There’s a new documentary making the rounds on agriculture-related social media channels. License to Farm is a 30-minute film produced in Saskatchewan with the goal of encouraging farmers to speak up in defense of their “social license” (i.e. a level of public trust that allows them to operate relatively independent of government oversight).
It’s an important issue: as the percentage of the population with direct ties to agriculture declines and consumer concerns about food increases, communication between producers and consumers is essential. Equally important is the accuracy and tone of that conversation. This is where I have concerns.
First, several speakers present the false impression that there are two options for agriculture: a “modern” agriculture that uses GMOs and pesticides, and “turning back the clock” to a previous era (which is directly or indirectly associated with organic farming). I’ve addressed this myth and the harm it does to both the farm community and consumer perception before, so I’m not going to re-visit it in depth here.
If the goal is to build relationships of mutual trust and respect between farmers and consumers, it has to be a two-way street. We know that to the general public, farmers remain among the most highly-respected professionals. This is a distinct advantage (and one that the biotech industry is eager to exploit, by the way). But farmers’ perceptions of consumers will also have a big impact on communications. Farmers who want to bridge the so-called “rural-urban divide” need to be careful that their attitudes and language do not reinforce the division.
This is where License to Farm falls short. Intentionally or not, it seems designed to perpetuate an “us vs. them” approach to the issues. To illustrate the point, I made two lists: the first is of the words used in association with farmers, farm practices, and food. Compare this to the second list of words used to describe consumers and consumer concerns. The words in each list appear more or less in the order they are mentioned in the film, and I also tried to keep track of the frequency of common words. The lists are not exhaustive, but the results are startling:
License To Farm’s Words About…
| Farms, Farming, and Food | Consumers and Consumer Attitudes |
| tradition | push-back |
| vast, complex enterprise | customers |
| cutting edge technology (3 times) | public fears |
| risky business | misinformation |
| “ one of strictest in the world” [regulatory system] | far removed [from agriculture] |
| values | “conceptions stuck in 40s and 50s” |
| [farmers] produce safe food | confused, bewildered |
| [need for, reality of] choice | illegitimate fears |
| modern [practices] | disconnected |
| specific and necessary use of pesticides | “romanticized ideal” |
| revolutionary technology | anti-farm movement |
| sophisticated | not scientifically based (twice or more) |
| safe food (at least 12 times) | no basis in fact |
| environmentalist | concern (4 times or more) |
| most concerned about pesticides | “activists allege” |
| protect the environment | misunderstanding (at least 3 times) |
| sustainable (at least twice) | dumb |
| family-owned and operated | fear-mongering |
| efficient, efficiency | illogical (twice or more) |
| “doing best job we can” | counterproductive |
| healthy food (at least 5 times) | worried |
| innovation | beliefs (twice or more) |
| love [for farming] (at least twice) | perceptions (twice or more) |
| credible | myths (at least 4 times) |
| trusted (3 times or more) | fear (3 times or more) |
| improve the environment | suspicious |
| need to speak up (3 times or more) | naturalistic fallacy |
| need to tell their story (2 times or more) | misinformed |
| improving land | misconceptions |
| good stewardship | need education |
| proud | confused |
| upset | |
| consumer concerns not scientific |
As others have pointed out, some critique is a good thing. Not all consumer concerns are completely valid. At the same time, critiques need to be balanced. Words matter, and when the words used to describe one party are exclusively positive while the words used to describe the other party are almost entirely negative in their connotation, balance is hard to find and conversation becomes difficult.
Social license needs to be earned, not demanded or expected. It’s also easier to get respect when respect is given. Framing “social license” as purely a public relations challenge to convince ignorant consumers that everything every farmer does is perfect is a disservice to everyone involved. (For a great exploration of this concept, check out John Phipps’ “Accountable Ag” blog post!)
Our diverse agricultural community has the capacity, the opportunity, and the responsibility to meet a diversity of consumer demands. (Within reason, of course – no one should expect locally-grown bananas at Canadian farmers’ markets!*) Farmers can do that while working to continuously improve their impact on the world. It’s going to take a collaborative approach, and it means treating consumers as allies, not enemies.
That’s a story worth telling.
* After I published this post, a Twitter follower pointed out that it is indeed possible to find locally-grown bananas at a Canadian farmers’ market. Proof-positive that innovative Canadian farmers are prepared to meet practically every consumer demand – and that farmers like me should never dismiss a consumer demand as “unreasonable” without knowing all the facts!
