US Ag alliance not happy with antibiotic review
12 Jan 2010
www.vetsweb.com
The Animal Agriculture Alliance in the US is offended by the unbalanced claims in the widespread Associated Press article entitled "Pressure Rises to Stop Antibiotics in Agriculture".
Released on Dec. 29, the story (437 initial pages in Google) was the third installment of a five-part series about antibiotic resistance in the United States. Unfortunately, AAA says, the authors did not offer a balanced analysis of the complex issue, instead relying on biased sources to portray America's food producers in a negative light. “Antibiotics are a judiciously-used tool employed by farmers and ranchers with veterinarian oversight to further their goal of raising healthy animals,” AAA says in a press release.
"America's farmers, ranchers and veterinarians are committed to ensuring the health of their animals and the safety of their products," said Kay Johnson Smith, Alliance Executive Vice President. "Antibiotic use in agriculture is carefully monitored to provide a healthy, plentiful food supply for all."
Opinion blurs factsThe AP article dangerously blurs the line between opinion and fact. Although the authors quote an unsubstantiated estimate that 70% of the antibiotics used in the US are administered to livestock, they fail to acknowledge that nearly half of the total estimated amount is made up of ionophores and other compounds not used in human medicine that do not impact human resistance.
The article also inaccurately suggests that animal feed is constantly "laced" with antibiotics. In reality, each antibiotic is administered according to the specifications of a US Food and Drug Administration-approved label that clearly indicates the number of doses and duration of use.
Read More
In the recent tradition of mainstream media, The AP article about antibiotics was more concerned with sharing opinions than facts. The ability to keep our livestock healthy shouldn’t be taken lightly. It’s comical to hear that feeding antibiotics to livestock just covers for poor management. A statement like that displays an incredible lack of understanding for how and why they are used. That’s like saying the parent of any child who’s been given antibiotics is a bad parent. The reason farmers and ranchers are concerned about keeping the ability to use antibiotics in livestock is because they care. Raising healthy animals is our top priority and the thought of losing an important tool like this due to hype and opinion is frustrating to say the least. ~Troy
Showing posts with label Animal Agriculture Alliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Animal Agriculture Alliance. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Friday, October 2, 2009
College Aggies Online
Program Prepares Young Ag Advocates
Marlys Miller Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Animal Agriculture Alliance has launched "College Aggies Online", a new program aimed at helping today's college students become confident advocates for the agriculture industry.
"We are looking forward to providing the tools that young agriculturists need to communicate effectively with the public," says Kay Johnson Smith, Alliance executive vice president. "College students who participate in the program will do more than just build their resume-- they will help ensure the future of America's agriculture industry by sharing accurate information about modern farming and ranching."ﾠ ﾠ
College Aggies Online is a joint venture of the Alliance and American National CattleWomen. It will connect college students from across the country who are interested in promoting agriculture by sharing their stories. Participants will receive training and instructions from industry professionals and will enjoy access to a private forum to post information about current and emerging issues facing farmers and ranchers.
The online community will provide resources to students on key issues to help them better utilize tools such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to share agriculture's story with the public. "Social networking Web sites offer an effective platform for reaching large audiences of people who do not have farm backgrounds," Johnson Smith says. Read More
There are some really great new online tools being used by young agriculturalists that I want to highlight in the next few weeks. The first one is College Aggies Online, which will be launched on October 15. This site will allow college students to share more information about themselves and agriculture with our consumers. There are many people even within our own industry that say young people aren’t interested in agriculture anymore. I always disagree. As I have traveled across this country, I continually meet young adults that impress the heck out of me. Even just a decade ago, when I was attending South Dakota State University, we weren’t concerned about going out and actively promoting agriculture. But today’s students are not only willing to do it, they are continually seeking opportunities to do so. Check out this new forum for yourself and you will undoubtedly be impressed by those that will be posting on there.
Marlys Miller Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Animal Agriculture Alliance has launched "College Aggies Online", a new program aimed at helping today's college students become confident advocates for the agriculture industry.
"We are looking forward to providing the tools that young agriculturists need to communicate effectively with the public," says Kay Johnson Smith, Alliance executive vice president. "College students who participate in the program will do more than just build their resume-- they will help ensure the future of America's agriculture industry by sharing accurate information about modern farming and ranching."ﾠ ﾠ
College Aggies Online is a joint venture of the Alliance and American National CattleWomen. It will connect college students from across the country who are interested in promoting agriculture by sharing their stories. Participants will receive training and instructions from industry professionals and will enjoy access to a private forum to post information about current and emerging issues facing farmers and ranchers.
The online community will provide resources to students on key issues to help them better utilize tools such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to share agriculture's story with the public. "Social networking Web sites offer an effective platform for reaching large audiences of people who do not have farm backgrounds," Johnson Smith says. Read More
There are some really great new online tools being used by young agriculturalists that I want to highlight in the next few weeks. The first one is College Aggies Online, which will be launched on October 15. This site will allow college students to share more information about themselves and agriculture with our consumers. There are many people even within our own industry that say young people aren’t interested in agriculture anymore. I always disagree. As I have traveled across this country, I continually meet young adults that impress the heck out of me. Even just a decade ago, when I was attending South Dakota State University, we weren’t concerned about going out and actively promoting agriculture. But today’s students are not only willing to do it, they are continually seeking opportunities to do so. Check out this new forum for yourself and you will undoubtedly be impressed by those that will be posting on there.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Animal Rights Infiltrating Religion
Animal Rights Groups Focus on Religion
By Pork news staff Friday, May 15, 2009
"Animal rights activists are using religious messages to recruit a segment of the millennial generation that has little doctrinal anchor in order to advance their vegetarian agenda", said Wes Jamison, an ordained Baptist Minister and associate professor of communications at Palm Beach Atlantic University, addressing participants at the Animal Agriculture Alliance's 8th Annual Stakeholders Summit, held this week in Alexandria, Va.
Jamison explained that two major factors are driving animal rights groups' attempts to engage people of faith. The first is that people motivated by religion tend to give generously, which is an important factor to the $400 million a year animal rights industry. The second reason is that people motivated by religious zeal tend to have sustained intensity over time. This is a critical feature lacking from the current animal rights movement, since many vegans and vegetarians tend to eventually return to an omnivorous diet.
He indicated that animal rights groups are carefully selecting religious passages that appeal to targeted individuals' sense of compassion, self-denial and guilt. He then pointed to Biblical stories that directly refute the messages and went on to label animal rights groups engaging in this tactic as "meaning entrepreneurs."
"We caution people against buying into such messages and encourage people to do their own review of Biblical scripture and literature," said Kay Johnson Smith, executive vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. "Farmers and ranchers are among the most compassionate people in the world and are committed to the care of their animals as a top priority." Link
The interesting thing about radical animal rights groups trying to use religion is that many of the radical ones that I have dealt with are atheist. It seems as though they prefer to worship at the alter of animal rights. The sad part is that many denominations in this country have been infiltrated by some of this radical thinking. Apparently, the story of the golden calf is as relevant today as it has ever been.
By Pork news staff Friday, May 15, 2009
"Animal rights activists are using religious messages to recruit a segment of the millennial generation that has little doctrinal anchor in order to advance their vegetarian agenda", said Wes Jamison, an ordained Baptist Minister and associate professor of communications at Palm Beach Atlantic University, addressing participants at the Animal Agriculture Alliance's 8th Annual Stakeholders Summit, held this week in Alexandria, Va.
Jamison explained that two major factors are driving animal rights groups' attempts to engage people of faith. The first is that people motivated by religion tend to give generously, which is an important factor to the $400 million a year animal rights industry. The second reason is that people motivated by religious zeal tend to have sustained intensity over time. This is a critical feature lacking from the current animal rights movement, since many vegans and vegetarians tend to eventually return to an omnivorous diet.
He indicated that animal rights groups are carefully selecting religious passages that appeal to targeted individuals' sense of compassion, self-denial and guilt. He then pointed to Biblical stories that directly refute the messages and went on to label animal rights groups engaging in this tactic as "meaning entrepreneurs."
"We caution people against buying into such messages and encourage people to do their own review of Biblical scripture and literature," said Kay Johnson Smith, executive vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. "Farmers and ranchers are among the most compassionate people in the world and are committed to the care of their animals as a top priority." Link
The interesting thing about radical animal rights groups trying to use religion is that many of the radical ones that I have dealt with are atheist. It seems as though they prefer to worship at the alter of animal rights. The sad part is that many denominations in this country have been infiltrated by some of this radical thinking. Apparently, the story of the golden calf is as relevant today as it has ever been.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Animal Ag Alliance
Animal Agriculture Alliance summit underway in D.C.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 3:43 PM
by Ken Anderson
The Animal Agriculture Alliance is holding its 8th annual Stakeholders Summit in Washington D.C.
One of the speakers is Aaron Putze, executive director of the Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers. Putze says he continues to stress the importance of ag groups working together to grow the livestock sector.
“We don’t have the luxury in agriculture to be duplicating efforts—to be recreating wheels,” Putze says. “We don’t have enough time, we don’t have enough resources, we don’t have enough people.”
The Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers celebrates its fifth anniversary in 2009. Putze says the key to Iowa’s success has been maintaining focus.
“We’re not out talking about a new issue every other week, or following a different path every other month,” he says. “We’ve stayed focused and I think that’s why the Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers has been a real bright spot and has been modeled by other organizations in other states.” Link
I would like to tweak one of Mr Putze’s comments here. He says that we don’t have enough people but I would say that we don’t have enough people actively engaging in promoting and defending our industry. Groups like Mr. Putze’s Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers have done a great job of organizing efforts to promote our industry, but they need the support of the producers. And by that I mean active support. We all need to find spare minutes in our days to make these efforts even stronger.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 3:43 PM
by Ken Anderson
The Animal Agriculture Alliance is holding its 8th annual Stakeholders Summit in Washington D.C.
One of the speakers is Aaron Putze, executive director of the Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers. Putze says he continues to stress the importance of ag groups working together to grow the livestock sector.
“We don’t have the luxury in agriculture to be duplicating efforts—to be recreating wheels,” Putze says. “We don’t have enough time, we don’t have enough resources, we don’t have enough people.”
The Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers celebrates its fifth anniversary in 2009. Putze says the key to Iowa’s success has been maintaining focus.
“We’re not out talking about a new issue every other week, or following a different path every other month,” he says. “We’ve stayed focused and I think that’s why the Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers has been a real bright spot and has been modeled by other organizations in other states.” Link
I would like to tweak one of Mr Putze’s comments here. He says that we don’t have enough people but I would say that we don’t have enough people actively engaging in promoting and defending our industry. Groups like Mr. Putze’s Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers have done a great job of organizing efforts to promote our industry, but they need the support of the producers. And by that I mean active support. We all need to find spare minutes in our days to make these efforts even stronger.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Blaming Livestock Housing
Disease Risk Reduced By Modern Livestock Housing
The head of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) has criticized animal activist groups for using the H1N1 virus in an attempt to advance the anti-animal agriculture agenda. AAA Executive Vice President Kay Johnson Smith said while activists are blaming modern livestock systems, the disease has not been found in a U.S. animal.
Smith explained modern housing protects food animals from predators, disease and weather stress. She said the structures are clean and scientifically designed to meet the animal’s specific needs, including temperature and light.
“These facilities are better for controlling and reducing diseases than allowing animals to have uncontrolled interactions with wild animals and other potential disease vectors,” said Smith.
She said attempting to connect modern animal production to the current flu outbreak is “a huge stretch and is completely irresponsible.” Link
It wouldn’t matter what type of housing or non-housing system we were using when H1N1 came on to the scene. The anti-animal agriculture groups want to abolish our industry. They have learned that fear is the best way to force their agenda on our society since it leads to irrational reasoning. So no matter what crisis they create or comes along on its own, they will find a way to connect it to modern animal production.
The head of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) has criticized animal activist groups for using the H1N1 virus in an attempt to advance the anti-animal agriculture agenda. AAA Executive Vice President Kay Johnson Smith said while activists are blaming modern livestock systems, the disease has not been found in a U.S. animal.
Smith explained modern housing protects food animals from predators, disease and weather stress. She said the structures are clean and scientifically designed to meet the animal’s specific needs, including temperature and light.
“These facilities are better for controlling and reducing diseases than allowing animals to have uncontrolled interactions with wild animals and other potential disease vectors,” said Smith.
She said attempting to connect modern animal production to the current flu outbreak is “a huge stretch and is completely irresponsible.” Link
It wouldn’t matter what type of housing or non-housing system we were using when H1N1 came on to the scene. The anti-animal agriculture groups want to abolish our industry. They have learned that fear is the best way to force their agenda on our society since it leads to irrational reasoning. So no matter what crisis they create or comes along on its own, they will find a way to connect it to modern animal production.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Breaking News - New Anti-Ag Group Formed
This infomation is coming from Animal Agriculture Alliance. This was posted with their permission.
We just learned about yet another anti-modern farming organization called the Center to Expose & Close Animal Factories (CECAF) that launched today. They just held a telepress conference which was wrought with misinformation and sensationalism. The group's supposed founders, Richard Middleton and Charlie Speer - two litigators who met Robert Kennedy at one of his rallies several years ago - decided filing lawsuits on their own was not enough. Therefore, they decided to form this non-profit organization to elevate the profile of "animal factory" issues and work to close these kinds of farm operations (yet they had no definition of what an animal factory was other than "big" - and "the bigger they are, the more problematic that are."
They used the guise of "swine flu" and Smithfield in their press release to announce the conference to hook reporters into participating, yet didn't reference that at all in their opening comments. Only when asked by a reporter directly if they had evidence of any connection between the H1N1 flu and the farm in Mexico, all they could say was "well it's all over the internet," and really "it's just a matter of time" before disease is rampant b/c of the mass numbers of animals on these farms today. They essentially repeated the same sensational and completely false claims made by activists - both environmental & animal rights, and , and directly stated it was not only pork farms that they intended to target but all types of CAFOs.
Interestingly, they referenced the Pew Commission report a couple of times as an "excellent source of information on these issues," and then noted one of their "clients" was GRACE - both of which are based at the Center for a Livable Future of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Steve Kopperud asked if they were affiliated with groups like HSUS or Farm Sanctuary, but they weren't named. Only GRACE, the Sierra Club and a group called Socially Responsible Ag Project.
They indicated their Board of Directors would be available on its website, but it's their Advisory Board which are all individuals and we haven't researched their affiliations yet. Here's the website for more information: http://www.closeanimalfactories.org/
Fortunately, neither Middleton nor Speer could answer many of the questions posed with credible answers, and it showed even to the non-ag reporters on the line. But this is yet another group out to "get" animal ag & definitely one to keep an eye on in the future.
We just learned about yet another anti-modern farming organization called the Center to Expose & Close Animal Factories (CECAF) that launched today. They just held a telepress conference which was wrought with misinformation and sensationalism. The group's supposed founders, Richard Middleton and Charlie Speer - two litigators who met Robert Kennedy at one of his rallies several years ago - decided filing lawsuits on their own was not enough. Therefore, they decided to form this non-profit organization to elevate the profile of "animal factory" issues and work to close these kinds of farm operations (yet they had no definition of what an animal factory was other than "big" - and "the bigger they are, the more problematic that are."
They used the guise of "swine flu" and Smithfield in their press release to announce the conference to hook reporters into participating, yet didn't reference that at all in their opening comments. Only when asked by a reporter directly if they had evidence of any connection between the H1N1 flu and the farm in Mexico, all they could say was "well it's all over the internet," and really "it's just a matter of time" before disease is rampant b/c of the mass numbers of animals on these farms today. They essentially repeated the same sensational and completely false claims made by activists - both environmental & animal rights, and , and directly stated it was not only pork farms that they intended to target but all types of CAFOs.
Interestingly, they referenced the Pew Commission report a couple of times as an "excellent source of information on these issues," and then noted one of their "clients" was GRACE - both of which are based at the Center for a Livable Future of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Steve Kopperud asked if they were affiliated with groups like HSUS or Farm Sanctuary, but they weren't named. Only GRACE, the Sierra Club and a group called Socially Responsible Ag Project.
They indicated their Board of Directors would be available on its website, but it's their Advisory Board which are all individuals and we haven't researched their affiliations yet. Here's the website for more information: http://www.closeanimalfactories.org/
Fortunately, neither Middleton nor Speer could answer many of the questions posed with credible answers, and it showed even to the non-ag reporters on the line. But this is yet another group out to "get" animal ag & definitely one to keep an eye on in the future.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Interview With Steve Kopperud
Meat industry faces emboldened animal rights lobby next year
By Janie Gabbett on 12/10/2008
When California voters on Nov. 4 voted in favor of Proposition 2, a measure that phases out gestation crates for breeding pigs, veal crates for calves and battery cages for egg-laying hens, it sent a shudder up the spines of many involved in animal agriculture.
