With just a few weeks left before the election, the political ads are getting nasty. Candidates both national and local are resorting to what are called attack ads which include negative and often misleading statements about the opponent.

With a high profile anti-agriculture proposition on the California ballot, the media has turning their one-sided spotlight on modern agriculture. By evoking fear, a small but well-funded and organized group is trying to scare consumers into supporting its food policy objectives.

The New York Times, Oprah Winfrey, and the head of a major food service company are the latest to indulge in scare tactics to confuse consumers about the state of American agriculture.

Recently, the New York Times Magazine dedicated an entire issue to food. You don’t have to look any further than the table of contents to get the direction of most of the articles: Food Fighters, Flipping The Bird, Why Take Food Seriously, Dangerous Fruit, and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

The editor’s introduction promised to explore food issues and possible solutions, but the collection of articles did neither. None of the stories dealt with the people who produce the majority of the food we eat. Instead, they profiled small, specialized, and alternative farms and restaurants.

The lead article was authored by noted agriculture critic Michael Pollan. He accuses the food industry of a whole host of crimes from causing climate change to starving the rest of the world - all old allegations that have been disproven time and time again.

Keen to spot social issues with a good emotional hook, afternoon talk show queen Oprah Winfrey recently did a program on Proposition 2 which is on the ballot in California. Keep in mind that Oprah’s show is not a news program but entertainment. The goal is to get people to watch and to get people to talk about the program so more people will watch. A balanced examination of the issue was never part of the script.

Ironically, the same day this Oprah show was broadcast, food industry leaders were meeting in Indianapolis at a summit conducted by the Center for Food Integrity. Fedel Bauccio, CEO of Bon Appetit, a national food service company that specializes in serving locally grown food, delivered a scathing attack on the food industry claiming our food supply is unsafe and called for a radical change in the way food is produced, processed, and sold.

When confronted by food industry representatives about the broad brush used to paint all producers and processors, Bauccio backed down and admitted that not everyone in the food industry is a bad guy. When asked if the kind of food system he advocated could produce enough food to meet U.S. and world food needs, he dodged the question saying he was not an economist. The U.S. food industry is not perfect; we have production and food quality and safety issues that need to be dealt with. But these attack ads and the fear-mongering tactics are not productive in finding solutions.

If those who really care about the food chain would come together and focus on solutions based on science, practicality, and sustainability, then workable solutions might be obtained.
Until activists and company executives put aside their personal profit and philosophical agendas and focus on a solution that works for the entire industry, the attack ads are likely to continue.

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.