|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| American Meat Institute’s curious ‘Scorched Earth’ strategy |
|
|
|
An old saying states that you can tell the measure of someone by the company they keep. In that regard, the American Meat Institute is keeping some rather curious company these days as it wages war on an imagined enemy, the corn ethanol industry.
AMI recently signed onto political letters and advertisements with environmental extremists like Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group that they should avoid at all costs. These three organizations have all attacked animal agriculture with the same level of rhetoric as PETA or the Humane Society.
As the self-proclaimed representative of the “companies that process 95 percent of red meat and 70 percent of turkey in the U.S. and their suppliers throughout America,” AMI really should avoid such curious connections.
I recently asked someone very familiar with the membership of AMI - companies like Tyson’s, Smithfield and Hormel - to help me understand the logic that would persuade AMI to take these actions. He laughed and said, “You have to realize, these are companies whose business is ‘blood on the floor,’ and all that they can see is short term.”
Fortunately, most of the rest of agriculture is trying to take a long-term view and has realized that it is high time to put petty differences aside and agree to disagree on certain issues - like ethanol policy, with the realization that we all have much greater battles to fight with those outside of agriculture who are threatening to undermine the very fabric and structure that has made us the most successful and productive sector in the U.S. economy. Among the challenges common to row-crop and animal agriculture are the following:
•The Humane Society of the United States, whose goal is to completely change the structure of animal agriculture in the United States. If successful, it would result in a significant increase in the cost of meat produced here, drive much of our meat production out of the U.S. and undermine much of the demand base for row crop agriculture. AMI should be solidly opposed to HSUS and be an active part of the groups that are working to oppose HSUS. Instead, they are embracing Friends of the Earth, a solid ally of HSUS and a cohort in HSUS efforts.
•Indirect land use change. AMI signed on to letters supporting the application of this mythological impact of biofuels. In EPA and California Air Resource Board modeling, that single theory changed domestic ethanol and biodiesel from being advanced biofuels to being worse in greenhouse gas measures than gasoline. If that sticks, where will that put the carbon footprint of the domestic livestock industry - the single-largest user of U.S. corn and soybeans?
•Commodity prices. Seemingly the reason AMI has formed its unholy coalition is to make more corn and soybeans available and at a cheaper price, for the livestock industry and eliminate the competition for such by the ethanol industry. Yet AMI’s “allies” in this fight roundly condemn corn and soybean production as environmentally unfriendly. An NRDC representative, in recent Congressional testimony, suggested that we grow “too much” corn in the United States and we ought to be growing less. NRDC also has promoted eating “grass-fed” over “corn-fed” beef.
•House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. Regardless of political affiliation, few of us in agriculture can help but be grateful for congressional leadership like that of Rep. Peterson. Apparently AMI is one of those few. Their friend and ally, Friends of Earth, last month named Chairman Peterson their 2010 “Biofool of the Year.”
AMI’s high-profile, expensive media and ad campaign is nothing but classic short-term thinking and “blood on the floor” mentality. What is to gain in the short run by embracing the very people who are out to put you out of business? Their recent ad spawned an editorial in the Washington Times this week titled “Stop Big Corn.”
Just as emotional labels like “factory farming” and “corporate farms” are unfortunate, inaccurate and misleading, with more than nine out of 10 farms being family-run, so are labels like “Big Corn.”
The American Meat Institute is doing itself and its industry and all of agriculture a major disservice by engaging in these scorched-earth tactics and being a part of this unholy alliance. It’s time for some long-term thinking and for all of us in agriculture to work together and not split ourselves apart. There are plenty of folks doing a pretty good job of that - they don’t need any help from AMI.
By Rick Tolman, CEO
National Corn Growers Assoc. |
| 4/14/2010 |
|
|
|
|
