Agriculture Will Survive Myths and Misconceptions About Organic Or Backyard Poultry - Wallace Berry, PhD, Auburn University Department of Poultry Sciences, from the 2014 NIAA Annual Conference titled 'The Precautionary Principle: How Agriculture Will Thrive', March 31 - April 2, 2014, Omaha, NE, USA. More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2014_niaa_how_animal_agriculture_will_thrive

1. How Animal Agriculture Will Survive: Debunking Myths
and Misconceptions About Organic and Backyard Poultry
Wallace Berry
Auburn University
Poultry Science Department
Auburn University
Auburn, AL
Berrywd@auburn.edu
NIAA Omaha 2014 - Berry
http://www.the-chicken-chick.com/2012/12/quarantine-of-backyard-chickens-why-
and.html
http://seattletimes.com/html/picturethis/2013043103_thenewchickendebatecagefreeandorganicorother.ht
ml

2. “If a consumer doesn’t want food
produced by “mainstream agriculture” he
or she can buy organic. What’s hurtful is
being led down a path that suggests
there’s something wrong with all the food
they’re buying currently...”
-Doug Chorney, Keystone Agricultural Producers
NIAA Omaha 2014 - Berry

3. Organic Food
1. Demand for organic food is a
market to be served.
2. The customer is always right.
3. The customer deserves factual
information.
4. Educating the customer is a
good thing and necessary.
5. Providing context is key in the
case for modern agriculture.

4. Claims About Organic
Foods
Safer
Greener
More Humane
More Nutritious/Healthier
Higher Quality
Cheaper

5. Safer?
No chemicals/pesticides
No antibiotics
No hormones
No GMOs
Cleaner
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-
wavefunction/2013/04/09/how-to-recognize-and-talk-to-a-chemophobe/

6. No Chemicals/Pesticides
Chemophobia
“Chemical” is a "trigger word”: "A stimulus
intended to trigger an emotional rather than a
rational response.
People believe that organic = no chemicals
Not true. Organic production uses pesticides,
fungicides (Rotenone anyone?)
Over 20 pesticides allowed in organic
production.
Many potent pesticides and bioactive chemicals
occur naturally - alkaloids like nicotine, caffeine,
opioids.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/04/09/how-to-recognize-and-talk-to-a-chemophobe/

7. No Chemicals/Pesticides
Chemicals in organic foods
Studies have demonstrated that non-organic
and organic foods both have very low or no
synthetic pesticide residues.
However, organic production often uses much
more of the "organic" pesticides
Greater impact on environment
Higher levels of intrinsic toxic compounds
as crops respond to pest damage.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/04/09/how-to-recognize-and-talk-to-a-chemophobe/

8. No Chemicals/Pesticides
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/04/09/how-to-recognize-and-talk-to-a-chemophobe/

9. No Hormones
The labels “Raised Without Added Hormones“, “No
Hormones Administered” or “No Synthetic Hormones”
indicate that no synthetic hormones were given to animals.
Federal law prohibits the use of hormones on hogs and
poultry.
The use of any hormone free label on pork and poultry
products is intended to mislead consumers into thinking
that the product is different and therefore r of a higher
price.
USDA requires that use of these labels on pork or poultry
include the disclaimer: “Federal regulations prohibit the use of
hormones in poultry/pork.”
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/consumer-labels/labels-that-tell-you-a-little/
http://us.123rf.com/450wm/jpldesigns/jpldesigns1212/jpldesigns121200089/17071486-
no-hormone-100-natural-food-label-illustration-isolated-on-white-background.jpg

10. No Hormones?
1.9 nanograms of estrogen in implanted beef.
Human child’s body produces = 50,000 nanograms of estrogen per
day.
Adult human female (non-pregnant) = 480,000 nanograms of
estrogen per day.
One birth control pill = 35,000 nanograms of estrogen.
225 nanograms of estrogen in potatoes,
340 nanograms of estrogen in peas,
520 nanograms of estrogen in ice cream, 2,000 nanograms of
estrogen in cabbage,
11,250 nanograms of estrogen in soy milk,
170,000 nanograms of estrogen in soybean oil
....based on a 3 ounce serving size.

