Perception vs. Reality

Will distorted views of food safety decide the future of animal ag?

Success in agriculture does not come without its share of risks, such as unpredictable weather and large capital investments. It also comes with potential threats, such as some of the claims of animal welfare groups, environmental regulations and distorted perceptions of food safety issues.

Nothing is new about these risks and challenges. But some surveys show what is new is the number of consumers who listen and pay attention to them. Using consumer media outlets such as TV news, radio talk shows and the Internet to try to drum up opposition to today’s agriculture, opponents are reaching more consumers than ever before with allegations against U.S. poultry, livestock and fish farmers. Pictured to the right is Indiana Gov, Mitch Daniels. Daniels knows the value of animal agriculture. In 2009, Indiana animals consumed more than 726,000 metric tons (or the meal from 34 million bushels of soybeans), with hogs eating the most.

The increased attention being paid to such allegations has led to heightened concerns and increased questions from consumers about U.S. poultry, livestock and aquaculture production. Therefore, the importance of reminding consumers that their food is nutritious, affordable and produced in a responsible manner is more important than ever.

Jim Schriver, United Soybean Board (USB) Domestic Marketing chair and a soybean farmer from Montpelier, Ind., says that once consumers understand the true value of agriculture, both economically and environmentally, they support the work of farmers.

“When we export a hog, we’ve created a number of jobs,” Schriver says. “Not just at the hog farm, but through value-added agriculture, whether at a local feed plant or at a soybean crusher that processes soybean meal. Consumers must also understand and be reminded that farmers are environmentally friendly and practice sustainable farming methods. Not too many other professionals can talk about the measures they take on a daily basis to protect the environment.”

Opponents of animal agriculture often fail to tell consumers about the economic impact agriculture has on individual states and the country as a whole.

While some other states adopt legislation further regulating animal agriculture, Schriver’s home state of Indiana has grown by doing the opposite – embracing it. Indiana ranked eighth in the nation in personal income growth in 2009-2010, a feat that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels attributes partially to income from farms and agriculture.

“I’ve always said that this is a matter of the head and not just the heart,” Daniels explains. “We love farmers, and we love agriculture and the people who live and work on the land, but this is first and foremost a business decision. We thought developing our agricultural sector further, at a time when, I later discovered, many states are practicing restrictive policies, was an economic opportunity for the state.”