By TIM ALEXANDER
Illinois Correspondent

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. — Chicago-based talk show host Oprah Winfrey, who has a history of raising the hackles of farmers and ranchers with her comments, again drew the attention of farm groups when she urged California voters to approve a controversial animal-confinement measure appearing on their Nov. 4 ballots.

Winfrey’s comments came during an episode devoted to her support of California’s Proposition 2, which seeks to regulate confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the poultry, veal and pork industries. The episode aired Oct. 14.

In response, the Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB), which recently made a $7,000 contribution to a group opposing Proposition 2, fired off a letter to Winfrey extending a standing offer to the multi-media maven to come downstate and “strap on some boots and visit a livestock farm” in order to learn firsthand how the state’s livestock producers care for their animals.

“Oprah is obviously interested in the subject of animal welfare, and we have a great story to tell,” said IFB president Philip Nelson, a La Salle County grain and livestock producer.

“If Oprah is willing to take some time out of her busy schedule to visit a farm, she would discover that modern livestock producers are ethically committed to the well-being of their animals. Our livelihoods depend on the production of healthy animals,” Nelson said. “No one understands better than a livestock producer that well-cared-for animals mean healthy food for Americans and the rest of the world.”

During the show, Winfrey’s correspondent Lisa Ling visited with the Kellogg family on their grain and hog farm in Yorkville, Ill., in addition to some California livestock producers in order to get their perspectives on the issue. However, the IFB said the show was dominated by the leader of the national animal rights group that was instrumental in having Proposition 2 placed on the California ballot.

“We appreciate Oprah’s willingness to give Illinois and California livestock producers a few minutes to make a case for production methods which are designed to protect food animals from each other, predators and the elements,” Nelson stated.

“If she still has any questions about how we raise food animals, we would be glad to arrange a farm visit.”

Proposition 2, co-sponsored by the Humane Society and Farm Sanctuary, requires that by 2015 confined food animals must be able to stand up, lie down, turn around and fully extend their limbs within their enclosures. Winfrey’s show focused on the contrasts between some poultry CAFOs and an organic, free-range production system practiced by Natural Acres Farm in Pennsylvania.

“In these tough economic times, not every American has the means to buy expensive niche products like cage-free eggs or free range ham,” Nelson countered.

“Our members are very concerned that short-sighted, emotional appeals like Prop 2 ultimately have the potential of driving the livestock industry out of the country and driving up prices for American consumers.”

Flashback to 1996?

Oprah drew the ire of Texas cattlemen for her disparaging comments regarding the beef industry during a 1996 episode of her talk show.

In 1998, Winfrey and representatives of the beef industry went to trial when cattlemen claimed her comments caused a drop in the price of beef.

During the show, which was devoted to the “hidden dangers” in food, Winfrey alleged that upwards of 100,000 dead cows are ground up and fed to other cows each year in the United States.
If just one of those cows has Mad Cow disease, she asserted, thousands of Americans could be infected.

“Mad Cow disease could make AIDS look like the common cold,” Winfrey said, according to a News Hour with Jim Lehrer transcript from 1998. “It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger.”

After the show aired, the Texas beef industry claimed cattle prices fell to a 10-year low and blamed Winfrey.

The case tested the limits of Texas’ and 12 other states’ new food defamation laws. A jury rejected the cattlemen’s claim for more than $12 million in damages, finding that the show’s assertions were not directly aimed towards the plaintiffs.

“The real issue in this case - responsible speech - could not be addressed by the jury. The jury never considered whether harmful, false statements about the beef industry were made,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. President Clark S. Willingham after the verdict.

“However, the good news for the American consumer from this trial is that all the scientific experts testified that America has the safest beef in the world.”