Facing up to image problem

PR might be asked to tackle if he won the brief to promote the farmers'

case.

First, there is the widespread public concern over the export of young

calves for the Continental veal trade and the export of live animals in

general.

Second, the claim that those animals which are destined to be

slaughtered nearer home may be badly treated in the auction markets.

Then comes the public perception that the farmer is a subsidy junkie who

will undertake no activity which is not supported by a grant of some

description.

Finally, the argument that intensive farming methods, with heavy

dosages of chemicals, place the farmer in the role of polluter rather

than preserver of the countryside.

Farmers are not unaware of the fact that they have an image problem.

The difficulty is knowing what to do about it. Some favour the hiring of

men in shiny suits to produce equally shiny PR material to show that

everything in the garden is rosy.

Others are casting about for a farmer/communicator, who can put the

public right on some misconceptions. Captain Ben Coutts has been doing

his bit in that regard this week. Those who criticise the castration of

young lambs should realise that, otherwise, stock would deteriorate

through rampant incest, he points out.

''Do city folk ever think of the stress on canaries in cages -- or on

big dogs in small flats?'' he wonders.

It does appear that an anti-farmer bandwagon is gaining speed at a

remarkable rate. In November, at the Smithfield Show in London, the

veal-calf issue was already coming to the fore. The animal rights

protestors outside Earls Court were, at best, desultory in their

picketing.

Only about eight weeks later we had Shoreham and Brightlingsea and

then the invitable death of a protestor under the wheels of a lorry.

Suddenly the stakes had been upped.

This week's BBC Frontline Scotland programme could only add to the

farmers' problems. It showed animals being roughly handled on their way

to the sale ring in a way which most people would find unacceptable.

The markets, of course, come under the control of the auction

companies and in the worst instances they were able to claim that the

people shown striking animals were not market employees. Sadly, one was

said to be an owner.

While such emotive scenes may be claimed to be isolated instances they

are definitely bad PR for both the farming and market businesses. The

solution is relatively easy. There is a market code which, if adhered

to, would resolve the issue. There seems little point in having staff

trained in animal handling if blatant breaches of the code are going to

be tolerated.

For their own sakes farmers might have to consider boycotting markets

which they considered were doing them a disservice on the PR front.

Les Ward, director of Advocates for Animals, who filmed the scenes in

the markets, has set out his demands as being that animals should be

reared under humane conditions, go through a humane marketing system and

reach a quiet death in the slaughterhouse. For a vegetarian that is a

reasonable stance.

Livestock farmers are already aware of the threat posed by

vegetarianism and have expressed concern at the ''brainwashing'' of

schoolchildren exposed to publicity from the vegetarian lobby. The Meat

and Livestock Commission also produces information packs for schools so

it is difficult to argue that the other side of the story should not be

represented.

Our own Charlie Allan has indicated that if his grandchildren's school

class is to be to be subjected to vegetarian propaganda he will demand

the right of reply.

As one Ayrshire farmer pointed out the vegetarians can be equally

accused of interrupting a life cycle. Most vegetables are harvested for

eating at a point before they have flowered and gone to seed -- which

would be the natural course of events. It may even be that a cabbage

lets out a scream as it is cut from the stalk.

Finally, the really big issue may prove to be the idea that farmers

are hooked on subsidies which add substantially to our food and tax

bills. Treasury Minister Jonathan Aitken weighed in last week with a

claim that the CAP was costing the average British family #28 a week.

His arithmetic is suspect. The cost person is less than 88p a week, or

#3.50p for a family of four. To arrive at Mr Aitken's total you have to

make a whole range of assumptions about world prices and the likely

effects of withdrawing CAP support.

Nonetheless, the impression is abroad that farmers are becoming an

expensive item and the main PR thrust of the disparate agriculture

industry will have to be deployed in that direction.