Commentary: Taking the litmus test

As the presidential primary season heads toward its conclusion, the candidates are facing litmus-test questions about how “real” they are.

Are you a real opponent of raising taxes, no matter what the reason? Any evidence to the contrary will be held against you.

Are you a real proponent of national security? There’s no room for waffling when it comes to protecting the country from all kinds of threats.

Candidates have even been hit with the question of are you a real Christian? Many would argue such a question is out of bounds, but it’s getting asked and answered with varying degrees of enthusiasm by everyone with designs on the White House this year.

Now, there’s no shortage of political commentators on both sides who feel that the “Are you for real?” interrogation process is counter-productive, both in terms of using the primary process to select the best-qualified candidates and as a matter of fairness. But it does serve to clarify where on the spectrum of political views the candidates stand.

Personally, I think litmus tests are a political net negative. They’re used too often and without context. Campaigning is about taking turning issues into black-and-white ideological positions; governing is exactly the opposite. The results of the imbalance we currently are experiencing speak for themselves: the lack of bipartisan compromise undermines virtually everything government tries to do.

Answering the question

However, elsewhere in the public arena, we could use more litmus tests. Take the activist community, the NGOs and advocacy groups dedicated to turning Americans into vegetarians. Whether it’s in the guise of environmentalism (meat production is causing global warming), animal welfare (billions of animals are slaughtered daily for food we don’t need) or morality (all species have endowed with inalienable rights), the chorus of critics demanding change needs to answer the following question: Do you support the business of animal husbandry as an essential activity that supports small-scale agriculture, utilizes land unsuited for cropping and provides optimal nutrition that enhances people’s well-being?”

If not, why not?

The idea that groups such as HSUS only want to reform the industry—not eliminate it—allows their leadership to operate behind a protective shield, to hide from the question above by posing as reformers, not revolutionaries.

But unless and until the leaders of any organization with demands for changes in the way that food animals are bred, fed and managed step up and take the test, they have zero credibility. They need to answer the question of whether or not they support the continued existence of livestock production. Every journalist, every executive, every media person who writes or reports on food issues ought to ask the activists that question, and like our politicians, demand a yes-or-no answer.

We can spend the rest of our lives and careers (and most of those involved in animal agriculture will) addressing various aspects related to how and where and with what restrictions animal are raised for food. There’s plenty of room for honest disagreement, for debate over tactics and strategy, for discussion about where the scientific data on any particular issue ought to lead us.

But in the end, if the groups with so-called reform agendas can’t unequivocally state that animal agriculture is both viable and valuable, then they deserve to be labeled for what they are: Crusaders out to abolish a critical segment of food production that has served humanity incredibly well for the last 10 millennia.

Such a clarification ought to be sought from every so-called reformist who denounces the abuse of farm animals, from every scientist with an agenda who decries the application of growth promotants and antibiotics and from all the do-gooders who claims they’re just trying to save the animals and the planet by making meat production more humane and more sustainable.

If their leadership won’t take a public position on that question, if they can’t pass the litmus test, then their “we just want to reform livestock production” act is exactly that—an act, a phony cover for their real agenda: vegetarianism for all.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.