Search Farmer Goes to Market

Search Site
Thursday April 26, 2018

They can be hazardous to your longterm business health. Look carefully behind the agendas of some of these “pro-food” groups

Ever since both the Governor and several Nebraska farm organizations pronounced the group persona non grata in the state, the Washington-based Humane Society of the United States has taken most of the heat for activism against traditional agriculture. However, behind HSUS lies a whole second tier of activists with much broader aims than ensuring safe and healthful food, who have successfully grafted their political agendas to the food-system movement. Before grocers and farmers ally with these groups to improve food access and react to perceived “consumer demand” for system improvements, it’s important we consider: Do they really hold your interest at heart?

Center for Science in the Public Interest

The grand-daddy of “science-based” criticism of many foods and food-systems practices, CSPI has a long, dubious track record of lobbying for cost-boosting food-service regulations, including banning trans fats, regulating salt as hazardous, mandating nutrition information on menus, and restricting youth access to vending machines.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Founded in 1986 to oppose industrial agriculture and technology, IATP lobbies U.S. companies to limit trading to organic foods, like “Peace Coffee,” (in which, coincidentally, the group’s principles have had a financial interest). The group has been a vocal critic of crop biotechnology.

Community Food Security Coalition

This coalition of more than 300 organizations lobbies for local regulation and policy developments that encourage “social and economic justice, anti-hunger, environmental, community development, sustainable agriculture, community gardening and other fields.” In practical terms, these local councils often involve themselves in city hall and state legislatures, direct farmers market activities, farm-to-school provisioning and other marketing channels that bypass the traditional supply chain. “We seek to develop self-reliance among all communities in obtaining their food and to create a system of growing, manufacturing, processing, making available, and selling food that is…grounded in the principles of justice, democracy, and sustainability,” according to the Coalition’s mission statement.

PEW Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins’ Center for a Livable Future

The $6 billion charitable behemoth PEW Trusts has contributed more than $1 billion to several activist environmental groups over the past decade, including $3.4 million to the Johns Hopkins University-affiliated Center for a Livable Future. This critic of all agriculture except small-scale and “urban” farming also supports the “Meatless Monday” campaign to scare consumers into cutting — even eliminating — their meat purchasing for at least one day every week.

Global Resource Action Center for the Environment

GRACE targets not only modern agriculture through it’s “Factory Farm” project, but also traditional energy production and internal combustion automobiles as being too favorable to “corporate profits.” GRACE has mastered the tactic of mobilizing local groups to protest and to lobby regulators. It also urges consumers frustrated with slow progress by their supermarkets in offering “local” food to apply the same pressure to them..

Environmental Defense Fund

Though the 300,000-member environmental- activist group dresses itself up as a “partner” in helping businesses improve their sustainability, many of its dictates are painfully costly to small business, such as the recent restrictions on diesel-driven generators many supermarkets rely upon.

Have a question about any of these groups? Leave it in the comments section below, and we'll find an answer.


HSUS head Wayne PacelleWhat makes the Humane Society of the United States so unpopular with Nebraska farmers? Answer: It all comes down to you

The return of the president and CEO of Washington, D.C.'s, Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, to Nebraska last month was a quieter affair than his last appearance nearly three years ago. On the heels of that 2010 visit by Pacelle on behalf of his organization, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman famously promised to "kick their butt out of Nebraska," citing the group's longtime "anti-agriculture" position.

“The Humane Society of the United States is not connected with our local humane societies, who do a good job,” the Governer told the Brownfield Radio Network. “The Humane Society of the United States is anti-agriculture and they’re out to destroy animal agriculture…. They’re making a mistake if they think they come to Nebraska and defeat us.”

