Will Potter's Blog

The deputy director of the Trump campaign in Washington state has promised to introduce new legislation that would punish protest as a felony if it causes “economic disruption” and hurts corporate profits.

The proposed “Preventing Economic Terrorism Act” marks a radical expansion of legislation that was once used to criminalize environmentalists as “eco-terrorists,” and could be used against a wide range of social movements and anti-Trump protesters.

State Sen. Doug Ericksen, the author of the bill, says protests that block highways or roads—such as recent Black Lives Matter protests, or the indigenous movement at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline—are “economic terrorism.” 

In a statement on his website, Ericksen also says that the bill won’t be limited to protesters. It will include those who “fund, organize, sponsor or otherwise encourage others to commit acts of economic terrorism.”

“We are not just going after the people who commit these acts of terrorism,” Ericksen said. “We are going after the people who fund them. Wealthy donors should not feel safe in disrupting middle class jobs.” [emphasis added]

This type of language and legislation has been used for decades to target animal rights and environmental activists. As I’ve documented extensively in my book and on this website,  these proposals grew out of an attempt by corporations to stop activists who were growing increasingly effective at hurting their bottom lines.

In Washington state, for instance, a similar proposal to label civil disobedience as “terrorism” was introduced the same month as Americans were celebrating that very style of civil disobedience, as part of the 50th anniversary of the lunch counter protests during the civil rights movements.

This new proposal, though, marks a radical expansion from those efforts.

Most importantly, it is not limited to protests in the name of the environment or animal rights. Older proposals, like SB6566, specifically targeted “terrorist acts against animal and natural resource facilities.”

This proposal—and undoubtedly others to come–doesn’t contain those limitations. It wraps up all protests, by all causes, if they disrupt business.

This is a development I have warned of again, and again, and again for the last 15 years. The relentless campaigning to label animal rights and environmental activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” and to pass new laws like the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act” has only set the stage for a much broader crackdown on dissent.

Just take a look at this proposal in Washington. Senator Ericksen acknowledges that the bill was originally meant for anti-logging protests, but now, after the presidential election and in the wake of mass national protests against the incoming president, Ericksen has dropped those limitations entirely.

His language about going after those who “fund, organize, sponsor, or otherwise encourage others to commit acts of economic terrorism” is directly pulled from the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act. That proposal, created by ALEC, says “ecological terrorism” includes “raising, soliciting, collecting or providing any person with material, financial support or other resources.”

An article about Ericksen’s proposal in the Seattle Times said it “is likely to remain a mostly symbolic shot at protesters.” But that completely misses the point; it’s the kind of mindset that allowed the predecessor of the “Preventing Economic Terrorism Act” to become law.

There is nothing symbolic about this. This has been the real-world, tangible strategy to criminalize protest since the 1980s. It expanded in scope after 9/11, and now it is expanding in scope again after the election of Donald Trump.

I have repeatedly witnessed national organizations, the press, and others dismiss these types of proposals as “symbolic” or “scare-mongering,” only to have them become state and federal law. That’s what happened with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. That’s what happened with ag-gag laws. And that’s what is happening again.

Animal rights and environmental activists have been prosecuted and imprisoned under these laws. And as I discussed in a recent TED talk, some have even ended up in secret prison units for “domestic terrorists.”

This type of proposal isn’t an empty promise by a Trump campaign manager. It’s a plan.

Trump Supporter Promises Legislation to Label Protest as “Economic Terrorism” from Green Is The New Red

This is Máxima Acuña de Chaupe. She who won the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize, and her campaigning has been recognized internationally. She has also been beaten by police, harassed, and suffered years of violence and intimidation for her efforts to stop the construction of an open-pit gold mine on her land in Northern Peru.

Sadly, stories like this are only becoming more common.

A new report by Global Witness documents an increase in violence against environmentalists, globally, by 59% from 2014. That makes 2015 was the most violent year ever.

The report, “On Dangerous Ground,” shows that more than three people are killed every week in disputes over mining, logging, agriculture development, and hydropower projects.

The worst countries for environmental activists continues to be Brazil and the Philippines. Both countries suffered a record numbers of killings last year.

As I’ve reported previously for Foreign Policy, the perpetrators are governments, corporations, mercenary killers, and gangs. The victims disproportionately — about 40% — indigenous people fighting to protect their homes against land and resource grabs.

In another case, Filipino activist Michelle Campos has been fighting to protect her ancestral land, the region of Mindanao, from corporations exploiting its coal, nickel, and gold. More than 3,000 indigenous Lumad people were driven from their homes, and Campos’ father and grandfather were publicly executed.

“We get threatened, vilified and killed for standing up to the mining companies on our land and the paramilitaries that protect them,” said Michelle Campos. “My father, grandfather and school teacher were just three of countless victims. We know the murderers – they are still walking free in our community. We are dying and our government does nothing to help us.”

 

Violence against environmentalists is now at an all-time high from Green Is The New Red

Punk rock has probably been the single most powerful influence on my life. I grew up in Texas, in what was (at the time) a pretty small town. Reading liner notes, picking up zines or AK Press bookmobile books from shows, and finding political punk completely changed me. I devoured everything I could get my hands on, and ordered plenty of records blindly just because I knew they were political. I never really cared about fashion or “the scene”; what was most radical to me about punk rock was that some bands weren’t just angry, they were articulating why they were angry and saying I had a right to feel that way, too.

When Old Lines approached me about working together on a project, we immediately were on the same page about all this, and started talking about records that influenced us. Stuff like the Man is the Bastard split with Mumia Abu-Jamal, Propagandhi’s use of Noam Chomsky lectures in their song “The State Lottery,” and the split 7″ I did with Rise Against, “The Eco-Terrorist In Me.”

The guys from Old Lines proposed doing something a bit different, though, and I’m really proud with how it all turned out.We worked together from the start. I prepared my spoken word pieces to fit with their lyrics. We went to the studio together, and brainstormed how to make all the tracks flow together as one cohesive project. After I recorded my tracks, Matt brought out his guitar and started messing around with feedback and other ways to accompany the words. The track names changed to reflect that relationship between the songs and spoken word. At every step, we wanted to merge our work.

