Jolley: Five Minutes with Steve Kopperud, Senior V.P., Policy Directions
His resume calls Steven L. Kopperud the senior vice president of Policy Directions, Inc., a Washington, DC government affairs company specializing in production agriculture, agribusiness, animal health, food, farm policy, trade and ag research/health-related issues. He coordinates the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition and is the immediate past president of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, an organization dedicated to educating an increasingly urbanized American public about modern livestock production.
What he really brings to the ranch house dinner table is his expertise on activist assaults on animal agriculture.Kopperud has spoken to audiences in North and South America about the threats to food production mounted by such well-funded organizations as HSUS and PETA. At each appearance, Kopperud explains the threats behind the recent successes of animal activism and what is means to future of beef producers.
He tells a blunt and take-no-prisoners story about the very effective but sometimes questionable public relations techniques employed by animal activist groups.If you’re even remotely connected to animal agriculture, Click herefor a streaming video of his speech at this summer’s International Symposium on Beef Cattle Welfare.It’s 34 minutes well-spent.
Then hit your return button and read one of the most fascinating interviews I’ve done.
Q. Steve, we know the animal rights organizations tend to be well-funded, sophisticated communicators. Let's define them, first. What are the organizations we should watch and what are their agendas? Tell me about the size of their memberships and their war chests.
A. Fifteen years ago we were confronted by about 150 animal rights organizations, subject to infighting and competition. Today, the movement is defined by the Humane Society of the U.S. and its president, Wayne Pacelle. When Pacelle joined HSUS as vice president, he declared he would create the “NRA (National Rifle Assn.) of animal rights, and he’s well on his way. The organization leverages its public image as a dog/cat, spay/neuter, pet adoption group, positioning itself as “moderate” in comparison to the PETAs of the movement. When you peel away the layers of public image, you’re left with an HSUS agenda that is anything but moderate, and not too radically different than that of PETA. You need only look at the organization’s legislative agenda, the comments of some of its officers, to see where HSUS would eventually hope to see animal agriculture wind up.
HSUS claims to have about 10 million members – 20,000 per congressional district – and has an annual budget in excess of $130 million.Through mergers with smaller organizations, HSUS has grown, and under Pacelle’s watch, created the Humane Legislative Action Fund (HLAF) not-for-profit association with no limits on its lobbying activity – HSUS, by virtue of its 501(c) (3) status, is limited by IRS rules to about spending 20% of its previous year’s program spending on “advocacy,” so the HLAF is an important tool.On the international front, Humane Society International works as an arm of HSUS.
PETA continues to be the noisemaker; its apparent role is to keep the issue in the press, thereby keeping it mainstream. Its income each year continues to hover in the $20-30 million range, allowing it to maintain its global network of offices and harassment.However, PETA has so marginalized itself in policy discussions as to be almost a non-player.
PETA continues to frighten corporate targets, major brands which fear PETA will begin boycotts, pickets, disrupt annual meetings, etc. PETA’s outrageous behavior and unrealistic demands enable groups such as HSUS to contact the same target companies, offering itself as the “moderate” group with which the company can work. The company believes that by working with HSUS, it’s somehow protected from PETA. Not so. The company is only protected as long as it toes the line, issuing public statements about animal housing, care and such. The worst thing any company can do is try to negotiate with any animal rights group. It signals weakness and fear and sets the company up as a perpetual target for other groups.
Farm Sanctuary, with a budget of about $1 million a year, operates almost as an independent subsidiary of HSUS, acting as HSUS’s foot soldiers on the ground in the various states in which HSUS has begun referenda campaigns, etc.
Q. Those organizations have been very good at defining the issues and putting agriculture on the defensive. Let's take a few minutes now and put those issues in perspective. What are the things agriculture should be pointing to with pride?
A. There is no food production system on the planet as efficient and successful as the U.S. system. Without it, a good portion of the world’s population would be facing serious food crises. Given that about 2/3 of the North American landmass cannot support fruit, vegetable or grain crops, we’ve successfully been able to use non-crop land to convert grass into protein through animal agriculture. We’ve prioritized the wellbeing of the livestock and poultry we husband so that not only is animal welfare enhanced, but the overall economic wellbeing of the producer, his/her family and rural communities have benefitted from this professionalism as well.
