Inside D.C.

Corporate common sense

They’re either signs of the Apocalypse or there is hope for fact-based, risk-based decision making in the retail end of the food chain. Anyone whose read this space over time knows one of my biggest beefs is big retailers who make truly inane, almost anti-producer public relations decisions based on activist rants, demands and threats. I’ve opined I want to see retailers grow some backbone, ignore the corporate blackmail and stand with farmers and ranchers as part of the team that feeds us all.

Given I’m an eternal optimist, I take as signs of hope a telephone call and an email received over the last month from two retail companies – big boys, I assure you – wanting to know the science underlying two technology breakthroughs in agricultural production. They didn’t want to simply confirm these technologies are safe, they wanted to know the underlying science, studies, etc., and they wanted third party experts who can objectively speak to the technology, its pros and cons, its safety, sustainability and its benefits.

I quizzed both as to motivation. I received pretty much the same answer from both: If the technology is scientifically sound, if it’s safe and if the benefit to food safety, quality, productivity is well-founded, then these factors must be part of the decision-making process on whether they’ll offer foods produced using these new technologies.

I asked them about activist demands they refuse the technology under threat of public relations hell. Both implied they either rarely pay attention to corporate intimidation, or their philosophy of due diligence includes looking objectively at both sides of food technology issues.

While I’d hoped they’d both tell me they were sick and tired of being kicked around by activist groups threatening negative public relations, the more I thought about it the more I understand these corporate attitudes are about as fair as we can expect in the battle to introduce new, efficient and safe technologies to food production.

One company rep talked about preparing for the long-term sustainability of its product offerings. He said in some cases it’s as simple as conventional production allowing a product to be sold for X, while the new technology allows for a lower price point of Y, translating to better margins based on sales projections. It’s also a matter of maintaining inventory across multiple outlets, and fundamentally, providing the customer what he/she wants at a price they’re willing to spend.

For animal agriculture this translates to transparency. One of my first requirements of any client trying to get a new technology through the maze of federal approval, particularly applications that may generate consumer confusion or fear, is 110% transparency. It also needs to include early outreach to the folks who will eventually sell what that technology provides, first, to ensure no one in corporate PR or advertising freaks out and more importantly, to allow the company to answer straightforwardly questions from customers, media and yes, activists.

So, perhaps common sense is beginning to prevail, and the days of the short-term “give-them-something-and-make-them-go-away” attitude about anti-technology, anti-animal agriculture demands is on the way out. A level playing field on such issues is all we’ve ever asked.