While his editorial was intended to “draw me out,” my response is for the students, as I have learned that objective reasoning has little impact on PETA. First, the facts. When approached by the student group Students Promoting Animal Rights, or SPAR, I shared my concerns (via e-mail and in person) with the forum as proposed and offered an alternative.

I shared my interest in participating in a campus forum that approached animal welfare from a holistic perspective, one that acknowledged the integrated relationships of multiple stakeholders, engaged a number of faculty and encouraged an open debate. I offered on multiple occasions in my communications with SPAR to meet with students. I also offered to bring together a group of faculty from across campus with a range of views on the topic. In short, I stated that my objective was to further the educational process and not to participate in theater. I never received a response or an invitation to meet with the students.

My stance has not changed. I see no reason to interact with PETA, but I am always open to meet with students and others interested in a genuine discourse.

Now, why am I reticent to interact with PETA? I have received mixed messages from PETA before that gave me reason to question the objectives of the event. When I was invited to join McDonald’s animal welfare panel almost a decade ago, I received two communications from the organization.

The first letter congratulated me and anticipated a productive working relationship. The praise was short-lived as a second letter (from PETA to McDonald’s) was received. The letter disparaged me and other academics on the panel. I have countless additional examples of PETA’s disregard of science or selective use of science.

I am on record as the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources dean, a scientist, researcher and consultant as considering animal welfare, food safety, human health, worker welfare, the ethics of the cost of food and environmental issues from a holistic strategy that acknowledges multiple perspectives: scientific, environmental, cultural, social and ethical.

I have pushed and will continue to push agricultural producers and large food service chains for change in animal treatment. In fact, a national commodity leader called me a “radical” because of my involvement in pushing change.

I challenge producers to abide by science-based guidelines. Practices or actions that do not follow such guidelines should be scorned. If the public understands that producers, researchers and educators are asking the tough questions and genuinely seeking the right answers, we’ll keep a respected place at the table.

If not, we’ll be working with regulations that are driven more by emotion and political agendas.

MSU has taken great strides in the last decade to highlight the issue of animal welfare and adopted a holistic approach to understand it better.

The topic is integrated into our curriculum and we have recruited national experts in animal science, philosophy and ethics to advance a scientific exploration of the issue. We debate this issue every day in our classrooms and offices.

Within our college and throughout the university there are many different opinions on the issue. Our job is to create an environment where we can have a civil discourse based in science and one that respectfully values all opinions. This is what I offered and still offer to bring to students.

We at MSU remain committed to fostering an open and scientific debate on the evolving state of animal welfare and animal agriculture that is inclusive of the many voices that need to be heard.

Jeffery D. Armstrong is a guest columnist and dean of the College of Agricultural and Natural Resources. Reach him at armstroj@anr.msu.edu.