Inspired by and quotes taken from
Against the Odds: A Path Forward for Rural America by Bruce Vincent, Nicole J Olynk Widmar and Jessica Eise
It is impossible to ignore that animal agriculture provides a (virtual) gateway into agriculture for people otherwise not exposed. Animals are inherently relatable, even to young children, connecting with them through stuffed cows and pigs and coloring books full of farm scenes reminiscent of Old McDonald’s Farm. If that is still too far away feeling, the beloved farm dog depicted in that storybook looks an awful lot like Lassie, doesn’t he? Nearly every child has a stuffed animal in their bed, but very, very few have a stuffed corn kernel or soybean which they clutch tight (My husband is a huge fan of the field crops; if corn kernels were accessible as stuffed toys, I’m certain our child would have one. But he doesn’t, because they aren’t available and aren’t even called stuffed toys…they are called stuffed animals.).
“This relatability to animals, despite possibly never having met that animal face-to-face, begins very early in life. Many children possess at least one, or many more than one, stuffed animals of some kind. But very few children are found sleeping with their cherished stuffed soybean. Beloved classics such as Charlotte’s Web and Stuart Little by E. B. White introduce children to animals as their friends and confidants. Animals in media are often presented as children’s friends and protectors. They are frequently defined as fiercely loyal, genuinely kind and with positive emotional appeal. One cannot forget the various dangerous situations which Lassie (the fictional dog character created by Eric Knight who stars in her own television series) and Flipper, the beloved television star bottlenose dolphin, traversed to help the children in their care.
The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss is famous the world over. He has carried decades of children (and adults, perhaps) through adventures in books, and even on television. The book Winnie the Pooh has inspired much attention. He, along with his pals from the Hundred-Acre-Wood, have been friends to children since 1926. Pooh Bear, as his friends call him, is prominently featured in books, plush toys, clothing and on video. Perhaps the most undisputable evidence of Pooh Bear’s fame is that the rights to Winnie-the-Pooh were licensed to Walt Disney Productions. Pooh Bear and his friends remain the feature characters at The Crystal Palace in Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida, a testament to their fame and prominence in popular culture (and perceived economic potential).”
Taken from Against the Odds: A Path Forward for Rural America
Perhaps you are now convinced that animals are agriculture’s gateway for conversation with the public. Now we switch gears into animals and society more generally, moving outside the agricultural links. I want to point toward a rodent – the mouse – for further consideration. In particular, I present the curious case of revered rodents…
“Consider the peculiar case of revered rodents. We cherish memories of our first read of Stuart Little. And who among us does not love the internationally recognized poster-mouse of family fun and childhood wonder (and perhaps even magic), Mickey Mouse? So love Mickey Mouse, but now go set traps for the mouse (likely not a famous mouse, but a mouse nonetheless) in your house.”
Taken from Against the Odds: A Path Forward for Rural America
As a reminder from last week’s ConsumerCorner.2020.Letter.08, you are most certainly a hypocrite. One (mouse) you hug and one (mouse) you poison, glue to sticky paper and unceremoniously crush in order to rid your house of vermin. What makes Mickey Mouse palatable and epically famous? Well, for starters, he’s all of the good parts of a mouse and none of the bad. He’s furry (good), he’s got adorable whiskers (good), he’s generally cuddly (good) and he’s as smiley as a mouse can smile (good). Rodent features that are less attractive might include rodent teeth and rodent paws. Mickey has neither. He’s curiously lacking prominent rodent teeth (I have no explanation, so we’ll accept that at face value), but hugs from Mickey Mouse are the things of childhood dreams. Being hugged by rodent paws with the little scratchy nails (those same little nails you hear scratching in your walls) is not attractive. Hence, the big white gloves. Mickey Mouse is ALWAYS wearing his gloves. It’s likely you have not put much thought into Mickey’s gloves prior to now, so allow me to provide my own personally collected evidence:
What’s My Point for Agribusiness?
At this point, you have become concerned that we’ve ventured off course here in deriving consumer insights for agriculture and food, but I assure you the gloves on this revered rodent are providing a relevant lesson. Even Mickey Mouse has some unattractive characteristics. He’s beloved; he’s revered; he’s a childhood dream; he’s an economic goldmine, but he’s still a rodent with little rodent paws that we cover up with big white gloves.
Every production system in the world, every society, every aspect of life as we live it has details that are less than pleasant. We as humans create trash, so we put it in scented bags (yes, you perfume your trash) and take it outside to a trash can that will hide the trash bags (double points given if your trash can is somehow decorated, a color that matches your house or even has a little house/shelter all its own). Then, trash gets picked up and taken away. It disappears as if by magic. We pay (either privately or in government services paid for indirectly) to be separated from the less-than-pleasant byproduct of living – trash disposal. Trash is easy, and we can all agree that most people don’t care for trash.
What about processing livestock animals into meat products? Meat processing plants are not generally thought to be the most pleasant environments. Certainly kill floors, hanging carcasses and cutting floors are unpalatable to many people, evidenced by the very few consumers who would sign up to process their own meat nor wish to tour a kill floor. We, generally speaking, like our meat to come in reasonable container sizes, require minimal processing at home, and at times we (consumers) even pay for things like no-touch packaging. In other words, there are unpleasant aspects of turning livestock animals into meat products we are comfortable cooking at home, thus we pay others to do those things for us and to separate us from that unpleasant aspect we don’t want to do/see/be involved. Fundamentally, we are maintaining access to the good aspect (access to meat for consumption) while separating ourselves by essentially putting out of our own sight the negative aspects (slaughter). In other words, we’re keeping the gloves on…put the negatives out of sight while maintaining access to the positives.
Transparency and Honesty are Good, But…
Separating oneself from animal slaughter, hiding trash storage/disposal and covering up rodent paws are all essentially the same behaviors. We limit exposure to the bad while maintaining access to the good by using the market (aka paying others to do the things we don’t enjoy or wish to be involved with).
Forcing consumers to confront uncomfortable truths like the process of slaughter is essentially ripping off Mickey’s glove to reveal the rodent paw underneath. If consumers are asking questions, then providing access to truthful information is the right response. But how often do we seek to demonstrate processes in the name of transparency or proof that what we do is hard/complicated/unpleasant that may be off putting or disturbing? I remain in favor of telling the truth about what we do in agricultural production, however it may be worth thinking about whether we, at times, slip into overexposing to make a point or for demonstration purposes. Answer calls for transparency, but be careful not to rip off Mickey’s glove without warning, or at least sensitivity that what you may share could be perceived negatively by others.
ConsumerCorner.2020.Letter.09
