Communications Expert to Producers: ‘Open the Barn Doors’
Submitted by Editor on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 12:38pm.
Charlene M. Shupp Espenshade
Special Sections Editor
EAST EARL, Pa. — Agriculture needs to become proactive and share how it does business. As the animal welfare debate continues, the best defense could be a strong offense.
That was the take-home message Hinda Mitchell gave members of PennAg Industries at their annual Meat and Egg Meeting last week here at Shady Maple.
Mitchell and her employer, the Cochran Group, were instrumental in helping Ohio establish an animal welfare board by voter referendum in November. But even though Mitchell considers passage of the referendum a significant success, she said it doesn’t mean the end of the animal welfare debate in Ohio.
The Cochran Group oversaw media aspects of the coalition of agriculture organizations that lobbied for Issue 2 — the referendum that established the animal welfare board.
“Consumers want to know more about how their food is produced on our farms,” she said. Consumer studies and focus groups indicate consumers desire to know food is safe, high quality, affordable and locally grown. They’d also rather buy food from local, larger-scale farms than food imported from other countries.
Mitchell stressed that consumers believe in farmers. But, it is important to continue to reinforce the message of what farmers are doing and the responsibility they take.
That message must include more than “demand enhancement” she said.
“We have got to open our doors. We have to give people a picture of what happens within our barn doors,” said Mitchell.
She shared an example of an egg farm that took a proactive issue when targeted by an animal rights group. The group released a video of the farm claiming there was animal abuse happening. The farmer countered by extending an invitation to the television station, asking them to pick several barns on the property for a tour.
The report, which could have been negative for the farm, turned into a positive one as the reporter said there were no signs of abuse, the chickens looked healthy, and the video tape did not look like the farm.
Mitchell said the reporter’s opinion “was pretty powerful stuff” as a third party affirming what the farmer said.
“We have to be okay with letting people see the insides of our barns,” she stressed.
She discussed an Ohio campaign started this year regarding chicken in cages. Consumer focus groups responded positively to the campaign. “They (consumers) imagine these cages smaller, stinkier and darker than they really are,” she said.
A ‘Meaningful’ Referendum Proposal
The concept of Issue 2 in Ohio was to provide a new approach to the animal welfare issue.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) had approached Ohio last January with its intention to begin a campaign to replicate its Proposition 2 in California regarding certain forms of animal housing. Issue 2 and its proposed board was a counter option proposed by the agriculture coalition to address consumer concerns on animal welfare. The proposal passed with 64 percent of the vote.
Mitchell said the goal of the board, which is made up of members from a diverse set of stakeholders in Ohio, is to take a “meaningful approach” to addressing animal care in the state.
The board is not “stacked” for the farm community, Mitchell said. Each member must be appointed by two of the three segments of the state government (governor, house or senate) and no more than seven members of one political party can serve.
The next step is for the General Assembly to legislate many of the details, such as funding, location, appointment information and other specifics. Once it’s organized, the board will have to be active or risk losing the ground gained with voters.
And just because the board referendum passed, it does not necessarily stop HSUS or any other group from returning to the state with an animal housing proposal.
Charlene M. Shupp Espenshade
Special Sections Editor
EAST EARL, Pa. — Agriculture needs to become proactive and share how it does business. As the animal welfare debate continues, the best defense could be a strong offense.
That was the take-home message Hinda Mitchell gave members of PennAg Industries at their annual Meat and Egg Meeting last week here at Shady Maple.
Mitchell and her employer, the Cochran Group, were instrumental in helping Ohio establish an animal welfare board by voter referendum in November. But even though Mitchell considers passage of the referendum a significant success, she said it doesn’t mean the end of the animal welfare debate in Ohio.
The Cochran Group oversaw media aspects of the coalition of agriculture organizations that lobbied for Issue 2 — the referendum that established the animal welfare board.
“Consumers want to know more about how their food is produced on our farms,” she said. Consumer studies and focus groups indicate consumers desire to know food is safe, high quality, affordable and locally grown. They’d also rather buy food from local, larger-scale farms than food imported from other countries.
Mitchell stressed that consumers believe in farmers. But, it is important to continue to reinforce the message of what farmers are doing and the responsibility they take.
That message must include more than “demand enhancement” she said.
“We have got to open our doors. We have to give people a picture of what happens within our barn doors,” said Mitchell.
She shared an example of an egg farm that took a proactive issue when targeted by an animal rights group. The group released a video of the farm claiming there was animal abuse happening. The farmer countered by extending an invitation to the television station, asking them to pick several barns on the property for a tour.
The report, which could have been negative for the farm, turned into a positive one as the reporter said there were no signs of abuse, the chickens looked healthy, and the video tape did not look like the farm.
Mitchell said the reporter’s opinion “was pretty powerful stuff” as a third party affirming what the farmer said.
“We have to be okay with letting people see the insides of our barns,” she stressed.
She discussed an Ohio campaign started this year regarding chicken in cages. Consumer focus groups responded positively to the campaign. “They (consumers) imagine these cages smaller, stinkier and darker than they really are,” she said.
A ‘Meaningful’ Referendum Proposal
The concept of Issue 2 in Ohio was to provide a new approach to the animal welfare issue.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) had approached Ohio last January with its intention to begin a campaign to replicate its Proposition 2 in California regarding certain forms of animal housing. Issue 2 and its proposed board was a counter option proposed by the agriculture coalition to address consumer concerns on animal welfare. The proposal passed with 64 percent of the vote.
Mitchell said the goal of the board, which is made up of members from a diverse set of stakeholders in Ohio, is to take a “meaningful approach” to addressing animal care in the state.
The board is not “stacked” for the farm community, Mitchell said. Each member must be appointed by two of the three segments of the state government (governor, house or senate) and no more than seven members of one political party can serve.
The next step is for the General Assembly to legislate many of the details, such as funding, location, appointment information and other specifics. Once it’s organized, the board will have to be active or risk losing the ground gained with voters.
And just because the board referendum passed, it does not necessarily stop HSUS or any other group from returning to the state with an animal housing proposal.