With that very long introduction said, I’m so excited to announce the release of “To Build a Fire.”

You can listen to it below.

This isn’t like any other spoken word I’ve done (and certainly not like my TED talks!) so I hope you like it.

 

To Build a Fire by Old Lines

There are two editions of the record. One has black vinyl with a screenprint, and the other is a limited edition red vinyl with green splatter paint! So rad.

The covers are screen-printed by hand.

You can order it here:





Record options:


Black vinyl $4.00 USDLIMITED Splatter-paint color vinyl $7.00 USD

You can also get the digital download, t-shirts, and a special book package with a signed copy of Green Is The New Red here. 

We’ve already gotten some nice reviews.

From Dying Scene:

Baltimore’s salty hardcore heroes Old Lines (founded by Mitch Roemer, formerly of Pulling Teeth and Ruiner) have teamed up with social activist Will Potter to release a split EP, To Build a Fire. Old Lines contribute two vicious new tunes that bookend the release, while Potter’s contributions lay in the middle and consist of spoken word pieces that tackle complacency and normalization of loss of information privacy in the modern age.

From Blow The Scene:

The EP accomplishes what all good political punk music should…

“To Build a Fire”: New Split EP With “Old Lines” and Will Potter from Green Is The New Red

Undercover investigations by animal protection groups have completely changed the national discussion about food. By working on factory farms and documenting egregious animal cruelty, and also standard farming practices, these investigations shine a spotlight on what the agriculture industry wants to keep hidden from consumers.

One of these investigators, Mike Wolf, spent almost four years working in animal agriculture and documenting animal cruelty. His investigations include hog farm suppliers to Smithfield and Hormel, which combined, have resulted in dozens of criminal cruelty charges. Mike is now the Investigations Manager at Compassion Over Killing, where he oversees investigative efforts into meat, dairy, and egg facilities.

I sat down with Mike talk about what he’s learned as an investigator, what changes these investigations have created, and what’s next in light of new ag-gag laws criminalizing these whistleblowers.

WP: To start things off, I’d like to look at a recent investigation with Quality Pork Processors. Can you walk us through what your investigation uncovered, and what the response has been?

MW: Iâ€d love to, and thank you so much for taking the time to interview me and bring some light to the work we are doing at Compassion Over Killing. Our investigation into Quality Pork Processors uncovered numerous horrors which Hormelâ€s pigs are forced to endure. There was a lot of egregious abuse, including pigs who were beaten, dragged while conscious, shoved, and electrically shocked over and over again–as well as being shocked on the face and genitals. Downer pigs, who are too sick or injured to get up and walk, faced the worst brutality from the workers because they tried to force them to move. Pigs were being improperly stunned, and some of them regained consciousness on the slaughter lines. At least one pig, who we know of, was still alive just prior to entering the scalding tank, and our investigator saw many bright red carcasses possibly indicative of the pigs having been scalded alive.

We also found potential food safety issues, as our investigator documented an immense number of pig carcasses destined for the food supply which were covered in feces and riddled with pus-filled abscesses. On more than one occasion, our investigator documented thick green pus oozing out of these abscesses.

Many of these issues are made exponentially worse by the fact that QPP is a HIMP facility. That means that they are taking part in a pilot government program where slaughter line speeds are increased and government inspections are decreased. We found that the workers were taking inhumane shortcuts to keep up with the speeds necessary. For example, one supervisor told our investigator that they sometimes do not have time to move downer pigs with the ‘sled†(which is the standard way to move them), so in those instances they can push, pull, and do whatever they need to in order to get the downer out of the pen quickly. HIMP takes the oversight away from the USDA and puts it more squarely in the hands of the facility itself. Our investigator documented facility supervisors (who were responsible for overseeing the proper stunning and slaughter of the pigs) sleeping on the job, cheering on a worker while they were improperly stunning a pig, and throwing blood-soaked paper towels at other workers. The line speeds at QPP are so fast that, on average, the worker who bleeds the pigs has to cut the throat of a pig every 5 seconds for an entire shift. Why do plants such as QPP continue to process pigs at line speeds which are impossible to keep up with? Because in addition to the increased suffering, they also bring increased profits.

The response to our investigation has been incredible, and rightfully so. People are shocked and outraged. Our YouTube video hit one Million views in a mere matter of days. The media coverage has been phenomenal, several outlets (such as NowThis) have made their own videos of our footage, and weâ€ve received tons of messages from people telling us that this investigation has opened their eyes and they are now going vegetarian or vegan.

From a legal perspective, weâ€re still in contact with the Minnesota authorities. They were waiting for the USDA to conclude their investigation, which they have recently done. The USDA immediately wrote up a few animal handling violations based on our footage, but after acknowledging numerous additional problems that we documented, they failed to take more meaningful action. Not surprisingly, later that same month, QPP was issued another “noncompliance report” for improper stunning. Shortly after that, the USDA documented an incident of inhumane slaughter, and because QPP recently had violations from our investigation, in addition to these new violations, the plant was temporarily shut down.

We have also created a petition asking the USDA to put an end to this high-speed slaughter program. Our petition has done incredibly, with almost 200K signatures on it currently. I would love to ask the readers to please add your voice to our petition, if you havenâ€t already. The USDA was planning on potentially expanding HIMP to every single pig slaughter plant in the US. Recently, 60 Congress members wrote a letter to the USDA urging them to evaluate the efficacy of HIMP, in light of our investigation, before hastily expanding it. At this time, it looks as if they will not be expanding the HIMP program, though we are still calling on the USDA to end HIMP altogether.

WP: It seems like every week, or more, I’m seeing another headline about a major supplier or business changing their practices, largely in response to the efforts of groups like yours. What do these changes mean for consumers and, most importantly, for animals? 

