I thank the leadership of the Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners, the Canadian Association of Swine Veterinarians, the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, as well as individual food animal veterinarians for taking the time to express their concerns about the letters on animal agriculture in the May 2020 issue of The Canadian Veterinary Journal. There are several issues here. First, as noted by Dr. Johnson, the decision to allow publication was made by me, as editor, and not the CVMA. So, the CVMA does not bear responsibility for that decision.
The second issue is whether or not I should have allowed publication of these letters. That decision was a judgment on my part and I accept that some groups and individuals have disagreed with my judgment. However, I note that, as Dr. Van De Weyer reminded us, The CVJ claims to be the voice of veterinary medicine in Canada — that voice includes voices with which most of us disagree. I had the choice of denying publication of two letters that were extremist in both their views and their language or permitting their publication and allowing readers to respond. I opted to publish the letters and trust that colleagues would overwhelmingly rebut the presentations in those two letters. That has happened. I was very impressed by the clear and powerful arguments in the letters, notably those by Drs. Murray Gillies and Alexandre Jalbert. However, colleagues have also indicated that they disagree with the decision I made. Some disagree because of the views of the authors of the two letters and others are concerned with the language. Others disagree with both views and language. I hope that readers will understand the basis for my decision; but I am not unmoved by the sentiments of the readers who have written — I understand their concerns and I am deeply sorry that my action has caused them concern.
The third issue was whether there was “virtually no informed adjudication or rebuttal” and no “opposing and knowledgeable discussion.” This is a misunderstanding. I sought a rebuttal to be published at the same time as the letters — and a very effective rebuttal by Dr. Tim Blackwell was published along with the letters. Furthermore, rebuttals by other veterinarians are now being published. The CVJ was not painting any kind of picture of animal production — it was allowing veterinarians to express their views. In publishing Letters to the Editor, I refrain from deciding whose thoughts and opinions have merit and whose don’t. I leave it to readers to make that evaluation.
Personally, I have an unwavering commitment to animal agriculture, having gone into veterinary medicine from a farm background and having spent 40 years in research on diseases of farm animals and I am sorry that many colleagues were upset by the letters. Having extremist views expressed is part of a system of “letters to the editor” and I believe the strong responses indicate that the system is working to expose views that have little support and to present a “balanced reasoned response.”