Inside the Meat Lobby’s Dirty Tactics: Animal Agriculture Alliance Exposed
Please note: Sources for this post can be found here.
If Big Tobacco’s dirty tactics defined the last century of corporate propaganda and nefarious lobbying, Big Meat’s schemes will define this one. Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds wrote the playbook on manipulating science, deceiving the public, and warping policy in their favor. Tyson Foods, Smithfield, and others now follow it to the letter.
Key to both industries’ operations is one simple, effective strategy: create trustworthy messengers, and pay them to do your bidding. For Big Tobacco, those messengers were groups like the Center for Indoor Air Research, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, and the National Smokers Alliance.
Big Meat’s messenger? The Animal Agriculture Alliance.
Funded by its 400 members, which include major meat companies, trade associations, and animal feed and drug companies, the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) is animal agribusiness’s surveillance agency and front group. It is devoted to defending industrial meat, dairy, and eggs –– and to counteracting information about these industries’ wrongdoing.
Formed in the 1980s by feed lobbyists eager to clean up the image of factory farms, the AAA has evolved into something far more aggressive. It spies on animal welfare advocates, infiltrates events, spews anti-science spin, and helps orchestrate campaigns against entities that highlight agribusiness’s harms. AAA leaders have even gone so far as to push the federal government to criminalize advocacy protected by the first amendment. The AAA does all of this while claiming to “educate” the public.
This article details the Alliance’s history, current structure and operations, surveillance activities and anti-science campaigns, links to corporate interests and an infamous PR firm, and various efforts pertinent to its mission to deny, distract, and discredit.
Inside the Alliance
Today, the AAA carries out a wide range of activities to defend animal agribusiness. Its regular meetings and issue committees offer forums for members to coordinate reactions to criticism of the industry. The AAA provides messaging advice on current issues and crisis communications services to members facing media scrutiny. It runs educational programs in universities and directs criticism toward groups, local governments, and corporations planning or engaging in activities the AAA considers anti-meat.
The AAA also monitors activists, sending representatives to animal welfare organizations’ conferences and, on occasion, to other events and protests. From this monitoring it produces scaremongering briefings and detailed reports on “opposition” plans. For a fee, members can access these reports as well as profiles on hundreds of animal welfare and environmental groups, along with lists of individuals the AAA believes may try to infiltrate livestock facilities. The AAA also produces security advice and “alerts” to share with the industry.
Historically, the AAA was largely focused on attacking proponents of animal welfare, but it now considers concerns about climate change a serious threat to its members. Internal meeting notes show attempts to manage this by offering the meat industry access to friendly academics and engagement with United Nations processes like the Food System Summit. The AAA has also coordinated public relations campaigns against nonprofits and the Eat-Lancet Commission for exposing the livestock industry’s significant contribution to climate change.
History
The AAA was established in 1987 under the name the Animal Industry Foundation (AIF). The brainchild of lobbyist Steve Kopperud, the AAA was founded to counter the increasingly vocal animal rights movement and persuade consumers that everything was alright on the factory farm. Kopperud realized that in order to avoid regulation and keep consumers on the industry’s side, agribusiness interests needed to promote not only their products but the producers themselves.
Kopperud spent much of the 1980s fighting off attempts to regulate animal welfare on farms and in medical labs. Forming coalitions of ranchers, farmers, fur producers, and biomedical groups, he successfully lobbied against efforts to expand the Animal Welfare Act to include farm animals. The AAA grew out of these lobbying efforts.
The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) maintained oversight of the AAA until 2000, after which AAA became an independent organization. According to recent tax returns, the Alliance is still housed in the same offices as AFIA, and the feed industry lobby group pays the salaries of AAA staff –– which the AAA then reimburses.
A history of the AAA, written by Kopperud to celebrate its 30th anniversary, claims it was explicitly not a lobbying organization. According to him, its mission was to educate consumers about livestock producers and help coordinate the industry’s response to the rising animal welfare movement.
Early Successes as the AIF
After the AIF was formed, Kopperud achieved what he described as one of the “prouder moments of his life”: securing the passage of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, which later expanded to become the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Heavily criticised as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech, the law unjustly categorizes even nonviolent activists as “terrorists.” It has stifled protests and investigations aimed at exposing animal cruelty and other wrongdoing within the industry.
