When Farmers Defend Technology

RANDY P. KROTZ

CEO – AGWIKI, INC.

Individuals and organizations use human health trends to influence public opinion regarding how food is grown and raised. Perhaps it would be helpful to reflect on how agriculture deals with consumers’ interpretation of food production and why these perceptions of production practices are an opportunity for outreach.

The first significant effort to orchestrate the voice of farmers and ranchers in defense of agricultural technology did not target consumers but primarily focused on state and federal regulators. A decade later, all of agriculture was quick to monitor but horrifically slow to defend or even engage the online audiences guiding the food production narrative. Negative dialogue on social channels has stymied, if not completely halted, promising innovations that can impact our environment and human health positively. Agriculture initially took a defensive approach to those who appeared to be alarmists, utilizing science as a blunt instrument instead of a tool for inspiring genuine conversation from differing perspectives.

Most initiatives in the final decade of the millennium were specific to pesticides. Farm organizations recognized the value these products brought to crop production and, based on rigorous research and safety evaluations, were generally reliable partners in helping industry organizations obtain, or in some cases, maintain registrations. During the Clinton Administration, the EPA placed entire classes of pesticides under EPA re-registration and special-review protocols. It was a painful and costly process for corporate registrants, but ultimately benefited nature and lessened human exposure. Farmer and rancher engagement intensified during that timeframe. The alfalfa seed industry, Oregon tree-fruit growers, Kentucky tobacco farmers, corn and soybean producers, et al., brought their voice to the regulatory process.

In the mid-to-late 90s, rBST arrived on the scene for the dairy industry, with GMO soy, cotton, and corn close behind. Producers were quick to adopt these technologies, but both were soon the targets of activism in the U.S., and those same voices effectively obstructed the regulatory process throughout the world, especially Europe.

In the first decade of our current century, the agricultural industry came together to try to deliver scientific information regarding consumer safety and the environmental benefits of these new products. Initially, the consumer was unengaged and largely uninquisitive. When they began to listen, the alarming message, the alleged safety concerns, penetrated all other available information. The internet became a perpetual bully-pulpit for those who felt the risk far outweighed the benefits of “tinkering” with food. The targets included not only genetically modified food and pesticide use, but also antibiotics in meat and poultry and animal welfare.

These past ten years have seen hyper-engagement from farmers, ranchers, and their respective farm organizations in response to grocery shoppers’ questions and concerns. This gave rise to numerous new organizations, and most existing ones transformed to address every aspect of food production with the general goal of putting the farmer out front, dealing directly with food audiences. Farmers have engaged the public on many topics, including GMOs, pesticides, animal antibiotics and welfare, soil health and water quality, sustainability, climate change, meat consumption, organic vs. non-organic, and so on. Nearly every communication method has been utilized to reach those most interested in learning how foods are grown and raised.

What has been the outcome of thousands of agriculturists involving themselves directly with consumers to discuss food production? There are no clear winners, and we have virtually no year-over-year means of measuring the results of farmers connecting directly with those who consume their products. Some may claim that we do, but it is generally limited. Those working to negate progress in food production have had their victories. Influential social media stalwarts have hindered advancements in the crop and animal categories. Occasionally, even the food industry pushed back insistently enough to cause product derailment, with GMO potatoes and wheat being the first to fall into that category.

Evaluating movement on something nearly immeasurable is a challenge, but we can state some apparent outcomes of farmers' focus on the food purchasers. First, recognize that farmers made a monumental difference in helping to maintain a culture around food production that has allowed for and driven technological advances. Also, farmers themselves have benefited from building relationships with consumers and influencers. A beneficial outcome has been a keener understanding of what drives food purchase decisions and the direct reminder that the consumer is king.

Those producing our food still see challenges ahead. For example, food packaging labels are confusing and perhaps intentionally misleading when providing production and ingredient information. Climate change and carbon emissions claims are a relatively new challenge and an opportunity for farmers and ranchers. Of course, plant-based protein and future products, including cellular meat, will also provide ample opportunity for food producers to engage consumers.

The current challenges agriculture faces provide yet another opportunity to engage consumers directly. We cannot move forward by allowing those who can shout the loudest to win the day. There are always new communication pathways that help consumers understand agriculture's role in continuously providing safe, sustainable, and nutritious food.  ∆

RANDY P. KROTZ: CEO – AGWIKI, INC.