We embrace the science and technology that informs our decisions on how best to raise food animals, but we use it judiciously and professionally, because without continued breakthroughs in genetics, breeding, veterinary medicine, animal health products, equipment, housing, transportation and processing, we cannot feed 300 million people as cheaply, abundantly and safely as we do in this country, let alone grow our industries through capitalizing on international demand for our products.The bottom line:There isn’t enough arable cropland on this planet to feed the entire world’s population without animal agriculture, so you can pretty much forget that “vegan utopia” idea.
All that said, it comes down to the professionalism and experience of the people who farm and ranch in the U.S. Most consumers do not understand that less than 1.5 million farms and ranches manage to pull off the U.S. food production miracle every day. We do not achieve that goal by neglecting or abusing the animals we husband or the consumers who buy our products.
Q. Talking about the animal welfare issue, you've said we don't have a problem that needs a solution. Instead, we have a challenge that needs a reaction. Can you explain what you meant?
A. I don’t believe, overall, that American livestock and poultry production is a broken system in need of significant fixes. It’s a system that will continually refine itself, embrace technology and science, leverage experience and professionalism, and discard systems which no longer work for the wellbeing of the animal and the producer, while embracing new systems which meet those goals. Our challenge is that we’ve allowed ourselves as producers to become isolated from processors, retailers and, ultimately, consumers.
We need to embrace our customers so that the new breed of corporate executive running major meat processing and retail operations – whether fast food, restaurant, institutional or supermarket retailers – understand contemporary production practices, producer priorities and professionalism, so that farmers and ranchers are viewed as the natural allies when these corporate interests are attacked by animal rights groups.
Fundamentally, it comes down to selling the producer and the production system, not just selling product. Consumers have every right to know as much about where their food comes from as they like, and answers must be provided.
Processors and retailers should look at farmers and ranchers as their logical allies – when that letter or phone call from HSUS or PETA is first received, the automatic reaction of these companies must be to first contact farmers and ranchers to find out the truth – or lack thereof – of any allegation or demand being made. Companies cranking out press releases to appease animal rights groups are wasting paper. Whatever they concede today will pale in comparison to what they’ll be told to do tomorrow.
Processing and retailing companies must be confident that producers will stand with them – or when necessary, in front of them – when animal rights groups lay siege to their offices or annual meetings. This requires a serious increase in corporate backbone and serious effort by farmers and ranchers to help them.
We must turn a deaf ear to those who would, as I call it, “surrender with dignity.” There’s a minority opinion in the industry that says, “What do you care if a processor or retailer dictates a production practice?
You’re still in business aren’t you, so just do what you’re told.”This makes no sense to me as it its incredibly short-sighted and implies farmers should abandon technology and science, ignore their own expertise, all in favor of some company’s most recent “natural” product marketing plan or a corporate fear of threatened public outrage. If we intend to sit on our hands and ignore activist challenges, then perhaps this makes some small amount of sense.If, as I expect, farmers and ranchers will not “surrender,” then we need to work hard to enhance consumer confidence.
We must begin “selling” producer and process to the consumer directly. If we can spend millions of checkoff dollars every year selling beef, pork, dairy, eggs and other ag commodities to consumers, then we can spend some small percentage of that collective war chest on promoting the dedication, professionalism, expertise and humanity of the women and men – and the science-based systems they use – to feed this country and a good chunk of the world.
Q. In my 40 years observing agriculture, I've seen enormous change starting with the growth of 'factory' farms and the rise of high tech farming, concepts that are often the major attack points of animal rights groups. Talk to me about the new things on today's agricultural scene - CAFO's, genetically modified crops, corporate-owned farms - and the efforts by some to erode the use of modern technology. What is the future of ranching and farming in North America?
A. I hate the term “factory farm.” It has no relationship to the reality of farming and ranching. It’s a PR label, an image we allowed animal rights groups to put on us as part of their campaigns because we never loudly and publicly objected to it. It’s now the term or art in the mainstream media to describe any and all farming and ranching that isn’t small, local, low-tech or no-tech.
Use of technology does not mean we’ve abandoned our priority on animal wellbeing. In point of fact, we embrace science and technology to enhance wellbeing, while controlling costs and maintaining efficiency. These priorities – animal wellbeing and efficiency – are not mutually exclusive terms no matter what animal rights zealots say. At the same time, big does not automatically mean bad or inhumane, and face it, “corporate” is simply a tax status.
The economics of food production in the U.S., including labor, input and other operational costs, the dwindling producer base, growing U.S. and global populations have conspired to force smaller farmers to grow or die. Ironically, the demands being made by animal rights groups – abandonment of technology, the embracing of organic/natural and so forth – have been shown to actually drive consolidation of small independent production into larger, more economically adaptable farms and ranches.