The AIF also appears to have been pivotal in passing “agricultural disparagement” laws in states across America. These laws broadened libel provisions to specifically cover comments critical of food. The AFIA drafted model law texts, which Kopperud then promoted and distributed via the AIF. Anti-censorship advocates contend that the rules prevent genuine discussions on food safety, additives, and related diseases. The New York Times reported that critics argue the “laws are putting a chill on the continuing debate about what the public should eat.” In Texas, a version of the law was used unsuccessfully to sue Oprah Winfrey when she said concerns over Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, put her off eating burgers.
Board & Funding
Federally designated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the AAA is fundamentally a membership organization, and it is largely funded by its 400+ members from the livestock, agricultural, and pharmaceutical industries. Notably, it is also funded by commodity Checkoff groups, trade organizations overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The AAA also receives money from donors as well as sponsors of its annual Stakeholders Summit.
The organization’s leadership consists of an Executive Committee, a 30+ person Board of Directors representing key members (which also includes the executive committee), special committees on a range of issues pertinent to the AAA’s activities, and a permanent five-member staff of five.
In 2021, AAA’s revenue and expenditures totaled $855,838 and $692,619, respectively. It received $743,579 in donations and government grants and an additional $110,677 from its Stakeholder Summit. Since 2017, donations have ranged from $700,000-$900,000 a year.
The AAA’s own budget doesn’t tell the whole story of its spending power. Because it acts as a forum for sharing information and fundraising for initiatives, members can agree to fund projects under the aegis of the AAA but from their own budgets. This means it’s not entirely clear from the AAA’s 990 forms what activities the organization has and has not coordinated.
For example, in 2017, AAA hired WarRoom Strategies to assist in a strategic planning process and established a committee of 12 individuals representing diverse sectors of Alliance membership and the broader animal agriculture industry. The AAA’s 990s show no record of payment to WarRoom Strategies. However, in 2015 and 2016, Alliance member National Pork Producers Council spent over $600,000 on WarRoom Strategies. It is not clear if this payment from the NPPC was related to AAA work.
Climate Delay & Denial
An AAA blog post titled “Is My Diet Affecting Climate Change?” is one of the few pages on its website directly addressing climate change. The blog minimizes the climate impact of livestock production, claims advances in agriculture are helping to solve the crisis, and states that “reducing your consumption of meat, milk, poultry and eggs is not very helpful in curbing climate change.” The Guardian, DeSmog, and other media organizations have described all three arguments as key components of the livestock’s industry’s greenwashing playbook.
Frank Mitloehner and the CLEAR Center
The AAA has a longstanding relationship with Frank Mitloehner, the influential academic who runs the CLEAR Center at UC Davis. The Center was established with funding from the charitable arm of AFIA.
Through the CLEAR Center, Mitloehner has argued that the environmental impact of livestock production is overstated and has promoted the idea that livestock are a part of the climate solution rather than a primary driver of emissions. In 2021, Mitloehner gave a speech at the AAA’s summit, where he unveiled his “Rethinking Methane” campaign. In 2022, The New York Times and Unearthed exposed the CLEAR Center’s function as an industry-funded communications project designed to revise the public perception of livestock’s climate impact. Meeting notes from the AAA further corroborate this, as well as the links between the CLEAR Center, AFIA, and some AAA members.
A memo from July 2017 (before the CLEAR Center was formed), states “Sarah Novak, AFIA, explained that NAMI [the North American Meat Institute] and AFIA have been working on a proposal to help Dr. Frank Mitloehner (UC Davis) respond to all of the requests he receives to weigh in on issues related to animal agriculture’s impact on the environment. They are starting with a smaller project to help address immediate needs, and then in a few months will move on to something bigger and more proactive.”
When asked “how [AAA] committee members should contact Dr. Mitloehner about opportunities to engage on the issue of sustainability,” Sarah Novak of AFIA asks “that requests be sent to her and Eric [Mittenthal of NAMI]. They are forming an informal advisory group made up of representatives funding the effort. That group will review opportunities and prioritize them to manage Dr. Mitloehner’s time and resources.”