MW: This is a great question–these changes are so significant, and I believe they are a huge indicator as to the direction that we, as a society, are heading. For consumers who are already aware of the issues and make more compassionate food choices, these changes are a reminder that their concerns are being heard, and are a motivational tool to help keep them plugging away at the issues which face farm animals. For consumers who are not vegan, and may not be aware of how their food is produced, these headlines and changes put welfare issues front and center for them. They may read about it online or see an item in a grocery store which can really make them think, maybe for the first time, about what farmed animals are going through.

These changes, obviously, affect the animals the most. They give them more room, or result in them experiencing less pain. Changes such as egg producers shifting from caged housing to cage-free housing or pig producers shifting from crates to group housing are so incredibly important for them. Since we canâ€t eradicate factory farming overnight, these changes are vital for the billions of animals who are languishing on factory farms right now. If we have the ability to reduce their suffering even the tiniest bit, we absolutely should. Fortunately, these welfare advancements continue to educate the public about the extent of suffering taking place in factory farms and in slaughterhouses, and consequently produce further positive changes within the industry and in consumer purchasing decisions.

WP: I think it’s a testament to the power of your work that ag-gag bills have been introduced and passed in multiple states. What has been the real impact of these laws on your investigations? 

MW: Thank you very much—and I agree—I find Ag-Gag to be an immense compliment to every organization which performs undercover investigations because it shows just how scared these industries are of us. The fact that extremely powerful industries lobby state legislatures so forcefully to adopt laws which shield them from the investigative work of a handful of animal advocacy groups is mind-blowing. They know that they need these bills, because without them, more people would become educated on the issues, would stop supporting them, and they would lose money. I think what the average consumer should be concerned with is the fact that these producers find it that necessary to shroud themselves in secrecy. Theyâ€re not conducting top-secret black-op missions behind enemy lines–theyâ€re farming. What consumers should ask themselves is this: if you left your dog at a day care center while you went to work, would you rather know if your dog was being abused, or have the whistleblower thrown in jail for trying to alert you?

As flattering as Ag-Gag laws are, they do have a large impact on our investigations. We conduct all investigations within the confines of the law, so an Ag-Gag state is off-limits. It shouldnâ€t come as a shock that the number 1 and number 2 states for pig production (Iowa and North Carolina) have both passed Ag-Gag laws. Ironically, both of those laws have come about immediately following one of our investigations—Hawkeye Sow Centers in IA, and Mountaire Farms in NC.

Luckily, these laws are on the way out. A Federal judge in Idaho recently declared their Ag-Gag law unconstitutional, and struck it down. Itâ€s only a matter of time before the remaining states follow suit—because these laws are a clear infringement on our rights as citizens.

WP: There has been a lot of comments from industry groups supportive of ag-gag bills that undercover investigations by animal rights groups have “doctored” footage, or that this is a dramatic ploy to get donations. I haven’t seen any evidence of this, but could you respond to that line of questioning? In particular, what are the steps you go through to ensure the investigations are accurate, as well as the footage that is released? 

MW: Great question, and thank you for asking this. There is simply no need to doctor the footage—the conditions in these facilities are really just that bad. During most investigations we document incredibly egregious abuse–punching, kicking, beating with objects, etc. You canâ€t edit that in, or take it out of context. The fact that the industry implies that the footage must be doctored to make it look that bad is almost comical. They are admitting how terrible the conditions really are, in an indirect way.

I would be more than happy to make myself available for a polygraph to attest to the fact that I have never been involved with an investigation, in the field or otherwise, which has been altered in any way. Hereâ€s the thing—the industry wouldnâ€t ever take me up on that. They know that the footage is legitimate, but they are making these allegations as a last-ditch effort to try to divert attention away from the issue at hand—how horrifically the animals are being treated.

When I have an investigator working an assignment, I review their footage the day they record it. When we are ready to release an investigation, we obviously need to trim the video down to a reasonable length for the public to view. But, when we approach law enforcement, we make all of our raw footage available for them. They not only can see the context of any clip, but they can also verify the legitimacy of the footage. IF footage was ever doctored—and to my knowledge, thereâ€s not a single shred of evidence thatâ€s ever happened—the authorities would be able to determine that, and the public would have heard it from them—not from the industry groups who have the most to lose from our investigations.

WP: As a related question: What was it like having to participate in practices you disagree with? How did you prepare yourself for that mentally, and also how have you processed doing this type of work, which some investigators say take a serious toll? 

MW: I get asked this a lot. I canâ€t sugar-coat it—itâ€s pretty horrible. When youâ€re the one whoâ€s causing an animal pain with your own hands, and you look into their eyes and see their suffering—the innocence and idealism inside of you dies. It changes who you are—forever. What you do with that change is what defines who you are. Successful investigators will take that and use it, and never forget it.

Donâ€t get me wrong—investigators must have an outlet for it. You canâ€t just let it build and build inside of you, or it will eat you up. Some investigators like to do yoga, read, meditate, or run. When I was in the field, I used lifting as my outlet–the gym has always been where I get out all of my aggression.

People will ask how an investigator can justify to themselves performing those practices. Itâ€s a bigger picture mentality. The way to look at it is that all of those animals who are in factory farms and slaughter plants right now are hopeless. Theyâ€ve already been born into the system. We are there to help prevent future generations of animals from being born into it—and that is exactly what is happening. Half a billion fewer animals every year are being born, raised, and killed for food. I would say that a large percentage of those animals have been spared that life due to investigations work.

However you look at it, it most certainly does take a serious toll. Investigators are often physically injured on the job, worked to the point of sheer exhaustion, and isolated in the middle of nowhere. But years after youâ€ve retired from the field—you arenâ€t up at night thinking about the lonely nights, the long workdays, or the injuries. Youâ€re up thinking about the animals who you hurt, hoping that they understood—hoping that you performed those practices in a way that caused them less harm than any other worker.

