Chipotle caused a stir during the Grammy Awards a week ago, airing an old ad about sustainable farming. You wouldn’t think an “ag ad” would get this buzzworthy, let alone one that had been in circulation since last summer.
But these are hard times for many farmers so there’s diligent alertness among farm groups about what they perceive as “negative” media-images of farmers.
Totally understandable. Every other segment of the US market does exactly the same, right?
But some high-level responses to this Chipotle ad from notable farm groups have been particularly prickly, even excessive, considering that the ad in question is just a cartoon with no voice over or even any dialogue.
What seems to have these groups up in arms is the ad’s implied “attack” on industrialized, commercial agriculture.
Ye Olde Factory Farm in the Chipotle Ad
In the ad, we see a hog farmer building up his operation into a cartoon version of a factory farm, where circular pigs are fed drugs from a big silo of what looks like head cold pills, and are then shipped off in semi trucks.
Tortured Farmer Dream-sequence
The farmer seems troubled by what his farm has become (why am I feeding giant head cold pills to PIGS?), and in a matter of 20 seconds reassembles his factory farm into a more idyllic operation and starts selling to Chipotle. Yay.
Now, to me, this ad seems so breezy and innocuous, it’s hard to see it as a “hit piece,” but that’s the reaction from ag quarters, as they hunkered down in Twitter, Facebook, and even the New York Times to return fire:
Indiana Farm Bureau’s The Hoosier Farmer: “Chipotle’s “Back to the Start” video is a gross mischaracterization…”
Texas Farm Bureau Talks (Texas Farm Bureau): “Through this video and other methods of advertising, [Chipotle is] making the case that modern production methods are cruel, destructive and unhealthy.”
(Watch the video for yourself and see if this interpretation rings true to you.)
Nebraska Farm Bureau’s Blog: “What the activists who despise factory farms (their term) don’t know or fail to acknowledge is that modern day farm and ranch family operations are being asked to feed a world that will have 2 billion more people in the year 2040, up from the current total of about 7 billion.”
And yesterday, a full week after the Chipotle ad’s appearance on the Grammy Awards…
Blake Hurst, President, Missouri Farm Bureau in a Sunday NYT op-ed (“Don’t Presume to Know a Pig’s Mind”): “Wealthy consumers will reward farmers who are able to pull off the Chipotle ad’s brand of combination farm/tourist attraction and are willing to trade efficient animal husbandry for political correctness.”
Ok, guys. Got it. The ad ticked you off because you feel like it attacked your industry and because you don’t see organic, sustainable, or “local” farming as a viable alternative to your operations.
But here’s what I want to know, and I hope there are some Farm Bureau reps out there willing to talk to me in the comments below.
Don’t the various state chapters of the Farm Bureaus represent any organic, small, sustainable farms? Do you really think of them as your enemy, because it sure seems like it. Here’s a bit more from the Nebraska Farm Bureau piece: “World hunger, lengthy food lines, high food prices and food safety issues would run amok throughout the world if the organic, small, sustainable and local food crowd is successful in implementing its agenda for everyone.”
So…a national restaurant chain “attacks” you so you attack fellow farmers, Nebraska Farm Bureau? Blake Hurst, do you really want to call potential Farm Bureau sustainable farmers inefficient and politically correct? Their farms are “tourist attractions”? Strong stuff. Take a look at Russ Kremer’s story — from your own state, Mr. Hurst. Is he a real farmer or not?
I really don’t understand the hue and cry from these Farm Bureaus. I can see that Chipotle portrays mainstream ag as something that this restaurant wants to avoid. I do. I get that. But really, guys, take a deep cleansing breath and ask yourselves this, as a farming organization:
Don’t organic farming, eating local, sustainable food, and (gasp!) even Chipotle represent opportunity for some of your own farmers?
For as much snotty, snarky chastising I get about being an organic, sustainable advocate, I still get the sense that all farmers are in this together, and in order to get the public’s attention we need to stick together. Wonder if I should pay this year’s Farm Bureau dues?
This country runs at 10,000mph these days, so getting the consumers attention, if only for a brief moment, is #winning enough some times…it would be nice if we could all join hands and put our best face forward: American Ag is doing all it can to provide you with top quality food, fresh options, local options, organic options and above all CHOICE! Make the choice that’s best for you, for your family, for your budget, for your environmental bent, etc.
And by all means please don’t look down your nose at folks who still believe their freshest, most affordable choice is lettuce on a McBurger.
It seems the divide between organic and not is growing in ag, and frankly that stinks…..there is room for everyone in this industry. As an organic advocate, we would rather point industry growth, the science, and the positive aspects of small family farming in a sustainable way as evidence enough of the validity of the brand.