U.S. agriculture has always embraced challenge. CAFO regulation is one challenge, but emerging secondary uses of manures, methane capture, biofuels, etc., is where technology enters the equation to meet the challenge.Biotechnology, I believe, will ultimately be the sustainable solution to solving the world hunger crisis. Biotech – from genetically modified crops resistant to drought, disease, weed infestations and/or which thrive in high-salinity regions, to livestock cloning that captures the “rock stars” of the barnyard and transgenic animals resistant to disease, which excrete low-phosphorus manure, which slough off microbial contamination – is the U.S.-grown safe and sustainable technology that will allow us to conquer food production challenges.
The future of farming and ranching is predicated upon flexibility and the freedom of producers to choose production systems that best suit their needs, consumer demand and the needs of their animals. These are equal components in a formula for success.I see the vast majority of farmers and ranchers embracing science and technology to take “conventional” production to the next plateau in a safe and sustainable manner, while continuing to enhance animal wellbeing. I see new housing; feed products that provide for ultimate nutrition, health and conversion, and animal health products and veterinary medicine advancing dramatically.
But I see a chunk of production moving to niche markets, including “locally grown”, organic or “natural,” whatever that definition turns out to be. These niche markets are not antithetical to conventional production, rather they’re the alternatives which have always been part of the complex marketplace that is food production, and if there’s a chunk of the population willing and able to pay two or three or four times the price of conventional production, more power to them. That’s called the freedom of choice.
However, none of these advances will occur if farming and ranching remain silent as to the value and importance of this evolution. Again, it comes down to winning the confidence of the processing/retail end of our industry as well as the hearts and minds of consumers. If we remain silent, there will be continued unwarranted interference by local, state or federal government to prohibit practices that simply don’t fit the agenda of animal rights groups with the price of full-page ads in USA Today, the New York Times or a video on YouTube. The public will need help in understanding the value of science, technology and producers’ judicious use of these tools in order to meet food demand. All of this is achievable; it simply requires a commitment and the dedication of resources to take on the challenge.
Q. One of the things I've been watching is the process you've often described as getting "pecked to death by ducks." First, Florida outlaws gestation crates. Burger King covers its backside from a PETA push and earns that organization's praise by declaring they will no longer buy eggs or pork from suppliers that keep their animals in cages or crates. Now, we have California's Prop 2, which won with about 60% of the vote and will force huge changes in the farming practices of the biggest agriculture state in America. Can we expect animal rights groups to press for similar legislation in other farm states? And what will an expansion of similar laws do to the price of food at retail?
A. The strategy being followed by savvy animal rights groups is what the late animal activist Henry Spira, founder of Animal Rights International, called the “step-wise approach.” It translates into “We get a little bit this year, a little bit next year, and before you know it, we’ve forced real change.”Spira once said to me that farmers and ranchers are their own worst enemies because they’re “too nice,” meaning, I think, that we expect the animal rights movement to operate on rules of honorable engagement and conventional issue management. I can assure you, after battling successfully animal rights initiatives for nearly 25 years, I’ve learned there is nothing conventional about “managing” the animal rights issue, and I think it’s this reality that industry – from farm to fork – must acknowledge. Managing the animal rights issue takes outside-the-box thinking and strategy.
In a way, perhaps we are “too nice,” as we steadfastly avoid public confrontations with the animal rights groups.We somehow believe that by confronting these groups, calling them out in the media, on Capitol Hill or in a state legislature, we will suffer some worse consequence than allowing these zealots to prevail.We think because what we do is so fundamental to every citizen’s quality of life, that the “crazy people” cannot prevail.
The animal rights issue cannot be fought using statistics, economics, science and fact alone; it must utilize strategies that inspire positive emotion among consumers toward farming and ranching. There will be no gain without some pain, but it’s our job to ensure that the “pain” we feel is merely the temporary discomfort that comes from shifting away from a traditional approach to a more progressive one.
California’s Proposition 2 is a classic example. Proponents of that measure had no facts to support their demand that sow gestation stalls, veal stalls or egg layer cages were inhumane on their face because the overwhelming public testimony of vets and animal scientists showed just the opposite to be true. Instead, supporters ran TV ads that included video of downed animals and other emotional images of animal neglect and abuse, fully aware Proposition 2 would do nothing to solve these alleged problems. Why?Because emotion rules the day when it comes to human interaction with animals, no matter what the species or the animal’s ultimate fate. When you’ve got the attention of a politically overwhelmed constituency, you use images and emotion, not rhetoric. What thinking, feeling person condones any form of animal “abuse?”
