“I heard it on Food Inc…”: In defense of the consumer.

As a graduate student, you get the unique opportunity to be involved in interesting research and go to some pretty cool places.  Usually to glamorous destinations like Dodge City or Garden City, KS (go see a few of the 8 Wonders of Kansas!), Friona, TX (outstanding Mexican food!), etc.  The past two weeks I’ve been on the road doing a project at the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, NY and in the Napa Valley of California.  When we go to places where folks are not nearly so ag-oriented, it gives us a chance to visit with people on their view of current production agriculture…and it’s not always perceived as we that are part if it actually see it.

On our most recent visit to California one of the grad students gave a talk to a group of culinary professionals and students on the current grading standards for U.S. beef and how we conduct scientific sensory evaluation of beef cuts.  During the Q&A session that followed, the conversation immediately turned to current production methods of U.S. beef and how it affects the product offered at retail…one of the first sentences offered by a chef at the school:

“…well we get most of our information from the movie Food Inc…”

Now, that sentence alone is usually enough to set off any ag producer.  Food Inc. is a terrible mischaracterization of modern agriculture, but has become the go-to reference for the average consumers who have a vested interest in how their food is produced.

But here is my take…its defensible.

Let me explain: On average, how many consumers actually dig for information about how food is produced?  Not very many.  So instead they get their information from sources that are most visible…e.g. Food Inc, major media outlets, and the likes of Michael Pollen and Jonathan Safran Foer who write reader friendly books demonizing  conventional agriculture.

The agriculture world is busting at the seams with scientific research.  Whenever the next book writer throws out his opinion on Oprah or Ellen, it’s met with the reactionary response from agriculturist saying “No! That’s wrong! Look at all the science that says so!”  That’s true, and for every inaccurate quotation on food production in a book, there is a pile of papers from the Journal of Animal Science that can prove them wrong through sound, peer reviewed science.  But of all the people who have seen Food Inc., how many peruse Google Scholar fact checking those claims to see if they are wrong or right?  Approximately none…or few at the very least.  And why should we expect them to?  Have you ever read a scientific manuscript?  It’s part of my job in grad school and I still don’t understand them all.

While it’s frustrating, and we want everyone to see it from the same perspective as we that produce food, putting any amount of blame on consumers is unfair.  Agriculture has continued to do a better job over the years at being more visible and available to consumers via the onslaught of social media (twitter, facebook, youtube, etc.).  Yet, the most telling quote from the conversation we had in California was after a nearly hour long conversation about production ag in which the chef proclaimed, “I’m glad I came to your seminar, we don’t get the opportunity to hear [producers] side of the story very often.”  We discussed antibiotic and hormone use, meat industry practices, and cattle diet effects on E.Coli…all of which he made claims that were false or misguided…and between 6 graduate students we informed him of the realities; after which he said he would back off the claims he made because he didn’t realize they were inaccurate.

And that hits at the very core of the issue…consumers don’t know that the books they read and the movies they watch are wrong.  So when they regurgitate that information, they are simply telling the only story they know…and unfortunately for agriculture it’s the wrong one; which pins the responsibility upon producers to share what is true and change people’s minds – even if it’s one at a time (and not as efficient as a major motion picture).

This is an interesting conundrum that agriculture faces, and a battle that we will likely continue to face as long as there is food being produced, and groups who want to change the way it is being produced (or even end it all together).  Activist organizations have the budget to be more visible, and fear-mongering often attracts more hits than just telling the truth…right, wrong, or indifferent.  This is a point I want to be clear on: attacks on production agriculture WILL NOT STOP.  So ag can yell, scream, and stomp their foot that the movies, books, and articles that are published, but at the end of the day people will write what they want to write.  Producers have a responsibility to be pro-active (notice: not reactionary…there is something to be said about always being on the defensive) in trying to preempt these attacks and put consumers in a position that when they read Michael Pollen’s next book they don’t take it as gospel and instead question his logic based on information acquired from those that produce food.

The ability of a food producer to be visible is greater than ever, but we don’t have movies or a #1 best-selling book to disseminate our counter argument to every Food Inc. and The Omnivores Dilemma that is produced or published.  Until then, we need to have that conversation with the person next to us on an airplane, and tell our story to everyone that is willing to listen.

And hopefully next time that consumer starts a conversation about food production, rather than, “I heard it on Food Inc.” it will start: “I heard it from a food producer.”