11. No Antibiotics
Antibiotic residues in food?
Antibiotic resistance?
Antibiotics and antibiotic
resistance occur naturally
Antibiotics being phased out

12. No GMOs
http://www.livingnaturaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NoGMO.jpg
GMOs?
• All domestic species: crops, livestock, pets are
genetically modified
− Selective breeding
− Natural mutation
− Induced mutations
• Genes swapped between species naturally.
• GMO species reduce inputs and environmental
degradation.

13. Greener
More Sustainable
Less Carbon Footprint
Organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides.
But, organic farms use their own chemicals that are still
ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse
technologies that reduce or eliminate the use of these
all together.
Example, organic farming’s stance against genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).

14. Greener
More Sustainable
Less Carbon Footprint
• Studies results support that organic farming usually supports more
biodiversity
• Does not have a positive impact per unit of production.
• Organic milk, cereals, and pork all generated higher greenhouse
gas emissions per unit of product than their conventionally farmed
counterparts – although organic beef and had lower emissions in
most cases.
• In general organic products required less energy input, but more
land than the same quantity of conventional products.

15. More Nutritious/Healthier
http://www.thetruthaboutfoodandhealth.com/healtharticles/awarenessribbon-139777.jpg
Reviews of thousands of research
articles have found no evidence for
nutritional superiority of organic
foods.
"Food is Food"

16. Cleaner
http://www.thetruthaboutfoodandhealth.com/healtharticles/awarenessribbon-139777.jpg
Organic foods, particularly poultry, re
often touted as being
bacteriologocally cleaner.
Recent studies have found that at
best, organic poultry is no cleaner
than conventional poultry and may
actually have a higher rate of
contamination and may harbor more
antibiotic resistant bacterian

17. Quality
Subjects in blind taste tests have never
been able to discriminate between
organic and conventional foods
(assuming similar conditions of strain,
post harvest processing, ripeness, etc).

18. More humane
More humane

19. Cheaper
Cheaper

20. Debunking Myths is
Difficult
“Backfire Effects”
1. Familiarity backfire
2. Overkill backfire
3. Worldview backfire
http://www.testically.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/backfire-gun-300x211.jpg
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

21. To debunk a myth, you have to talk about it -
This makes people more familiar with the myth.
Debunking a myth often actually reinforces it in people’s
minds!
To test for this, people were shown evidence that
debunked common myths about vaccines.
Afterwards, they were asked to separate the myths from
the facts. When asked immediately after reading the
research, people successfully identified the myths.
When asked again 30 minutes later, people actually
scored worse for believing the myth than before they read
the evidence.
Debunking reinforced the myths!
Familiarity Backfire
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

22. Avoiding "Familiarity Backfire":
 Ideally, avoid mentioning the myth altogether while
correcting it. When seeking to counter misinformation,
the best approach is to focus on the facts you wish to
communicate.
Not mentioning the myth is sometimes not a practical
option. In this case, the emphasis of the debunking
should be on the facts. Headlining your debunking with
the myth in big, bold type is the last thing you want to
do. Instead, communicate your core fact in the headline.
Your debunking should begin with emphasis on the
facts, not the myth. Your goal is to increase people’s
familiarity with the facts.
Familiarity Backfire
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

