The Need For Transparency From Today’s Agriculture

There’s little denying a war of sorts is currently being waged against agriculture by portions of the general public. How to fight this war, however, is different than conventional wisdom might dictate.

This was the message delivered to attendees of the 2015 annual Mid America CropLife Association meeting by Charlie Arnot, CEO for The Center for Food Integrity. “It’s very frustrating to people in agriculture,” said Arnot of the perception battle. “How did we get to the point where the public is skeptical of what we do? In general today, food is safer, more available and more affordable than it has ever been before, and that’s a tribute to agriculture. Yet, consumers are more skeptical of food than ever before. How did that happen?”

In his opinion, this public skepticism has its roots in the counter-culture movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1968, strong political leaders such as Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated and that year’s Democratic Convention in Chicago, IL, degenerated into rioting. In addition, protests against U.S. involvement in Vietnam were in full bloom.

Then, in 1972, President Richard Nixon resigned as a result of the Watergate Scandal. In the span of a few short years, said Arnot, the trust the public previously had for large institutions and government disappeared.

“This was where it began,” he said. “After these events, and others that followed over the next 40 years, people began to equate large corporations with being more likely to put their profits ahead of the public’s well-being. So it was an easy leap for people hating big institutions to hating big food and big agriculture.”

Another part of the problem for today’s agriculture is how it has traditionally communicated its messages with the public, said Arnot. Again, some of these changes can be traced back to the Vietnam War Era.

“Prior to then, the military did a pretty good job of determining which messages and images got out to the public,” he said. “But once the TV crews started covering Vietnam, they lost the ability to control this message. The same thing is happening today with global communications regarding agriculture. Communicating with the public used to be very direct, with three television networks and local newspaper providing the information. But today, we’ve gone from mass communications to a mass of communicators with social media and cellphones that take pictures. Everyone has the ability to get information from whatever source they choose.”

This also means more scrutiny for a business that isn’t comfortable with that sort of thing, he added. “You have to assume someone is watching everything you do all of the time,” said Arnot. “Transparency is the new currency of trust, and that’s something really hard for those in agriculture that feel ‘we have nothing to hide, but it’s none of your business!’ But you can’t be on both sides of this fence.”

How can agriculture build up a new level of trust with a skeptical public? According to Arnot, his organization conducted a three-year survey of 6,000 consumers to find out.

“We in agriculture have a historic way of trying to build trust by leading with our data, but that appears to be backward from what consumers want to hear,” he said. “In our survey, we discovered that confidence for shared values is three to five times more important in building trust than demonstrating our technical competency. For consumers, it’s not about data – it’s about if we in agriculture are committed to doing what’s right for them.”

Arnot ended his presentation with three recommendations for agricultural companies to consider when trying to speak to the public about their businesses. “The first is to begin your public engagement using shared values,” he said. “Like Teddy Roosevelt said: ‘People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.’”

Second, companies should open the digital door to today’s agriculture. “Find ways to make what you do transparent to illustrate your commitment to do what’s right,” said Arnot.

Finally, agricultural entities should commit to engaging early, often and consistently with consumers. “Your voice, your knowledge and your credibility matter,” he said. “You can make a difference in building public support, but you have to learn how to play by new rules.”

In conclusion, Arnot suggested agriculture take a long-range view in this communications effort. “This is not something that can be fixed in one production cycle,” he said. “It needs to a 25-year plan, not a 12-month one, to ultimately be successful.”