Later in 2017, AAA meeting minutes state that “Frank has always wanted to do something bigger than just responding to one-off articles and misinformation. He envisions something like the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (putting out books, movies), but with accurate, scientific information about meat production and the environment. Several AFIA members want to support this, and at the end of November they are meeting with him about different projects and what that may look like.”
At the 2023 AAA summit, CLEAR Center communications director Joe Proudman gave a presentation titled “Speak Bullishly: How to Talk About Animal Ag's Path Forward” in which he explained how the CLEAR Center operates. He detailed how the Center engages with policymakers in the United States, Ireland, and elsewhere. He also described how the Center had reached new audiences, including by working with a YouTuber to make a video titled “Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why,” which Proudman said exemplified the “reason why the Clear Center was created.”
Food Systems Summit
The AAA acts as a forum for trade groups to discuss their role in shaping industry sustainability messaging and to coordinate efforts to influence national and international framing around animal agriculture’s environmental impact.
In 2021, Eric Mittenthal of the Meat Institute (formerly the North American Meat Institute) told the AAA’s UN Food Systems working group that during a meeting between the USDA and a number of trade groups, including NAMI, to discuss UN engagement, the USDA had instructed attendees to highlight “the sustainability work that is already being done.” Mittenthal revealed that NAMI was working with the PR firm Red Flag Consulting on a campaign called “Trust in Animal Protein,” which was aimed, in part, at influencing the UN’s Food Systems Summit to ensure that meat continued to play an important role in any future guidance. Mittenthal explicitly invited other AAA members to support NAMI in this project.
Campaign to Counter the EAT-Lancet Report
In 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission released a report addressing the question: “Can we feed a future population of 10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries?” It included a “planetary health diet” that recommended people eat more beans and greens, cut down on sugar, and consume far less meat.
Prior to the report’s publication, AAA notes show the organization was concerned about the report and planned work to counter its claims. Meeting notes from November 2018 state, “We have heard that this report will be extremely negative toward animal agriculture and will encourage people to adopt a vegan diet and urge farmers to shift to growing fruits and vegetables instead of animal proteins. The lead author is a vocal vegan. … the Alliance will be attending a meeting organized by North American Meat Institute on 12/6 to discuss strategic steps moving forward on how to respond to this report.”
The month the report was launched, AAA advised members to stay informed about what the EAT-Lancet Commission and its supporters were saying online, and to “share positive messaging about animal agriculture using #ClimateFoodFacts,” stating “thus far, media coverage has been fairly balanced and we have been successful in getting our perspective into many major outlets.” The AAA created a dedicated “Climate, Food, Facts” webpage to counter the EAT-Lancet report with messaging and links to resources.
Red Flag Consulting prepared a report on media coverage of the EAT-Lancet report and a campaign by the beef and dairy industries to counter it. The report states: “In the two weeks following publication of the EAT-Lancet report, this campaign's messages have continued to demonstrate remarkable success. Key stories returned time and again in traditional and social media to reach major online influencers, particularly highlighting the radical nature of the EAT-Lancet diet and hypocrisy criticisms levelled at the EAT founders. … Substantive engagement from experts briefed directly by this group raised serious criticisms of EAT-Lancet's methodology and conclusions. These critiques are expected to continue to generate longer-term attention … In an unintended bit of high praise, the EAT Forum itself took notice of the Animal Agriculture Alliance landing page, unironically calling #ClimateFoodFacts an example of ‘nuanced’ critique casting doubt on the report's finding.”
Monitoring Activists
The AAA tracks the activities of groups that advocate for improvements in animal welfare and sustainability by “Monitoring Activism” as described on its website. This “monitoring” includes a wide array of activities. The AAA maintains at least 170 profiles, on various environmental and advocacy organizations and foundations, including on well-known groups such as Greenpeace, The Intercept, Waterkeeper Alliance, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Environmental Defense Fund (which it describes as an “advocacy partner”), Natural Resource Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Mighty Earth; foundations such as the Wyss Foundation and the Better Food Foundation; as well as smaller organizations such as Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and Keep Antibiotics Working. Organizational biographies include information regarding funding, organizational priorities, and key staff and/or quotes.