23. Avoiding Familiarity Backfire
1. Emphasize the Core Facts:
Selective breeding and excellent nutrition allows modern poultry to grow quickly
and efficiently.
2. Core Facts Reinforced Narrative:
Starting in the 1920's, poultry breeders began concentrated efforts to breed birds
that grew faster and more efficiently, with a greater proportion of meat to bone.
Coupled with research that determined the nutritional requirements of the bird,
steady incremental improvements have resulted in the large breasted, fast
growing birds of today.
3. Now Mention the Myth:
A persistent myth about commercial poultry is that growth hormones and steroids
are responsible for fast growing chickens.
4. How the Myth Persists and Alternative Explanation
Many poultry companies, food outlets, and organic producers perpetuate the myth
by advertising that their chickens do not get hormones. This is an intentional
effort to mislead consumers into thinking that competitors poultry is less
wholesome. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

24. Overkill Backfire
Common wisdom is that the more counter-
arguments you provide, the more successful
you’ll be in debunking a myth. It turns out that
the opposite can be true. When it comes to
refuting misinformation, less can be more.
Generating three arguments, for example, can
be more successful in reducing
misperceptions than generating twelve
arguments, which can end up reinforcing the
initial misperception (2).
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

25. Avoiding Overkill Backfire
The Overkill Backfire Effect occurs because processing many
arguments takes more effort than just considering a few. A simple myth
is more cognitively attractive than an over-complicated correction.
The solution:
1. Keep content simple and easy to read.
2. Use simple language, short sentences, subheadings and paragraphs.
3. Avoid dramatic language and derogatory comments that alienate
people.
4. Stick to the facts.
5. End on a strong and simple message.
6. Use graphics.
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

26. Avoiding Overkill Backfire
Growth trends in commercial broilers
showing gradual improvement:

27. Worldview Backfire
The third and arguably most potent
backfire effect occurs with topics that tie
in with people’s worldviews and sense of
cultural identity.
For those who are strongly fixed in their
views, being confronted with counter-
arguments can cause their views to be
strengthened.
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

28. Worldview Backfire
Presenting information or arguments that conflict
with strongly held views that are central to a person's
sense of identity may strengthen those views.
1. Confirmation bias:
Seeking out information that confirms preconceived
views.
2 Disconfirmation bias:
Ignoring information that runs counter to preconceived
views.
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

29. Countering Worldview Backfire
Worldview Backfire Effect is strongest among those already fixed in
their views. So there is a greater chance of correcting misinformation
among those not as firmly decided about hot- button issues.
1. Outreach should be directed towards the undecided majority rather
than the unswayable minority.
2. Information can be presented in ways that reduce the usual
psychological resistance. For example, when worldview-threatening
messages are coupled with "self affirmation", people become more
balanced in considering pro and con information.
"Yes, considering the remarkable growth rate of modern chickens, and
all the news about athletes using steroids, no wonder people assume
hormones are used in chickens."
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

30. Countering Worldview Backfire
Worldview Backfire Effect is strongest among those already fixed in their views. So there
is a greater chance of correcting misinformation among those not as firmly decided about
hot- button issues.
1. Outreach should be directed towards the undecided majority rather than the
unswayable minority.
example: Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you
with experience.
2. Information can be presented in ways that reduce the usual psychological resistance.
For example, when worldview-threatening messages are coupled with "self affirmation",
people become more balanced in considering pro and con information.
example:"Yes, considering the remarkable growth rate of modern chickens, and all the
news about athletes using steroids, no wonder people assume hormones are used in
chickens."
3. Information can be made more acceptable by “framing” it in a way that is less
threatening to a person’s worldview.
example: Gains in efficiency and productivity reduce the amount of feed, energy, and
waste and that contributes to "sustainability".
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

31. Thanks!

32. References
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review. Crystal Smith-
Spangler, MD, MS; Margaret L. Brandeau, PhD; Grace E. Hunter, BA; J. Clay Bavinger, BA; Maren Pearson, BS;
Paul J. Eschbach; Vandana Sundaram, MPH; Hau Liu, MD, MS, MBA, MPH; Patricia Schirmer, MD; Christopher
Stave, MLS; Ingram Olkin, PhD; and Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:348-366.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/04/09/how-to-recognize-and-talk-to-a-chemophobe/
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/consumer-labels/labels-that-tell-you-a-little/