Corner Post Editorial —
Activists to change the face of agriculture by 2011
by Sami Jo Freeman, posted May 12, 2009
Following the passing of Proposition 2 in California this past fall, many agriculturalists were left with questions burning in their minds: ‘What does this mean for me? ‘What does this mean for agriculture?‘
The Humane Society of the United States was one of the main supporters of the new legislation that will take affect Jan. 1, 2015. The legislation outlawed the use of gestation crates for pigs, battery cages used for poultry and veal confinement in California. According to HSUS, the organization based their argument on the belief that animals should have enough room to lie down, stand, turn around, and fully extend their limbs.
HSUS leaders have met recently with the Ohio Veterinary Medicine Association to announce their intentions to bring the same Factory Farming Campaign to Ohio — the second largest egg producer and ninth largest hog producer nationally — and have another Proposition 2 on the November 2010 ballot.
Also, according to their own Web site, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals support going completely vegan, or as they call it — a plant-based diet.
“Children raised as vegans — who consume no animal products, including meat, eggs, and dairy products — can derive all the nutrients essential for optimum health from plant-based sources.”
The American Veterinary Medical Association issued a statement on the Standard for Confining Farm Animals movement, or Proposition 2:
“The best housing environments take into consideration all relevant factors, including: freedom of movement; expression of normal behaviors; protection from disease, injury, and predators; adequate food and water; and proper handling. Proposition 2 would clearly provide greater freedom of movement, but would likely compromise several of the other factors necessary to ensure the overall welfare of the animals, especially with regard to protection from disease and injury … We are concerned that legislating isolated, arbitrary and emotion-based criteria to implement farm animal housing systems may actually do more harm than good for the well-being of animals while compromising the sustainability of production systems that are essential to ensure we continue to have the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply in the world.”
Economic Impact
The one thing that agriculturalists must keep in mind is that the consumers control the markets that we sell into. Since the current trend is leaning towards the animal rights and food safety movement, we must fight or adjust.
“Changing demand is quite common,” said Jan Dauve, director of undergraduate studies for the agricultural economics department. “It often occurs over a long time period as we become wealthier and are willing to incur additional costs for the prices we pay for goods. We begin to pay for convenience and that added to costs. Fair trade, green, open-range farming are all similar in that they raise the costs of production. If someone is willing to pay the price and it can be profitable to provide that good with the specified characteristics, the good will be produced. Markets adapt.”
Legislative Plans
Another way to interpret all of this information is through the legislature that we may encourage.
“The other possibility is to convince the government to legislate certain characteristics,” Dauve said. “That will lower the cost for those who want those characteristics but raises the cost for those who do not, due to economies of scale in production and distribution.”
Dan Cassidy, chief administrative officer for the Missouri Farm Bureau, published a statement in the Show Me Missouri Farm Bureau magazine stressing the importance of the legislative process and it’s potential affects on consumers.
“Beware of hidden agendas in the name of animal welfare. Early in this year's session, legislators in both the Missouri House and Senate asked officials representing many of the state's agricultural organizations to outline their priorities for the year. While differences were to be expected, one by one the groups began to circle their wagons; the common denominator
- growing threats to the state's livestock and poultry sector. The 2007 Census of Agriculture illustrates the scope of Missouri agriculture. In 2007, Missouri livestock and poultry sales exceeded $4 billion and accounted for 53 percent of the state’s total agricultural sales. Missouri remains second only to Texas in the number of farms (107,825), has more livestock markets in proportion to numbers of cattle than any state and more than 98 percent of the state's farms are family farms. The impact of agriculture extends far beyond the farm gate with more than
3,000 agribusinesses in the state and almost 300,000 workers in farms and agribusiness industries...
Unfortunately, livestock and poultry production are under assault on many different fronts. Aside from the inherent risk associated with weather and markets, livestock and poultry producers are witnessing the proliferation of legal actions based on county health ordinances and nuisance lawsuits. The regulatory onslaught continues as officials attempt to classify manure as a hazardous waste and judges impose arbitrary, unrealistic buffers around modern livestock production facilities.”
Animal Agriculture
Of course, the HSUS movements have heavily affected animal agriculture. They have driven many out of business and will continue to do so, unless we do something about it. It’s not traditional practices that are being torn apart in this industry, but the few exceptions that are being thrown into the spotlight. The kinds of pictures that have been reproduced in the media in the past year are extremely rare, but they weigh heavy in the minds of consumers when they head to the polls. Farmers and ranchers around Missouri need to fight to make sure that voters realize this, and don’t take assumptions with them when they vote.
"You can't win an emotional argument with just sound science anymore," said Jeff Windett with the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association. “Our society just doesn't understand, as a general rule, how important animal agriculture is to the economy. When shelves are empty and companies go out of business, we'll see if attitudes will change.”
Jim Spain, associate professor of animal sciences, thinks better communication among all the groups involved could improve the situation.
“A growing number of consumers have expressed concerns about the welfare of animals,” Spain said. “The questions and concerns are the result of poor communication. The questions and concerns have led to efforts to create policies and laws to change the production and management practices used on livestock farms.”
These legislative and ballot initiatives, will ultimately have a negative impact on profitability for the producer and may make it more difficult for the average consumer to afford to put a meal on the table.
“In the long run these changes will increase the cost of food for the American consumer,” Spain said. “This can have a significant impact on the affordability of food and put those in the lower socioeconomic classes at an increasing risk of food insecurity.”
Sustainable Agriculture
Evidence and recent trends suggest that people’s attitudes are changing with the times, and their pocket books. This will, without a doubt, have positive effects on the sustainable agriculture sector.
“There is a phenomenon happening,” said Ken Schneeberger, assistant dean for the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. “Consumer tastes and preferences are changing because people are willing to pay a little more to know where their food is coming from. Like I said, attitudes are changing. When attitudes change, there may be an opportunity created, and there has been for some of us.”
However, this seems like a challenging task with the growing population and the need for consumer approved production practices.
“There is a large capacity for sustainable agriculture,” said Schneeberger. “It will be a challenge, but I’m not saying it’s impossible.”
What We Can Do?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s projections, the world population is scheduled to reach 9 billion by 2040. It is absolutely unrealistic to put the responsibility of feeding such a large and growing population on the shoulders of sustainable agriculture and family farming practices.
However, with opposing viewpoints on the home front, we need to be able to fully defend Confined Animal Feeding Operations and traditional farming techniques, among other practices.
“We need to explain how important agriculture is in our lives and the importance of the food supply,” Windett said. “Consumers believe what they see on TV and what they read in magazines, so we need to do a better job of communicating our story on an emotional basis. We care about our animals and will not tolerate unethical treatment of animals. Many times, we take care of our animals before we even think of ourselves. We just have to prove it."
Keeping those things in mind, Windett expects the HSUS to bring the animal rights movement to Missouri by no later than 2011. We need to be prepared and willing to form arguments to the opposition. We need to defend agriculture. We need to defend our way of life.
“If they bring the fight to Missouri, animal agriculture will not cave. It will not happen," Windett said.