As part of these monitoring activities, the AAA maintains a database of videos collected by activist groups that have gone undercover to reveal conditions in factory farms and processing plants. The 160-row database includes information including the names of the activists involved, individual details such as “how activist gained employment,” how they accessed the facilities, whether the activists caused any safety issues, the “agenda,” “brand targeted,” and whether the videos led to any charges for the activists. The database also tracks whether the investigations led to animal cruelty charges being filed against the facilities, whether the material was used to lobby on legislation, whether any relevant ballots were passed as a result (such as Proposition 2 in California), and whether the investigations led to any supplier or policy changes.
For several years, the AAA has attended events hosted by its “opposition” and published detailed reports on speakers, key messages, and panels and discussions. The reports are disseminated to AAA members and at times shape the AAA’s own work.
In 2015, the AAA monitored an event called “The Real Cost of Food,” hosted by nonprofit Food Tank. A summary of the event in AAA meeting notes explains, “The main focus of the event was a push toward organic production and an overall negative message about modern agriculture. Paul Shapiro encouraged attendees to eat less meat.”
In 2016, the AAA watched the livestream of the Food Tank Summit, creating a full report of the event for its members. By 2017, meeting notes from the AAA’s “Communications / Issues Management Steering Committee” say the Summit “has been flagged by several members as typically anti-modern agriculture (and some promotion of plant-based eating), but not completely activist driven and in need of more voices from mainstream agriculture.” The meeting notes then show members coordinating how best to approach Food Tank to nominate AAA members to speak at its event in order to shape its discussion of food and agriculture.
In 2018, AAA board members discussed their work with an unnamed security company which had sent “representatives” to a training session run by the NGO Direct Action Everywhere, noting that they had included insights from these sessions in their resources.
Most of the AAA summaries are fairly bland recountings of these events and conferences. However, some of the notes offer insights into the AAAs thinking on matters like climate change, such as its report on the 2020 Animal Law Conference. The summary of one panel dismisses the links between the livestock sector and climate change as merely an allegation, stating: “According to the panel, ‘industrial animal agriculture’ is a significant contributor to climate change. They provided an overview of the alleged connection, as well as how they believe it negatively impacts farm animals, the environment, workers, neighbouring communities, public health and food safety.”
Links to Berman and Company
PR firm Berman and Company has worked alongside the AAA to undermine and demonize the animal rights community, both by pushing back against messaging and by targeting the same nonprofits and animal rights groups targeted by the AAA. Berman has a track record of aggressively targeting animal rights groups and nonprofits including Humane World for Animals (formerly the Humane Society of the United States) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which the AAA also targets. Berman leadership once appeared at an AAA event praising the Alliance’s efforts and touting its services, reflecting the overlap between Berman’s clients and AAA members.
Berman and Company has been railing against animal welfare groups for at least two decades, including via The Center For Consumer Freedom (CCF), and, according to the Daily Beast, affiliated vehicles such as HumaneWatch.org and the Humane Society for Shelter Pets (HSSP). An HSSP director was quoted as saying funders include “individuals, corporations, and foundations that are supporters of the pet industry.”
Over the past two decades, the media has linked major agriculture and food retail companies to Berman-run entities. These companies include Smithfield Foods, Wal-Mart, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer, an AAA member) Corn Refiners Association, Coca-Cola and Wendy’s International. Humane World for Animals’ leadership claims that Berman groups have opposed California’s Prop. 2 and anti-factory farm ballot initiatives in six states, while reportedly supporting the caging of pigs, chickens, and veal calves in factory farms; seal clubbing; and horse slaughter.
While the full extent of Berman and Company’s clientele is unknown, documents show overlap between Berman’s client base and AAA’s stakeholders. Emails from 2018 show Berman founder Rick Berman contacting Bill Even, CEO of the National Pork Board, a USDA-sponsored Checkoff group that is also an AAA member. Berman revealed that he, alongside feed company Nutriquest, had organized a meeting to “explore the rapidly shifting environment” around plant-based meat, and that representatives from the “beef, poultry, and dairy” industry would be in attendance.
In a 2023 interview, Berman explained that rather than working with only one client, “our firm generally represents coalitions of leaders in an industry who have a common denominator attitude and bias for offense. Our activities complement the association interests.”
