When planning this week’s column, I had been going to write about the continuing media attacks on agriculture and some of the innovative and unique ways farmers are reaching out to consumers. In the midst all the news about food recalls and undercover videos, there are truly some positive things happening in communicating with consumers about the food we produce. But a series of events occurred that frankly just ticked me off. So, pardon me while I rant.

Media ignorance of and bias against agriculture is not unexpected at the national level. These national newspapers, cable news operations, and television networks are so far removed from reality — not to mention their audiences — that it is understandable why they see food scare stories as great fodder for over sensationalized coverage. What is even more inexcusable, however, is local media acting the same way.

If you live in a small or medium sized Midwestern city and your local newspaper does not give at least fair and balanced coverage to local agricultural issues, it is time for you to rant. Local editors and reporters do not need to be experts in agriculture, but they do need to have an open mind and open ears. Agriculture is an economic force in their community, and they need to treat it with the same respect they use when covering other industries in the area. It is important that local folks make their voice heard and their presence known to these publications.

If you have a radio station in your town, they too should be devoting some airtime to agriculture. Unfortunately, this is too often not the case. Last week I had a station in the one of the largest agricultural counties in the state tell me that “farm programs have no value to this station.” This from a station in a county with the largest number of cattle in the state, the second higher number of farms in the state, and some of the highest farmland values in the state. Yet, they do not feel that a few farm market and news reports have any value to their audience. It is time for farmers to demand better.

Over the years, I have had producers complain that their local media does not provide them with the kind of information they need. When I asked if they have ever contacted their local media, the answer is usually “no.” The time has come to demand more from our media sources: on air, on-line, and in print.

Much has been made of the social media and how it can be used to reach consumers with the agriculture message. As a result, many farms have started writing blogs and some are even making videos. The Center for Food Integrity has developed a You Tube channel calledMee t America’s Farmers. Here are dozens of videos that profile actual farmers. If consumers really want to know what happens on a farm, this is the place to go.
If you need a little motivation to start your rant, watch the Farmers Fight-Stand Up video. It is a fact-filled and motivational speech for anyone involved in the agricultural industry. Then, after you are good and fired up, write a letter, make a call, send an e-mail, post a blog entry, make a video, or drive your tractor to the nearest grocery store, park it in the lot and start asking people if they know where their food comes from. This last suggestion may be a bit over the top, but you get the idea.

Our industry and way of life is too important to get swept under the rug as not relevant. Yes, we need to educate, demonstrate, and communicate, but it is time to do a little ranting.

Gary Truitt

There are days when working in the field of agriculture can be downright depressing.  On those days, it seems like the whole world is against you.  There have been more of those days than is normal in the past few weeks.  The manufactured media hysteria over boneless lean beef trimmings has spawned a feeding frenzy among  journalists, bloggers, and activist groups.  After ABC News stopped beating up on beef, CBS jumped in with an attack on sugar.  Exposés abound on butter, margarine, popcorn, pigs, cows, and a variety of food items. In fact, if the consuming public paid attention to all the food scare stories out there, the grocery store aisles would be empty.  Having just returned from a visit to my local grocery, I can tell you that the aisles are not empty and that the checkout line was long.

Many farm groups have touted social media as a great way to tell the story of agriculture, but it is a double-edged sword. Social media channels have helped fan the flames of misinformation about food and how it is produced.  Groups with a particular agenda have used this media very effectively. “It was incredible,” said Brianna Cayo Cotter, communications director of Change.org, a website that hosted a petition by Texas mom Bettina Siegel urging the USDA to stop buying ammonia-treated beef for school lunches. “In 10 days she made the USDA, the meat industry and major retailers all back away from it. Now the demand for ‘pink slime’ has dropped so dramatically that some of the factories are starting to shut down.”  An article in the Chicago Tribune highlighted how social media chatter influences corporations and government actions. “Something is seriously out of kilter in our communications environment when safe food products and proven technologies can be torpedoed by sensationalist, misleading, yet entertaining social media campaigns,” said David B. Schmidt, president and CEO of the International Food Information Council. “We should all take several steps back and remember the critical thinking skills we were taught in school.”

Critical thinking is often lacking when it comes to things read on the internet.  Groups seeking change in food policy or regulations have discovered on-line campaigns and petitions are very effective.    “It’s definitely a good thing, and it is harnessing this incredible energy and desire for social change, tapping into the current ethos of the Occupy movement,” Naomi Starkman, who manages communications for a number of environmental and food policy campaigns, told the Tribune. “When consumers can participate online, it gives them a tool to make a difference that they don’t feel they have other than their pocketbooks.”  Lacking from much of this on-line hype is fact checking and full disclosure about the real agenda of the organization behind the effort.

Also missing are the consequences of consumer choice. For example, most of the people who went “yuck” when presented a story about “pink slime” in their beef were never told that eliminating this perfectly safe product would result in 1.5 million more cows being slaughtered to make up for the loss of the boneless lean beef trimmings no longer being used.  In addition, consumers will pay higher prices for lean ground beef.  This is the kind of balance not included in most social media posts.

The Tribune article called on the agriculture industry to be more transparent on how food is produced and processed. This is a valid charge, but consumers and retailers also need to make decisions based on facts and on a thoughtful review of all the factors not just what the current chatter is on Facebook or Twitter. If government agencies like USDA and FDA and major retailers like Wal-Mart and McDonalds start restricting foods based on the latest media and on-line food frenzy, our grocery stores are going to have very empty shelves.  Food producers and food consumers deserve better than social media babble, media sensationalism, and reactionary regulations.

