The Value Of Undercover Investigations In Aiding Legal Victories For Animals

A version of this post originally appeared on the Faunalytics blog.

Many readers may already be familiar with undercover animal cruelty investigations. You may remember the beatings and neglect inflicted on newborn dairy calves exposed by the 2019 Fair Oaks Farm investigation by Animal Recovery Mission. Or you might have watched Mercy for Animals’ recent documentation of crushed and suffocated pigs in cramped gestation crates at a Nebraska farm. 

As these examples—and many others—show, undercover investigations are a potent tool wielded by animal advocates to pierce the veil of secrecy that shrouds much of modern animal agriculture and laboratory testing. Undercover investigators document the routine, yet often abhorrent practices of animal farms and other animal industries. By widely sharing videos of animal cruelty and suffering in industry, investigators and the donors and organizations that support them usually seek to draw the attention of regulators and consumers––and spark change as a result. 

This tactic has met with some success; one animal protection organization, Animal Equality, cites an E.U. ban on rabbit cages as coming as a result of an undercover investigation. Following other investigations, authorities ordered the closure of a pig farm in the U.K. and a Spanish foie gras farm. Undercover investigations have occasionally mitigated animal suffering on the largest scale: After a yearslong Animal Equality campaign supported by numerous partnered groups and bolstered by undercover footage of day-old chicks being shredded alive—a routine egg industry practice—the Italian Parliament passed a ban on sex-selective chick culling to take effect by 2026. This step forward for animal welfare could save as many as five million chicks a year from violent early death.

While undercover investigations have contributed to substantial gains for animals through influencing government action, the data remains vague as to whether they substantially alter consumer buying behavior. Studies suggest that the general public tolerates or even approves of undercover animal cruelty investigations, particularly when investigators avoid engaging in property damage and don’t remove animals from farm or factory premises. But it’s unclear that a link exists between watching footage of animal cruelty and purchasing fewer animal products.

One 2020 Nature article suggests that consumer-focused animal advocacy may be largely ineffective in promoting animal welfare. The paper points out that per capita meat consumption is at its highest level ever in the U.S., with an increased trend towards chicken consumption. This shift rings animal welfare alarms because of chickens’ small body size; far more chickens need to be slaughtered to produce an equivalent amount of meat for human consumption than pigs or cows. It also raises concern because of the severe animal welfare issues seen in modern U.S. poultry production. 

Multiple reasons may be in play, the author suggests, for consumer intractability. For instance, consumer-based campaigns may induce moral defensiveness in those who view them, which causes them to resist altering their behavior. As a result, the author argues that a focus on changing the policy of institutions like governments and corporations may prove more effective than consumer activism in promoting animal welfare.

However, another benefit of undercover animal cruelty investigations has been less well-considered than motivating consumers to eat less meat or creating legislative change. Undercover investigations provide a valuable trove of evidence for animal advocates seeking to encourage criminal prosecution of industrial farms and laboratories on animal cruelty grounds. In cases where clear violations of law are documented, undercover investigations have led to the criminal prosecution of individuals and facilities, creating a much-needed deterrent: Animal Outlook’s undercover investigation footage of cow abuse at a Chambersburg, Pennsylvania farm led, after appeal, to criminal prosecution under state animal cruelty and neglect laws. 

Undercover investigation footage has also sparked civil lawsuits. For instance, the Animal Legal Defense Fund was able to use footage from an undercover investigation that showed pigs being fed a ‘slurry’ of dead piglet intestines and feces to sue Holden Farms, a pig-breeding facility in Utica, Minnesota, under the federal False Claims Act for violating the federal Swine Health Protection Act, Minnesota Anti-Garbage feeding law, and Minnesota Anti-Cruelty Law.

Legal Impact for Chickens’ Case Farms lawsuit represents another example of such litigation; LIC deployed investigatory footage from a 2021 Animal Outlook undercover investigation of cruelty towards newborn chicks at Case Farms in order to sue under a North Carolina animal cruelty law. While the Case Farms suit was dismissed from the bench based on a potential exemption in December 2023, LIC has appealed the case to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The permanent nature of investigation footage also allows for one-off measures to promote animal welfare to be amplified. Whether for grassroots activism, general consciousness-raising, or legislative lobbying, investigation videos can be reused and repurposed by other animal advocates. One of the most salient recent examples involves California’s Proposition 12, a voter ballot initiative that imposes basic welfare standards on pork and eggs sold in California. Prop 12 was recently upheld in National Pork Producers v. Ross, a Supreme Court case that challenged the initiative on dormant commerce clause grounds. As part of its Supreme Court amicus brief arguing to uphold Prop 12, Harvard’s Animal Law and Policy Program (ALPP) made the striking decision to include extensive photo documentation of both happy pigs in their natural context and injured and suffering pigs. The latter images were drawn from undercover investigations. In doing so, the ALPP sought to draw the attention of both the court and the wider public to the animal welfare concerns that motivated the initiative. 

Because of their positive legal and policy impacts, support for undercover investigations of animal cruelty remains crucial for animal advocates, regardless of what role undercover investigations may play in altering consumer behavior. This support may be especially important to defend the utility of undercover animal cruelty investigations in a U.S. legal landscape that has become increasingly unfriendly to such efforts. States including Montana, North Dakota, Alabama, and Missouri have successfully passed so-called ‘ag-gag’ laws that criminalize the undercover recording of animal agriculture operations; other states are currently considering the passage of similar bills. While animal advocacy organizations like the Animal Legal Defense Fund have successfully argued the unconstitutionality of ‘ag-gag’ laws in states including North Carolina and Idaho, such legislative efforts remain a potent threat to both freedom of speech and to the ability of undercover investigators to share documentation of animal cruelty with regulators, prosecutors, allied civil lawyers, and the wider world.  

Because of these powerful state-based hurdles to documenting animal suffering, donors and animal advocacy organizations should go beyond funding undercover investigations and consider supporting constitutional challenges to those laws that prohibit the practice entirely. In doing so, they will help ensure that widespread industry practices of animal cruelty remain visible—and thereby combatable.