Does that mean I don’t ever go toe-to-toe with are conventional friends about GMO’s, pesticide use, ethanol and other hot button topics? No…..but I try to be amazingly charming about it!
Well said Mr. Sparks.
Thanks for stopping by, Mike. Always good to see your smiling face in the comments!
A very reasonable response, Dean. From what I gather from the video, the cartoon farmer makes the decision to change his operation because HE thinks it’s the right thing to do. So I see it as Chipotle making a choice to buy meat from a farmer who produces a product that they and their customers want to support. Never in there does it make commentary or show any comparison to other farms that are doing things “right” or “wrong.” It simply tells a story. If it’s overly simple and cartoonish, well, that’s because it’s a cartoon. It is interesting that it has sparked so much dialogue. Farm Bureau is behaving like most big industry players who have a guilty conscience or something to hide–immediately attacking the messenger, while scrambling to tell their own version of the message. Nothing wrong with differing perspectives–but why so sensitive?
I am a Farm Bureau member and I think you’re missing the point. Two years ago the natural and environmental resources award given to a member in our state was an organic farmer. This year it was a ‘conventional’ farming member. Of course there are organic and small farms in our membership.
Here’s the rub. Many, including Chipotle, are claiming, or at the very least implying, that ALL farms should be that way, and everyone should have their own little plot of land for feeding themselves. The reality simply is, whether you’d like the people of Egypt for example to grow their own food, they can’t, and if you’ve ever been there to observe, won’t. There is only so much you can do in a desert. China has just signed new trade pacts with the U.S. because it can’t feed its population, and if you’ve been there, there is no room for community gardens.
The world is hitting 7,8,9 billion in the not too distant future. They will need to be fed, and the fact cannot be changed that organic, or other labor intensive agriculture is not capable of doing it, no matter how you slice it. Go back and read that again if you must, but it is simply true. Modern agriculture is necessary to supply what is needed. Another reason Chipotle’s version of ag can’t supply the need begs a question. Are you aware of the tremendous battle over immigration now as it relates to farm labor? For one thing, there is NO LABOR FORCE for world-scale labor-intensive ag. If organic or other growers have a market and can make it work, great! There is room for all of agriculture. But Chipotle and others are being harmful and are misleading the public by implying modern agriculture is unsafe, or, using that favorite word, is not sustainable. Here’s a little common sense tutorial. Many of the modern agriculture operations now in the U.S. are going on their 5th, 6th, even 7th generation or more. Now, someone has been taking care of the land, the water, and the animals, or the operations would not be ‘sustained’ for that many generations. And the most recent generations are using less inputs, less water, and achieving higher yields than ever. How about a little live and let live. I personally have no problem with organic or other types of similar ag, even though I don’t practice it. As mentioned before, if there’s a market, go for it. But don’t try to build up YOUR version of agriculture by tearing down mine with misinformation, bad science, and agenda-driven hype. Let’s have a truly ‘FAIR’ food fight.
You’re making up imaginary arguments and knocking them down, Dirt farmer. The Chipotle ad doesn’t make the case that all farmers should go organic/sustainable.
But you can’t deny it implies it. Let’s be honest.
Dirtfarmer has accurately summed up the reality that faces American agriculture. But you’re right, El Dragon, Chipotle doesn’t specifically suggest all farmers become organic. They are, however, casting traditional famers in a negative light, and that’s a marketing strategy to position the restaurant chain against their competition, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, etc. It’s all about selling buritos.
I need help understanding something from traditional farmers who’ve taken offense to the Chipotle Ad.
Why do you interpret this ad an attack on ALL conventional agriculture? I mean, please break it down for me. Because I’m hearing from readers (friends who are consumers, mostly) that don’t understand your offense.
To a lot of non-ag viewers, I think the Chipotle ad reads like this:
1) Cartoon farmer expands.
2) Cartoon farmer makes bad choices.
3) Cartoon farmer undoes his own bad choices.
I honestly don’t most readers see an attack on all of conventional ag. There are “factory farms” — not necessarily YOUR farms, but highly intensive operations — that pollute. Manure from their ponds is leaked intentional or unintentionally into ground water. There are giant feedlots that have to use antibiotics preventatively. In short: THERE ARE BAD ACTORS IN THE WORLD, and the goal — isn’t it?? — to minimize their damage.
So. Tell me why Chipotle, sustainable farmers, organic food companies, or even farmers like YOU, should NOT distance themselves from the bad actors in your industry?
