Guest Blogs

By Lori Connelly
PennAg Industries Association

I keep a Tom Fishbourne cartoon posted at my desk. It depicts two grocery shoppers, one male, one female. The mail shopper exclaims “Alright! Organic Twinkies at twice the price!” The woman in the cartoon replies, “It must be twice as healthy.” Despite the humorous intention, this comic illustrates a frightening mindset that is much too prevalent in grocery stores around the country.

Years of sound scientific research, which has led to development of the most advanced food system in history, are being off-set by buzz words, poor media reporting and deceptive marketing. Collectively, this is taking a toll on the food animal industry.

I recently interviewed a group of grocery shoppers as part of a research study conducted at Penn State. Of the shoppers interviewed, only two percent purchased organic dairy products on a regular basis. Forty-two percent of the shoppers indicated that there are indeed health risks associated with drinking conventionally produced milk. Asked if there were health risk associated with drinking organic milk – only nine percent answered “yes.” This simple comparison speaks volumes about what is happening on a much larger scale; the public is misinformed and susceptible to the power of suggestion. More and more, consumers are making purchasing decisions based on what they believe, not on what they know.

Organic sales have exploded. Consumers consistently state that the primary reason they are buying organic foods is to provide their families with healthier and safer food choices. Health is the leading reason for organic purchases. At the same time, reports indicate that sixty-million people in the United States are clinically obese. This doesn’t seem to add up. There is clear gap between intention and actualization when it comes to consumers and nutrition. I’ve made it a habit to closely observe shoppers at grocery stores. It continuously boggles my mind to see shopping carts brimming with junk food, and convenience items, topped with a carton of organic or soy milk. What exactly is the intended end result? Often, consumers try to justify poor habits with what they perceive is a “quick fix.”

The organic versus conventional debate is not the only debate that makes it necessary to defend our industry. “Factory farms” versus “sustainable agriculture” is a debate that heats up the most tempered local governments. Terms like “free-range,” “all-natural,” “locally grown” contribute to skewed images of modern agriculture. In addition, they draw dividing lines within our industry. Indirectly, these marketing tools have created fear and misperceptions in the minds of many consumers. This is accompanied by an ever-growing knowledge gap between consumers and their food source.

On Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, the U.S. population surpassed 300 million people. We have more people to feed in our country that ever before and fewer people who are willing to do it. To add to the challenge, a shift in consumer perception is making it more difficult to meet the demands of the public. The bottom line is that our population will not stop growing. People will not stop eating. Whether the food is organic or conventional, free range or caged, our country currently enjoy the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. As agricultural representatives, we need to encourage decision makers, processors and the public to recognize the sound science that has made our industry so great. If we aim to change one perception into a reality for consumers, let it be the one that emphasizes agricultural production as an essential element of national security. If public pressure limits our production and we can’t supply enough food for our country, which country would one pick to supply it for us?