It seems as though everyone these days has seen some sort of dramatic "undercover documentary" that shows you just how horrible US food production is, and people seem almost giddy when they get to explain that they will never eat (insert meat product)ever again after what they saw on TV. I honestly cannot count the number of times every day that I have a conversation that starts with the other person saying "Yeah I saw a show about chicken processing (or whatever) last night and, boy, I don't want anything to do with that anymore! Gross!" These sort of statements show that our population has been trained by activists to believe that the food industry has something to hide from consumers and that processors do not want the public looking in to the business because they will be horrified by what they see. Even worse, many times people are actually EXCITED to talk about which food segment they have most recently rejected as a result of the news.
I have been pondering this sort of behavior recently, and unfortunately I don't seem to be able to make sense of America's obsession with the 'big ag. is bad' misconception. Why are we so quick to accept the belief that our food producers are careless fools who ruin the food we eat?
The food industry has nothing to hide; in fact, a majority of their time and effort is devoted to advancing food safety measures in the processing plants. Everything from material and personnel movement to temperature to airflow (air in harvest facilities is "scrubbed" and then forced to flow from areas of zero contamination to areas of higher contamination (rather than flowing freely) to ensure airborne pathogens are unable to compromise cleanliness in packaging areas) is carefully planned and enforced to ensure the product going to the consumer is safe. The result of such strict adherence to safety is very positive and widespread - compared to the hundreds of millions of pounds of food produced and consumed every year, the portion that is recalled on occasion is incredibly small...a pretty good track record for the food guys - yet few consumers realize the discrepancy between their lifetime of eating safe food from the grocery store and the negatively-slanted horror story told by Food, Inc. and other such films.
Why do you think people do not question the story told by anti-food production films? Like I said, I have the "Won't eat this!" conversation a thousand times a week, but I have NEVER heard anyone analyze the credibility of an anti-farming film. Does this happen because people have WAY more access to anti-farming propaganda than to the actual farm? Or is the distrust driven by fear? Or is this all just the latest trend to jump on and talk about? Maybe (most likely) I am entirely wrong and there is a better reason for the 'eliminate our food' discussion.
I don't know. So tell me what you think; respond in the comment section at the bottom of this post and help me out here. Tell me I am totally wrong (anonymous is fine, but I won't take offense either way) or mention that I am on the right track. What do you hear around town, and why are people afraid of what they eat? I am anxious to hear some other perspectives on this topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
JS - IMHO, the impact of these "exposes" in your conversations is the unfortunate culmination of 7+ decades of leftist/progressive influence on the populace through public education and mass media. In general, big business – not just big ag – is demonized and big government interventionism is lauded by these institutions. Since these institutions touch every resident – especially during thought-development ages, they have disproportionate influence on the population’s ability to independently judge the truthfulness of the exposes. In short, the providers of the propaganda have established a trust with their audience that is difficult to internally overcome, except by those few skeptics like you and me who choose to view these issues through the prism of a real-world perspective. As a career-long employee of Big Oil, I am keenly aware of how business is demonized through misrepresentations.
ReplyDeletePublic (aka "government") education has long promoted government involvement and railed against the excessive greed of capitalism. When I think back on my education, I remember how heroes were either in the public sector (President, Congress, Governor, General, etc.) or anti-capitalists (union organizers, Ralph Nader, Cesar Chavez, etc.). Any “business” hero was lauded for his individual accomplishment, e.g., Henry Ford’s assembly line, Bill Gates’ Windows, etc. The bigger accomplishments of the companies are ignored. I was never taught about the economic benefits of Ford or Microsoft on the communities where they employ thousands or on their customers whom they provided quality affordable products and improved lifestyles.
Mass media perpetuates much of the same but may be even worse. Prior to the free flow of information from the growth of the internet and cable TV, folks were dependent on 3 TV and a limited number of print (newspaper and magazine) news organizations for their source(s) of information. With luminaries like Walter Cronkite seen 5+ days a week for decades, a trust was established with their audience. Media was free to report from a biased perspective with little ability from big business to challenge the reports. But where the mass media became worse was the use of fiction – on TV and, especially, in the cinema. Plausible movie plots had tremendous impact on public opinion despite the fact they were FICTIONAL. The movie “China Syndrome” (admittedly in conjunction with Three Mile Island) essentially killed the development of nuclear power for 30 years and counting. Other examples are plentiful. Now, cinema has evolved to films like Food, Inc. and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. These are presented as factual documentaries but are not honest in their portrayal of both sides. Unfortunately, the trust that has been built between media and audience over decades is being exploited.
Let me also throw out another far-out theory specific to animal agriculture - anthropomorphism. At least since Bambi and through today (Shrek, anyone?), media has tried to portray animals with human characteristics and feelings. Animals talk, cry, laugh, marry, and experience every other emotion we have as human beings. This situation is exacerbated by the decline of religion in schools and public life. Although I cannot quote the Scriptures, even I am aware that the Bible states that animals were placed on Earth to serve the needs of humans. As religiosity has declined, a belief that animals have “rights” equal to humans has grown – even to the extent that animals may sue humans in court. Such portrayals provide a basis for us to empathize with cattle, swine, and chickens while recognizing the need to sustain our bodies through their consumption. In order to rationalize the conflicting emotions, we concede that animals harvested for benefit must experience life (and death) conditions as close to human comfort as possible. Therefore, the line between “humane” and “human” becomes blurred.
Wrapping up, I’m not sure if this helps your quest, but I hope I provided some food for thought.