WP: Personally speaking, undercover investigations have had a profound effect on me. However, I’ve begun to hear some animal advocates question whether the public may become “numb” to this type of footage, or tune it out. Is that something you think about, strategically? How do undercover investigations fit into the bigger picture of advocating for animals?

MW: That is a good question. People may become ‘numb†to it as a defense mechanism. They know that itâ€s wrong, and they canâ€t justify continuing to support it, so subconsciously they tune it out. It still plants a seed in their mind, though, and you never know when they may start to question their eating habits. Even if a member of the public has tuned out the footage, it still canâ€t hurt for them to see it. If seeing the footage doesnâ€t change their eating habits, then not seeing it certainly wonâ€t. I do believe, though, that the amount of people who go numb to the footage are a small percentage of the public. After every investigation we release, we receive so many messages thanking us, telling us that they had no idea, and describing how it has changed their lives.

From a strategic point of view, I feel that the more we can show the public how widespread and systemic these issues are, the better. Weâ€ve all heard those arguments that the horrors are “only at a few bad apple farms”, or that “sure that happened in the past, but things are different these days”. With each new investigation release, we show the public that the horrors not only continue to happen, but that they also happen everywhere.

I would suggest that investigations are not only the key to the bigger picture of advocating for animals, but theyâ€re the entire doorway into advocacy—for a very simple reason. They are the only way we see what itâ€s truly like behind the secret walls of factory farms and slaughter plants. How do you know where youâ€re going, if you donâ€t know where you are?

Investigations play such a key role in all other sectors of the movement as well. They provide the proof for lawsuits, the substance for leaflets and pay-per-view videos, the fuel that drives corporate policy changes, and so much more. When I first went into the field, MySpace was the most popular social media platform. As technology has evolved, the use, and the reach, of investigation footage has grown exponentially. I am incredibly excited to see where it will go and how it will evolve in the coming years.

WP: In your current role, you’re sharing your knowledge and also recruiting new investigators. What types of people are you looking for to become investigators? And what would you say to someone who is wondering if they can do this work?

MW: Thereâ€s really no specific mold that we look for. Good investigators come from all walks of life and all backgrounds. Itâ€s such a unique position—itâ€s really more of a lifestyle than a job. Most people decide that itâ€s not for them based on the need to perform standard practices (such as castration or debeaking), the travel requirements, and the long days and weeks of manual labor. For the remaining applicants, itâ€s really more about the commitment and dedication that I sense from them.

For someone who is wondering if they can do the work, a good first step would be to take a look at all of our investigations. Try to put yourself in the investigatorâ€s shoes. Envision yourself in that facility—take in all the sights, the sounds, the smells. Then, send me an email. You can send your cover letter and resume to mwolf@cok.net. I would prefer to have everyone email me, even if they are not the right fit, rather than to have someone shy away from emailing because they are unsure if they could do it. We could talk about it, and most times, it becomes a lot clearer after that.

WP: Finally, I know you are active powerlifter, and was wondering if you could us how you got into that, and why.

MW: Definitely. I started weightlifting in high school—which (wow, I feel old) was 20 years ago. Lifting has always been my crutch. No matter whatâ€s going on in life, when I lift, it clears my head and allows me to focus—I get my best thinking done at that time. I first went into the field 10 years ago. When going on assignment, I would check out the area and live as close to the gym as I could. Lifting truly served its purpose for me in those days—it supported me, it was the comforting hug which I needed after an emotionally and physically grueling day.

Fast forward to 2013, and my friends Giacomo and Dani (founders of Vegan Proteins) formed PlantBuilt, an all-vegan fitness team. That first year, they were a small group of bodybuilders, and they competed together at the Naturally Fit Games. The purpose is to compete against non-vegans and to show that you can be competitive and thrive on a vegan diet. I LOVED this concept. Throughout the years, I kept lifting for that very reason—to show that you can be vegan and still be big—that you can get all the protein you need in order to build muscle mass. They did amazing that first year, and after that they decided to add on powerlifting, crossfit, and kettlebell teams. I joined and competed in powerlifting in 2014 and 2015, and itâ€s been a blast. The team has such a family feel to it, and everyone is there for the same reason—to promote veganism and help animals.

Itâ€s not about anyoneâ€s individual egos, and itâ€s incredible to see so many amazingly compassionate people come together for that reason.

Undercover investigations by animal protection groups have completely changed the national discussion about food. By working on factory farms and documenting egregious animal cruelty, and also standard farming practices, these investigations shine a spotlight on what the agriculture industry wants to keep hidden from consumers.

One of these investigators, Mike Wolf, spent almost four years working in animal agriculture and documenting animal cruelty. His investigations include hog farm suppliers to Smithfield and Hormel, which combined, have resulted in dozens of criminal cruelty charges. Mike is now the Investigations Manager at Compassion Over Killing, where he oversees investigative efforts into meat, dairy, and egg facilities.

I sat down with Mike talk about what he’s learned as an investigator, what changes these investigations have created, and what’s next in light of new ag-gag laws criminalizing these whistleblowers.

WP: To start things off, I’d like to look at a recent investigation with Quality Pork Processors. Can you walk us through what your investigation uncovered, and what the response has been?

MW: I’d love to, and thank you so much for taking the time to interview me and bring some light to the work we are doing at Compassion Over Killing. Our investigation into Quality Pork Processors uncovered numerous horrors which Hormel’s pigs are forced to endure. There was a lot of egregious abuse, including pigs who were beaten, dragged while conscious, shoved, and electrically shocked over and over again–as well as being shocked on the face and genitals. Downer pigs, who are too sick or injured to get up and walk, faced the worst brutality from the workers because they tried to force them to move. Pigs were being improperly stunned, and some of them regained consciousness on the slaughter lines. At least one pig, who we know of, was still alive just prior to entering the scalding tank, and our investigator saw many bright red carcasses possibly indicative of the pigs having been scalded alive.

