The Rural Voice, 1989-06, Page 23i
"That's where our future con-
sumers are," says Ballantine. "That's
where our future taxpayers are. We'd
like to do a teacher's kit, maybe a
video or slide presentation to get some
information out there that tells the
farmers' side."
A much more ambitious project
would be a model farm. Close to a
major urban centre, it would be as
representative as possible of modern
agriculture. "We have Riverdale Farm
and we have the Agriculture Muse-
um," Ballantine says, "And they are
very nice, but they are representative
of agriculture in the 1890s, not the
1980s."
The challenge is to keep the urban -
raised youngster familiar with today's
farming practices. If the impression of
agriculture involves hand -milked cows
and free-range chickens, then even an
accurate portrayal of today's farm can
shock and outrage.
"OFAC's primary mandate is edu-
cation," Ballantine says. "Educating
the producer, educating government,
educating the consumer, and educating
kids."
One vehicle, especially for keeping
the producer informed, is the OFAC
newsletter, FAC's. It focuses largely
on the legislative activities of the
animal rights groups, whether those
activities are aimed at the agricultural
industry or at our animal -user allies.
Particular attention is paid in the first
volume of FAC's to animal rights
actions in the U.S.
The newsletter emphasizes the
importance of protecting agriculture's
interests by watching these groups and
making early challenges to their prop-
aganda in order to prevent them from
gaining a foothold. To do that, farm-
ers, livestock producers, and agri-
business will have to remain unified.
This is one issue that won't go away.
OFAC points to two bills before
the Ontario legislature.
Bill 129 is a private member's bill
designed to regulate the care of ani-
mals for exhibition and entertainment.
It could also encompass agricultural
activities such as fall fairs and live-
stock auctions. OFAC has taken the
position that this bill must be amended
to exclude agricultural activities
specifically.
The second bill, Bill 190, is also a
private member's bill. It concerns the
use of live animals in non-medical
research (i.e. product testing). Though
a direct connection to agriculture is
hard to find, OFAC stands in opposi-
tion to this bill as well.
The sides are becoming increas-
ingly polarized. At the same time, the
debate is enveloping a larger stack of
issues. Product safety is being ques-
tioned and defended. Both sides claim
to have the greater concern for envir-
onmental issues. Both sides accuse
the other of being "big business."
And as the rhetoric increases, less
and less is being said about the actual
welfare/rights of farm animals. There
is concern among moderates in both
camps that the spirit of co-operation
that resulted in the Codes of Practice
for the Care and Handling of Live-
stock is deteriorating.
Where the debate does continue,
in the Journal of Agricultural Ethics
for example, it seems increasingly
connected to larger — perhaps unan-
swerable — moral questions. In one
article, we are asked to consider that
whatever criteria we use to define
"personhood," we will inevitably
exclude some members of our own
species. It follows, the writer argues,
that whatever standards are acceptable
for the treatment of non -person
animals must also be considered
acceptable treatment of non -person
humans (i.e. the severely retarded).
In England, where the animal
rights movement is firmly established
and where veal farming has all but
disappeared, the Farm Animal Welfare
Council has defined five freedoms for
farm animals:
• freedom from malnutrition,
• freedom from thermal or physical
discomfort,
• freedom from injury and disease,
• freedom to express most normal,
socially acceptable patterns of beha-
viour, and
• freedom from fear.
But even this list is contentious.
Are humans granted these freedoms?
What constitutes socially acceptable
patterns of behaviour? What body
should regulate the granting of these
freedoms?
These are the questions that the
Ontario Farm Animal Council will be
faced with.
Some studies link quality
of life and length of life.
But is longevity relevant
in an industry where few
animals are going to
live beyond maturity
anyway?
For answers, OFAC advocates
more animal welfare research. But
even science must make some
questionable assumptions. Some
studies link quality of life and length
of life. But is longevity relevant in an
industry where few animals are going
to live beyond maturity anyway?
Then there are the untraceable
maxims in the animal welfare/rights
argument. One is that 5 to 10 per cent
of the population is prepared to pay a
premium for what is perceived to be a
more humanely produced product.
Another is that the largest audience
will be reached if the debate is con-
ducted at a Grade 11 level of literacy.
OFAC chairman Jim Johnstone
writes in the FAC's newsletter: "We
must avoid being seen as continually
reactive. There are many positive
messages for animal agriculture to
deliver. Our effectiveness in telling
our story will determine the impact the
animal welfare issue will have on our
industry."
The Ontario Farm Animal Council
is in the final stages of formalizing its
structure, a structure that it is hoped
will attract members and resources, a
structure that will enable solid deci-
sion-making. The council will be
looking for membership support from
within the farm community as well as
from all related industries, from the
retail sector to the feed supplier. Still,
the majority of the board seats will be
designated to producer groups and
marketing agencies. Individual mem-
bership will be available, but whether
or not individuals will be granted
voting privileges is still undecided.
For more information about OFA(
or its newsletter, write The Ontario
Farm Animal Council, 6195 Millcreek
Drive, Mississauga, Ont., L5N 4H1.0
Sarah Borowski and her family
farm near Wiarton, Ontario.
JUNE 1989 21