I believe that the \counter attack\ campaign is misdirected. No one really believes that organic is bad for us or that moves to make agriculture more environmentally friendly are all bad.
The problem that I believe farmers have with not only the Chipotle ad but other ad campaigns is the notion that the ads tend to focus on organic/local agriculture as the ultimate goal that all farms should one day aspire to be.
This idea is not only unreasonable, it is also impossible. Without the implementation of responsible science and innovation in the agricultural industry the exploding world population will indeedly face food scarcity and rising prices.
I believe that while farm bureaus and other farm organizations should reach out to the organic farm community as equals, there also needs to be a focus on representing modern agricultural practices in a truthful manner and with respect. Organic is a good thing but without responsible science based agriculture we as farmers cannot reach our collective goal of feeding and clothing the world.
Thanks for chiming in Robert. As I said to Dirt farmer up above, the Chipotle ad doesn’t make the case that “organic/local agriculture is the ultimate goal that all farms should one day aspire to.” So it’s hard for me to see the counter attack as “counter,” since it’s not really addressing the Chipotle ad at all. A total misfire.
Exactly my point! While the ad never expicitly states whether the industrial farming methods should be abolished or not, it can be (and has been) interpreted by many agriculturalists to be an attack on the scientific methods currently used. That I believe is where both the farm bureaus and chipotle have missed the mark a little to create this firestorm.
One of the things that gets my attention is that the organic crowd promotes its very unsustainable method by putting down the conventional and truly sustainable agricultural methods, then feigns surprise that there is a negative response.
Marketing must be done – no problem – but do so by methodology that doesn’t pit conventional vs “organic”. Then everyone benefits.
The Chipotle brand is one set up on false premise that the conventional methods are somehow bad for the world. They are marketing to folks that “buy” into the idea that modernization of agriculture should be reversed for the “good of the earth”.
My goodness, why do people think the environment was better off with antiquated methods?! How romantic it sounds! But modern practices are always being evaluated for theire effectiveness and effect on the environment.
I agree, Clayton, ancient agriculture wasn’t sustainable (c.f., the “Fertile” Crescent).
But where does the Chipotle ad make the case that today’s farmers should revert to ancient methods?
Well, yes, we’re proud to have all kinds of farmers as members of our organization. Just spent part of the morning putting Locally Grown tags on baskets that we’ll soon be shipping out of here to our customers. If it helps to increase our sales, we’re glad to do it.
Having said that, I didn’t start this conversation. Chipotle did. I didn’t draw pictures of waste going directly into streams, and accuse my competitors of buying pork from polluting, sadistic suppliers. Chipotle did. I applaud those farmers that have found a niche, whether it be local, organic, biodynamic, or entertainment food of any kind. But that doesn’t have much to do with feeding 300 million Americans or 7 billion people worldwide.
Every organic, locally grown, sustainable farmer improves my profits, because he doesn’t compete with me. I just would like it if he realized that I do the same for him, and quit painting me as evil. You’ll notice that Ford never advertises that Chevy products will leave you stuck along side the road, or visa versa. Agriculture needs to learn the same lesson. Blake Hurst
Ah, the old “they started it” maneuver. My eight-year-old is just on the verge of perfecting this line of reasoning, too.
But let’s be real, Blake, you’re just randomly making things up, now. The Chipotle ad didn’t accuse of you of being sadistic. And you certainly don’t “applaud” organic/biodynamic farmers, Blake. In your NYT op-ed piece, you called those farmers tourist attractions, inefficient, and politically correct. If that’s applause, I’d hate to see you throw a punch.
The real question: Why does the Farm Bureau see 3% market share of organic/local food as such a threat that the MO Farm Bureau president has to write an op-ed in the NYT? It’s absurd overkill.
Reminds me of those Warner Brothers cartoons when an elephant shrieks, “Eek a mouse!” and jumps on a stool to get away from it.
Blake you are exactly right. If you have a niche, go for it, and collect the higher price some people are able to pay. But most of American consumers are focused on price. The offense in this ad comes from the comparative negative implications. The reality is both methods of food production are necessary and sustainable. The worst cases of farming malpractice are not committed by farmers at all, but by huge corporations like Con-Agra, Cargill, and Archer-Daniels Midland. And since Chipotle is creating cartoons that misrepresent reality, why don’t they do one where everyone is getting along…and eating at their place. haha.
Make a quick trip to the Chipotle website, and draw your own conclusions about their opinion of conventional swine production. I’ve made mine, and used them in my post
You accuse me of making things up and acting like an eight year old. I guess ad hominen attacks are much easier than actually replying to the points I make.
