CARTERVILLE, IL – In response to the article on July 28th Partnership to Combat Misinformation on Animal Agriculture. The specific purpose of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) mentioned in this article is likely to ensure that scientists who conduct research linking water pollution issues, environmental, animal welfare, and economic concerns to animal agriculture treat the concerns as a challenge to “animal agriculture in general” rather than “industrial animal agriculture” in particular. Most of the concerns are linked primarily if not exclusively to industrial animal agriculture systems. In fact, “sustainable animal agriculture” is a key component of the solution to climate change. And farm animals raised in sustainable agricultural systems are treated humanely as a matter of economics as well as ethics.
Organizations such as the one in the article are formed by corporate organizations as a means of not only feeding university scientists corporate propaganda related to “corporate research” to the subject of inquiry (in this case, animal agriculture) but also to bring together like-minded scientists who are generally inclined to support the corporate position on a particular subject. The corporations not only offer a variety of perks, such as expense-paid organization meetings in prime vacation destinations but also promises of corporate funding for related research and the implicit assumption of corporate support for promotion, tenure, and other academic recognition. Academic life is just easier for those who support the agri-corporate agenda. Joining public/private research and educational partnerships, such as the one in the article, is just one or a variety of means by which private corporations influence public university agendas.
Industrial agriculture advocates want to convince consumers and taxpayers that addressing the problems associated with animal agriculture would mean giving up animal products entirely or increasing costs, reducing production, and increasing prices to the point that only the wealthy could afford diets that include meat, milk, and eggs. This conclusion is simply not supported by objective research that includes consideration of sustainable alternatives to industrial agriculture. But if the AAA only recruits scientists whose research focuses on industrial animal agriculture and who know little if anything about sustainable alternatives, their research will focus on the high costs of trying to meet acceptable environmental and animal welfare standards without fundamentally changing the industrial systems of production. The scientists joining the AAA may or may not be aware that they are being used by industry to defend an unsustainable system of production.
Research that is publicly funded to serve public interests should explore all of the alternatives for addressing public concerns and promoting the public good. Industrial agriculture would then free focus on research results that focus on short-run economic efficiency but they would not be able to shape the research agenda to preclude research that points out the fundamental flaws in industrial agriculture and the feasibility of a transition to more environmentally sound and humane alternatives to industrial animal agriculture.
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, was raised on a small dairy farm in southwest Missouri and received his BS, MS, and Ph.D. degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Missouri. He worked in private industry for a time and spent thirty years in various professorial positions at four different state universities before retiring in early 2000. Since retiring, he spends most of his time writing and speaking on issues related to sustainability with an emphasis on agriculture and economics. He is the author of six books, which can be located on his websites: https://ikerdj.