There is an old adage about the consumer always being right.
That is true in terms of what they decide they want to buy, but sadly it often means very suspect choices.
We see that in terms of food these days.
Consumers increasingly don鈥檛 trust their food sources.
While we all need to be aware of what we eat, the words fungicide, herbicide, fertilizer, antibiotics should not automatically conjure visions of terror.
A fungicide that helps prevent ergot in grain, as an example, is clearly a positive because ergot itself is poisonous.
There also has to be recognition of the need to utilize fertilizer if we want to maintain sufficient supplies of affordable food.
Yes there are options. We see that with organic production.
But check organic foods. They are more expensive for a reason.
And there are real questions about whether food production levels could be near maintained if the entire system were to go organic.
Then there is the concern over antibiotic and vaccination use in livestock.
This is one that is particularly interesting in my mind.
We increasingly hear about the idea of ensuring humane handling of food animals, a concept which on the surface is completely logical.
The logic becomes fuzzy in a hurry when you realize if you interviewed 10 people you would get 10 views of what is 鈥榟umane鈥�.
That becomes concerning.
Targets are impossible to hit when they are at best in flux, moving depending on an emotional viewpoint.
For most consumers their vision is based primarily on emotion, with limited hard science behind it.
There is a perception cattle raised without additional hormone treatments, but could a consumer point to the science which confirms that? Or is simply a belief?
Mudding the waters further for consumers are food companies which push advertising based on perceptions.
We鈥檝e all seen fast food chain ads promoting beef 鈥渨ithout hormones鈥� implying that makes their burgers better.
But the fact is the hormones help producers grow more beef on less land, helping keep prices low.
At the time of the A&W campaign launch www.cbc.ca reported 鈥淩ich Smith, executive director of Alberta Beef Producers, admitted there is some consumer demand for beef with fewer hormones and no steroids. However, he says calling it 鈥渂etter鈥� is misleading because the beef hormones ranchers usually use are miniscule and found to be safe to human health.鈥�
The ads seem to promote what at best is a perception by some.
Now Earls restaurant chain has announced it will begin sourcing its beef from Kansas instead of Alberta as part of its new commitment to serving only Certified Humane beef.
This of course is an ethical choice, not tied to food safety or taste, although again consumers are developing a perception of how farmers should farm.
That is clear, and Earls has latched on to that reality as a marketing ploy. They think the move will mean they will sell more beef.
You can鈥檛 blame Earls for that.
It does suggest Canada鈥檚 beef sector needs to evolve to supply some of these emerging 鈥榚thical鈥� markets.
And there is a need to work harder to give consumers the knowledge to make food choices based on hard science facts, and not nebulous emotions.
Calvin Daniels is Assistant Editor with Yorkton This Week.
