The other night I was watching regular cable TV, and an interesting commercial caught my eye. I typically zone out or check my social media during commercials, so this one was noteworthy in the fact that the catchy jingle diverted my attention to it, as planned by some savvy marketer no doubt.

The commercial: Silk: Milk Of The Land. If you haven’t seen it since it launched at the beginning of April, you should check it out. I believe it provides an interesting perspective (and perhaps foreboding) of a milk alternative brand featuring the farmer and the process to get to the product in its advertising.

And you might say, the farmer? Let me be the one to point out one obvious — but maybe not often considered — truth. There is still a farmer involved in the growing and production of alternative milk (and meat) products. This commercial led me to this question: Are we pitting farmer against farmer in this “war” on alternatives?

I thought about my own truth and experiences in witnessing the apparent divide between livestock farmers and fruit/nut/plant/whatever other kind of farmer. I would throw dairy and row crop farmers in the same category as livestock farmers, although I realize there isn’t the same end-of-life stigma that comes with them. But here’s the point: They’re all farmers. They’re all feeding the world, taking care of the land and have the same occupation, no matter the living thing they are taking care of.

I remember when I first came to work on the live animal side of the business. The question was asked during my interview, had I ever been on a farm. I responded with an enthusiastic, “Yes, I have.” Well, the kinds of farms I had been on weren't exactly what they were asking about. I came from the meat side of the business, and I had been on different specialty crop farms that served as the source material for the functional ingredients the company I worked for sold into the meat industry. And while I had been in several meat processing plants, I had never been to a barn or feedlot. The interviewer smirked (probably chuckling internally) at this girl from Chicago, and followed up with, “Have you ever been in a pig barn?” “No, but I wouldn’t mind going,” was my reply.

In the beef with alternatives, I think the activists have excelled at preying off this internal divide, pitting farmer vs. farmer. There will be some that will criticize Silk for using the word "milk" and claiming to be the "milk of the land." Those same naysayers might criticize legume (pea or chickpea) farmers if they show up in an ad for an alternative meat product. But they earned that right to be called a farmer, too. They make their living the same way the people who produce our meat products do, by raising and growing something.

I can see this Silk advertisement ruffling some feathers, but in the impending climate change battle shouldn’t we all band together to talk about how we’re all caring for the land in one way or another vs. roll our eyes at one's chosen crop vs. another’s? If nothing less, let this ad be a lesson to us in the meat industry to walk the walk not just talk the talk. I’ve heard pundits talk for years about animal agriculture needing to do more to share our story. I’d love to see that pull through to the national meat brand advertising like this Silk commercial. Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? That is the question.

What do you think? Opinions on the commercial and chosen advertising angle? Can this work in the meat industry?

Farmer v. Farmer

Join for free* to continue reading.