We also found potential food safety issues, as our investigator documented an immense number of pig carcasses destined for the food supply which were covered in feces and riddled with pus-filled abscesses. On more than one occasion, our investigator documented thick green pus oozing out of these abscesses.

Many of these issues are made exponentially worse by the fact that QPP is a HIMP facility. That means that they are taking part in a pilot government program where slaughter line speeds are increased and government inspections are decreased. We found that the workers were taking inhumane shortcuts to keep up with the speeds necessary. For example, one supervisor told our investigator that they sometimes do not have time to move downer pigs with the ‘sled’ (which is the standard way to move them), so in those instances they can push, pull, and do whatever they need to in order to get the downer out of the pen quickly. HIMP takes the oversight away from the USDA and puts it more squarely in the hands of the facility itself. Our investigator documented facility supervisors (who were responsible for overseeing the proper stunning and slaughter of the pigs) sleeping on the job, cheering on a worker while they were improperly stunning a pig, and throwing blood-soaked paper towels at other workers. The line speeds at QPP are so fast that, on average, the worker who bleeds the pigs has to cut the throat of a pig every 5 seconds for an entire shift. Why do plants such as QPP continue to process pigs at line speeds which are impossible to keep up with? Because in addition to the increased suffering, they also bring increased profits.

The response to our investigation has been incredible, and rightfully so. People are shocked and outraged. Our YouTube video hit one Million views in a mere matter of days. The media coverage has been phenomenal, several outlets (such as NowThis) have made their own videos of our footage, and we’ve received tons of messages from people telling us that this investigation has opened their eyes and they are now going vegetarian or vegan.

From a legal perspective, we’re still in contact with the Minnesota authorities. They were waiting for the USDA to conclude their investigation, which they have recently done. The USDA immediately wrote up a few animal handling violations based on our footage, but after acknowledging numerous additional problems that we documented, they failed to take more meaningful action. Not surprisingly, later that same month, QPP was issued another “noncompliance report” for improper stunning. Shortly after that, the USDA documented an incident of inhumane slaughter, and because QPP recently had violations from our investigation, in addition to these new violations, the plant was temporarily shut down.

We have also created a petition asking the USDA to put an end to this high-speed slaughter program. Our petition has done incredibly, with almost 200K signatures on it currently. I would love to ask the readers to please add your voice to our petition, if you haven’t already. The USDA was planning on potentially expanding HIMP to every single pig slaughter plant in the US. Recently, 60 Congress members wrote a letter to the USDA urging them to evaluate the efficacy of HIMP, in light of our investigation, before hastily expanding it. At this time, it looks as if they will not be expanding the HIMP program, though we are still calling on the USDA to end HIMP altogether.

WP: It seems like every week, or more, I’m seeing another headline about a major supplier or business changing their practices, largely in response to the efforts of groups like yours. What do these changes mean for consumers and, most importantly, for animals? 

MW: This is a great question–these changes are so significant, and I believe they are a huge indicator as to the direction that we, as a society, are heading. For consumers who are already aware of the issues and make more compassionate food choices, these changes are a reminder that their concerns are being heard, and are a motivational tool to help keep them plugging away at the issues which face farm animals. For consumers who are not vegan, and may not be aware of how their food is produced, these headlines and changes put welfare issues front and center for them. They may read about it online or see an item in a grocery store which can really make them think, maybe for the first time, about what farmed animals are going through.

These changes, obviously, affect the animals the most. They give them more room, or result in them experiencing less pain. Changes such as egg producers shifting from caged housing to cage-free housing or pig producers shifting from crates to group housing are so incredibly important for them. Since we can’t eradicate factory farming overnight, these changes are vital for the billions of animals who are languishing on factory farms right now. If we have the ability to reduce their suffering even the tiniest bit, we absolutely should. Fortunately, these welfare advancements continue to educate the public about the extent of suffering taking place in factory farms and in slaughterhouses, and consequently produce further positive changes within the industry and in consumer purchasing decisions.

WP: I think it’s a testament to the power of your work that ag-gag bills have been introduced and passed in multiple states. What has been the real impact of these laws on your investigations? 

MW: Thank you very much—and I agree—I find Ag-Gag to be an immense compliment to every organization which performs undercover investigations because it shows just how scared these industries are of us. The fact that extremely powerful industries lobby state legislatures so forcefully to adopt laws which shield them from the investigative work of a handful of animal advocacy groups is mind-blowing. They know that they need these bills, because without them, more people would become educated on the issues, would stop supporting them, and they would lose money. I think what the average consumer should be concerned with is the fact that these producers find it that necessary to shroud themselves in secrecy. They’re not conducting top-secret black-op missions behind enemy lines–they’re farming. What consumers should ask themselves is this: if you left your dog at a day care center while you went to work, would you rather know if your dog was being abused, or have the whistleblower thrown in jail for trying to alert you?

As flattering as Ag-Gag laws are, they do have a large impact on our investigations. We conduct all investigations within the confines of the law, so an Ag-Gag state is off-limits. It shouldn’t come as a shock that the number 1 and number 2 states for pig production (Iowa and North Carolina) have both passed Ag-Gag laws. Ironically, both of those laws have come about immediately following one of our investigations—Hawkeye Sow Centers in IA, and Mountaire Farms in NC.

Luckily, these laws are on the way out. A Federal judge in Idaho recently declared their Ag-Gag law unconstitutional, and struck it down. It’s only a matter of time before the remaining states follow suit—because these laws are a clear infringement on our rights as citizens.

WP: There has been a lot of comments from industry groups supportive of ag-gag bills that undercover investigations by animal rights groups have “doctored” footage, or that this is a dramatic ploy to get donations. I haven’t seen any evidence of this, but could you respond to that line of questioning? In particular, what are the steps you go through to ensure the investigations are accurate, as well as the footage that is released? 

MW: Great question, and thank you for asking this. There is simply no need to doctor the footage—the conditions in these facilities are really just that bad. During most investigations we document incredibly egregious abuse–punching, kicking, beating with objects, etc. You can’t edit that in, or take it out of context. The fact that the industry implies that the footage must be doctored to make it look that bad is almost comical. They are admitting how terrible the conditions really are, in an indirect way.

