Fred Steele
Anyone of a certain age has seen the front page of the old Saturday Evening Post, and dozens of other publications from the past, extolling the virtues of agriculture. Remember front cover photos of smiling rustic faces? Then came the inclusive interview era of radio. Again the “everything is alright” virtue was promoted and re-enforced.
At some point in time, television changed the way viewers received information - we entered the time of hidden cameras and ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ reporting. Controversy sold newspapers. Some of the stories exposed weaknesses in the system and showed up less than ethical businesses. The most hard hitting was a Canadian show called This Hour Has Seven Days. It was the model for the ongoing American program Sixty Minutes.
Why am I telling you all this? Because history doesn't just happen, it evolves, and the story of agriculture has gone from fairyland-wonderful to being the subject of suspicion. The agriculture industry was oblivious to the downside of criticism. The internet made everyone an expert in “Real Time”. Correcting a ‘runaway mistake’ buried in the next Tweet is near impossible. The Tweet takes on a life of its own regardless of whether or not it is fact. These communication channels are being segregated, leading to more extreme views as one group is not entering into discourse with others in society. What was once Public Trust can become Public Dis-trust overnight.
How does this affect agriculture?
The biggest reason for distrust is the disconnect between agriculture and urban consumers. This is natural if you consider the evolution of how it happened. One hundred years ago, fifty-two percent of the Canadian population was in some way connected to agriculture, to earn their living. Today that number is two percent.
As well, the agriculture industry took for granted the confidence consumers have in farmers and the farm industry, (the food distribution system).
In an August 31, 2017 editorial in Western Producer, I came across an article written by David Miller, a research and commodity services director for an Iowa farm. He found some startling disconnects and inaccuracies in the beliefs of bloggers. I would like to share some of his findings to help us give our collective heads a shake.
While agriculture extolled the virtues of the family farm and chain stores promoted locally grown, social bloggers said that wasn't true. You see, there were signs in fields saying this field this land is owned by Syngenta, or DeKalb, or Monsanto or any other corporate name you want to add.
What actually happened was the bloggers mistook the signs indicating what seed was being used, as ownership signs by corporate farms. When this misconception came to light, farmers were flabbergasted. Urban consumers hear the endless stories about Monsanto and big factory farms and the negative visual imprints on the mind they leave, and assumed seed signs were signs of ownership.
The Iowa story was a US one but it could happen here and likely does in a variety of ways. Instead of addressing the seed sign problem, the first reaction was to scoff at the suggestion. But think about it for a moment. In the urban setting, signs tell people what the business is and who owns it, so it became a natural assumption.
Here is something that must be understood to correct future problems of mis-communication, misunderstanding, and distrust.
“People fill in what they don't know with what little they do know, and often that picture is not what reality is,” is a David Miller quote that is both educational and chilling. “It demonstrates just how much work we have to do to reach the hearts and minds of those we are asking to trust us as farmers,” Miller adds.
So, what and where and how do we begin to untangle the web of misinformation bombarding us on a daily basis?
Even more importantly, farming is now a complex business and farmers themselves need to be informed so they can answer questions in their own neighbourhood. This summer I got to see some of this in action. On tour I watched David Geen telling his story to the Labour Minister of St Lucia. I thought to myself, Mr Geen really knows his stuff. It was interesting, informative and David was engaging his guests and answering questions.
How do we gain the public trust of people who don't believe in any sprays at all? Our consolidated retailers are demanding cosmetically perfect fruit, so there is a disconnect with the consumer. How do we bridge this information gap? How do we bridge our reality with the fact the agriculture industry can no longer take public trust for granted. Programs such as the one being developed by BCAC on public trust will help bridge the gap.
We, the two percent still in agriculture, must use every available means to inform the ninety eight percent of the population as to what the realities of farming really are. Ignoring the questions and sometime inaccurate statements on social media means we enhance public distrust and in so doing risk the pressures on politicians to regulate our industry more and more.
When the public perception of farms is different from the true farm experience, the public perception is right, even though it is wrong.
As farmers and those who make up the agriculture community, it is our task to make sure urban consumers know what reality is and band together to gain Public Trust. ■
Fred Steele, President BCFGA