In 2023, the AAA invited Berman partner Jack Hubbard to give the closing address at the AAA’s Animal Ag Alliance Stakeholder Summit. There, Hubbard criticized longstanding Berman targets Humane World for Animals and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
As a former executive for the American Humane Association (AHA), which as of 2018 was an AAA member, Hubbard sought to position the AHA’s certification program as the go-to standard for the livestock industry, including at an AAA summit in 2017. According to internal AAA meeting minutes from 2017, “The Alliance is setting up a meeting with AHA (an Alliance member) to discuss how we can work together to push back against the concept that only certification programs with activist ties are worthwhile."
In his speech at the 2023 summit, Hubbard accused animal rights groups like Humane World for Animals of being “pirates.” He also warned the audience that animal rights groups “are using the ESG movement as a Trojan horse to get seats on boards, to get access to CEOs to run marketing departments. And you all need to understand that you need to be on guard for that. Because if everybody goes into this sustainability thing saying Kumbaya, we're all on the same page, I'm telling you, you are not.”
He also sought to emphasise the collaboration between the AAA and Berman, saying that, “We're going to talk about the Accountability Board and other groups. And they are trying to change their behaviour and they are trying to essentially get the food service community to dictate changes to you that will drive up cost and decrease demand… Hannah [Weeman-Thompson, AAA CEO] and her group have been huge in bringing this to our attention and other groups' attention, saying this is a huge, huge problem.”
Significantly, Hubbard used the event to solicit potential customers for Berman, saying that, “if you'd like to support our campaign, please reach out to me personally. I have long said if every protein sector got behind a singular campaign and polling and messages that work, we could completely devastate this [animal rights] community, which does not deserve the reputation, the funds, and the revenue that are currently enjoyed.”
Pressuring Corporations
As a means of exercising its influence in the corporate, media, and civic spheres, the AAA contacts companies to applaud them for certain stances they take –– or to express disappointment when they take a stance that the AAA perceives as against the livestock industry. The AAA encourages companies to “work closely with the Alliance.”
Many companies have received pushback from the AAA for supporting Humane World for Animals. The AAA wrote disdainful letters to State Farm, Paypal, and Survey Monkey for supporting the organization. State Farm still supports Humane World for Animals, while Survey Monkey supported the group as recently as 2020. Paypal’s current status as a supporter is unconfirmed.
In 2014, the AAA wrote to Samsung; Kay Johnson Smith expressed her dismay over the company’s decision to support Humane World for Animals through its $1.5 million donation via an Ellen DeGeneres designation at the Oscars. The AAA letter includes the following in bold type face: “Your decision to financially support HSUS has prompted us to reconsider any purchase of Samsung products, and we will urge our members to do the same.” Since 2014, no public press releases indicate that Samsung still donates to Humane World for Animals. The AAA has also written to Atlanta public schools to express its disdain for their decision to partner with the organization.
In addition to pressuring companies that support Humane World for Animals, the AAA has also written to companies that support the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). For example, in 2016, Kay Johnson Smith sent a letter to Subaru writing that she was “dismayed” by Subaru’s continued support of the ASPCA. The letter states, “We are confident that you do not intend to contribute to efforts that discredit the hardworking individuals who produce our milk, meat, poultry, and eggs, but donating to ASPCA does just that … [the ASPCA’s] use of scare tactics to convince consumers that farmers don’t care is shameful.” Subaru has maintained its partnership with ASPCA since 2008. The AAA also wrote a letter to Tito’s Vodka in 2016 chiding it for its ASPCA support. The following year, Tito’s faced a boycott from the National Shooting Sports Foundation for its support of Humane World for Animals.
The AAA has also expressed disappointment with various companies and organizations that promote an agenda that includes less meat. The group targeted TGI Fridays when the restaurant chain decided to promote Meatless Mondays. Similarly, in a letter addressed to Giada DeLaurentiis, host of the popular cooking show Giada at Home, Kay Johnson Smith wrote that she was “extremely disappointed” in the “Meatless Monday” segment. Smith went on to claim that Meatless Monday is “a well-funded, radical campaign pushing an extreme animal rights and environmental agenda by promoting false claims about animal agriculture” funded by Helaine Lerner, a “well-known radical activist.” She claimed the campaign “seeks to eliminate consumer choice.” The cooking show Giada At Home continued to host Meatless Mondays until the show last aired in 2020.
