Google is a wonderful tool. Type in any word, phrase, quote, question or statement, and you will get an almost instantaneous list of places with related information. The two computer engineers who created Google were brilliant, and their complex algorithms have changed the world.

Unfortunately, those algorithms can work too well. With key words like “agriculture” and “food” set in my Google news alerts, I am bombarded with a constant stream of criticism of our food supply and agricultural production system.

Everytime some vegetable-loving nitwit sounds off about the meat industry, Google tells me about it. Every blog entry from some passionate vegan or self-righteous animal activist gets sent to me, thanks to Google.

One could judge from this torrent of criticism that most Americans are unhappy with their food supply, don’t trust the people who produce it, and want to eat only organic, locally produced, humanely treated food. The problem is, that is not what the vast majority of consumers want; and now we have the data to prove it.

Elanco Animal Health recently undertook a massive, consumer research project. They surveyed thousands of consumers, not only in the United States, but around the world. They then hired an outside research firm to conduct the same survey with an additional 26,000 U.S. consumers.

Both studies came back with the same conclusion. When asked what is important to them about food, 95 percent said taste, cost and nutrition. Only 4 percent said cost was not a factor, but things like local, natural and other such traits were important.

Less than half of 1 percent said things like vegan or cage-free were important. This is a far cry from what most media reports on food would suggest.
One of the reasons for the startling results in this research was the fact that the questions were “un-aided.”

This means the question was straightforward, with no attempt to influence the answer.

For example, “What is important to you when buying food?” is an example of an un-aided question. “Is it important to you that the meat you buy not come from an animal that was beaten to death with a baseball bat?” is an example of an aided question. The latter type of question is regularly used by researchers who are looking for a specific outcome from their research.

Of course, this research revelation is not going to stop the critics of U.S. agriculture. Oprah will still do programs on being vegan; Whole Foods will still put animal cruelty ratings on their meat; and Michael Pollan will still try and convince people to go back to eating roots and berries.

But, there may be a change in the wind. Jeff Simmons, CEO of Elanco, said consumers, retailers and even policymakers are beginning to understand that agriculture provides safe, affordable and abundant food for our nation and the world.

The economic recession has revealed just how food insecure many people are. Figures show that one out of every six Hoosiers has visited a food pantry to get food.

In many of our cities, the majority of all public school students qualify for the free breakfast and lunch programs because they do not get enough food at home. It is the food elitists, who have the financial resources to pay for their lifestyle food choices, who are trying to dictate what the rest of us should eat.
Simmons maintains there is a growing appreciation for the technology that allows U.S. farmers to produce more food on less land, using fewer resources.
This is a chance for agriculture to get its message across. We have an opportunity to position agriculture as the solution not the problem. We cannot get distracted by the demagoguery of those who want to use their minority viewpoint to change policy.

We need to speak up so that those Google algorithms can find us and spread our message around the world.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.