As to more referenda, it depends on HSUS’s success on Capitol Hill. HSUS will no doubt take the Prop 2 victory straight to Congress, with the demand that if Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, and now, California voters have seen the wisdom and humanity in banning stalls of all varieties then Congress should make it the law of the land. If it fails, the HSUS will no doubt take ballot initiatives to other states in time for the 2010 elections.
There is an underlying strategy in the animal rights movement that cannot be ignored: “If you can’t legislate them out of business, or regulate them out of business, then cost them out of business.’The reality is this:If the new Administration and Congress do not weigh the consequences of their actions on producer viability, food availability and cost for all consumers – not just the 10% or so of upper middle/upper class folks who take pride in shopping “locally” at “natural” and organic food emporia – then food availability and cost crises will not be exclusive to the Third World, but will hit Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Seattle and Detroit.At best, we’re that much closer to creating a two-tier food system, i.e. those who can afford meat and those who can’t.
Q. Every industry has its bad actors. We've seen them up close and personal, thanks to the undercover videos shot by HSUS undercover agents. Wayne Pacelle, HSUS CEO, says the practices exposed on those videos are endemic; Ag organizations say they're anomalies, a position backed by industry experts like Temple Grandin. Regardless, it's footage that, in the public's eye, is damaging. How would you go about reversing the damage?
A. Our responses to these episodes of unauthorized entry and video-taping of our facilities have been lukewarm.These episodes are anomalies, but not one can be tolerated as they paint the entire industry with the same brush, allowing HSUS leverage them to make its case that all producers are uncaring and that our industry needs state and/or federal regulation.When episodes of wrong behavior occur – and they will because no industry is perfect – then we must call them out as we see them with appropriate outrage, telling the public what they’ve seen is unacceptable and then swift and public action must be taken to rectify the situation. The public must understand that we share their concerns.
Having said that, I repeat my call to begin talking to the public consistently and loudly that we take animal wellbeing seriously, that it is and always has been the highest priority of our producers and processors, and that the public can trust the men and women who work in our industries.We must reintroduce the public to farming and ranching, explain who we are, what we do, how well we do it and that we share the public’s value of good husbandry. This must be as much a part of our product promotion and sales effort as the creation of recipes, new products and market development. When checkoff boards sit down to decide how those producer payments are to be spent in the best interest of the industry, selling the producer and the process must be every bit as important as selling the product.
Q. Thousands of people read Cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
A. The key to marginalizing the animal rights movement is for all of agriculture to get off its collective backside and coalesce as a single, powerful bloc, dedicated to maintaining consumer trust, as well as the trust of our processor and retailer customers. Cattle can’t win this alone, nor can the dairy, pork or poultry, no matter how politically or publicly powerful you’ve convinced yourself you are.
It is the height of folly to think the cattle industry is “safe” from animal rights attack because HSUS and other groups are concentrating on sow gestation and veal stalls or caged layers.Every person in the cattle industry should sit down and list those issues confronting the beef industry, e.g. food safety, nutrition, health, carbon capture, animal disease, exports, etc.All of these can and will be exploited by animal activists.
At the same time, however, processors and retailers who find themselves the target of public relations blackmail or worse, or companies who have adopted an attitude toward the animal rights movement of “give them something and make them go away,” we must provide to them the public support and help they need if they’re to make the tough decision to tell the animal rightists to go pound salt. We must join with them in pushing back a movement that has a single, clear goal: To put us out of business. You will never placate an enemy that seeks your demise, especially an enemy which has the patience – and resources -- to wait you out.
All segments of industry – including the feed industry, equipment companies, animal health companies, our animal science friends and the veterinary medical community, processors and retailers -- must put aside commodity differences and squabbles, and come together to speak with one clear voice. The message is clear: We, as animal agriculture will not tolerate animal rights attacks on farming and ranching; bad legislation – state or federal -- will be defeated, and in the case of valuable, safe, sustainable, effective technologies that allow us to maintain and enhance animal care, provide consumers a quality product and allow us to make a living for ourselves and our families, these innovations will be protected.We must work with our customers – processors, retailers and consumers – to earn and maintain their confidence that what we say we will do will be done.
The cattle industry must step up and add its considerable public voice in support of those whose practices are currently under attack. Cattle must support pork, must support poultry, must support dairy, or when the cattle industry comes under direct attack as it surely will, it will find itself standing alone in the public spotlight.