You may see “tourist attraction” as a negative-I’d trade Disney World’s income for mine in a second. If I was in driving distance of a population center, I’d be trying my best to be a tourist attraction as well.
Inefficient? You really believe that organic farmers can produce cheaper than conventional? Then why only 3% of the market, if they can produce it cheaper and sell it for a price more dear. That doesn’t mean that organic producers ought not be organic producers, if the premium covers the extra cost. But to point out the difference in efficiency is to accept reality.
I don’t see organic production as a threat. I do see McDonalds requiring a complete abandonment of production practices that many of my friends follow, forcing them to spend thousands of dollars or exit the industry, as a very real threat.
And I’m damned tired of being treated like public enemy number one in the New York Times. Mark Bittman is calling me and farmers like me names weekly. You ought not be surprised when we respond. After all, you’ve called me names after one 750 word op-ed.
Now we’re getting closer to the contempt that your group actually holds for organic and sustainable farming and we can see what your first comment was really worth, Blake.
The Missouri Farm Bureau *does* see organic/sustainable farming as inefficient and unable to feed the world. Straight from the president of the organization. Was that position adopted in the minutes?
It’s shockingly self-destructive for the Farm Bureau to attack farmers and ag like this, of any style. Rather than freaking out at every ad and cartoon, y’all should be taking a broader view for the good all ag, rather returning fire and filling the “villain” role so ably. But the Farm Bureau can’t take that tact, because ultimately there’s only one style of agriculture you approve of.
As for ad hominem attacks, Blake, if you don’t want to play rough and tumble with me, then don’t blast farmers as “tourist attractions” in the NYT. That’s a cheap shot and the President of the MO Farm Bureau deserves to be called out for it.
So I did.
You make a very valid point about organic, local and, yes, even Chipotle, providing opportunities for the farmers who are able to take advantage of those marketing opportunities. In fact, I know many farmers who raise and sell meat and produce for ALL of these markets. Good for them. If you can make it work with the resources you have and can get paid for it, go for it!
The issue with the Chipotle misinformercial is it draws a negative picture of large-scale “factory farming” in an attempt to attract customers with the promise of food raised by a small-scale “family farmers.” The truth is that Chipotle sources meat and produce from all size farms and ranches including some that use antibiotics to treat sick animals (rather than let them suffer and die) and hormone supplements to reduce natural resources like land, water, feed and fuel needed to raise food.
Why pit one vs. the other when they sell both? More importantly, why pit one vs. the other when they are both viable ways to raise safe and sustainable food?
I spoke to a cattleman this past week who supplies “naturally-raised” beef for Chipotle. He also raises beef without that marketing label at a lower cost because he is able to raise it with fewer natural resources (land, water, feed and fuel). Same farmer. Same farm. Is he half good and half bad?
Have farmers overreacted to the ad? Perhaps. If anybody should be upset with Chipotle it should be the consumers who have been duped into thinking that Chipotle food is somehow better. Whether made with pork, chicken or beef, a single Chipotle burrito with rice, beans, salsa, cheese, sour cream and guacamole packs a whopping 1,120 calories (the meat only comprising 190 of them whether “naturally-raised” or not).
So eat at Chipotle or whatever fast-food restaurant you choose and enjoy it. If you are worried about your health and the environment, ride your bike to the restaurant. That may actually make a difference.
This is the most intelligent criticism of the Chipotle ad that I’ve read yet.
I agree entirely, especially regarding consumers perhaps being tricked in a greenwash campaign, Daren. Fair Food Fight reported on Chipotle’s Harris Ranch ties almost three years ago.
http://fairfoodfight.com/2009/07/09/chipotle-food-cafo-integrity/
Harris was California’s biggest cattle CAFO at the time, and Chipotle was switching out Harris’s all-natural line of beef with its conventional as needed. I’m not sure what Chipotle is doing now regarding beef, though. Can anyone speak to that?
This is why I find the reaction to the Chipotle ad so strange. Attacking organic farming for Chipotle’s sins is nonsensical.
Thanks again for your comment, Daren.
I am not going to blast the add, it was PR. They did a good job. I don’t agree with how they portray todays farmers and find it ironic that only a very small portion of their product is sourced from the farmers that they hold so dear. I think Chipotle could really help organic and natural farmers by offering higher premiums to encourage more to switch to that method of production, but they instead choose to keep their burritos cheap by buying mainly conventional produced goods as stated by their disclaimers.
They have good marketing, are successful capitalists and while I don’t appriciate some of the things (IMO lies) I have read about modern farming while I am in their stores I can’t get upset at their success.
