One of the most important problems facing farmers and
ranchers today is the disconnect between consumers and producers. This
disconnect is potentially dangerous to both consumers and producers, and
arguably poses a threat to the very existence of our nation. Unfortunately, the
disconnect continues to be set in adversarial tones by the major media and many
in government.
It’s a thorny problem, because so few are feeding so many.
One might think the problem therefore could lie in the concentration of power
in agricultural food production – that a mighty few could control the food
supply. In fact, the opposite is the case. The majority control the food
supply. The majority have it within their power to unintentionally wreck the
agricultural sector by pushing for changes, regulations and policies in a
system they don’t understand. Such changes, regulations and policies might be
superficially well intended, but if they destroy food production everyone will
go hungry.
We are all food consumers. We all have a vested survival
interest in food. Consumers pay for, and ultimately control, food production.
In that sense, just as we are all consumers, so are we all farmers. Perhaps
this is a message that will help ease the disconnect.
The primary disconnect is that most consumers are so far
removed from food production that they have little basic understanding of what
farmers and ranchers do, and why. Farmers and ranchers, who deal with the how
and why every day, struggle to understand a point of view that doesn’t include
what, to them, is common wisdom.
Political activists and opportunists, including many in the
media and in government, take advantage of the situation by boldly
misrepresenting objective facts in order to manipulate public opinion. The
media meme is essentially this – farmers and ranchers are intentionally
producing unsafe food and harming the environment to make money. Politicians,
government officials and bureaucrats often posit government policy and
regulation as the only thing preventing out-of-control farmers and ranchers
from poisoning both consumers and the environment.
In a nutshell, agriculture has become highly politicized.
Like many other topics in the national discourse, agriculture is now an
ideological battleground. As has often been said (perhaps first by Samuel
Johnson in The Idler, ca. 1758), the first casualty of war is truth.
Producers recognize that very little – if any – of the
national discourse on agriculture and agriculture policy has anything to do
with the reality of producing food. I suspect that many consumers have a sense
that when it comes to agriculture they are being fed a political narrative
rather than factual information.
For producers, the political narrative is extremely
frustrating. An overwhelming majority of policy makers, bureaucrats, and
reporters make assertions which are simply not true, assertions which they are
absolutely unqualified to make. I suspect that the majority of consumers are
skeptical about such sweeping assertions. A few examples:
GMO’s, or Genetically Modified Organisms. The narrative
asserts that GMO crops are a ticking time bomb which will unleash monstrous
mutating plagues across the face of the planet. Evidence supporting this
assertion can only be found in 1950’s sci-fi movies. The fact that man has been
manipulating plant and animal genetics for hundreds of thousands of years, and
that nature has been doing so for billions of years – with no sign of mutant
plagues, mind you – is ignored.
LFTB. Lean Finely Textured Beef. This product, called “pink
slime” in the media, in congress and even by many in the USDA, is said to be
rotting, leftover meat, treated with poisonous ammonia and force-fed to
helpless school children. Just think about that for a moment and ask yourself
whether it seems a reasonable proposition.
Antibiotic resistant superbugs. A recent New York Times
editorial, written by a self-proclaimed “foodie”, contained the following
phrase. “Indeed, about 80 percent of antibiotics in the United States go to
farm animals – leading to the risk of more antibiotic-resistant microbes, which
already cause infections that kill some 100,000 Americans annually.” That
sentence is a masterful piece of deception, leading one to believe that food
animals suffer the same diseases as humans, and that mistreatment of these
diseases causes antibiotic resistant superbugs to be transmitted to human
beings – somehow – and kill 100,000 consumers each year. Again, ask yourself
whether this makes sense.
If these goofy claims are frustrating for producers, imagine
how frustrating they must be for consumers. Most consumers, 98-99 percent of
Americans, are so far removed from any contact with food production that they
have no ability to put such claims into reasonable perspective or context. A
great many – perhaps most – probably recognize that there is something fishy in
such irrational assertions. But they’re busy people, and lack the time to
investigate each claim. They are further hamstringed by the lack of easily
accessed, objective data. They expect the media to provide objective truth, but
the media does not. Nor does the government.
To understand the frustration of the consumer, try an
experiment. Type “antibiotic resistance food animals” into your search engine
of choice. Click on a few of the hits. You will find a lot of assertions, such
as:
“These drugs can affect the meat, milk, and eggs produced
from those animals and can be the source of superbugs. For example, farm
animals, particularly pigs, are believed (though not proven) to be able to
infect people with MRSA.”
Unfortunately, such assertions are almost exclusively
misrepresentations. If you take the time to click on citation links and read
the papers, you’ll find that they tell a completely different story. Still, I
challenge you to find, in less than a day, a document on the internet which
gives a more objective overview such as the following:
“Although antibiotics and antibiotic residues can be
found in meat, milk and eggs immediately following drug administration, such
residues are quickly metabolized and flushed from the animals system, and
federally mandated withdrawal periods prevent food products containing residues
from being sold for consumption. Though it is theoretically possible for
antibiotic resistant food animal pathogens to genetically transmit resistance
to human pathogens, there is no evidence that this has ever occurred and USDA
inspectors and researchers are constantly monitoring food streams to ensure
safety.”
Try a similar search at the USDA Web-site. There you will
find a wealth of data, but no clear answer to basic and fundamental questions.
For the consumer, finding information about agriculture and
food production is a serious challenge. While we can argue the cause of this,
it’s clear that neither major media nor government are willing or able to
provide simple, honest objectivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment