Editorial

Biased report on Initiative 300 will affect Nebraska farmers

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

Last week the Nebraska Department of Agriculture released a report written by Decision Analyst, Inc. It was entitled "The Agriculture Economy in Nebraska-Making Nebraska the Agricultural Leader of the 21st Century". According to the Dept of Ag this project was designed to "help us determine what Nebraska agriculture will look like in the future and develop a plan to optimize the state's potential as a world-class producer and exporter of agricultural products based on that outlook."

The project was kicked off with an Action Planning Retreat. Hand-picked to participate were representatives from ag organizations, commodity promotion boards, government offices, the University, industry, and the general public. I represented Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE) at that meeting. I came away from the meeting thinking it was a prelude to an all-out attack on Initiative-300 with some challenge to local zoning. I was not wrong. This report has ten key findings and five of those have some negative statement concerning I-300 regulations or zoning. Sometimes these statements don't even flow with the rest of the section.

When I was in grad school I took two courses in statistics. Both teachers emphasized the possibility of researchers slanting results to meet preconceived ideas or solicit desired answers. Researchers have a responsibility to make sure questions are worded so as to be neutral and that results are reported in an unbiased manner.

I have not seen the questions that were asked in this report. I have asked for a copy. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the results were reported in a biased manner. For example, here is a quote from the key findings section of the report, "While most respondents were complimentary, some executives were highly critical of what they viewed as the State's anti-business policies, particularly Initiative 300 and local control of zoning." (end of quote) In other words, most of those interviewed thought I-300 was okay but a few executives, (meaning big business) were critical. And because of those few executives, five of the ten "key findings" have some comment concerning regulations, I-300 specifically, or zoning. While "most respondents" were not concerned, the comments of "some executives" were blown out of proportion and placed all over the report.

I consider this very biased reporting.

Governor Johanns has called for a comprehensive study of both the positive and negative economic impacts of I-300. However, two studies have already been done concerning the impact of I-300 and they were both positive. A University of Nebraska-Lincoln study released late last year indicates that I-300's effects on the beef industry are minor: Feedlots in NE evolved much as did ones in Texas, Kansas and Colorado, which do not restrict nonfamily corporations from owning feedlots.

Another study, from New York sociologists, said corporate farming bans do matter in that they help rural counties to do better economically. Isn't that something we want in Nebraska?

So why do we need another study? It's politics. Pure politics. Somebody wants to come up with a negative study because they still haven't gotten the results they think Nebraska needs. Looks like our money is going to be spent until something negative can be established about I-300. If you don't like it.....well, maybe YOU need to speak up right now. If you and I don't, then we may have to live with that negative report for a long time.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: