The following commentaries were first published in Feedstuffs - the weekly newspaper for agribusiness (Minnetonka, Minnesota), issue 16, volume 81, April 20, 2009, and are reproduced with the publisher's permission.

Connecting Farm to Fork

In two parts:
What ag must understand, by Dr. Bernard Rollin
To underestimate farmers, ranchers is a serious mistake, by Steve Kopperud

There are definitely two sides to the animal welfare discussion. This week we hear from Bernard Rollin, a distinguished professor at Colorado State University in Ft. Collins, and Steve Kopperud, executive vice president at Policy Directions Inc.

Rollins brokered the agreement between Colorado agriculture and the Humane Society of the United States that prevented a Proposition 2-type referendum in Colorado. He has also served on the Pew Commission and convinced Smithfield to eliminate sow stalls.

In addition to his position at Policy Directions, Kopperud serves as coordinator of the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition and is founder and past president of the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

What Ag Must Understand
(Also available as Feedstuffs reprint, PDF)

By Bernard E. Rollin*

One of the first principles one learns in athletics is to know one's opponent. Every football team watches footage of their upcoming adversaries; every boxer studies videos of potential opponents to learn, in an anticipatory way, their weaknesses and strengths.

If an athlete or team did not so prepare, we would seriously question not only their ability but also their desire to win.

As for burgeoning societal issues regarding animal welfare, the animal agriculture community has behaved like the foolish athlete in a manner disdainful of its adversaries. Instead of fully understanding what is arrayed against it, it is satisfied with simply dismissing the opposition or stereotyping and lampooning them in ways that fall far short of the mark.

In this article, I will discuss the main areas where the agricultural community has egregiously misunderstood social concerns with farm animal welfare.

• The wellspring of societal concern about the treatment of animals in agriculture comes from vegetarian activist extremists who are out to destroy the consumption of animal products.

The wrongness of this position is obvious when one looks at Proposition 2 in California. The proposition passed with 67% of the vote. No one can say the majority of people who voted for it are vegans or vegetarians. Plainly, they are people who consume animal products but are concerned about how those products are produced.

They are no more out to destroy animal agriculture than the people who worry about steroid use in baseball are out to destroy baseball. Rather, they are sufficiently concerned about how animals are raised that they voiced their concern even in the face of threats that food prices would go up.

People will not even give up meat, milk and eggs when told to do so by their physicians based on claims that their health is at risk, so they certainly won't do so because some vegans tell them to.

The best articulation of this - what should be an obvious point - came when I was lecturing at the King Ranch. After I made the point that it is society in general agriculture must attend to, not the activists, a foreman of the ranch remarked, "Of course it's not just the activists, Doc. If it were, we could shoot the sons-of-bitches."

Certainly, activists do attempt to sway public opinion in favor of their agenda, but they do so by appealing to concerns already there in the general public. And surely, while they hope that more people will become vegan, the chance of moving large numbers of people to radically change their eating habits is vanishingly small.

People in society wish to feel that the animals they consume have led decent lives under conditions of good husbandry, and the industry knows this, or else why would Perdue poultry run ads for 15 years showing chickens in a barnyard while the voiceover intones "At Perdue, we raise happy chickens." Similarly, recall the California "happy cows on pasture" ads. Being caught in falsehoods is a sure way to lose credibility.

• The industry grossly misunderstands the concept of animal welfare.

During an early meeting of the Pew Commission on which I served, we devoted a couple of days to hearing from the meat industries.

A woman representing pork producers stood up and announced that the industry was "nervous" about the Pew Commission but would be reassured if everything we said was based on "sound science."

I responded, "Ma'am, if the commission was asking how to raise pigs in small crates, we would consult science regarding feed, light cycles, etc., but we are not asking that. Rather, we are asking, 'Ought we raise pigs in small crates?' (It's) a moral question, and one that science can't answer."

Her reply of "huh?" assured me that she missed my point.

Questions about animal welfare are questions that have a core of ethics. When we ask about the welfare of, say, a pig, part of what we are asking is the ethical question of what people who raise pigs owe the animals and to what extent. Certainly, science is relevant here - for example, to explain natural pig behavior - but what behavior we allow the pig to express in our systems is a matter of ethics.

Whose ethics? The animal industries have historically said animal welfare is defined and assured by productivity. In other words, all that is owed to animals is what is essential to keeping them productive, i.e., basics like food and water.

That would mean, by the industry's definition, that sow stalls provide adequate welfare, but clearly, society demands more, as Prop 2 and other laws eliminating sow stalls attest to, as do countless surveys. So, society does not accept sow confinement or battery cages or veal crates as providing good welfare. Social ethics have the last word.

As I explained in my keynote speech to the American Society of Animal Science, later published in the Journal of Animal Science (2004), society wishes to see pain, distress and suffering minimized and natural behavioral needs respected.

• The industry refuses to act until legislatively forced to do so.

A friend of mine in the industry has remarked to me that the industry sees negotiation as capitulation. Nothing could be more off the mark.

As Colorado agriculture showed when I brokered an agreement between it and the Humane Society of the United States in 2008 to avoid a Prop 2-type referendum in Colorado, successful negotiation gains something for both sides.

In the case of Colorado, joint legislation was passed banning sow stalls and veal crates in the state, but the activist group did not go after battery cages as it did in California, being responsive to the argument that it would have put Colorado's single major but small egg producer out of business. Had it gone to referendum, battery cages certainly would have been included.

Also, when something becomes law, there is generally no wiggle room or leeway in what must be done. Plus, we saved the $10 million it would have cost to fight the referendum and lose two to one. Now, the industry can negotiate changes in accord with its own time table, and agriculture got positive public relations.

In the wake of all of the evidence indicating public willingness to legislate farm animal welfare, the industry behaves like a kamikaze when it turns a blind eye to negotiation.

• The industry regularly touts the mantra that Americans have safe, inexpensive, plentiful food.

This is not relevant. The public also wants good animal welfare.

• One additional mantra: "We have to show folks where their food comes from."

Doing this is hardly likely to make consumers more congenial to the industry given issues of animal welfare, environment and food safety identified with confinement operations. Indeed, taking a Manhattan, N.Y., housewife on a tour of a confinement pig operation and a slaughterhouse is likelier to make her a vegetarian than anything activists say.

In summary, if the industry wishes to preserve its freedom as much as possible, it should respond to societal ethical concerns, not continue to misunderstand, ridicule and/or ignore them.

*Bernard Rollin is a distinguished professor at Colorado State University in Ft. Collins. He brokered the agreement between Colorado agriculture and the Humane Society of the United States that prevented a Proposition 2-type referendum in Colorado. He has also served on the Pew Commission and convinced Smithfield to eliminate sow stalls.

To Underestimate Farmers, Ranchers Is A Serious Mistake
(Also available as Feedstuffs reprint, PDF)

By Steve Kopperud*

If animal rights and modern U.S. food production are adversaries, then, as in any competition, it's the fool who underestimates the opposition.

To disdain the animal rights movement is neither to dismiss it nor to misunderstand what confronts us. It is the manifestation of farmer/rancher distrust of and frustration with a political movement that demonstrates daily that it does not care to understand the implications of its philosophy and/or its actions on the viability of food producers and the actual welfare of animals or its negative impact on both national and global food security.

It is a mistake to dismiss the animal rights movement. However, it's an equally serious misstep to underestimate the resolve of farming and ranching and the industries that serve food production when it comes to attacks on professionalism or survivability.

Academic dissertations on the benign nature of the animal rights movement and its impact on food production - and hints on how to "deal with animal welfare" - sometimes make heroic leaps of logic and use oversimplifications, but they ultimately reveal gaps in understanding when selling a personal view of alleged on-farm animal husbandry deficiencies. This inevitably leads to the assertion that "the public is on our side" and the assumption that consumers will embrace animal rights messages.

Trust me, we get your point; we simply don't agree with you.

Americans care about the treatment of animals; such values are endemic to all societies. However, once the veneer of "humane treatment" rhetoric is cut away, what's left is an animal rights political agenda every bit as one-sided and dedicated to the elimination of animal agriculture as it has ever been.

The movement declares that this is because it believes raising animals for food is "exploitive" and abuse is profitable. Therefore, farmers and ranchers ignore welfare, and the greatest number of animals exploited on the planet are those raised for food.

While consumers may not abandon meat, milk and eggs simply because they're told to by physicians, academics or activists, they will and have abandoned these products when the quality and availability of these foods are compromised.

As we've seen over the last several months of domestic and global economic gyration, consumers will walk away from organic, natural and conventional meat, milk and eggs not because they wish to but because they can't afford them. It can be argued that this phenomenon is temporary; however, apply the animal rights mantra that "if you can't legislate them out of business and you can't regulate them out of business, then cost them out of business," and you understand the step-wise strategy of the animal rights movement.

It's apparent that the alleged "wellspring of societal concern" touted by those who assume systemic problems with on-farm practices is predicated almost exclusively on expected public reaction to emotive, exaggerated images of abuse and neglect, tagged with the message that such images represent the rule of on-farm husbandry, not the exception, and further inflaming the audience with disinformation attacks on a system portrayed as a faceless "factory" assembly line.

This is usually coupled with the serious assertion that returning to 1930s farming and ranching is the solution - never mind the additional costs of labor, environmental stewardship, land, food quality, safety, veterinary care and the loss of animals to predation, disease and human mischief. We used to refer to this as the "big lie" strategy of the animal rights movement; we still do.

However, we're studying the other side's play book, and we're learning. California's Proposition 2 is a classic example of exaggerated emotionalism trouncing rational thought and deliberation. The public didn't heed the warnings of higher prices, lost jobs and the human impact of Prop 2. A flood of pictures of various forms of isolated animal neglect - most of which had no relation to Prop 2 - flowed across TV screens, and the California public voted with its gut, not its head.

This was a watershed event for animal agriculture not just in the state but across the country. It demonstrated that the politicized issue of animal care is not one to be fully and effectively "managed" through the use of facts, statistics and/or science.

Animal care, to the public at large, is fundamentally emotional; the consumer seeks personal assurances that what he or she assumes is happening on farms actually does happen on farms. When this assumption is challenged effectively, as in Prop 2, the outcome is obvious.

Very few consumers have a strong desire or the luxury of time to understand all things agricultural, but they do want and deserve assurances. Science and statistics bolster the personal assurance, but in the absence of farm voices speaking, there is a manifest information gap, one cleverly and quickly filled by the animal rights movement's emotion-driven propaganda and fiction.

It has been said that if you ask 100 experts, you'll get 100 definitions of "welfare." I think this is true of consumers as well, and there's little value in surveys that purport to measure consumer attitudes about what may or may not be needed to ensure animal welfare on the farm. Polling provides value in terms of a snapshot in time but is more entertaining than predictive.

So emotional is this issue - and so arcane are most on-farm husbandry practices - that it is nearly impossible to concoct objective surveys; further, most surveys touted by activists tend to be their own bought-and-paid-for polling.

The late Henry Spira, a legend in the animal rights movement, used to use single-question surveys done by reputable polling firms. His question would be something like: "If you knew farm animals were routinely and horribly abused on farms, would you support regulation to ensure humane treatment?" The press release - likely written before the polling was done - would soon follow.

Yes, "it is society in general agriculture must attend to (sic)," as Bernard Rollin says, but I don't buy the notion that the population at large is in revolt over U.S. farm animal husbandry. The public is routinely assaulted by graphic images of situational animal neglect, liberally laced with misinformation and distortions of the men and women who produce food in this country. This leads to consumer confusion exploited by animal activists. Farmers and ranchers must understand that if they remain quiet in the face of this assault, then the public hears only one exaggerated side of this issue. You reap what you sow.

U.S. animal agriculture thrives because it is dynamic; production practices evolve based on what works for the farmer and the animals, not based on what appeals to a vocal political minority. Productivity - health, reproduction, feed conversion, etc. - is critical to the measurement of animal welfare, though the derision with which productivity is described by animal activists is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

The performance axiom is not exclusive to animal science; it can and should inform the broader ethical debate. But what is unknown to consumers are routine actions by producers that go beyond the animals' survival. The public doesn't appreciate these efforts because it doesn't know the incalculable value of professional, hands-on experience; the formal programs farm and ranch groups have created over the last 30 years to amplify that experience are an unknown quantity.

The breakthroughs of animal science and veterinary medicine, married to the Beef Qualify Assurance program, the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program, the dairy quality assurance programs and similar programs in the sheep, poultry and minor species industries, all enhance on-farm care and handling.

Is food production in the U.S. a perfect endeavor? No. Will the system improve? Absolutely. It is, however, the best system in the world when it comes to feeding Americans and a big chunk of the world, and it does not ignore the care and treatment of animals.

It makes no sense to dismiss a safe, abundant and affordable food supply as irrelevant to either the political or ethical debate. Nothing is more fundamental to human welfare. Human and animal well-being - and affordable food - are hardly mutually exclusive, and the U.S. system proves the point. In fact, without sustainable food animal husbandry - embracing a measurable system of animal well-being - people will suffer both here and abroad.

In North America, more than three-quarters of the land mass cannot support crops of any sort unless forestland is cut down. On a global basis, nearly two-thirds of the land mass can't support crops. The U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) said to feed the planet's growing population, we must double current global food production by 2050. Implicit in FAO's message is an efficient, productive animal agriculture and a continuing imperative to pursue, perfect and exploit technology responsibly. This need not come at the cost of "good animal welfare."

The problem is that technology has been demonized, and the public has been misled as to exactly what constitutes good animal welfare. The public isn't demanding to know where food comes from; it has figured that out. However, it is demanding to be assured that the people who produce its food can be trusted to care for animals and to use on-farm technology responsibly and sustainably.

The consumer esteems the rural lifestyle and values and holds the farm family in generally high regard. This means farmers and ranchers must step out from behind product promotion and marketing and reintroduce themselves to the consuming public - in essence, recreating a close relationship that allows them to sell themselves and their expertise along with the product.

We must leverage the respect and trust we've earned and re-establish an emotional connection with the customer. We must put a face on the product and the process. Simply put, we need to personalize food production by reminding the consumer at every turn that the responsible, ethical and caring farm or ranch family - no matter what the production system - is the foundation of the U.S. food production miracle.

*Steve Kopperud is executive vice president at Policy Directions Inc., coordinator of the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition and founder and past president of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. He is based in Washington, D.C.

From the same Feedstuffs series:

State-by-state welfare legislation not solution, by Candace Croney, Feedstuffs, issue 18, vol. 81, May 4, 2009.

Back to Farming / Management / Home