When a vocal minority calls the shots
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The parallels between Prohibition and the animal welfare movement are chilling and consumers will pay the price
by CURTISS LITTLEJOHN
On Jan. 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment became enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Fewer than 394 days to get the approval of 36 state legislatures were required for it to become law, less than half as long as it had taken for 11 of the first 14 states to approve the U.S. Bill of Rights. Simply stated, with the 18th Amendment saying that "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors . . . importation . . . exportation . . . is hereby prohibited . . . ," the United States became a dry country.
Ten years previous to this date, the liquor industry in the United States was responsible for more than 70 per cent of all internal government revenue in the country and, within it, more than 30 per cent of federal revenue (the second largest stream of federal revenue at that time). A mere 10 years later, the Prohibition movement had been instrumental in passing and enacting the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, instituting income tax and eliminating the need for the alcohol tax.
In 1933, a mere 12 years after coming into effect, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment and removed Prohibition, making it the only change to the Constitution ever to be repealed. This in a time when communications were slow at best, telephones were new and the steam locomotive was king.
A small vocal minority had taken the government down the wrong path. In his book, Last Call, The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, Daniel Okrent walks readers through the rise and fall of Prohibition. The parallels between Prohibition and the animal welfare movements are chilling. Change the dates, the subject and the people and one can clearly see an eerie path forward.
The pork industry is under attack from people who are on a crusade. Social media are being used to turn multinational food juggernauts, who regularly take on governments, into babbling children, taking positions that will eventually come back to haunt their bottom line. It is not what their core customers want and will result in lower nutrition in the majority of homes across the developed world. Consumption of animal protein is an intrinsic part of a developed culture, diet, and a key indicator of a prosperous nation.
Industry should be concerned that, as in Prohibition, the pendulum will swing far to the right, before returning to more balanced centrist position. Animal welfare changes in the European Union have doubled the price of table eggs in Poland in one year.
The majority of consumers cannot afford to use a higher portion of disposable income to pay for food choices that have no effect on nutrition or food safety. We need to recognize some basic facts. Animal agriculture is a key economic driver that needs the support of government. As an industry changes are needed to improve the conditions of livestock we care for. Finally, the vocal minority of consumers drive change regardless of the silent majority. With diseases such as stroke and cancer rampant and children starving, we need to re-evaluate our priorities and the causes we support. BP
Curtiss Littlejohn is a past chair of Ontario Pork.