In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 2

(This is the second 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.  The first part of my response can be found here.)

To continue my critique of Hurt's article, I'd like to now discuss the way he characterizes the acute need for the continuation of industrial animal agriculture.  I purposely chose not to deal with this topic in my first post as I knew it would require its own space and time.

Part of the problem with agriculture today, as Nicholas Kristof points out in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, is that the profession has largely lost its soul over the past several decades as industrial farming practices have taken hold.  This is not to say that there aren't any family farming operations in this country--in fact, there are many--but the way that we view the production of food has changed dramatically.  There is no place where this is more true than in animal agriculture.

It's quite clear from Hurst's article that he is no animal rights activist.  In his view, animals are commodities that are to be raised in a manner that maximizes the financial return for farmers with very little (legitimate) concern paid to the environmental and food safety costs incurred by this kind of production.

This is part of the lost soul of American agriculture.  Where once farmers treated animals well in order to ensure a long, healthy and productive life, now many farmers choose to treat their animals as badly as possible while still turning a profit.  We have lost respect for the key role animals have played (and always will play) in the history of our agricultural progression.

In addition, his assertion that industrial animal farming is both more environmentally sound and produces a safer supply of meat is just plain ridiculous.  What he fails to mention in his discussion about manure use is that most of the shit (literally) that is produced by factory feedlots is contaminated with dangerous microbes, antibiotic resistant bacteria and unsafe nitrate levels. Spreading this manure over many acres (as Hurst says farmers love to do) helps to further contaminate our air and water supply.  I'm not convinced that this is really better than the "dozens of tons" of synthetic fertilizers that Hurst says would be used instead.

One thing I've never heard of is someone getting sick from the hamburger they purchased from a local farmer (not to say it has never happened).  Unfortunately, what I have heard more and more about lately is people getting very sick from factory produced meat.  For example, on August 6, 2009, nearly one million pounds of salmonellosis tainted ground beef was recalled from Beef Packers, Inc. (owned by Cargill).  So far the FDA has not even released information on where exactly this beef went (even though 28 people in three western states have already reported salmonella-type infections.)

On the other hand, eating less meat and consuming less dairy is not as simple and straight-forward as some make it out to be.   Should most people eat much less meat and consume much less dairy? Of course.  Not only are diets high in these products unhealthy, they also drive the demand for large amounts of cheap animal products.

But in my opinion, a truly sustainable food system consists of both crop and animal farmers selling their products directly to consumers and to businesses and institutions (restaurants, hospitals, school districts, prisons, etc.) that have a commitment to serving locally produced food.

Lets face it: being able to eat a strictly meatless diet is only possible because of worldwide industrial food production.  (Not to mention that it is a diet only able to be adopted by people who can afford, financially or health wise, to be so picky about their food.)

I'm not saying that it isn't possible to eat a local meatless diet--although I suspect it would be difficult through those long, cold New England winters I grew up in--but that to assume this type of diet is a realistic possibility for everyone on earth is naive and underestimates the dramatic changes that would need to take place to make that possible.

I'm sorry, but I will just never be able to feel as good about eating an off-season pepper from Argentina as I can about eating a hamburger from one of my neighbors.

At the same time, we cannot continue to produce meat the way that Hurst so adamantly supports.  It's destructive to our environment, it's bad for our health and it lacks any soulful connection to the way we used to view food production.  And despite Hurst's claim that "people will go hungry" without a steady supply of factory produced meat, I think everyone knows that no one needs to eat meat (or dairy for that matter) to survive.

So where does this leave us?  At a really difficult sticking point, in my opinion.

One thing that I think everyone needs to realize is that consuming animal products is a privilege, not a right.  We should not assume that each and every meal we eat should contain meat or dairy or both.  Because, of course, it doesn't have to.

I'd love to tell you all to only purchase meat and dairy from farmers you know and trust.  But the reality is that locally produced meat is outrageously (but justifiably) expensive, and out of reach of the majority of the population.

What I would ask everyone to do is think about if they really want to support the type of animal agriculture Hurst thinks we need to survive.  Why don't we prove him wrong?  Why don't we show him that there is no demand for factory farmed animal products, that we value farmers who haven't abandoned their soulful roots for the lure of mass produced profits.

This will require that we go without sometimes, that we say, "you know what? I really feel like a steak tonight, but since the farmers market isn't until this Saturday, I'll just have some eggplant and pasta instead."

It's supply and demand people.  If we show farmers like Hurst that we would rather not eat meat than eat the kind of meat he advocates for, things will change.  Slowly but surely, they'll change.

But it's up to us.

(Photo credit: Nicholas_T on Flickr)