In 2017, Smith submitted a letter to the editor to The New York Times criticizing an article titled “Health Leaders Must Focus on the Threats from Factory Farms.” “The U.S. has the relatively lowest carbon footprint per unit of livestock produced in the world,” Smith wrote. The AAA also wrote to CBS criticizing a segment it aired on the use of antibiotics in the livestock industry.
The AAA has also tried to exert its influence on local governments. Through letters to the New York City mayor, the AAA expressed disappointment in the city’s support for Meatless Mondays. It also targeted the Minneapolis mayor for promoting veganism and the Asheville mayor for adopting a vegan challenge week. Smith has pressured public schools by sending a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
Targeting College Students
Since its launch in 2009, the AAA has used its College Aggies Online (CAO) program to influence students and universities. According to its website, CAO is an “initiative of the Alliance connecting college students from across the country who are passionate about sharing positive, factual information about animal agriculture.” CAO’s 2023 mentors include Jen Sorenson, former President of the National Pork Producers Council, and Ryan Goodman, known as “The Beef Runner.” Other mentors have included influencers and ranchers Brandi Buzzard and Natalie Kovarik, Ryan Goodman (Certified Angus Beef), Paul Montgomery (United Egg Producers), Laycee Gibson (National Turkey Federation), and various PR agents.
The AAA hosts a nine-week program in which students compete to most effectively disseminate industry talking points. During this time, various industry professionals lead webinars and offer advice. Students leverage social media –– for which they earn points –– and push messages at their respective universities and communities. Through the course, they learn various communications skills, including how to write a press release, draft social media content, and communicate with elected representatives. According to a summary of the 2021 program, 160 students from 19 clubs participated, and the program generated four million impressions on social media.
The AAA also uses this program to disseminate information regarding the livestock industry. For example, the CAO guidance on “Helpful Ag Websites” explains, “Not everyone is an expert on every species and you are not expected to be a walking encyclopaedia on everything agriculture-related, but it is helpful to know where you can find information about the subjects you are not as familiar with so you can learn more and direct others to factual, science-based information. These resources can also help you think of content ideas for your social media.” The list goes on to include sites such as It's What's For Dinner - Raising Beef; National Turkey Federation; American Egg Board; and National Pork Board.
2023 program sponsors included the Pork Checkoff, Dairy Management Inc., the US Poultry and Egg Association, and the National Pork Industry Foundation. Historically, sponsors have included major livestock industry players. Various sponsorship levels offer companies the opportunity to host educational webinars and farm tours, provide invitations to closed Facebook groups for networking, and display the CAO logo on their websites.
Conclusion: A Front Group as Dangerous as Any Other
Many industries have trade associations and organizations that promote their products and work to boost their reputations. For example, the International Fresh Produce Association advocates for public policy initiatives that help improve produce sales.
But only industries that pose a clear threat to human rights, public health and safety, the environment, or animal welfare go to such significant lengths to coordinate misinformation campaigns and attacks on their “opponents”: scientists, advocacy organizations, the media, or anyone else who dares expose their harm. Tobacco companies, major pharmaceutical and chemical companies, weapons manufacturers, and fossil fuel companies all have power brokers similar to the Animal Agriculture Alliance. Many of them are similarly structured as membership organizations, and their activities range from co-opting academics and their research to discrediting prominent scientists and activists or even fabricating their own junk “science.” Collectively, they spend billions to deny, distract, and discredit.
The AAA should be considered just as significant a threat to the public as these other powerful front groups. It exists to defend a trillion-dollar industry that is a leading contributor to many of our world’s most urgent problems: the climate crisis, an epidemic of chronic disease, devastating pollution and unsustainable land use, deforestation, freshwater scarcity, and the unimaginable suffering of billions of animals. It obscures this damage in part by leveraging one of the most enduring myths in American culture: that of the good ol’ family farmer. Ironically, even the people it often claims to represent — small- and mid-size farmers — have been nearly eradicated by Big Agribusiness.
And yet, there is reason to be optimistic about the limits of the AAA’s power. If anything, the AAA’s enemies should take comfort in knowing that they pose such a great challenge to its sponsors as to inspire such desperate, defensive actions. And unlike the AAA, these advocates and organizations have truth, science, and public opinion on their side.