I would be more than happy to make myself available for a polygraph to attest to the fact that I have never been involved with an investigation, in the field or otherwise, which has been altered in any way. Here’s the thing—the industry wouldn’t ever take me up on that. They know that the footage is legitimate, but they are making these allegations as a last-ditch effort to try to divert attention away from the issue at hand—how horrifically the animals are being treated.

When I have an investigator working an assignment, I review their footage the day they record it. When we are ready to release an investigation, we obviously need to trim the video down to a reasonable length for the public to view. But, when we approach law enforcement, we make all of our raw footage available for them. They not only can see the context of any clip, but they can also verify the legitimacy of the footage. IF footage was ever doctored—and to my knowledge, there’s not a single shred of evidence that’s ever happened—the authorities would be able to determine that, and the public would have heard it from them—not from the industry groups who have the most to lose from our investigations.

WP: As a related question: What was it like having to participate in practices you disagree with? How did you prepare yourself for that mentally, and also how have you processed doing this type of work, which some investigators say take a serious toll? 

MW: I get asked this a lot. I can’t sugar-coat it—it’s pretty horrible. When you’re the one who’s causing an animal pain with your own hands, and you look into their eyes and see their suffering—the innocence and idealism inside of you dies. It changes who you are—forever. What you do with that change is what defines who you are. Successful investigators will take that and use it, and never forget it.

Don’t get me wrong—investigators must have an outlet for it. You can’t just let it build and build inside of you, or it will eat you up. Some investigators like to do yoga, read, meditate, or run. When I was in the field, I used lifting as my outlet–the gym has always been where I get out all of my aggression.

People will ask how an investigator can justify to themselves performing those practices. It’s a bigger picture mentality. The way to look at it is that all of those animals who are in factory farms and slaughter plants right now are hopeless. They’ve already been born into the system. We are there to help prevent future generations of animals from being born into it—and that is exactly what is happening. Half a billion fewer animals every year are being born, raised, and killed for food. I would say that a large percentage of those animals have been spared that life due to investigations work.

However you look at it, it most certainly does take a serious toll. Investigators are often physically injured on the job, worked to the point of sheer exhaustion, and isolated in the middle of nowhere. But years after you’ve retired from the field—you aren’t up at night thinking about the lonely nights, the long workdays, or the injuries. You’re up thinking about the animals who you hurt, hoping that they understood—hoping that you performed those practices in a way that caused them less harm than any other worker.

WP: Personally speaking, undercover investigations have had a profound effect on me. However, I’ve begun to hear some animal advocates question whether the public may become “numb” to this type of footage, or tune it out. Is that something you think about, strategically? How do undercover investigations fit into the bigger picture of advocating for animals?

MW: That is a good question. People may become ‘numb’ to it as a defense mechanism. They know that it’s wrong, and they can’t justify continuing to support it, so subconsciously they tune it out. It still plants a seed in their mind, though, and you never know when they may start to question their eating habits. Even if a member of the public has tuned out the footage, it still can’t hurt for them to see it. If seeing the footage doesn’t change their eating habits, then not seeing it certainly won’t. I do believe, though, that the amount of people who go numb to the footage are a small percentage of the public. After every investigation we release, we receive so many messages thanking us, telling us that they had no idea, and describing how it has changed their lives.

From a strategic point of view, I feel that the more we can show the public how widespread and systemic these issues are, the better. We’ve all heard those arguments that the horrors are “only at a few bad apple farms”, or that “sure that happened in the past, but things are different these days”. With each new investigation release, we show the public that the horrors not only continue to happen, but that they also happen everywhere.

I would suggest that investigations are not only the key to the bigger picture of advocating for animals, but they’re the entire doorway into advocacy—for a very simple reason. They are the only way we see what it’s truly like behind the secret walls of factory farms and slaughter plants. How do you know where you’re going, if you don’t know where you are?

Investigations play such a key role in all other sectors of the movement as well. They provide the proof for lawsuits, the substance for leaflets and pay-per-view videos, the fuel that drives corporate policy changes, and so much more. When I first went into the field, MySpace was the most popular social media platform. As technology has evolved, the use, and the reach, of investigation footage has grown exponentially. I am incredibly excited to see where it will go and how it will evolve in the coming years.

WP: In your current role, you’re sharing your knowledge and also recruiting new investigators. What types of people are you looking for to become investigators? And what would you say to someone who is wondering if they can do this work?

MW: There’s really no specific mold that we look for. Good investigators come from all walks of life and all backgrounds. It’s such a unique position—it’s really more of a lifestyle than a job. Most people decide that it’s not for them based on the need to perform standard practices (such as castration or debeaking), the travel requirements, and the long days and weeks of manual labor. For the remaining applicants, it’s really more about the commitment and dedication that I sense from them.

For someone who is wondering if they can do the work, a good first step would be to take a look at all of our investigations. Try to put yourself in the investigator’s shoes. Envision yourself in that facility—take in all the sights, the sounds, the smells. Then, send me an email. You can send your cover letter and resume to mwolf@cok.net. I would prefer to have everyone email me, even if they are not the right fit, rather than to have someone shy away from emailing because they are unsure if they could do it. We could talk about it, and most times, it becomes a lot clearer after that.

WP: Finally, I know you are active powerlifter, and was wondering if you could us how you got into that, and why.

MW: Definitely. I started weightlifting in high school—which (wow, I feel old) was 20 years ago. Lifting has always been my crutch. No matter what’s going on in life, when I lift, it clears my head and allows me to focus—I get my best thinking done at that time. I first went into the field 10 years ago. When going on assignment, I would check out the area and live as close to the gym as I could. Lifting truly served its purpose for me in those days—it supported me, it was the comforting hug which I needed after an emotionally and physically grueling day.

