The factory farming industry has a lot to hide, and when its harmful behavior is exposed, there are inevitable calls for change. Industrial animal agriculture’s practices are irresponsible and repugnant, and out of step with mainstream values. But rather than reflecting and adjusting its behavior to be more aligned with societal norms, industrial animal agriculture is trying to prevent transparency and public discourse.

Agribusiness would do well to remember that it depends on consumers to buy its products, and it should not ignore the old adage: “the only constant is change.” Thus far, there have been three statewide citizen initiatives to address the cruel confinement of animals on farms in the U.S. In all three instances, voters sent a clear message that confining animals in cages and crates so tightly that they cannot turn around or stretch their limbs is unacceptable. But some aggies still don’t get it.

Rather than adapting its practices to fit societal norms and consumer expectations, the factory farming industry continues attempting to squelch public discussion and the democratic process. This industry is seeking to pass misguided legislation to give itself control over how farm animals are treated . This is bad for animal welfare and an affront to basic democratic principals. But unfortunately, it is typical of an industry that engages in cruel and aberrant behavior that cannot stand the light of day.

I was able to see Food, Inc. over the weekend, and it was great to see that the theater was packed. The film’s popularity suggests we’re in the midst of a burgeoning food movement in the United States as consumers are finally learning about the abuses of factory farming and the importance of making informed food choices.

Food, Inc. doesn’t explicitly promote a vegan lifestyle, but it does urge consumers to make a difference “one bite at a time.” Among several recommendations, the film urges citizens to plant a garden (even a small one) and to shop at farmer’s markets. The movie shows footage of chickens, pigs and cattle kept on industrialized farms, along with other affronts to animal welfare. A non-industrialized farmer is interviewed and criticizes factory farming. He describes how confined animals are more likely to be contaminated and diseased, and that people who mistreat animals are also more likely to mistreat humans. Ironically, he’s making these comments while chickens are being slaughtered at his farm and he’s pulling out their guts on camera.

The film also talks about how agribusiness bullies farmers and citizens who challenge the status quo, including through costly litigation and promoting laws to make it illegal to take photos at factory farms. Factory farming requires secrecy to continue as it has, but Food, Inc. is helping promote more discussion and awareness. That’s a very good thing.

I’ve written before about the importance of passing Proposition 2 in California, which seeks to end some of factory farming’s cruelest systems (veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages) where animals are confined so tightly that they cannot walk, turn around, or even stretch their limbs. Most citizens oppose animal abuse, and recent polls have shown a majority of Californians support passage of Prop 2.

But agribusiness is dumping millions of dollars into their campaign to mislead voters in attempts to defeat Prop 2. In one 24-hour period last week, they added more than 4 million dollars to their war chest – money they will likely use to air slick commercials and make false assertions that factory farms benefit food safety, workers, animals and the environment. But the empirical evidence tells a very different story. Numerous studies, including a highly respected Pew Commission report that came out earlier this year, describe how industrial animal agriculture harms animals, the environment, consumers and rural communities.

Corporations opposing Proposition 2 are notorious for abusing animals, workers and the environment, and for misleading consumers. They are willing to expend vast resources to maintain the cruel status quo. We don’t have their money, but we have thousands of citizens who are actively engaged in the YES! on Prop 2 campaign.  With less than two months before the election, it is absolutely critical that we do everything we can to enact this basic humane measure. Please get involved today!

The United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) explicitly allows diseased animals to be slaughtered and used for human food. It has taken a “don’t look, don’t find” approach when it comes to potential human health hazardous. Amazingly, the Agency has even gone to court to fight to prevent animals from being tested for disease! And they recently won a case to prevent a slaughterhouse from testing cows for mad cow disease. Why would the U.S.D.A. and other agribusinesses work so hard to prevent animals from being tested for disease? I think they’re afraid of what they’d find.

I’ve spoken with many agribusiness officials and farmers over the years, and encouraged them to think outside the box and consider the benefits of growing plants in place of animals. This concept can be met with resistance, especially from those heavily invested (financially and emotionally) in industrialized animal agriculture.  A couple years ago, I spoke to a group of young dairy industry leaders who challenged my proposition that plant (not animal) farming is the most efficient and ecologically sound way to feed a large human population. They argued that intensive animal agriculture is the most efficient way to produce food. In response, I explained that their views were the exact opposite of what the empirical evidence shows and I asked where they got their information. I was somewhat amused when they told me the name of the book: “Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastics” by Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington, DC that is funded by chemical and agribusiness companies such as Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra and Cargill. Avery’s position relies on narrow, short sighted assumptions to promote intensive ‘high yield’ farming. With the growing awareness about demand for oil outstripping supply, one of Avery’s statements is particularly notable in its shortsightedness and inaccuracy. He wrote: “Critics of mechanized farming warn that the world is rapidly running out of petroleum. However, the world’s current low oil prices testify that new systems for discovering and recovering oil have expanded the supply more rapidly than the demand in recent decades.”  I believe it’s time for Avery and others of his ilk to rethink some of their fundamental assumptions and to look more carefully at the actual state of our planet and our own health.