And well it should have, according to Steve Kopperud, senior vice president of Policy Directions Inc., a Washington, DC government affairs and communications firm, specializing in production agriculture and food processing and retailing.
Kopperud founded and served as the first president of what is today the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a public education organization dedicated to countering animal rights propaganda. Meatingplace.com asked him to elaborate on what is ahead on this issue.
How significant is California's passage of Prop 2 in the overall debate about what constitutes animal welfare in production agriculture? Should the meat industry be concerned?
The meat industry should most assuredly be concerned because it may redefine "welfare" in that it's an indictment of proven, science-based, producer-endorsed and well being-enhancing housing practices.
It gives the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its allies a major lever with the new Congress to try and move federal legislation based upon precedents set in Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado and California even though the overall welfare of the animals is diminished and the safety of meat, poultry and dairy may be compromised.
It also demonstrates we still have a lot to learn in fighting such initiatives and getting our message of professional and consistent top-quality animal care to the public.
PETA and HSUS seem to garner the most press. Should the industry be trying to engage these groups?
The key in talking to the public is using messages that include strong, trust-building messages about producers and production practices. However, engaging PETA — whether you're a fast food chain, supermarket, meat processor or farm group — is a waste of time. You will never negotiate successfully with an animal rights group.
PETA is there to be the freak of the movement. This allows groups like HSUS to come in behind "scary" PETA, leverage their image as dog and cat protection groups, and pose as the "moderate" groups with which companies can work to make the animal rights issues go away.
This never works. It simply signals the movement your company is vulnerable. When you peel away the rhetoric and posturing of all animal rights groups, the bottom line is the same: "You have no right to be in business. Animals should not be used for food. We'll continue to fight to make it unpopular or uneconomical to be in the livestock and poultry business."
What is on your radar in Washington regarding animal rights policy or legislation in 2009?
I fully expect HSUS to leverage its political contributions in the last election to continue to push its agenda. That agenda includes:
-leveraging the California Prop 2 victory with Congress
-major rewrites of federal humane slaughter laws, with a push to include poultry
-a ban on transport of horses for export if they might be heading to slaughter in Mexico or Canada
-a ban on federal purchases of meat, poultry and dairy from farms not practicing HSUS's definition of "welfare"
-a move to federally regulate the transport of all animals to all destinations, and
-active alliances with environmental and food safety groups to attack animal biotechnology, the use of animal drugs by anyone other than a vet, and other conventional production practices.
What kind of work is there to be done so that livestock producers, processors and retailers speak with one voice on this issue?
The first step is for every producer, processor and retailer group, as well as individual companies, to understand they cannot battle the animal rights movement on their own.
Swine must and will support cattle, with cattle returning the favor; ditto for dairy. The four-leggers must and will support poultry and vice versa. All producers must stand with or in front of their processor and retailer customers, making sure they understand the consequence of ill-advised public relations gambits when animal rights attacks come.
We have many of the national producer groups in an ad hoc coalition I manage called the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, but it needs to include every group, not just some groups.
What would you like to see the meat industry doing to engage consumers directly on this issue?
I'd like to see a cooperative consumer education campaign that sells farmers and ranchers, their expertise and the systems they use while selling the products they provide as cheaply, safely and abundantly as they do.
I'd like to see the smallest chunk of checkoff dollars dedicated to selling producer and production practice along with product.
I'd like the public to know organic and "natural" are legitimate product choices in the marketplace, but they're not better than conventionally produced, just different. I'd like to see our organic and natural brethren promote their products without bashing conventional production, because production practices notwithstanding, if the animal welfare movement's goal is no food animal production, then no one gets a pass.
But bottom line, I'd like the consumer to assume the great food they're fortunate enough to be able to buy comes from great people dedicated to what they do and how well they do it. That's the only way they'll turn a deaf ear to the animal rights noise. Link
This is a fantastic interview. Mr. Kopperud has repeated some of the same thoughts and ideas that I have been proposing lately. I feel that it is essential that we start selling ourselves. By that I mean we need to put the face of the American farmer and rancher in front of the public and tell them that we raise food. We have arrived at a point in time that will now require all of agriculture to work together in order for any of us to succeed.