When Pacelle made his 2010 appearance in Lincoln, he was met by a hostile crowd and a newly formed farm-group coalition, determined to prevent a repeat in Nebraska of statewide ballot initiatives in other states that attempted to place financially crippling restrictions on animal agriculture in those states. Upon his return June 27 and 28, however, the tone was decidely more relaxed and cooperative with the farmers of the state. While here, the head of the most powerful animal-rights advocacy group in the nation, backed by $167 million in annual revenue, met with farmer members of his new state Agriculture Council, toured an organic milk and cheese farm nearby, and assured those who heard him that his was now a mission of conciliation. His outreach went so far as to convince the Lincoln Journal Star reporter covering the appearance that the group no longer considers it necessary to advocate for legislation to achieve its current top objective: elimination of the gestation crates that pig farmers typically use to manage pregnant animals.  

“It’s entirely unnecessary,” he assured the Journal Star, “because the market atmosphere has overtaken gestation crate issues.”

New tactics, same end game

But does the new tone of cooperation mean HSUS has softened its stand regarding farming practices like gestation crates? Not likely.

The last year has seen a reduced focus on legislation by the society and more direct involvement with food manufacturers and retailers to advocate for voluntary change. Numerous food retailers and quick-service restaurant chains have announced they would soon begin to demand their pork suppliers phase out the use of gestation crates, in the interest of satisfying "consumer demand" for an end to the practice. Smithfield Foods, the country's largest pork farm, for example, first announced in 2007 it would gradually abandon the practice over a 10-year period. Although Smithfield had earlier backed off on its promise because it was facing financial hardship, Smithfield President and CEO Larry Pope said the company’s hog operations had converted housing for 30 percent of its sow herd and was now back on track to meet the 2017 goal.

In the last year, Wendy's, Burger King, Safeway, Sonic, Denny's, McDonalds, Cracker Barrel and Kroger have all released statements in conjunction with the association--often sharing the same language, if not written directly for them by HSUS--announcing they plan to pressure pork suppliers to abandon the practice.

Despite an absence of any meaningful research that demonstrates any real consumer demand for an end to the practice--except that research created by the association in order to support its mission--retailers do appear to be proving Pacelle correct: the market may be changing to favor the HSUS position that many mainline farm organizations continue to see as simply the first shot in further restrictions on agriculture. And like the HSUS-backed egg-laying hen housing bill introduced into this session of Congress which would cost the egg-production chain anywhere from $4 billion to $10 billion to institute, they consider such "market driven" tactics as simply another means by which HSUS hopes to make animal farming so financially burdensome as to make it ultimately unsustainable in present form.

Groups like the Nebraska coalition We Support Agriculture argue that despite what HSUS and Pacelle say, they see collaboration by retailers and farm groups like the Nebraska Farmers Union as an unhealthy alliance that will ultimately damage the financial viability of Nebraska's food system. not just for the large farms HSUS actively opposes, but for small farms and other chain members, as well.

“I would not take Wayne Pacelle at his word if he said the sun was out at noon today,” Larry Sitzman, executive director of the Nebraska Pork Producers, told the Lincoln Journal Star.

How much has COOL made the grocer?

Photo: Flickr/Four12

Even as mandatory country of origin labeling, or COOL, marked its four-year anniversary last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was facing a deadline later this month to bring the system into compliance with mandates of the World Trade Organization. Those new requirements, spurred by unfair trade allegations from Canada and Mexico, would require meats to specify not only where the product was produced, but where the animal it originated was born, where it was raised and where it was processed. If WTO gets its way, even meat from this country would be required to carry a label stating it was born, raised and processed in the United States--a simple "Product of the U.S.A." would no longer suffice.

It's just further example of the additional cost the 4-year-old labeling requirement adds to products, say critics of the measure. But, based on arguments by proponents that consumers have a right to know what country their food came from, and they would happily pay to obtain that information, it was hoped COOL labeling would increase the price they would be willing to pay for U.S. meat products.

Did they?

A group of ag economics researchers from Kansas State University used several consumer research methods to guage the impact, including transaction data of meat purchases at grocery stores, as well as experimental economics methods involving in-store and online surveys, along with real -money experiments with consumers. They found:

Meat demand effect = None

Across a series of demand system models estimated using retail grocery scanner data of COOL-covered products, changes in consumer demand following implementation were not detected. The study's conclusions held true across all meats and products evaluated. Demand-system, as well as in-person and online assessments obtained the same conclusions whether evaluating beef steak, pork chop, or chicken breast products; there was no change in demand following implementation of COOL for beef, pork or chicken products.

