IF ever there was an industry facing a PR crisis it is farming today.
Let us list, in no particular order, some of the problems a corporate
PR might be asked to tackle if he won the brief to promote the farmers'
case.
First, there is the widespread public concern over the export of young
calves for the Continental veal trade and the export of live animals in
general.
Second, the claim that those animals which are destined to be
slaughtered nearer home may be badly treated in the auction markets.
Then comes the public perception that the farmer is a subsidy junkie who
will undertake no activity which is not supported by a grant of some
description.
Finally, the argument that intensive farming methods, with heavy
dosages of chemicals, place the farmer in the role of polluter rather
than preserver of the countryside.
Farmers are not unaware of the fact that they have an image problem.
The difficulty is knowing what to do about it. Some favour the hiring of
men in shiny suits to produce equally shiny PR material to show that
everything in the garden is rosy.
Others are casting about for a farmer/communicator, who can put the
public right on some misconceptions. Captain Ben Coutts has been doing
his bit in that regard this week. Those who criticise the castration of
young lambs should realise that, otherwise, stock would deteriorate
through rampant incest, he points out.
''Do city folk ever think of the stress on canaries in cages -- or on
big dogs in small flats?'' he wonders.
It does appear that an anti-farmer bandwagon is gaining speed at a
remarkable rate. In November, at the Smithfield Show in London, the
veal-calf issue was already coming to the fore. The animal rights
protestors outside Earls Court were, at best, desultory in their
picketing.
Only about eight weeks later we had Shoreham and Brightlingsea and
then the invitable death of a protestor under the wheels of a lorry.
Suddenly the stakes had been upped.
This week's BBC Frontline Scotland programme could only add to the
farmers' problems. It showed animals being roughly handled on their way
to the sale ring in a way which most people would find unacceptable.
The markets, of course, come under the control of the auction
companies and in the worst instances they were able to claim that the
people shown striking animals were not market employees. Sadly, one was
said to be an owner.
While such emotive scenes may be claimed to be isolated instances they
are definitely bad PR for both the farming and market businesses. The
solution is relatively easy. There is a market code which, if adhered
to, would resolve the issue. There seems little point in having staff
trained in animal handling if blatant breaches of the code are going to
be tolerated.
For their own sakes farmers might have to consider boycotting markets
which they considered were doing them a disservice on the PR front.
Les Ward, director of Advocates for Animals, who filmed the scenes in
the markets, has set out his demands as being that animals should be
reared under humane conditions, go through a humane marketing system and
reach a quiet death in the slaughterhouse. For a vegetarian that is a
reasonable stance.
Livestock farmers are already aware of the threat posed by
vegetarianism and have expressed concern at the ''brainwashing'' of
schoolchildren exposed to publicity from the vegetarian lobby. The Meat
and Livestock Commission also produces information packs for schools so
it is difficult to argue that the other side of the story should not be
represented.
Our own Charlie Allan has indicated that if his grandchildren's school
class is to be to be subjected to vegetarian propaganda he will demand
the right of reply.
As one Ayrshire farmer pointed out the vegetarians can be equally
accused of interrupting a life cycle. Most vegetables are harvested for
eating at a point before they have flowered and gone to seed -- which
would be the natural course of events. It may even be that a cabbage
lets out a scream as it is cut from the stalk.
Finally, the really big issue may prove to be the idea that farmers
are hooked on subsidies which add substantially to our food and tax
bills. Treasury Minister Jonathan Aitken weighed in last week with a
claim that the CAP was costing the average British family #28 a week.
His arithmetic is suspect. The cost person is less than 88p a week, or
#3.50p for a family of four. To arrive at Mr Aitken's total you have to
make a whole range of assumptions about world prices and the likely
effects of withdrawing CAP support.
Nonetheless, the impression is abroad that farmers are becoming an
expensive item and the main PR thrust of the disparate agriculture
industry will have to be deployed in that direction.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article