Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:00 AM
Most important thing is to speak, industry experts say
Analysis
By TIM HEARDEN
Capital Press
With many consumers these days pondering where their food comes from, agriculture is eager to tell its story to the non-farm public.
Spurred by legislative and economic challenges as well as marketing opportunities, many agricultural voices can be heard as farmers, ranchers and commodity groups are using many forums to get their message out.
If they don't tell agriculture's story, they fear that others will. And those others could be the likes of the Humane Society of the United States, food activist and author Michael Pollan or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
So the voice of the farmer is louder than ever. But is that voice clear?
Is it better to have a chorus of disparate interests in agriculture all clamoring for attention from the non-ag public, or should outreach efforts be more coordinated?
There are advantages and disadvantages to both, said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
"Sometimes coordination can make an effort more effective," Stallman said. "We're trying to give individual members tools in how to communicate with the media and the public ... and clue them in on how to be an effective advocate or spokesperson. They can do that as an individual farmer or rancher.
"I think it depends on what you're trying to do," he said. "The Yellow Tail thing was purely spontaneous and that was just incredible ... I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish and which audience you're trying to accomplish it with."
Stallman was referring to the online social-media campaign waged by hundreds of individual farmers and ranchers against the Australia-based Yellow Tail wine company after it had announced it was donating money to the Humane Society of the U.S.
Some coordinated efforts are effective and long-standing.
For instance, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology has been working for 38 years to provide science-based information for legislators, media and the public.
The group -- composed of scientific societies as well as many individual members -- puts together papers and video presentations on food safety.
For example, one entry deals with why there are sometimes problems associated with lettuce.
"They all want it chopped up in bags with carrots anymore," said John Bonner, CAST's executive vice president. "There's a lot of contamination associated with handling.
"The idea is to tell the story of agriculture to the public and let them know that ag is here and it's very important to them and they're part of it," he said. "It's an attempt to let people know that agriculture is you, and you're part of agriculture if you eat."
But whether or not messages are coordinated, just having the messages is important, said Dave Daley, associate dean of the college of agriculture at California State University-Chico.
"You won't get a perfectly consistent message ... but just being able to talk is critical," Daley said. Commodity groups, he said, are working harder to get messages out "in a way the public can understand, and in a positive way instead of a reactionary way."
Posted By: On: 3/21/2010
Title:
All too often, the big ag groups' "one voice" is antagonistic to a large percentage of food consumers, i.e., those who consider themselves environmentalists. At the same time, that "one voice" tends to support the policies of a single political party (you know which) irregardless of whether or not that party's positions benefit farmers. Conversely, by antagonizing the other party, it makes it harder for politicians in that party to take positions that support farmers. If ag groups refuse to sit at the table when policy is made that affects farmers, the outcome is predictable.
Healthcare and alternative energy are two really good examples of how big ag groups took party-line sides on an issue without actually considering the potential benefits to farmers.
And environmentally minded consumers are potentially the biggest ally for farmers, as long as ag groups are willing to sit down at the table and discuss the issues that are important to them. It seems like staff at groups like the Farm Bureau are starting to figure this out, but it's going to take years to change the minds of their members who they've told for years that enviros are evil people out to destroy farming as a way of life.