Gary Truitt

Once again the US cattle industry finds itself in the midst of a media firestorm. As has happened time and time again, an unfounded media slander campaign against a perfectly safe meat product has been splashed across front pages, sensationalized on TV news programs, and gone viral on the internet.  Boneless lean beef trimmings have been safely consumed by adults and school children for decades; but, let the media label it “pink slime” and describe in detail how it is made, and all of a sudden it becomes unsafe and something consumers no longer want to eat.  So what is the problem, is it the name, the appearance, the way it is made, or just the bad PR?

It is a fact that most consumers do not know how their food is produced, and in some cases that is a good thing. For example, the school kids whose parents do not want them to be served hamburger with “pink slime” will happily wolf down gelatin which is made from cows’ hooves. Many of America’s most popular and revered food products, such as hot dogs, sausage and creamed corn, are not things most people would enjoy seeing made.

On the other hand, the more gross and unappealing a food item is, the more status it has.  Spend some time watching the gourmet chef shows on the cooking channels and you will see things like ox tongue, veal cheek, sea urchin, tripe, and a variety of items you will not find in your grocer’s meat case.  Food snobs enjoy smirking over exotic food that most of us would turn our noses up at. The Consumer Freedom web site lists a cook book called Yuck! It’s Good: Delicious Cuisine from Repulsive Foods. The book was written by a French chef who prides himself on making traditional foods from otherwise refused foods.

Then, there is the food that is so awful that we don’t even sell it in this country. Each day railroad cars pull away from packing plants full of what the industry calls offal. These are cuts of meat and parts of animals that are revolting to US consumers, but are the mainstay of diets in countries around the world. Cultural history and ethnic heritage all play a role in determining what a society considers acceptable and unacceptable foods.  And over time these standards change. We have seen more food products from Mexico and the Middle East becoming  accepted by American consumers.

So, why are people so grossed out over a ground beef additive? In my opinion, media hype and activist group influence have manipulated public opinion and public perception. As a result, the image of beef has been tarnished, and the price of hamburger will increase. The true tragedy is, however, that this was all unnecessary.  In reality, what happens in a large processing plant and what happens at a local butcher shop is the same thing.  Yet, one is a media villain and the other the darling of the foodie culture. In the end it is not about science, not about taste, but about perception.

by Gary Truitt

We are once again in the midst of one of those Hollywood generated phenomena. A bestselling book has been turned into an over-hyped movie that debuted to millions at theaters across the nation last weekend.  The Hunger Games is the latest craze in American culture, and the mass media marketing machine is working overtime to generate hundreds of millions of dollars.  In addition, special interest and activist groups  are also using The Hunger Games to draw attention to their causes and to make their case. From world hunger organizations to anti-hunting groups, everyone is jumping on the Hunger Games bandwagon. Unfortunately, most are missing the real point of the story and that the groundwork for a real Hunger Games is being laid today.

The Hunger Games is a novel written by Suzanne Collins, which was first published in2008, is written in the voice of sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen who lives in a post-apocalyptic world in the country of Panem where the countries of North America once existed. The Capitol holds absolute power over the rest of the nation and the Hunger Games are an annual event in which one boy and one girl aged 12 to 18 from each of the 12 districts surrounding the Capitol are selected by lottery to compete in a televised battle in which only one person can survive.

Most of the focus of the of the media coverage and blog babblings has been on the violence, on the tragedy of having young people fight to the death, and angst over teaching young girls to hunt and shoot weapons.  A Google query about “Could Hunger Games happen here?” generated 250,000,000 responses.

The truly scary part of Hunger Games is not the violence, the lack of compassion, the totalitarian rule, but the fact that food is being used to control an entire nation.  In the world of the Hunger Games book, the central government controls the food distribution and by doing so keeps the rest of the society in line.  This kind of governmental control is already being exerted in our society today.

Public schools can already dictate what students eat for lunch and even what they are allowed to bring from home. The government can and has limited the marketing and distribution of food items and food ingredients — not based on scientific safety concerns, but merely on the belief certain food are “bad” for certain groups to include in their diet.  Local government has banned the growing of fruits and vegetables in home gardens, and the raising of chickens has been outlawed in many communities.  

It is not just government that is using food to control people. The news media has found that food scares boost ratings and change behavior.  Last week, several major food retailers announced they would stop selling meat with “pink slime” in it.  This was the result of a groundless attack by one single news organization.  ABC news aired 10 stories in two weeks on the use of “pink slime.” The meat, actually called “lean finely textured beef,” is made up of beef that is just harder to get at, so the meat isn’t lost. It’s treated to get rid of the fat and included with the rest of the ground beef. The USDA declares it healthy, but it is less expensive. As an added bonus, it is treated tiny amounts of ammonium hydroxide to make it safer to eat. 

This is not the first time the news media has forced a perfectly safe food item off the shelves.  The radical food police are also active. A report surfaced last week that an anti-GMO group was going into supermarkets placing QR code stickers on food products. When scanned by shoppers’ Smartphones, they were taken to an anti-GMO web site. 

Hunger Games was written to appeal to a teenage audience and portrays youth defying the odds and finding love against the backdrop of an unbelievable futuristic world.  Yet, the plot demonstrates just how powerful a weapon food can be. The moral of the story is: those who control the food, control the nation.  Thus we who produce the food, as well as those who consume it, had better be on guard against those who want to control it.

by Gary Truitt