The Fanning Mill 
Viren D'souza™ (@Milkabot)
January 29, 2016
I’d be inclined to listen to customer demands if I didn’t see the stereotypes play out everyday, in social media and in real life.
“I don’t want pesticides in my food”
“Chickens today are bigger than they used to be because of all the hormones they feed them”
I’d see them as an ally if maybe they chose to get perspective on the story/marketing they were reading. Perhaps it’s a product of today’s media (or my own skepticism), but I don’t think people really read beyond the eight word headline and the picture posted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rob
February 1, 2016
Thanks for the comments. Do you think that people will be more or less likely to chose to approach farmers for their perspective if farmers use the list of adjectives above to describe consumers and consumer concerns?
LikeLike
Greg Hawkins
January 29, 2016
I’ve not seen the video, I guess cynically I suspected it would be as you described it. But I agree that your comments, sadly, sometimes apply to the general discourse from Ag I’ve seen. And within “ag” I include beekeepers, a cohort I belong to. At its worst, “social license” is practiced as “arrogant entitlement” devoid of self reflection. Yes, consumers have a lot of wacky ideas. Heck when I was in farm practice as a DVM I heard lots of crazy ideas from farmers! I was up against the Watkins man advising to sprinkle their phenol disinfectant on hay bales to stop IBR. But I knew that smacking my customers on the forehead and calling them names wouldn’t help my cause. I sincerely accept that this is quite likely different now, and the difference has been producer education. Why wouldn’t consumers be equally influenced, in the long run, by a farmers message that is focused on consumer’s concerns? Under it all, my farmer was just telling me he didn’t want IBR. Consumers simply want to know that their food is safe, wholesome, and that their environment is protected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carrie Kotylak
January 30, 2016
I have not watched the film yet. I farm in Saskatchewan and some of those in the film are associates and friends of mine. I try to be respectful and informative toward all urbanites I meet and with whom I end up talking about Ag with (for whatever reason). I will say though that what simply astounds me is the lack of even basic knowledge by the urban populations concerning operations on Canadian farms (they seem to know all about what happens on US farms — or think they do) — it just floors me. And this lack of even the basics comes from urban people in Saskatchewan! These are people who, at the very most, are living within 10 to 15 miles of productive farm land and livestock operations. They are often standing in line at stores, sitting at football games, visiting attractions — and right beside them is a farmer — and they know absolutely nothing about where there food comes from or how it’s produced. Yesterday I sat in my doctor’s office and had a lengthy discussion with him regarding how we grow wheat and what we feed our cows in winter — and virtually everything he had thought was accurate about his knowledge of Ag was just completely wrong and almost laughable. Sorry, but I’m all for respectfully informing and educating the urban consumer, but many of those urban dwellers need to step up and start educating themselves properly. They would all benefit greatly from taking responsibility for their own knowledge and actually asking the producers who are all around them, rather than believing all the hype and fear-mongering they get from US television.
LikeLike
rob
February 1, 2016
Thanks for the comments Carrie. I was chatting with somebody who had moved from Ontario to Saskatoon recently and his impression was that people there still had much closer ties to the farm community than they did in the urban community he had left in Ontario.
It’s a good reminder that it doesn’t take long for perceptions to shift! Thanks also for pointing out that consumers have a responsibility in this equation too.
LikeLike
rob
February 1, 2016
Here’s an interesting perspective from a consumer (and registered dietitian): http://bitemywords.com/2016/02/01/licence-to-farm-review-rant/
LikeLike
Peter Mundy
February 2, 2016
Hi Rob. I’d be interested to know what you think about the role of food manufacturers and advertising here. The (arguably outdated) images of ‘happy’ animals on pasture and white picket fenced farms used on food labels and adverts has hidden the sheer scale of the industrialization of food–and particularly food animal–production from consumers. At the same time, urbanization and the dramatic expansion of the food processing industry has distanced the farmer from the consumer. While I believe the consumer absolutely has a responsibility to educate themselves about food (and the impact of their food choices), is it any wonder that so many people are surprised about how their food is produced–particularly when it comes to animal food products–when they are fed this picture-perfect, sanitized view of farming through advertising, PR and food packaging? Many thanks for a thought-provoking blog.
Peter
LikeLike
rob
February 3, 2016
That’s an excellent point Peter. No one seems to blink when the “romantic ideal” is used to market the product, but when it circles back to make consumers feel like they’ve been mislead about actual production practices, suddenly it’s all their fault!
LikeLike