My husband and I are proud MN Farm Bureau members and organic dairy farmers. I just have to say that our Farm Bureau is very inclusive of organic/sustainable/value added farmers. In fact my husband serves as our county board president. He is joined by a grape grower, small sheep farmer who sells wool products and a vegetable grower. Several organic farmers have served on the MN Farm Bureau state board of directors.
I have to say in our state, Farm Bureau does a good job of trying to represent all types of farmers. I cannot speak for other states.
As for Chipotle, they made an ad, it spoke to their core consumers, it got good hype. Does that mean less conventional pork will be sold? Probably not.
El Dragon-
You were correct in the above debate, Chipotle did not specifcally say that everyone should go organic or cut the size of their farms in half, put all animals on grass. But, while you are quick to jump on others for making that assumption, you quickly draw your own conclusions as to Farm Bureau position on organic/alternative production methods without citing examples other than your own predisposed notions as to what Farm Bureau does and does not stand for. Just as it may be an over reaction to blast Chipotle for a simple ad for burritos, it is equally unfair to brand Farm Bureau as anti-organic judging simply by the types of farm operations of many of the groups members operate.
As to the Chipotle ad itself, lets face it, it didn’t “say” anything. But you can’t deny the power of imagery. The producers of that video knew exactly what message they wanted to get across, and it wasn’t one that casts conventional farmers like me in a positive light. Perhaps the greatest indictment I can lobby against the Chipotle ad is that, through imagery, they imply that there is a way of farming that is inherently “correct” and a way that is inherently “incorrect”. I think we can agree that this notion is in itself unsustainable and lacks, oh, whats the word Chipotle uses?: Integrity.
Glen — I gave you four examples. Three straight from Farm Bureau blogs on Farm Bureau sites, and one from the NYT, written by the President of the MO Farm Bureau — who went on to show us exactly how his state Farm Bureau feels about organic/sustainable ag, right here in these comments.
Whether or not something is deemed offensive is up to the offended party. I personally can’t find one instance where any of the FB (Farm Bureau) posts specifically are anti-organic, just as you do not seem to understand why farmers and the organizations that represent me are fussing over the Chipotle ad. Barth, could you please highlight which passages you feel demonstrate contempt for organic farming? I ask because, as a county FB president, I don’t want to be saying things that are construed as being anti-organic.
As long as i was on the subject, I just pored through both the MN FB and American FB policy books. There is nothing to indicate an organizational opposition to organic farming. There is language opposing labels that indicate organic food is superior to conventionally produced food. There is also language calling for the strict inpretation and enforcement of organic standards, but thats about it.
From the NB FB blog post I cited above:
“World hunger, lengthy food lines, high food prices and food safety issues would run amok throughout the world if the organic, small, sustainable and local food crowd is successful in implementing its agenda for everyone.”
If that’s not general Farm Bureau policy (even though the quote comes from their website), then at the very least it’s an underlying belief of that state Farm Bureau. I haven’t bothered to knock down specific arguments like this (though I could in a heart beat), because it’s not the point.
The point is that some state Farm Bureaus don’t view organic farming as an opportunity for some of their farmers. Indeed, the Nebraska FB, at any rate, sees it as damning to humanity’ future.
Thanks for citing that example. Yes, that is a good example of using the element of fear to turn people away from alternative production methods. Leaving the public with an image of food lines and starvation certainly is done to create an unease about a shift towards organic farming. But, this is the same tactic used by environmental, animal rights and food activism groups when they seek to generate an image in the public conciousness of manure streaming in to lakes, sickly animals kept alive by IV bags of drugs, and small farmers forced off their land. In short, both sides of this debate are guilty. We should both strive to do better.
I understand your point. I do still believe that FB in general recognizes the opportunity for some to get involved in organics. But, I think the leadership of the organization is concious of the reality that this market is small, and will only remain an option for a small number of farmers. The vast majority of members will still be comprised of mainly those who do not wish to participate in this industry segment not matter what the potential may be. FB lobbying and programming reflect this fact.
Thanks for allowing this exchange.
All this is very interesting, and I’m certainly glad people are talking about this–however, there is one issue that no one seems to be addressing–
I see that the rationale cited for vast “traditional method” farms is the number–the staggering number–of people on the planet.
Maybe if there weren’t so many freaking people, we wouldn’t need as many admittedly toxic trad farms.
Wow….somebody’s panties are in a pretty big knot.
I would just say this: dude, if you don’t like the brand, just don’t eat the burritos. If you appreciate their encouraging small farmers to “revert” to a smaller scale farming operation with more grass and less pesticide/antibiotics etc etc etc then go ahead and buy the burrito.
