As antibiotic use in animal feeds becomes more of a popular issue in this country, it begs the question about consumer views of our arguments. In fact, we have had this question with each of the major public issues we have dealt with such as animal welfare, odors and air quality, water quality, residue levels set by foreign governments, etc. I have always been intrigued by this issue and have looked at a fair amount of consumer research on these issues.
With regard to our industry, it always seems like consumers’ emotional responses carry the day and that no one is really listening to the science on any issue. However, one does not need to look very far over the pond to realize that actually, Americans have demonstrated a very high regard for science and for government approvals as compared to our European friends. I remember well the issue of hormone implants in beef and the stir it caused when Europe absolutely refused to buy any American beef due to the fact that we routinely use implants in fat cattle.
At that time, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association was taking daily surveys to “check the pulse” of Americans on this subject, and never even saw a blip. Americans were satisfied that the federal government had determined these implants were safe and were more indignant about the fact that the Europeans were rejecting our beef. Another case in point surrounds the global issue of genetically modified organisms. Again, that valuable technology has grown by leaps and bounds in this country but the Europeans, who do not trust their government approval system, were wary and distrustful of this technology, in spite of all the science that supported it.
It seems that Americans in general believe in a logical explanation with science support and especially with government backing. They trust it. How does this play out with the recent animal welfare hype and the legislation that goes along with it? The main problem is that we have not figured out how to put our science message in a few sound bites to counteract the sound bites and well-placed pictures the detractors use to sway the public. That is what we need to figure out.
The antibiotics issue has been talked about for a long time. We know that animal agriculture is not a big contributor to resistant organisms and we also know what would happen if we took subtherapeutic antibiotics away. The National Pork Board and the National Pork Producers Council have been in the thick of these discussions for years and even decades. They have all the data and the talking points. If we can only get consumers to hear and listen to the valid scientific evidence through all the emotional arguments, they will believe and act accordingly. In Europe we probably wouldn’t even have a forum. At least here, we can make our points to the public jury, which is indeed very interested in “science-based” and “government-approved.”
I hope good sense will prevail in this issue as it has with so many others in this country, but we definitely need to be involved in the issue and make a strong case with all the sound bites we can.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Meisinger is the Executive Director of the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence. To contact Dr. Meisinger, e-mail him at: drdave@iastate.edu or call him by phone at: (515) 975-3557.
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.