In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 1

(This post is the first in a two-part response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" article written by Blake Hurst, a self-admitted "industrial" farmer from Missouri, a few weeks back for The Journal of American Enterprise Institute.)

More than simply being a piece praising modern technology and the rise of industrial agriculture, "The Omnivore's Delusion" is a show of utter frustration toward those the author calls "Agri-intellectuals" and their constant indictments against anything that is not small-scale, local and organic.

Although I don't agree with everything Hurst says (like his assertion that sustainable food advocates are decidedly anti-technology), I certainly understand and empathize with where he's coming from.

But what I think neither Hurst nor the "Agri-intellectuals" understand is that we have two distinct agricultural systems in the United States, and we need both of them equally.

Those of us involved in the sustainable food movement are drawn to the cause, largely, because we reject the idea that food should be an untraceable commodity with nothing but a multi-million dollar corporation standing behind it.  We like to view food as having (to steal some language from one of my favorite organizations) a face, a place and a taste.

If you really think about that, it's somewhat of a selfish goal.  We are imposing our values onto the people who grow our food, largely without the knowledge of what it takes to actually get that food onto our plates.  Thankfully, there are an increasing number of farmers who share our food values and choose to grow either organically or sustainably, and almost exclusively for local markets.  But we must understand that, for farmers like Hurst, this is neither a practical nor desirable opportunity.

And Hurst isn't saying he's anti-local or anti-sustainable; in fact, he makes the case that the industrial methods he uses increases the sustainability of his farm.  What's he's saying is that he's tired of other people telling him how to do his job.  I for one don't blame him, because whether the public realizes it or not, we need farmers like Hurst to survive.

With all of that said, here are a few points on which Hurst and I don't necessarily see eye to eye, and a more detailed explanation about the need for two kinds of agriculture:

-Perhaps my greatest frustration with the article is the way Hurst seems to think that sustainable food advocates don't know that industrial farms can also be family farms that can also be sustainable farms.  The truth is, most of us do understand this but also make the distinction between what we would call an industrial family farm and what we would call a factory or corporate farm.

This is an important distinction, people.  While the sustainable production methods Hurst describes using on his farm (no-till, cover crop rotation, etc.) are admirable, I think they are also rare in the realm of large-scale farming.  We know, partially through the unfortunate development of "dead zones" in areas like the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay, that agriculture operations throughout the country are using herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers at rates far above what they should be.  At least for me, my problem is not that farmers use these products, but that many of them abuse them with widespread negative environmental and even public health consequences.

-But I the same time, I don't want Hurst to have to farm like his grandfather did without being able to use diesel powered tractors and synthetic fertilizers, if he chooses to.  And as much as it pains me to admit this, the local food movement is not currently in a position to feed everyone in this country (or any country for that matter).  Putting aside the fact that local food is f'ing expensive and prices out the vast majority of the population (or in other words, is inaccessible to LOTS of people), the larger problem is that there is no where near the processing, distribution and transportation infrastructure needed to expand the reach of local food consumption.

Despite knowing all too well that most processed and mass-produced food is artificially cheap (whether because of corn subsidies offered by our government or the use of a vast and often exploited pool of illegal migrant labor), the fact remains that the majority of people in the United States depend on this kind of food for survival.

There are currently more than 35 million people in this country who, on a daily basis, do not know where their next meal is coming from.  I wish, with every single bone in my body, that we could grow enough local food to feed all of these people.  But the reality is even if there were the mechanisms in place to grow, process and distribute this food (which there are not), most farmers who sell locally depend on consumers paying a premium price for what they grow, and thus, would not be able to make it affordable for the millions of people who suffer through food insecurity.

Yes, it is a structural problem that makes highly processed, large-scale agricultural products more expensive than their local, sustainable counterparts.  In a perfect world, everything would be local and fresh and cheap.  But that is not the world we currently live in, no matter how much I wish it was.

Whether we want to acknowledge this fact or not, at this moment in the continuing evolution of how we eat, we need farmers like Hurst to feed us.

(To be continued.  I realized as I was writing this that I have more to say than one post will allow, so please check back for the second installment soon!)

(Photo credit: ajagendorf25 on Flickr)