Please don’t tell me I can’t have the choice. 1,200 calories or not, I like the guacamole there and I feel that in a small way I might get something yummy to eat and in give head nod to small farming and a middle finger (figuratively, of course) to the industry that cranks out pigs like pills.
Are they perfect? Hell no….are any of us? If you think that Chipotle was slamming big/conv/ ag I think you’re missing the point….it was more about “hey..this is the way we want you to believe our business model works, and we’re hoping you’ll buy some burritos we’ll keep working on getting more farmers to farm this way”. Whole Foods kinda uses the same model. Do you HAVE to go pay more for food at Whole Foods? Hell no….but more and more people see the value in it and want to support the model, and they should be allowed to do so.
If you don’t buy the prospect, then don’t buy the burritos. Period.
Oh…and the argument that we can’t “feed the world” unless we use chemicals, GMOs and other factory-based high yield methods has been disproven time and time again….for God’s sake somebody find that link to Tom Philpott’s piece and post it. Makes me wanna barf up the guac.
El Dragon: I’m hearing doublespeak. Do you not see the implication that the silo of ‘pills’ is negative, though I’m sure the children of these video creators innoculated their children when born, and likely give them a flu shot every year? Or that every confinement, whether it is for protection of the livestock or not, is bad? You’re either being blind on purpose or by agenda. You’ll call Chipotle’s ad not reverting to ‘ancient’ methods, but that is the general consumer belief they are trying to portray. If not, where’s the positive in the ad for modern agriculture? Again, be honest.
I see the cartoon symbol of a silo of pills as goofy, yet basically accurate. It’s showing antibiotic-use, and that’s not positive or negative in this cartoon. Cartoon farmer decides not to use the cartoon drugs anymore. How is that “negative”?
A cartoon superbug eating the cartoon farmer’s leg? Now that would be negative.
The cartoon farmer chooses not to use it and you don’t see it as negative spin. That’s honestly unbelievable. Let me assure you, when an implication, cartoon or not, attempts to show a negative light on a practice that arguably is not only safe, but could be safer and more humane for animals, it’s not ‘goofy,’ it is very concerning.
You may have a few friends that say they don’t see it, but I doubt if you were in the farmer’s boots, would you be so casual about it. The basics here are not about whether somebody has the right or should grow organic food, or make their money at a local market. It is about doing so by using bad science and/or outright lies to tear down solid, science-based modern agriculture, whether by outright language, or the subtle ‘pills in a silo’ cartoon. I have to say you are being simply naive, or making an absolute choice if you don’t see that.
In what I hope will be my final word on this. Don’t label Farm Bureau. There are 51 Farm Bureaus in each state and Puerto Rico, not counting the American Farm Bureau Federation. You’ve heard from a few, and some individuals, and though some may have been overzealous, how would you like to have your livelihood threatened by false information, or the implication of it. Farm Bureau memberships across the country are filled with organic and local-selling producers. Farm Bureau’s have awarded organic growers, and helped facilitate local farmer’s markets and grocery stores providing local food choices. So don’t claim you know Farm Bureau. A comment was made that Chipotle only gets a miniscule portion of their meat from farms they portray in the ad. That’s true, and a very good point. But don’t expect people to not be concerned when an ‘attack,’ and yes, when you see it from the effect it could have on an unknowing consumer, it is an attack, on their business is made. There are people out there who want to eat organic, or vegetarian, etc. While I am concerned at times about the clarity and accuracy of the information they received in coming to that decision, I certainly applaud farmers, especially organic growers, applying free enterprise economics to meet the demand. Finally, as stated far above here. This is not a blast against organic agriculture, this is about an ‘attack’ on modern agriculture, implying problems in safety or environmental stewardship that is untrue. There is plenty of room for all of agriculture. And it is all needed, if we want the choice, the quality, and quantity we, and the rest of the world really should have.
Maybe I’m missing the point in all of this or oversimplifying. If people perceive Chipotle is taking an an anti-industrial stance, they are missing the irony. Chipotle still buys and resells conventionally grown agriculture in the form of fast-ish foods. Their hands are not clean.
How I saw the commercial? As a nostalgic nod towards the way things used to be, tinged with sadness and regret for what they’ve become. It doesn’t attack farmers solely, but our lifestyle; one that expects readily available animal by-products for every meal every day. It raises many questions about agriculture, ones that are answered by science on both sides of the argument, depending on who is funding the research.
At the same time, perhaps those that are offended are afraid of the consequences of a mainstream advertisement that successfully visually engages individuals while making them aware of some of the practices of adding antibiotics to feed? The people who realize this are still much of the minority and perhaps the most threatening aspect of the commercial for industrial farming is that a wider array of people will be educated in such an engaging fashion with regards to what goes into their nourishment.
