Chipotle revs up more anti-ag propaganda

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

click image to zoomChipotle, cow Just as the buzz surrounding Chipotle’s “Scarecrow” promotion dies down, the restaurant chain is set to launch its new satirical series about farming next month.

Beginning in mid-February, Chipotle will release “Farmed and Dangerous,” a four-part comedy series on Hulu, a TV-streaming service. The series was produced by Chipotle and Piro, a New York-based studio.

According to a Chipotle press release, the series “satirizes the lengths to which corporate agribusiness and its image-makers go to create a positive image of industrial agriculture.”

The New York Times reports the series begins with a bang – literally – as a cow explodes while feeding on petroleum pellets, a fictional low-cost feed source used by farmers. The series will also take jabs at antibiotics and food libel laws.

“As you do with all comedy, you take a real issue and then amp it up,” Mark Crumpacker, Chipotle chief marketing officer and an executive producer of the series told The New York Times.

Read, “Chipotle Blurs Lines With a Satirical Series About Industrial Farming.”

For the nation’s agricultural community, it appears Chipotle’s messaging will repeat itself. The company’s “Scarecrow” promotion, released in September 2013, failed to inspire the conversation Chipotle had originally intended it to have.

The majority of responses from consumers – especially from the social media-driven Mellennials – used the film as fact, leaving farmers to correct the misconceptions. However, many of these responses have fallen onto deaf ears. Read some of the pro-agriculture responses here.

Paul Jeschke, an Illinois farmer, explained that Chipotle would “prefer for us to continue to farm as we did in our great-grandparents' time.  Yet, these folks don't want to live their lives like their great-grandparents did.”

Some of the nation’s top advertising executives named “Scarecrow” one of the worst commercials of 2013. Jeff Goodby, co-founder of Omnicom Group Inc.’s Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, believes “Scarecrow” misses the mark. Instead of promoting Chipotle, it pushes a pro-vegetarian message.

"The films use vegetarian imagery to sell meat," Goodby said. "I come away thinking I shouldn't be eating meat at all, and I don't think that's their point."

Read more here.

Related Articles



Comments (14) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

kevin    
Ohio  |  January, 27, 2014 at 04:14 PM

If Americans want food products that contain limited or no drugs, cattle not fed GMO, good animal husbandry practices then why does the industry continue to fight this? The real issue is the backing of companies that are shoving this false premise that we can't live without there products and the world will starve. In fact they have done nothing but line their pockets and not opened their eyes to what that are doing to the health of Americans. Any good business says that we should provide for the consumer what they are interested in.

Brent    
missouri  |  January, 27, 2014 at 07:08 PM

Untrue, Kevin. Only a vocal few are overly concerned about the imaginary excesses and "dangers" of the food within a wonderful, wholsome abundant food supply given to us by a vast majority of producers who provide what becomes our food. The food industry makes various products for us to purchase---or not, according to our tastes and desires. And of course they do it for a profit--and you would too. I am sure that you do not work for free. Please feel free to choose another activist agenda that is more correspondent to your knowledge base.

Steve    
new york  |  January, 27, 2014 at 06:29 PM

kevin are you and every other consumer willing to pay for your agenda? If you truly want this, than an effort will need to be made by consumers to support farms that are already providing these products. If the consumer truly demands these products and are willing to pay for them then that is what will be provided. We both know that with the american consumer it is about the cheapest price more often than not.

Kate    
Illinois  |  January, 28, 2014 at 08:54 AM

Kevin, Who do you think is more concerned about the well being of the animals? The producers who devotes their life the tending to the animal or large corporations such as Chipoltle or even large Agri-Businesses? Have you ever stopped to think about the lives that anti-agricultural messages are threatening? There are PEOPLE taking care of these animals, and let me tell you, we ARE also consumers! Wake up world and realize who probably cares the most! We are not only trying to raise healthy animals and crops to feed the world, we are also feeding them to OUR families!

ray    
January, 28, 2014 at 09:30 AM

the only response these companies needs from us farmers is THIS IS YOUR LAST SHIPMENT OF PRODUCTS

Ron    
OH  |  January, 28, 2014 at 09:37 AM

The problem is that Chipolte does not want to pay the increased costs to farm like they suggest. When they are willing to cover the increased costs then farmers will switch. Farmers will not switch if it means losing money.

Ric    
Reno, NV  |  January, 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Glad I saw this before I took my wife to Chipolte. She hasn't been there yet and now I can guarantee she won't. I'll not dispense with my discretionary income there again........

maxine    
SD  |  January, 28, 2014 at 05:43 PM

Just one of the great things about US agriculture is that we produce something for everyone! Those who really want meat produced with no medical care, more expensive organicly grown grains (or no grain at all!), or even animals fed on beer and massaged daily, can get it! Those who want wholesome, conventionally produced food at reasonable prices can have that. Beef production is my area of most knowledge, and all beef, including that produced conventionally, is inspected to assure it does NOT contain residues of ANYTHING when sold as meat for people! There are withdrawal time periods for the animals that have been given medications, to assure all is outof the meat prior to processing for food. The animals where residues are found are not allowed into the food system. I do wish people claiming abuse of animals, feed use, or any other bad thing they assume "corporate agriculture" is doing to harm consumers would tell us where these places are. I know that about 98% of US farms are family owned. Yes, some of the families are very large, extended families, and some do hire people to help the family members with the work. Some families do incorporate their farm business and others do not. "Corporations" have more to do with business models than with evil intentions toward either the animals in their care, or the food they produce. Profit is another word people often use as some sort of evil epithet when criticizing farmers. Why is that? Would they prefer that we who raise food just go on welfare to support our families? If there is no profit, there soon will be no farm, at least there do not seem to be many businesses that can lose money year after year and remain in business.

Craig A. Moore    
Billings, MT  |  January, 31, 2014 at 09:30 AM

I am still trying to figure out why, if Chipotle is so concerned about an animals welfare, they have them slaughtered just so someone can have meat in their burrito.

Heinze    
Michigan  |  January, 31, 2014 at 11:04 AM

There are more profitable, and sustainable agriculture models in place than the current model used over the last 25 years or more. The soils have been destroyed by tillage. There are fewer nutrients in the soils, and therefore fewer nutrients in our food. It takes time to develop good soils and increase organic matter, but, input cost decrease dramatically once farmers do. Farmers can increase organic matter faster if they take the animals out of the barn and get them on the land. This has been proven, and not just on few hundred acres, but on several thousand acre family operated farms. I understand this is hard to understand and farmers want to fight it. The current system of leaving the soil exposed and the over use of chemical fertilizer is not wholesome, nor is it necessary. Using cover crops and animals to rebuild organic matter takes years, but the soil can be weaned slowly off the chemicals and tillage. If you are a farmer, is it enjoyable applying pesticides and herbicides and exposing the soil through the winter? Is that wholesome? There are more enjoyable and profitable farming methods.

Heinze    
Michigan  |  January, 31, 2014 at 11:04 AM

There are more profitable, and sustainable agriculture models in place than the current model used over the last 25 years or more. The soils have been destroyed by tillage. There are fewer nutrients in the soils, and therefore fewer nutrients in our food. It takes time to develop good soils and increase organic matter, but, input cost decrease dramatically once farmers do. Farmers can increase organic matter faster if they take the animals out of the barn and get them on the land. This has been proven, and not just on few hundred acres, but on several thousand acre family operated farms. I understand this is hard to understand and farmers want to fight it. The current system of leaving the soil exposed and the over use of chemical fertilizer is not wholesome, nor is it necessary. Using cover crops and animals to rebuild organic matter takes years, but the soil can be weaned slowly off the chemicals and tillage. If you are a farmer, is it enjoyable applying pesticides and herbicides and exposing the soil through the winter? Is that wholesome? There are more enjoyable and profitable farming methods.

John    
wyoming  |  January, 31, 2014 at 11:39 PM

I agree here with Brent. If your kid was sick wouldn't YOU give him antibiotics to make him feel better? USDA has proven that these foods are safe for consumers. That shows how little these organic and animal welfare people know, going organic is animal abuse. If we grow organic food, we won't have as much, meaning less food for the starving kid in Africa who would eat antibiotic positive food just to survive. We can't feed an ever growing population using organic methods.

Farmer Sam    
February, 01, 2014 at 09:43 AM

Heinie needs do get out more often - at least once every couple of decades, or so. We have been doing less and less "tillage" - using minimum till and no till systems for years. My soils have not been "destroyed" and there are more than sufficient "nutrients" in place. Do I enjoy "applying herbicides"? No, but I enjoy chopping weeds with a long handled hoe one heck of a lot less. Maybe Heinie could come out and chop weeds for me this summer (I will leave 75 or 80 acres untreated with herbicides) so she can finally get some stoop labor experience to back up her fairy tale farming notions. You really ought to know what the heck you're talking about Heinie, before you run your mouth. We could get along with fewer armchair experts, I think.

Doug    
Spokane  |  February, 08, 2014 at 03:19 PM

Is the same USDA that is run by former Monsanto executives?


Kuhn SR 100 GII SpeedRakes®

The best just got better with the Kuhn SR 100 GII SpeedRakes. Refined styling, higher strength materials and improved options ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight