A recent survey done by the Canada West Foundation for Natural Resources Policy identified a perception that people had a more favourable attitude towards agriculture than other sectors of the resource economy. The survey included the mining, forestry and energy sectors and it showed that more than half the respondents trusted the agriculture industry. That result was no surprise to long time industry observers, but it needs to be taken into some interpretive context. The question that arises is what perceived image of agriculture do respondents and the public really have? One suspects that the perception is quite different from the reality.
Those that are part of the agriculture industry at most levels tend to understand that over the past 60 years much has changed and it’s become highly consolidated and commercialized. It’s not the image that most urban folks have of agriculture, by accident or design, they have a much more romanticized version of agriculture. That perhaps may be what is reflected in the survey results. People tend to have a clear perception of other resource industries like mining, energy and forestry which involves highly visible hard-edged extraction and processing. There is nothing pretty about the way those industries can brutalize the environment with massive machinery and industrialization. Farming on the other hand conjures up gentle images of ripening crops in the field, happy grazing livestock and colourful orchards. The products of agriculture are also more intimate to people being they have direct relationship with every eating experience.
The reality is that 80 per cent of agricultural production is produced by 20 per cent of the producers; I suspect that figure is getting closer to 90 per cent and 10 per cent. The only way that occurs is through massive consolidation and commercialization. To the urban consumer that development has gone virtually unnoticed, after all the fields and grazing livestock generally look the same today as they did 60 years ago. What’s different of course is that the number of folks involved in primary production are a fraction of what it used to be. But the more quaint image of Old McDonald’s farm seems to persist. Some of that may be due to the story book images instilled in young minds in primary schools. It may also be human nature to cling to those positive images of a quieter gentler time.
From another perspective those quaint images can serve the industry well. Governments are well aware of the political impact of the plight of the family farm. That angle is usually trotted out whenever some production sector needs financial support for weather, market or disease calamities. One gets bemused seeing clueless politicians standing in front hay bales expressing their steadfast support for the survival of the family farm. Be that as it may, most successful family farms have cash flows and assets worth millions of dollars.
However, there are some chinks in the image of agriculture in the public view, but even then there seems to be a disconnect. Many are familiar with lobby groups fearmongering about the safety of food products. Those allegations get immediate public and media attention simple because it involves the food we eat. That introduces emotion into any food issue, and lobby groups and even some food retailers are quick to exploit that human condition to pursue their own goals. They make outlandish and misleading pronouncements about the dangers of GM crops, hormones, chemicals and a host of other practices. Consumers become perplexed when hearing about those supposed evils, being they have a rosy perception of agriculture of a bygone time. A growing danger is that a gullible public and their governments will begin to make decisions that will significantly impact agricultural production because they want a return to a type of simpler farming that they like to imagine or remember.
The real and imagined perception of agriculture is a quandary for the industry and its leadership. From a political perspective perhaps its best to encourage the naïve perception of most of the public as to agriculture. On the other hand, lobby groups have shown that they can be a serious annoyance and affect government policy and retailer marketing approaches. That already affects production and will only get worse. One encouraging note is that the industry is taking some steps to protect its positive image through organizations like Ag for Life. However, they tread a fine line in managing fact, from fiction, from fallacy and from fearmongering. I expect it’s all part of the process of really getting to know us.
AHEAD OF THE HEARD