Until someone defines what sustainable agriculture actually means, this debate is as a few have said a counterproductive one. In-fighting in a circular fashion ain’t gonna help anyone – the industry bodies should be representing all members and get on with becoming more profitable/efficient whatever style of farming is used.
I prefer my burritos come from my local Taco Truck. No company slogans or statements to make me think anything, just plain burrito goodness.
Oh and by the way choice is a very important word in my limited vocabulary and I prefer to not have a feel good ad mess with my ability to express that choice.
Well It seems to me that if we cant raise enough food for the world population why is the US Federal gov making all you corn farmers grow corn so that we can drive our cars.This seems extremely bad for the world hunger, does anyone out there realize why food prices have skyrocketed.People some day will have to decide DO I EAT OR DO I DRIVE..Corn Ethanol bad for the world…Federal goverment needs to quit subsidizing anything in ag then we can get back to real farmers growing real food………
It is sad to see that the defenders of current production agricultural systems repeat the mantra that organic agriculture cannot feed the world. The longest running research comparing organic to other production methods (at the Rodale Institute) confirms what other studies have shown, that organic farming can produce yields equivalent to chemical-intensive systems.
Which method is ‘cheaper’ depends on whether you include the costs of pollution in our rivers, air pollution from fossil fuels, greenhouse gases fueling climate change, soil erosion, antibiotic resistance, loss of pollinators, and other by-products of the various farming methods.
Each method involves trade-offs in terms of energy use, labor, land conservation and other impacts. What we need rational discussion and understanding of those trade-offs and the policies that are driving them, not head in the sand denials about the problems involved.
Duane,
Beyond the Rodale Institute having a huge agenda of its own, the facts are simply not there that labor intensive organic agriculture can match modern ag in yield and efficiency. Your assumption about pollution, climate etc. is also a problem. Is modern ag perfect? Of course not, but it is improving constantly and at a very rapid rate. One reason is that if anything is ‘sustainable’ it must also be profitable and practical. Do you seriously believe any farmer concerned about a bottom line, will use ‘extra’ chemicals that are left to run off into rivers and streams? Do you think he wants to pollute his own livestock water, more yet the water he and his family drink, or ruin the land that he plans to pass down through 4,5, or more generations?
The interesting thing here is that there is plenty of room for all of agriculture, but your automatic assumption that modern ag is full of pollution is not a fair starting point. Should we discuss that the most recent massive food-related deaths from E.Coli were caused in Europe and traced to an organic sprout farm?
Let’s have the discussion, but let’s get the record straight before we begin.
Wow!! Amazing how fired up some people can get over a commercial followed by a NYT OPED piece!!
I hope you spend as much time supporting your local schools and the state budget process!!
My early observation was the first line of the second paragraph – “these are hard times for many farmers…” AuContraire!! These are EXCELLENT times!! Farm profits are at all-time record highs, and due to the math of a small population with a high percentage of farmers, Nebraska is celebrating its position as one of the highest growth in personal family income!! GO HUSKERS!!
In conclusion… take a break, guys. High-volume production agriculture (HVPA) is here to stay. Ag exports are at an all-time high (including ethanol, btw). At the same time, the small farmers are coming back in strong numbers, but as noted here many times, will never replace the HVPA, much as ethanol will never completely replace oil.
The two methods will continue to co-exist for our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our kids and grandkids.
A mother takes special care of her sick/needy child. The Farm Bureau was probably standing up for their injured members even though they support organic too. We are conventional farmers but improving how we do things all of the time. Chipotle is only one example of the bad publicity we get as from vegetarians and other city dwellers that don’t have any idea what farming is about thinking all farmers abuse their livestock because somebody was shown on TV doing it and many have no idea how thick a cow or pigs hide is and what it takes to prod them along. Normal slaughter that has been done for centuries is now cruel. We have become a generation that puts animals equal to or above humans not as livestock as they should be.
Pingback: Verbally Punch the Bully | oregongreen
Pingback: Verbally Punch the Bully « 54°40′ Or Fight!
Pingback: Friday’s Food for Thought – Feb. 24 | Green Your Plate
So were saying that an American food company made a commercial that stretched the truth a bit? REALLY? Oh goodness…this has to be the first time this has ever happened!! Yet we somehow excuse ads for the McRib? Seriously? SO many misleading ads that encourage us to eat food that is horribly bad for us and raised in conditions that even the most jaded CAFO farmer would admit is pretty gross, we somehow have allowed those to pass over the past 50 years or so. For Chipotle to suggest that they, as a business, would like to secure food from farms that do things a little differently is near blasphemy? I swear I don’t get it….maybe all the organic food has poisoned my noggin.