Fast forward to 2013, and my friends Giacomo and Dani (founders of Vegan Proteins) formed PlantBuilt, an all-vegan fitness team. That first year, they were a small group of bodybuilders, and they competed together at the Naturally Fit Games. The purpose is to compete against non-vegans and to show that you can be competitive and thrive on a vegan diet. I LOVED this concept. Throughout the years, I kept lifting for that very reason—to show that you can be vegan and still be big—that you can get all the protein you need in order to build muscle mass. They did amazing that first year, and after that they decided to add on powerlifting, crossfit, and kettlebell teams. I joined and competed in powerlifting in 2014 and 2015, and it’s been a blast. The team has such a family feel to it, and everyone is there for the same reason—to promote veganism and help animals.

It’s not about anyone’s individual egos, and it’s incredible to see so many amazingly compassionate people come together for that reason.

“It changes who you are—forever. What you do with that change is what defines who you are.” from Green Is The New Red

“What I am about to show you is very difficult to experience; once you have been inside, there’s no turning back, ” narrates Jose Valle just before he walks you into a pig farming facility in Mexico. “This is your last chance to leave.”

The ominous warning marks the beginning of a new documentary investigation by Animal Equality, an animal protection organization, and Condition One, a virtual reality production company. The film, Factory Farm, premiered at Sundance Film Festival, but is seen here for the first time.

Footage of this nature is not new. For years, animal activists have exposed the realities of industrialized animal slaughter. Today, groups like the Humane Society and Mercy for Animals have published undercover investigations on YouTube, prompting criminal charges, new legislation, and consumer outrage.

Now, Animal Equality’s films are going even further.

They are unique in that they are shot on virtual reality cameras, allowing 360-degrees of sight for the audience. In Animal Equality’s previous VR film, iAnimal, the viewer, guided by narration, experiences life through the eyes of a pig. In Factory Farm, we stand alongside Valle as he photographs a pig’s confinement, castration, electrocution, and slaughter.

Through the technology of VR we get a fuller range of sight into the life of an animal raised for slaughter. For example, it allows us to see the saliva coming from a pig’s mouth as it gnaws the metal bars of its crate and to rotate around to see the bloodied tail of a castrated piglet nearby. It allows us to see the reflections of workers in the pools of blood on the floor, and to move upwards to see their faces as they go about their work.

With VR, we too, can hear the whirring and grinding of machinery in the slaughterhouse, the squeals of uncooperative swine and the yells of those who push and kick them to their fate. 

The films are designed to be viewed with a special VR headset, allowing the viewer to look around by turning their head. Currently, Animal Equality is touring UK and US universities with iAnimal and VR headsets, offering special street screenings. For those in other cities, the experience can also be emulated online, using the cursors to see left and right, up and down.

“Regular footage of animal cruelty just feels like you are looking at a flat window, which is easy to emotionally distance yourself from,” observes Danfung Dennis, founder of Condition One. He says VR draws its power from the “command presence” it has over its viewers. “When viewed in virtual reality, you feel you are actually inside a factory farm in close proximity to the animals,” he says.

This is important given how much of the experience is related to spatial confinement. For example, in iAnimal, the film begins with piglets suckling at the teats of their mother, who lies tightly wedged in a metal enclosure, known as a gestation crate.

While VR technology has existed for decades, it has only recently received substantial interest. Facebook has acquired a leading VR company, and Sony, Samsung, Microsoft, HTC, and Google all have VR projects now as well. Once considered merely a piece of potential gaming equipment, Animal Equality and Condition One have co-opted VR technology to expose the dark depths of the meat industry.

Factory Farm and iAnimal, incorporate footage of this industry from various parts of the world – the UK, Mexico, Germany, Spain, and Italy. However, the standardization of the practices and facilities make each location feel universal.

“I have been inside factory farms around the world and they are all the same,” narrates Valle at the end of Factory Farm. “This system of abuse has been designed only in the last 50 years, but it has been replicated globally.”

Toni Shephard, Animal Equity’s Executive Director, says they confirmed how these practices have become standardized. “In the UK we have had some farmers and slaughterhouse workers watch the film at our events and all have confirmed that what we show is just normal practice, nothing exaggerated,” Shephard says.

Unlike most VR experiences, Factory Farm and iAnimal do not just reveal a place that is hard to see. Rather, they reveal one that was never meant to be seen at all. Places such as these, much like the secret experimental prisons operating across the US, are carefully and deliberately hidden from view. Now, “ag-gag” laws in the United States are making it illegal to expose this type of animal cruelty.

Save for one location, Animal Equity obtained its footage without permission, after entering and installing cameras at night when workers were not present. If anything, their efforts serve as a reminder on the powerful effects of bearing witness, to what the industry considers standard practice. As the New York Times observes, “Factory farm operators believe that the less we know about what goes on behind their closed doors, the better for the industry.”



Those walls of secrecy are rapidly being brought down by animal protection groups. The only thing missing, for now, is the smell.

Exclusive: New Virtual Reality Investigation Goes Inside Factory Farms from Green Is The New Red

If you’ve been reading Green Is the New Red, you know that one of the most prevalent — and effective — tactics against social justice movements is to divide them, and let the factions turn on each other.

Animal advocates are challenging the most powerful and wealthy industries on the planet. This sticker (with the acronyms for a wide range of animal protection groups) is a reminder to focus on positive activism, rather than differences and disagreements with other activists.

Animal-abusing industries have been united in their campaign to label activists as “terrorists,” and lobby for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and “ag-gag” laws. It’s time activists do the same.

Design by Jessie Duke of Pioneers Press.

$2 each (and check out our other merchandise here)

New Sticker — Animal Rights Activists Must “Join or Die” from Green Is The New Red

I’m excited to be part of a new television series called “Truth and Power” that’s narrated by Maggie Gyllenhaal and executive produced by award-winning filmmaker Brian Knappenberger (who made The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz).

The episode scheduled to air this Friday, February 19th at 10pm on PIVOT, takes a close look at how animal rights activists have been classified as “terrorists” by the FBI.

