Last week ( TT here ) I made comment on the government’s protester legislation that seeks to curb the excesses of activists who push protest activities outside the legal system. I said that no matter how valid their cause, protesters do not hold some sort of privileged position above every other citizen. Their protests must always be carried out within the bounds of the law, and should not put others at risk.
That drew a response from one correspondent who wrote: “Seeking legislation which prevents consumers from knowing exactly how their food is produced does more to arouse suspicion than to allay it.
“Your remarks and those who support them are blind to the marketing power of ethical farming on educated consumers. People DO have a right to know what happens in a piggery, dairy or poultry farm as they are the end consumers who PAY the farmer and allied suppliers.”
Clearly, people have the right to make their own decisions about what they eat. They do that every day.
As a consumer, if you feel that a product or producer does not offer you at the point of sale the information you consider is required to make an informed choice, then you have the right to choose not to purchase it. That’s how the market works.
Every day, consumers tell us with their wallets what they are prepared to pay for. For example, the overwhelming majority of eggs sold in Australia are from caged egg production systems – and the market share for other systems (eg free range) is less than 25 per cent.
Expectations change over time and farmers respond appropriately. Things that were taken for granted 30 years ago are not acceptable now. Things that are seen as usual now will no doubt be unacceptable in the future. However, change will only happen as quickly as society in general moves.
But to the point of the correspondent that they have a right to know, presumably first-hand, what goes on on-farm, I say this:
there are no laws requiring camera coverage of classrooms or churches, although we know there are some people who do the wrong thing in these places;
there are no laws requiring camera coverage of retail shops, offices, or other workplaces, although we know there are many people who do the wrong thing there;
there are no laws requiring camera coverage of private homes, although we know far too many people do the wrong thing there;
there are no laws requiring camera coverage of Third-World sweat shops producing clothes or other products using child labour, although we know there are many people who do the wrong thing there. In fact, there are no laws even preventing the sale of products produced in these places, although no-one condones this behaviour at all.
As citizens, we accept that there are many existing legal pathways to ensure compliance with the laws in all these situations. There is neither need nor justification to single farmers out for more draconian treatment.
Having said all that, we are not supporting legislation that will prevent people knowing how their food is produced. What we are seeking is protection of people’s basic right to privacy and safety in their own homes, businesses and workplaces.
Farmers are like most people – they operate within the bounds of the law. There are bad apples in every walk of life and no-one supports or condones their bad behaviour.
Australian farmers are required by law to meet standards that are as high as those found anywhere in the world, and far above those in most countries. Yet our farmers are exposed to the vagaries of the global marketplace with no support and hence play on a very uneven field. Campaigning to support local farmers through national subsidies and protections is one way of moving the bar.
Lobbying politicians to ban products that do not comply with the same standards as local producers have to meet would be another way forward.
Putting pressure on retailers to refuse to stock products that do not comply with the same standards would also be sensible; as is encouraging other consumers to pay the premiums needed to support local farmers.
In the end, the solutions are in our hands. Farmers are proud of what they do and most are only too willing to showcase their businesses. They are understandably wary, however, of opening their gates to people who come with a preconceived and judgmental attitude.
Painting all farmers with the same brush – and demonising them as many seem to want to do – is both unjustified and unfair. Not only that, it is also counterproductive, as good farmers resent the way they are treated and become less willing to engage in more open debate – and that is not a good outcome by any measure.
TFGA chief executive Jan Davis