Was glad to see that a farmer was allowed to speak in the NY Times. Year after year, I as a regular farmer (who incidentally grazes my cows on several hundred acres of land have watched sadly as Mark Bittman shows photos of cows with nuclear bombs (yes), mocks meat production as bad and generally distorts anything the farmers do. We watch as Bittman gets full freedom to inform NYC consumers his views while the farmers are lucky if we can just comment on his blogs once in a while. Maybe you don’t think this means something for farmers in the northeast, but it does very much so. Traveling to urban centers to speak with consumers, I sometimes hear Mark Bittman quoted to me word for word with a sneer on the face of the well informed’ urban consumer who knows it all about ag because they read the Opinionator. The Opinionator would do well to retire and let his place be taken by a diversity of farmers who speak about their model of ag, whatever it is.
We see the same kind of advertising by ig organic dairy companies who put out ads that livestock are fed antibiotics. Dairy cows are not ed antibiotics, so its a little bit of a twisting of the truth that is a marketing tactic. And, ig organic also shows consumers pictures of small grazing dairy farms while bringing in milk from multi-thousand cow feedlot CAFO’s where any representation of grazing is a true joke. (go read Cornucopia’s website). We also heard our organic neighbors sadly telling how they can barely buy groceries when the staff of the organic milk companies are highly compensated in arrangements that take half of the profits (all the while representing to consumers that they treat the farmers like gold: witness recent petitions by organic dairy farmers begging for a better price). There is a whole lot of armwashing going on. These companies are becoming like the politicians who use the farmers for photo shoots.
To paint Farm Bureau uniformly is also false. I am not a member because I favor the more moderate approach of Farmers Union. However, I think I will pay my dues again to acknowledge that Farm Bureau has done some good things for farmers of all sizes in the Northeast, including helping out to create the the Farmland Preservation Programs (this really helps fruit, veg, dairy farmers of all sizes, including many organic farmers in close proximity to Boston and NYC), help with the ag assessment programs (helps veg farmers BIG TIME in high value zones as well as the rest of us, including organic or so-called conventional are paying big land taxes in northeastern states where land is at a premium). These were programs that required years of work by Farm Bureau staff and members. So for you to use the headline that Farm Bureau HATES on organics is really strong language. I think you better dig a little bit deeper. And, is it possible for a farmer who is not certified organic to object to photos of pigs attached to antibiotic towers and green goo without the shrill accusations of BIG AG BIG AG.
The Chipotle ad really hit me hard. I come from a farming family. We have been in the mix of everything, but our biggest area is raising show hogs. The ad suggests these pigs stay in the crates year round and that we feed them antibiotics all the time. This is not true for our operation. They do go into the farrowing crate while they are having the babies and for approximately three weeks afterwards. This is for the protection of the babies. The sows are treated very well. They get extra feed, misters, fans etc. I feel that people attack farmers with ads when they have no honest idea how the operation functions.
There is so much negativity in the world about farmers because of media outlets. The title of your article “Farm Bureau hates on Chipotle, organics” is a prime example. There are numerous people in society that will not do their homework on this situation. They will see the headline and then they will just run with it. The thing is, they will not read into it and realize that farmers are what feeds America. Sure there are some bad farmers out there that do things they shouldn’t and try to put it under the farming umbrella, but with that being said there are also bad journalist who attack a lifestyle that we as a nation could not do without.
I feel like there is a lack of knowledge at times as people may not understand the “organic” industry. The thing is, we are all one industry, organic or not, commercialized or small independent farmers. We are all working toward one goal- to feed and clothe an ever-expanding nation. I wish at times we could stop attacking others in the industry and all work together to achieve that one goal that we are all striving for. There is no need to pick sides and release the negative comments. Just strive to be the best you can be and achieve that final goal.
I ask you to look around … have you eaten this morning? Do you have clothes on your body? While I am not attack you personally, and please don’t take it that way, I am just saying that as a nation society needs to realize that farmers impact your everyday life.
Hello everyone! Is there a way to keep conversations like the one in this website as to the point(brief), clear, understandable, and grammatically correct as possible for the sake of good, efficient communication?
Some people in our society criticize scientists for their poor (scientific, not-common) communication to the public, so they should also criticize everyone else whose communication is not efficient (i.e. too wordy, unnecessary word use, etc.). Bad communication does not help; it a constriction to progression.
Pingback: Is Chipotle destroying their brand? | Following the Rules