By Janie Gabbett on 12/10/2008
When California voters on Nov. 4 voted in favor of Proposition 2, a measure that phases out gestation crates for breeding pigs, veal crates for calves and battery cages for egg-laying hens, it sent a shudder up the spines of many involved in animal agriculture.
And well it should have, according to Steve Kopperud, senior vice president of Policy Directions Inc., a Washington, DC government affairs and communications firm, specializing in production agriculture and food processing and retailing.
Kopperud founded and served as the first president of what is today the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a public education organization dedicated to countering animal rights propaganda. Meatingplace.com asked him to elaborate on what is ahead on this issue.
How significant is California's passage of Prop 2 in the overall debate about what constitutes animal welfare in production agriculture? Should the meat industry be concerned?
The meat industry should most assuredly be concerned because it may redefine "welfare" in that it's an indictment of proven, science-based, producer-endorsed and well being-enhancing housing practices.
It gives the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its allies a major lever with the new Congress to try and move federal legislation based upon precedents set in Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado and California even though the overall welfare of the animals is diminished and the safety of meat, poultry and dairy may be compromised.
It also demonstrates we still have a lot to learn in fighting such initiatives and getting our message of professional and consistent top-quality animal care to the public.
PETA and HSUS seem to garner the most press. Should the industry be trying to engage these groups?
The key in talking to the public is using messages that include strong, trust-building messages about producers and production practices. However, engaging PETA — whether you're a fast food chain, supermarket, meat processor or farm group — is a waste of time. You will never negotiate successfully with an animal rights group.
PETA is there to be the freak of the movement. This allows groups like HSUS to come in behind "scary" PETA, leverage their image as dog and cat protection groups, and pose as the "moderate" groups with which companies can work to make the animal rights issues go away.
This never works. It simply signals the movement your company is vulnerable. When you peel away the rhetoric and posturing of all animal rights groups, the bottom line is the same: "You have no right to be in business. Animals should not be used for food. We'll continue to fight to make it unpopular or uneconomical to be in the livestock and poultry business."
What is on your radar in Washington regarding animal rights policy or legislation in 2009?
I fully expect HSUS to leverage its political contributions in the last election to continue to push its agenda. That agenda includes:
-leveraging the California Prop 2 victory with Congress
-major rewrites of federal humane slaughter laws, with a push to include poultry
-a ban on transport of horses for export if they might be heading to slaughter in Mexico or Canada
-a ban on federal purchases of meat, poultry and dairy from farms not practicing HSUS's definition of "welfare"
-a move to federally regulate the transport of all animals to all destinations, and
-active alliances with environmental and food safety groups to attack animal biotechnology, the use of animal drugs by anyone other than a vet, and other conventional production practices.
What kind of work is there to be done so that livestock producers, processors and retailers speak with one voice on this issue?
The first step is for every producer, processor and retailer group, as well as individual companies, to understand they cannot battle the animal rights movement on their own.
Swine must and will support cattle, with cattle returning the favor; ditto for dairy. The four-leggers must and will support poultry and vice versa. All producers must stand with or in front of their processor and retailer customers, making sure they understand the consequence of ill-advised public relations gambits when animal rights attacks come.
We have many of the national producer groups in an ad hoc coalition I manage called the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, but it needs to include every group, not just some groups.
What would you like to see the meat industry doing to engage consumers directly on this issue?
I'd like to see a cooperative consumer education campaign that sells farmers and ranchers, their expertise and the systems they use while selling the products they provide as cheaply, safely and abundantly as they do.
I'd like to see the smallest chunk of checkoff dollars dedicated to selling producer and production practice along with product.
I'd like the public to know organic and "natural" are legitimate product choices in the marketplace, but they're not better than conventionally produced, just different. I'd like to see our organic and natural brethren promote their products without bashing conventional production, because production practices notwithstanding, if the animal welfare movement's goal is no food animal production, then no one gets a pass.
But bottom line, I'd like the consumer to assume the great food they're fortunate enough to be able to buy comes from great people dedicated to what they do and how well they do it. That's the only way they'll turn a deaf ear to the animal rights noise. Link
This is a fantastic interview. Mr. Kopperud has repeated some of the same thoughts and ideas that I have been proposing lately. I feel that it is essential that we start selling ourselves. By that I mean we need to put the face of the American farmer and rancher in front of the public and tell them that we raise food. We have arrived at a point in time that will now require all of agriculture to work together in order for any of us to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)