Terry Etherton

I am shocked by the factors that drive agriculture policymaking at every level today. Decision makers in the public and private sectors are increasingly influenced by a cohort of activist anti-animal ag advocacy groups whose credibility should at best be questioned and at worst be dismissed absolutely. The example I discussed previously of “Starbucks” being pushed by Food & Water Watch and Organic Consumers Association to stop buying milk containing rbST is a good case study of this.

These and other anti-animal ag, anti-biotech activist groups have a combined annual budget of close to $500 million to spend on efforts designed to influence elected officials and regulators, businesses, and consumers about issues such as animal welfare and housing, use of animals for research, animal and plant biotechnology, antibiotic use, BSE/mad cow disease, cloning, rbST, and pesticide use.

Influence is not the right word to use. Rather, it is terrorism.

Activist groups who actively campaign against animal agriculture and conventional production practices have as their objective to move consumers to a plant-based diet and end “factory farming” (one of their favorite, deceptive sound bites used to scare consumers) … fear-based and emotional marketing strategies are their standard tactical approach.

My question: Who is on the other side of this discussion? Who is the voice for science, scientists, and production animal agriculture in Washington, DC?

With respect to the ongoing public discussion about rbST-free milk, one would think that Dairy Management Incorporated (DMI), International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), National Milk Producers Federation or the American Dairy Science Association would be active in supporting the use of a biotechnology that is safe and increases profitability of America’s dairy farmers.

Guess what? They are not.

Their silence is a victory for the trolls who attack science and biotechnology in animal agriculture … and, who scare people about food safety when we have the safest food supply in recorded history.

While advocacy is the core aspect of the “anti’s” mission, I should find another descriptor for advocacy because it implies that you are “for” something. It is abundantly clear that these groups are really “anti-everything.” They embody a “take-away” strategy rather than championing a noble effort that pursues a mission of “adding to” society. Of doing something for the greater good.

Unfortunately, I don’t see much effective public advocacy for animal agriculture and science. There should be an ongoing robust population-wide education effort that actively promotes the need for, and benefits of, sound science and the scientific method, and that defends the choice of farmers to use new technologies and biotechnologies. My encouragement to those who care about doing the “right thing” is to become engaged in this ongoing public discussion.

There are no easy answers in this debate. It is important that pro-animal agriculture groups and scientists become the voice of sanity and reason. If we don’t take a proactive approach to this challenge, if we continue to sit on, or close to the sidelines, we may be marginalized in the process that builds the future regulatory environment for animal agriculture and best-management practices in the United States.

If this happens, we could witness a substantial core of our food production system move off-shore. Then the issue looms as to whether we can have national security in the absence of food security.

And the answer to that is NO.