With A Necessary Second Opinion

After reading multiple responses to the ideas presented in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, I am now viewing these issues in a slightly different light.  Farmer in Chief was an article (or letter for the president-elect) written by Michael Pollan further stating his ideas, and giving ideas about what government and the president should be doing to change the situation within the food industry.  In response to the ideas presented by Pollan and others like him, Blake Hurst wrote The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals.  This article opposed Pollan’s thoughts, and presented the industry from the farmer’s perspective.  After both these articles were written, Neal Conan interviewed Pollan and on NPR, creating a conversion of agreement and disagreement over the issues at hand.

In his article, Pollan starts by explaining that the focuses of the president’s campaign, health care, energy, and climate change, are all related to the food industry, and so it is about time for the government to step in.  Pollan explains how food is now created from fossil fuels, and that a naturally contained system is now industrialized to be completely wasteful, contributing to our energy crisis and climate change.  His other main point is that diet is a leading cause of disease and death in our country, and that this system is decreasing healthfulness of our food, therefore contributing to our health care concerns.  Beyond just these points, Pollan creates a list of tasks for the first family and White House, such as using local food, posting menus, and creating a garden on part of the South Lawn.

            In Hurst’s article, he starts by explaining that everyone is believing they know all about the industry after reading these books, but really, people don’t know anything, and their points are completely unfair, and in fact, hypocritical.  People expect farmers to farm just like they did in the 1930s, yet no one hesitates to use the latest technology for their own careers. His other main points mostly point out the complete lack of knowledge of people who are preaching this problem, and the people who are changing the rules.  Hurst explains the practical use of genetically modified seeds, and how they decrease pollution.  Also, he explains that there are aspects of the industry such as indoor raising and caging that are actually implemented to help not only yield, but also the animals.

            In the conversation between the Hurst and Pollan, while Pollan portrays farmers as the naïve tools of the corporations, Hurst argues that as a farmer he consciously makes his own decisions and is in fact more educated in the truth behind the matter.

            I am now of two minds on this issue.  While I agree that there needs to be a change in the industry, and government should be stepping in to regulate and fix the system.  I think that Pollan was a bit too bias, and did not have the whole picture in his arguments.  Hurst has great arguments, and it is hard to deny his knowledge given he is at the heart of the industry as a farmer.  When reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma I feel bad for the farmers, believing they are oblivious and stuck in this system, but now looking back, I can see that this is just how Pollan made them out to be.  In truth, as Hurst stated, they are aware of the system and are doing what they can to make their living, but also to protect the earth, such as by using GMO seeds.  Also, while it seems horrible for the animals to be cooped up inside or crated, I was unaware of the safety this provided the animals.  It seems like it must be a better system to crate piglets than to let them be squashed by their mothers.  These are the situations in which people must gather more knowledge before assuming everything they hear is the complete truth.  This is a situation that makes me want to step back and view the whole picture of every statement Pollan says.  Such as in the organic food industry, it seems perfect, but if there are fungi, insects and diseases on these plants given the lack of pesticides, could this also pose a problem?  I don’t know the answers to all of these questions, but it is clear that you must get the whole picture before believing everything you hear.  Pollan is correct that it is time for government to step in though, and certainly America needs an education on food.  As Pollan stated, education on tobacco was able to change the American normal, so it is time to educate on eating “right,” whatever that actually means.  As far as Pollan’s extreme idea’s for the White House and first family, I think these are unnecessary and over the top.  It is not going to happen, and it doesn’t need to happen.  We should focus on bigger issues like education and food safety.

Do you think that it is special circumstance that Blake Hurst is so aware of the whole situation, or do you think other farmers do feel trapped and unhappy?

Why do you think Michael Pollan attacks GMO seeds if they really can help decrease fertilizer use, and decrease pollution?

Is it possible to be in the middle on this issue, or is it really a black and white situation as Pollan and Hurst are explaining it?

PollanHurst

vs

Pollan and Hurst Debate the Future of Agriculture [Photograph], Retrieved Feb 13, 2011, from: http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/feature/588