Consumer interest = No

In an online survey, 23 percent of respondents were aware of COOL, but 12 percent incorrectly believed wasn't mandated by law and nearly two-thirds of respondents didn't know whether COOL was or wasn't required by law. Similarly, the majority of in - person experiment participants did not know whether COOL was in place , despite the fact that they were standing near a retail meat counter. Furthermore, the majority of in - person participants also stated they never look for origin information when shopping for fresh beef or pork products.

Actions speak louder

In both online and in-person assessments, research participants regularly select meat products carrying origin information over unlabeled alternatives, a finding consistent with previous research. However, in an online assessment, consumers valued meat products labeled “Product of North America” to be approximately the same as “Product of United States."

What should we have learned from the COOL experience, according to the Kansas State researchers?

  • It's a money-loser. Given the costs of compliance introduced by COOL and no evidence of increased demand for covered products, the results suggest an aggregate economic loss for the U.S. meat and livestock supply chain spanning from producers to consumers. Plus, since existing studies indicate implementation costs have been lower for the chicken industry, this finding also suggests stakeholders in the beef and pork industries are comparatively worse off.
  • Consumers say they'll pay, but won't. The low level of consumer knowledge about COOL may imply that focusing people’s attention on an origin attribute could bias their valuations upward, the researchers suggest. For example, the country-of-origin effect has been larger in studies that only investigated origin alone as compared to studies that investigated origin in combination with other attributes. This finding is reinforced by the observation of no demand increase after COOL was implemented in spite of previous research suggesting consumers would pay more for products carrying origin information. This does not necessarily mean that on the same shelf, a product with no origin information would have the same value as one with origin information to the consumer. However, implementation of mandatory labeling at the retail level has had no discernible impact on demand.
  • Be careful what you wish for. Many critics of COOL when it was proposed saw it as trade protectionism, in reaction to cattle and hog imports under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Kansas State study reinforces the reality that the industry infighting COOL represents meant little to the consumer at the end of the day: The finding of consumers not valuing meat products carrying Product of United States labels over those with Product of North America labels is telling. If a Product of North America label is less expensive to implement in the context of COOL and consumers fail to place higher value on products carrying Product of United States labels, economic gains would occur by utilizing the less expensive labeling requirement, they suggest.

Why animal ID?

QI wonder when I read the news reports about farm-animal identification. Why on earth would cattlemen and cattlewomen want it?  It simply baffles me.


 A The federal government's newly launched second attempt at a national livestock identification program has come under criticism from farmers, generally smaller ones, who argue it's an onerous burden that unfairly singles out the small farm for regulation.

However, those who advocate for the program say some system is needed to help identify and stop a disease epidemic should it ever break out in U.S. herds. Why?

Veterinary researchers at University of California at Davis published a complex mathematical model in this month's issue of the scholarly journal Preventive Veterinary Medicine that simulated how difficult it would be to find and contain a case of Foot and Mouth Disease if it broke out somewhere among that state’s 22,000 dairy herds. Foot and Mouth Disease is a caused by a highly contagious virus, which typically affects cattle and sheep. It is notoriously difficult to contain because it can be spread not only via movement of infected animals, but also by farm vehicles, clothing, feed and other animals, including wildlife. When Great Britain suffered an outbreak in spring of 2001, an estimated 7 million sheep and cattle were eventually killed in an attempt to halt spread of the disease, eventually costing the country’s food chain $13 billion.

The California researchers compared the predicted results of containment efforts assuming either an electronic tracing system, a paper-based tracing system of variable efficacy, or no tracing system at all.

Their results estimated that an electronic tracing system would reduce the average number of infected farms by anywhere from 8 percent to 81 percent, depending on how big the farm that first spread the disease was and what species of animals it housed. The electronic system also simulated a decrease in the average length of the epidemic, from at least 200 days down to 42, if the initial infecting farm was a small dairy; from 110 days to 45 days if it were a large dairy. Even relying on a paper-based tracing system was better than no tracking system at all, the researchers found, although it was not as efficient as an electronic tracking system.

Tracking estimates for Foot and Mouth Disease


The United States’ current lack of a national animal movement database, they argue, leaves the food chain at the mercy of often inefficient state tracking systems that can’t share incompatible data or integrated technology, hindering their ability to efficiently track infected animals. According to USDA, it’s possible that with current systems an animal may be identified multiple times and yet still not be fully traceable. And, ironically, their success in reducing disease has resulted in reduced participation in these programs, so the U.S. traceability infrastructure is even less effective than it was in the past.

Questions GMO labeling proponents should answer

The potential introduction looms of another bill at the federal level that would require labeling on all foods using genetically modified crops. Here are a half dozen hard questions to ask of the supporters of such state and federal legislation.

Following in the footsteps of neighboring Missouri and Colorado state legislatures, which have introduced state bills that would require all food that is a product of GMO technology sold in the state to be labeled as such, at least two U.S. congressmen have announced support for similar legislation at a national level. Several other states that have introduced such legislation in order to, according to supporters of the measure, “…give consumers the freedom to choose between GMOs and conventional products.”

Who can be against consumer choice? You may be, once you find out what GMO labeling really entails, and what it ultimately means (and doesn’t mean). Here are six good reasons to think hard about supporting mandatory GMO food labeling.

Is it or isn't it GMO? Is it or isn’t it? Like the spongy label claim of “natural,” the definition of “genetically modified” can be subject to the eye of the beholder. Strictly speaking, nearly every modern food item you stock today has been genetically modified from its original plant or animal ancestors—a scientific and often highly technological practice that plant and animal breeders have refined for millennia. Opponents of making those improvements through modern techniques, in an attempt to draw a bright line at the laboratory door, use equally vague terms like “biotechnology” and “natural means” that ignore the quite unnatural but non-GMO technologies that support the natural acts of animal and plant breeding—from physically removing the male parts of corn plants in order to force cross-pollination between varieties, to chemically washing the semen of dairy cattle in order to increase the percentage of (more valuable) female cattle born.

Then, atop that confusion add the dimension of animal products. First, if animals are not genetically modified themselves, but only the natural offspring of genetically modified breeding stock, are those animals to be defined as GMO? It’s unclear from a careful reading of most state bills whether they would or wouldn’t be considered so. Second, what of non-GMO animals that are fed GMO feeds? Would they become what they eat, forcing them to labeled as GMO? In the case of organic, for instance, feeding an organic cow non-organic feed renders the milk and meat non-organic; would the same be true of GMO?

Though it may eventually be possible to precisely define what biotechnology is and is not, translating those precise terms into a meaningful two- or three-word label claim becomes an exercise not in clarity, but in confusion.

Mike Smith discuss biotech transparency labelingClick here to listen
to Farmer Goes to Market
co-founder and editor Mike Smith
discuss the issues of "transparency by labeling"
with radio host Trent Loos.


GMO Labeling Wouldn't it be easier to label what’s not GMO? Biotech crops have now been cultivated for more than 15 years, providing food for millions of people over the course of those years. In the United States, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents biotech companies, 88 percent of corn, 94 percent of soybeans and 90 percent of cotton are now biotech varieties. And because corn and soybean meal are the No.1 and No. 2 ingredients in livestock feed, it follows that the majority of beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk are now fed biotech crops. Putting aside the obvious questions (see below) of the practicality of teasing apart the two food streams from one another in order to label them, the real question remains of what would be unlabeled at the end of the day. In fact, many biotech advocates argue this is the end game of mandatory labeling--to simply remind consumers how pervasive the technology has become, and to make more-lucrative non-GMO niche foods stand out in bright contrast. "If labeling is allowed, poorly informed critics of genetically enhanced foods would use it to demonize by labeling,” Roger Beachy, a biotechnology pioneer told the Nebraska Governors Ag Conference in Kearney in early February.

Where would labeling stop? Where do you stop? It’s easy to argue “consumers want to know if they’re buying GMO.” Numerous polls, in fact, find consumers say they want GMO products labeled—up to almost nine in 10, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll. But the obvious follow-up question that’s never asked is the more important one: “What do you want the label to tell you about GMO?” The typical consumer doesn’t even know enough about what they don’t know about GMO to ask the question, a reality that explains the trend you see in which consumer support for labeling goes down the more they learn about biotechnology.

What else must we label for consumer choice? As long as consumers hear unchallenged assertions in the media that GMO is unsafe and high-risk (which it categorically is not, at least according to National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, the American Medical Association, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization), then pro-labeling surveys like the CBS/Times one might just as well ask consumers, “Do you want your food labeled “Safe” vs. “Unsafe?” In that sense, it’s a wonder the portion demanding labeling is only nine in 10. However, if you concur with the scientific authorities that biotechnology is safe--that it’s no indication of food safety-- then the pressing question becomes: What’s the real reason consumers need to be given a choice between GMO and non-GMO? It opens up the proverbial Pandora’s box of what safe-but-potentially-objectionable food trait should be labeled next. Irrigated crops vs. non-irrigated (no difference in safety, but could withdraw water from the environment)? Hand-picked vs. machine-picked (no difference in safety, but could be encouraging illegal immigration)? Small farm vs. large (no difference in safety, but could be encouraging corporate consolidation of farming)? Patented seed technology vs. heirloom? You may argue a portion of your consumers want to know each of those, but you’d likely not support the law to mandate it.

Is this market puffery? Should the state be supporting marketing puffery? Granted, biotech seed and animal companies oppose GMO labeling because they’ve invested billions in research and development of the products that come from them—a fact often “exposed” by advocates for mandatory labeling. But an equally inconvenient truth that seldom gets exposed to sunlight by lazy media reporting is the fact that most labeling initiatives are underwritten by the country’s organic and natural-foods industry. Whether their underlying objection to biotech foods is genuine or not, there’s no denying they would enjoy a market windfall should the government officially sanction their product lines by proxy by requiring their competition to put a label on their products that has been associated—by them—with questionable food safety.

Dividing the channel...a good idea? Do we want to needlessly, and painfully, divide the distribution channels? If you thought COOL labeling was a headache, you haven’t seen the first of it should GMO labeling see fruition. State-by-state adoption, as appears to be the strategy of GMO opponents, would require the system set up two markets—a state-wide market only and then one for the rest of the country. And even if GMO labeling were adopted on a national scale, pulling apart the two systems would create the costs, headaches and product shortages that have plagued the organic system—only on a huge scale.

Are we seeding distrust?Doesn't this just take us further down the road of compounding apparent confusion and undue fear? Which is to say, confusion in the system, not the consumer, that is. Trust is already falling in the world’s food system, and despite labeling proponents’ claims they’re only giving consumers information they need to improve that trust, experience demonstrates the opposite is bound to occur. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration considers biotech foods to be substantially equivalent to non-biotech foods, and likely will continue to do so until good science counsels otherwise. Inviting the credibility fiasco that is the rbST-milk labeling issue (“From cows not treated with rbST, but there’s no significant difference shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows”), or the hormone-free chicken chicanery (growth hormone use has been illegal in U.S. chickens four nearly four decades), on nearly ever food package is a recipe for diminished faith in food, not strengthened. The food regulatory system is backing itself into a corner in which, by trying to appease one small but vocal segment in the name of “consumer choice,” it leaves itself less room to validly object to doing it for the next special interest that comes complaining. New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman, GMO-labeling advocate though he is, accidentally gets it right when he shrilly points out the very contradiction he’s agitating for: “…when feed corn is contaminated by [GMO] ethanol corn, the products produced from it won’t be organic. (On the one hand, USDA. joins the FDA in not seeing GE foods as materially different; on the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could you at least pretend to be consistent?)” Exactly right, Mark: Consistently wrong is still wrong.

S5 Box