I’m involved throughout the episode, speaking about my own FBI experiences, working with Ryan Shapiro and Jeff Light on their stellar Freedom of Information Act efforts (here’s an article about Ryan’s work), and why SHAC 7 defendants including Lauren Gazzola and Andy Stepanian were viewed as such a threat to corporations.

I also spoke at length about ag-gag laws, which attempt to criminalize anyone—including journalists–who expose animal cruelty on factory farms and slaughterhouses. The crew accompanied me on several drone investigations of factory farms, which was a lot of fun — and resulted in some great footage, along with some interesting exchanges with farm owners, which you can see in the show.

Here’s more from the creators:

“What happens when private institutions and governments abuse their power and break the public trust?… The 10-part series highlights the stories of ordinary people going to extraordinary lengths to expose large-scale abuses of power: from corporations receiving lucrative government contracts for dangerous private prisons to governments using data-gathering technology to scoop up huge amounts of information about their citizens. Using probing interviews, original footage, and newly unearthed documents, the series unpacks the timely issues of security, surveillance, and profiteering in the digital age.”

 

“Truth and Power” TV series features Will Potter on “eco-terrorism,” ag-gag laws, and investigative journalism from Green Is The New Red

One of the most powerful talks I heard at TED last year was singer-songwriter Dawn Landes telling the story of Tori Murden McClure.

McClure dreamed of rowing across the Atlantic in a small boat, and found herself alone in the middle of a hurricane. Her boat capsized over and over again, and video tapes of her journey captured her desperation. She thought it was the end.

As I sat in the audience at TED, her story, and Landes’ delivery, had me in tears. There was something about seeing and hearing McClure isolated and alone, yet refusing to give in to hopelessness, that made her struggle feel universal.

I hope you’ll watch this talk all the way through, because at the end you’ll see the advice she received from Muhammad Ali that gave me chills.

This woman rowed straight into a hurricane. And you should too. from Green Is The New Red

In a recent TV interview (below), I was asked to discuss how the mainstream media has been covering the militia standoff in Oregon, as heavily-armed Bundy gang members occupy federal land.

We didn’t have much time to go into all the details, so I wanted to elaborate here, with what I think are six of the most important lessons we should be learning from how the government and the press have treated militia groups like this one.

 

1.) Unarmed black men (and children) are viewed as more dangerous than armed white militias.

I think this is glaring to most reasonable viewers, but it has largely gone unmentioned in media coverage of the standoff. Tamir Rice was shot and killed by police, just seconds after they arrived on the scene, because he was playing with a toy gun. Media commentators searched for any possible explanation of why the police did this, rather than directly address the endemic that is police violence; with the Oregon militia, media commentators have searched for any possible explanation as to why they should not be confronted by police, rather than directly address the rapid growth of far-right paramilitary groups.

When Black Lives Matter wanted to protest at the Mall of America, the police and legal response was swift. When a white militia occupies federal land, with guns, the law enforcement response has been extreme only in its restraint.

2.) Damaging corporate property is a greater threat to society than harming human life.

It’s ironic that this standoff is taking place in Oregon, which was once a hotbed of radical environmental activism. Groups like the Earth Liberation Front destroyed property, but never took up guns. Members of the ELF were sentenced to prison as terrorists, and even ended up in experimental prisons called Communications Management Units.

The FBI has consistently labeled environmental and animal rights activists, who have broken the law in the name of protecting life, as the “number one domestic terrorism threat” while ignoring the violence of militias and anti-abortion extremists. The only possible explanation we can distill from this is that law enforcement has prioritized threats to corporate property as worse than threats to human life.

3.) Right-wing militia activity is surging, but it’s treated as an aberration.

As I’ve reported previously, right-wing violence has increased 400% since the 1990s, according to West Point researchers. (And here is a great summary of the current situation, by Spencer Sunshine). Yet whenever it occurs, it is overwhelmingly treated as an aberration. Violence against abortion providers, violence against Muslim, violence against gays — it’s depicted as a one-off crime (or “tragedy,” at best) rather than the inevitable outcome of an ideological movement that has praised these tactics for decades.

By contrast, FBI training presentations reveal that law enforcement regard the entire animal rights and environmental movements as a threat.

4.) Language always defines the debate.

When unarmed black men are murdered by police, they are described as “thugs.” So are their communities and other concerned citizens, when they take to the streets in Ferguson, Baltimore, and around the country. That language never appears in discussions of white militia members. As one CNN analyst said, white militia members aren’t really a threat because they are not looting.

5.) White people with guns aren’t “real terrorists.”

#YallQaeda, #VanillaISIS, #YeeHawd. The hashtags about white militants have been clever (and so has the response to their call for snacks). But why are those hashtags, and liberal media commentary about the militia, so humorous? They play off of the unspoken, racist belief that these white militants are not “real terrorists.” So who are the real terrorists? Why, Muslims of course!

I appreciate the joke (I’m not going to lie, #VanillaISIS cracked me up) but playing off of those stereotypes only reinforces discriminatory law enforcement priorities, and discriminatory media representations of Muslim people.

6.) We need a better response than “they’re terrorists, too!”

Some liberals have taken note of how the word “terrorism” has not appeared in most media discussions of the Oregon standoff, and called on both journalists and the government to treat the militia as such.

But that isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Labeling more and more groups as terrorists only further expands post-9/11 police, surveillance, and prosecutorial powers. It might feel vindicating to see your opponents labeled as terrorists, but it doesn’t address these misplaced government priorities, it doesn’t address skewed media representations, and it doesn’t make us safer.

The media have failed to accurately describe the militia (they are not “peaceful protestors,” or “militants“). But the answer is not to err on the opposite end of the spectrum, and label more and more things as terrorism. We need to exercise restraint in how that incredibly powerful language is being used, while at the same time demanding accountability and oversight of police power.

 

6 Lessons From How the FBI and Media Treat Militia Groups from Green Is The New Red