’s little evidence dairy is the best diet food).

Once the dairy industry had successfully created a market for skim milk, it realized it had another problem on its hands: what to do with the glut of whole milk and extracted milk fat created by soaring sales of skim milk. The solution? Make more ‘cheese foods’ and ‘cheese products’. But that led to a new problem – what to do with all that cheese?

For a time, the federal government bought the industry’s excess cheese and butter, packing away a stockpile valued at more than $4 billion by 1983. Then, in 1995, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) created Dairy Management Inc, a nonprofit corporation, partially funded by the USDA (and your tax dollars), that defines its mission as increasing dairy consumption.

Dairy Management teamed up with restaurant chains like Domino’s and Pizza Hut to launch a $12 million marketing campaign promoting pizza with extra cheese. (Remember, restaurants don’t have to label their cheese as containing GMO-laden trans fats).

The Dairy Management’s program directly benefitted Leprino Foods Company, supplier of cheese to both Domino’s and Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut lists ‘modifed food starch’ among the ingredients in its cheese. Modified food starch is another name for modified corn starch, which is most always made with GMO corn.

Leprino Foods is represented on IDFA’s board by Mike Reidy, who serves as secretary.

As long as the dairy industry’s fortunes continue to be built upon the sales of GMO-containing ‘dairy products’ and ‘cheese foods’, its principal lobbying group, the IDFA, will continue to spend millions to keep consumers from knowing what’s really in those foods.

This is not an industry that cares about farmers, or wholesome, healthy foods. What used to be a community of farmers selling real, whole foods has long since morphed into a processed food industry.

And as such, the industry, represented by the IDFA, will continue to fight tooth-and-nail against what they portray as “restrictive labeling requirements” that create “a straightjacket on innovation and marketing.”

 


 

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director of the Organic Consumers Association.

This article was originally published by the Organic Consumers Association.

 




390210

Dairy – the case for greener, healthier, lower performing cows Updated for 2026





Milk, a precious resource in many parts of the world, has become a throwaway commodity in wealthy countries. For example, in the UK, an estimated 4.2m tonnes of foodstuffs wasted per year are wasted, of which milk is in the top three.

In 2012, the country disposed of 420,000 tonnes of avoidable dairy and egg waste, costing £780m. Perhaps that’s no surprise as supermarkets retail milk for as little as 44p per litre. Bottled water can be two to three times the price.

Such extreme market forces lead to vanishing profit margins, so the dairy industry has had to become super-efficient: fewer, larger herds typically with several hundred, high-yielding Holstein cows capable of producing 10,000 litres per annual lactation cycle, milked by a single dairyman.

These remarkable cattle are the result of highly selective breeding over many generations using a very small pool of elite bulls capable of producing over a million offspring by artificial insemination.

The wonders of modern technology?

A marvellous exemplar of sustainable intensification and food security though application of modern science and technology … perhaps?

From another perspective, the industry has boxed itself into a tight and uncomfortable corner. Modern Holstein dairy cows only last for two to three lactations, rather than the five to eight (or more) of more traditional systems.

These animals carry a heavy burden of nutritional and metabolic diseases and poor fertility, often with adverse consequences for welfare that require routine treatment with antibiotics and hormones – all justifiably of concern to the consumer.

An average of 37% of Holstein cattle suffer from painful lameness, significantly more so than other breeds.

The Holstein cow is arguably the world’s least fertile farm animal. Around 60% require hormonal treatments for successful pregnancy, an obvious prerequisite to the annual calving and lactation cycle.

These treatments may not be harmful to consumers, but routine use of hormones for growth promotion in farm animals was banned in the EU in 1988, and consumers are ill-informed about the risks involved.

Intensive dairy production harms animals and the environment

The prodigious milk yield of Holstein cows involves consumption of energy and protein far beyond the levels available from pasture.

They must be fed a grain-rich diet they are ill-equipped to digest, consuming in a single lactation more than their own body weight of cereals.

Feeding cereals to multi-stomached ruminants such as cattle negates much of their evolutionary advantage, namely their ability to digest fibrous plant material such as forage, green waste and by-products that are of low nutritional value to species such as pigs, poultry or indeed humans.

Importantly, cereals are potential human food and are generally produced using polluting artificial fertiliser. In addition, digestive disorders such as displaced abomasum (one of the cow’s four stomachs) were a relative rarity a generation ago but are now commonplace.

Stepping off the intensification treadmill

In the UK, a minority of dairy farmers use alternative breeds, such as the British Friesian, Ayrshire, or the Montbéliarde. They yield up to 8,000 litres per lactation, but these cows are more robust and are fed primarily off grass or preserved forage in winter, with a modest level of concentrate supplements at peak lactation.

Lameness, mastitis, metabolic disease and infertility are far less frequent than in intensively managed Holsteins. Welfare is less of an issue and antibiotics are rarely necessary, if used at all. Many of these breeds are dual purpose, so their male calves are suitable for rearing for beef, unlike Holsteins in which males are generally disposed of at birth.

Dairy cows fed in pasture also require less inorganic fertiliser for cereal production, with less associated environmental pollution.

A change to a less intensive dairy production system would be in keeping with a broader vision, laying down a number of the basic principles for sustainable livestock. One of the central tenets is reduction in consumption of livestock products by humans, with consumption focussed on quality rather than quantity.

It is worth noting that milk and dairy products from grass-fed cattle are higher in N-3 fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acids.

20% less milk, 80% less cruelty

Finally, much attention has been placed on cattle as a source of methane, accounting for the majority share of the 14.5% of man-made greenhouse gas attributed to livestock.

It is difficult to predict the value of managerial change to a less intensive dairy system, but there could be other immediate environmental benefits, such as reduction in artificial fertiliser use.

For example, current analysis suggests the overall environmental costs of inorganic nitrogen use in Europe (estimated at €70–€320 billion per year) outweighs its direct economic benefits to agriculture.

The Pareto principle (more widely known as the ’80:20 rule’) is arguably at work here: with the Ayrshire and other less extreme dairy breeds you get 80% of the yield for perhaps only 20% of the welfare cost, and maybe just 20% of the environmental costs too.

Given that today’s overweight consumers perceive milk as low-value and currently throw much of it away, having only 80% of today’s supply might not be too high a price for a sustainable future with healthier, happier cows.

 


 

Mark Eisler is Chair in Global Farm Animal Health at the University of Bristol. He receives funding from the BBSRC, the Royal Society, the Worldwide Universities Network and the Global Innovation Initiative.

Graeme Martin is Winthrop Professor at the University of Western Australia. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Meat & Livestock Australia, and the Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.

Michael Lee is Reader in Sustainable Livestock and Food Security at the University of Bristol. He receives funding from BBSRC.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




383832

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