The Omnivore's Delusion

I thought about posting this in the organic/conventional thread, and maybe it ought to be merged, but what I found interesting was a little different.

This piece is written by an industrial family farmer, and I guess I kind of agree with him that such a label seems almost paradoxical in much of the food debate:

On the desk in front of me are a dozen books, all hugely critical of present-day farming. Farmers are often given a pass in these books, painted as either naïve tools of corporate greed, or economic nullities forced into their present circumstances by the unrelenting forces of the twin grindstones of corporate greed and unfeeling markets.

The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals

He doesn't seem to care much for Pollan, as you might expect. I'm not knowledgeable enough to critique his argument, but I appreciated his perspective on organic and industrial agriculture.

I get the impression that Mr. Hurst and his buddies at the AEI didn't read the same Pollan book that I did.

Hurst refutes points that Pollan doesn't make and Pollan spends a ton of time and citations refuting arguments that Hurst is making here.

Didn't read the book, so I can't judge the fairness of his critique of Pollan, but that is a pretty even-tempered defense of "industrial agriculture."

Blake Hurst is my new hero.

His insight, opinions, and facts are refreshing.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm always suspicious of the source of these types of articles, especially the underlying political agenda they may have.

I quick search on Sourcewatch gave me all I need to know about this online publication:

"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business, conservative think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism[1], and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives. "

Although the author of this article made some interesting points about using technology and industrial chemicals in today's farming, he also seemed to be providing arguments in favor of big-ag and the companies that profit from it. It's interesting that the article is form the "farmer's perspective" and I loved the "about the author" piece at the end - "Blake Hurst is a farmer in Missouri. In a few days he will spend the next six weeks on a combine. " How can we take offense to this hard-working American farmer? Politics, politics, politics....

Who is Blake Hurst?

From the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation website:

Vice President
BLAKE HURST
30208 150th Street
Westboro, MO 64498
(Atchison County)
Blake Hurst was re-elected vice-president of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation during the organization's 93rd annual meeting in 2007. He was first elected to the position in 2003. Hurst served on the Missouri Farm Bureau board of directors between 1994 and 2002, representing District 1 in the northwest area of the state. He is a past Young Farmers & Ranchers (YF&R) state committee chairman and served on the American Farm Bureau YF&R committee. He also serves as Atchison County Farm Bureau president. He and his wife, Julie, operate a row crop farm with his father, Charles, brothers Kevin and Brooks, nephew Brooks, and son-in-law Ryan Harms. All row crop fields utilize no-till. Their daughter, Lee Harms, is head grower for the greenhouse operation that includes four acres, two of which are under roof. Hurst Greenery is a wholesale greenhouse, selling bedding plants in four states. Hurst is a member of the Missouri corn and soybean growers associations. He is also a freelance writer with numerous agricultural articles published in Reader's Digest, Wilson Quarterly and Wall Street Journal. He is the author of a book, Real Life, featuring a collection of his essays. The Hursts have three children and a grandchild.

looks like a credible and honorable man. Curious to see how his background is somehow spun into a negative though.

jimswside wrote:looks like a credible and honorable man. Curious to see how his background is somehow spun into a negative though.

I'm not implying that he is not credible for the stances he is taking. He is the alternative perspective to the critique by writers like Pollan. His article or views aren't negative, rather supportive - that is to the agenda he chooses to support.

Unfortunately, there is a political line drawn between the forces that support big ag and the forces that support small ag practices (over simplifying it for the sake of space but I'm sure you all know where I'm going) and the consumer is stuck in the middle. We (consumers) are slowly re-discovering food and farming practices and it's up to us to decide what we'll buy and why we buy it. It's my opinion that the consumer needs to remain skeptical, yet open in the pursuit of knowledge, understanding full well that what they read may have a hidden agenda.

I don't care which side of the argument anyone is on - I straddle that line myself often, thinking that it is my right to not have to choose a side. Both sides have legitimate pros and cons and can argue their side against the other. I know to what side I lean but I'm no absolutist.

Blake Hurst is a farmer that seems to share the same political/policy views as big/industrial ag. That's fine, just understand that while you read his arguments in a publication that is run by a partisan entity disguising themselves as a "think tank." What I'm saying is that this is not a subjective article. Cheers.

I don't really care for the guy's opinion, but it's not fair to make facile suggestions that anyone involved with a "think tank" is just a political hack. Public intellecuals and academics ultimately are judged by their peers based on the quality of their research and thought, whether they are associated with "liberal" or "conservative" institutions, departments, etc.

tyrus wrote:
Blake Hurst is a farmer that seems to share the same political/policy views as big/industrial ag. That's fine, just understand that while you read his arguments in a publication that is run by a partisan entity disguising themselves as a "think tank." What I'm saying is that this is not a subjective article. Cheers.

its all good,

I think alot of the times both sides of an issue like to try to discredit a source expressing a view oposite their own rather than open their minds, and hear both sides.

I think like most people, I dont enjoy being preached to about what I should and shouldnt do from folks perched on a soap box(I tend to purposely do the opposite of what I am being preached(must be that catholic upbringing). I guess, I feel the bulk of what I perceive as preaching has been from one side only, & tt was just refreshing to hear a differing viewpoint.

Also I think Mr. Hurst is just trying to get accross a view different than what the New York Times would publish.

I'm with you, Jim. It's a long article that addresses complex issues, so haven't fully absorbed it yet. But my initial read led me to believe that it was a well-reasoned, thought provoking article that addresses a side of an argument that gets little media play, at least in the media I tend to read. I thank Aaron for linking to it, and look forward to doing a more through read later.

I agree with Kennyz. More homework for me, but exposure to different opinions is good for forming one's own opinion.

JeffB wrote:I don't really care for the guy's opinion, but it's not fair to make facile suggestions that anyone involved with a "think tank" is just a political hack.

Is this comment supposed to put me in my place? "Facile suggestion" / "political hack?"

If you felt my comments were superficial or glib let me be clear:

Yes - I feel it's perfectly fair to make a *sincere* suggestion that anyone involved (clarification: involvement here is writing said article) with a "think tank" that was specifically created to support certain political beliefs is, by default, being political in nature (regardless of partisan politics). This publication is political by design, as is this article. I am not implying right or wrong, just stating a fact. I did not question is credibility as a writer/author and did not call him a "hack."

I agree with the above posters that alternative viewpoints are necessary and that both sides have a political agenda - it's up to you to decide what the "facts" really are.

Kennyz wrote:I'm with you, Jim. It's a long article that addresses complex issues, so haven't fully absorbed it yet. But my initial read led me to believe that it was a well-reasoned, thought provoking article that addresses a side of an argument that gets little media play, at least in the media I tend to read. I thank Aaron for linking to it, and look forward to doing a more through read later.

I also appreciate the link, I wouldnt have found it otherwise. The biggest thing I learned was the portion about erosion, and the top soil, and how it is stated that the use of herbisides aloowed his farm to be "no-till" farm, and stopped him personally from sending tons of top soil down stream.

This is a complicated issue with many layers of cause and effect scenarios. No simple/textbook answer or way to live ones life imho.

jimswside wrote:I also appreciate the link, I wouldnt have found it otherwise. The biggest thing I learned was the portion about erosion, and the top soil, and how it is stated that the use of herbisides aloowed his farm to be "no-till" farm, and stopped him personally from sending tons of top soil down stream.

Although, he never addresses the issue of where his herbicides wind up. I don't think they turn into rainbows.

jimswside wrote:

Kennyz wrote:I'm with you, Jim. It's a long article that addresses complex issues, so haven't fully absorbed it yet. But my initial read led me to believe that it was a well-reasoned, thought provoking article that addresses a side of an argument that gets little media play, at least in the media I tend to read. I thank Aaron for linking to it, and look forward to doing a more through read later.

I also appreciate the link, I wouldnt have found it otherwise. The biggest thing I learned was the portion about erosion, and the top soil, and how it is stated that the use of herbisides aloowed his farm to be "no-till" farm, and stopped him personally from sending tons of top soil down stream.

This is a complicated issue with many layers of cause and effect scenarios. No simple/textbook answer or way to live ones life imho.

Jim, I agree with you that these links are appreciated. I understand that on a larger scale farm, the farmer typically uses herbicides to accomplish no-till farming. In addition to soil run-off, tilling can also lead to damaging your soil quality over time, especially those valuable little microorganisms that make the soil "healthy." Many small scale farmers will also use the "no-till" method and improve their soil by adding compost and mulching as the seasons progress. Unfortunately, as Mr Hurst mentions, it's cost (and supply) prohibitive for a large scale farmer to use this compost/mulch method so they have to rely on technology (herbicides) to get the soil back to a healthy level for the next crop. I'll stand that this is neither a bad thing or a good thing, it's just the way it is done.

I would also like to mention as a clarification that members of my family have been large scale farmers and I also have family that works for government agencies. I understand the challenges the farmers face and the technology that gets them excited. I'm not on a soap box for one way v. the other but rather would like to understand the facts and the practices on both sides. From a personal perspective, for my own garden, I don't have the same issues as large scale farmers so I don't need the chemicals that they need; therefore, I've spent a lot of time learning how to grow things organically. You'd be surprised but these small scale organic practices and products can be hard to find. Most of the time, I've run into information and research that has trickled down from the advancements that big ag has made. The info is fine but I don't need most of it and it's actually the other stuff (small ag/personal farming) that seems to be lacking.

Tyrus,

You observed the author's affilitaion and said that's "all I need to know." Maybe I misunderstood. However, your explanation seems consistent with what I thought you meant. I didn't even consider attempting to "put you in your place." Nor did I say anywhere that you used the word "hack." I wrote that your comments suggested as much. As the reader, that's how I took it. It's ironic that we seem to agree on the substance but disagree about semantics.

Peace

eatchicago wrote: he never addresses the issue of where his herbicides wind up. I don't think they turn into rainbows.

I dont think they necessarily turn into goblins either.

tyrus wrote:You'd be surprised but these small scale organic practices and products can be hard to find. Most of the time, I've run into information and research that has trickled down from the advancements that big ag has made. The info is fine but I don't need most of it and it's actually the other stuff (small ag/personal farming) that seems to be lacking.

I also find it interesting that we find a defense of industrial agricultural practices to be a breath of fresh air.

Yes, finally someone came to Goliath's defense. That pesky little David was getting annoying.

Industrial agriculture is the de-facto standard, the 900lb. gorilla. They receive nothing but support and defense from the consumer marketplace, their large coffers, the government, and other large businesses. I don't get how people feel relieved when the first real criticism of these practices is attacked.

So, it makes me wonder, why the attack? (And I do believe the attack is a mis-fire, a shot across the bow that misses Pollan's major theses and sets up straw men along the way). I belive that the attack comes from fear. Mr. Hurst says he's not making any changes "unless the consumer absolutely forces my hand". It's a change he doesn't want to make because it'll affect his bottom line and cost him money to make changes. And he obviously believes the threat is real. Why? Because a lot of what Mr. Pollan rights about is right. Not all of it, but a lot of it. It's backed up by good science and a lot of other agricultural experts.

I believe he's protecting himself, his livelihood (and the interests of AEI) and rightfully so. David has a nasty little slingshot.

Best,
Michael

jimswside wrote:

eatchicago wrote: he never addresses the issue of where his herbicides wind up. I don't think they turn into rainbows.

I dont think they necessarily turn into goblins either.

I can keep sending you these until you cry uncle.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_4501433/

uncle....!

After work I am going to buy a bubble to live in, throw away my smokers, stop eating meat, and start shopping at Whole Foods, and Green City Market.

Further regarding the idea that Big Ag = conservative, it's been my own personal, anectdodal, probably insignificant, observation that many (in my experience most) of the organic, natural, etc. family farmers with whom I deal are tremendously conservative, both politically and socially. That's not my side, but I buy the stuff happily anyway. Big business very often takes up both sides of the political aisle, with alternative, small, "good," whatever business served by neither conservative nor liberal politicians.

jimswside wrote:uncle....!

After work I am going to buy a bubble to live in, throw away my smokers, stop eating meat, and start shopping at Whole Foods, and Green City Market.

Oh, you're right. I get it.

Maybe I should just close my eyes, open my mouth, and eat whatever they want to feed me, no matter how they make it. After all, they know what's good for me and my family. I don't care if they torture that pig and dip it in mercury, as long as it tastes great!

As you can see, hyperbolic sarcasm doesn't serve either side of this debate.

eatchicago wrote:
Oh, you're right. I get it.

Maybe I should just close my eyes, open my mouth, and eat whatever they want to feed me, no matter how they make it. After all, they know what's good for me and my family. I don't care if they torture that pig and dip it in mercury, as long as it tastes great!

As you can see, hyperbolic sarcasm doesn't serve either side of this debate.

who is this "they" you speak of? "they" sound pretty evil.

fear mongering doesnt do this issue any good either.

I know where you stand, & I think you probably know what side of the fence i am on, so its probably best we agree to disagree.

I just enjoyed the article, because it presented an opinion that is typically shouted down, and not heard on this board, and elsewhere imho.

jimswside wrote:

eatchicago wrote:
Oh, you're right. I get it.

Maybe I should just close my eyes, open my mouth, and eat whatever they want to feed me, no matter how they make it. After all, they know what's good for me and my family. I don't care if they torture that pig and dip it in mercury, as long as it tastes great!

As you can see, hyperbolic sarcasm doesn't serve either side of this debate.

who is this "they" you speak of? "they" sound pretty evil.

fear mongering doesnt do this issue any good either.

Exactly my point. I was making the opposite hyperbolic statement to illustrate that it's useless and silly.

To wit: I may disagree with you and shop at WF and GCM, but I own a smoker and eat pork from it regularly. And I'm sure you don't want anyone poisoning your food. Anyone who disagrees with you is not a radical who wants to live in a bubble.

I support a much more practical approach and a cogent discussion. I encourage everyone to read the original article linked AND Mr. Pollan's book that Mr. Hurst is rebutting and make their own decisions.

Best,
Michael

I guess it comes down to my opinion that I dont think my food is being poisoned simply because I dont pony up the $$$ to buy organics.

perhaps the whole "right and wrong", "good and bad", "David and Goliath", "informed vs uninformed", stuff rubs me the wrong way. I tend to always root for the bad guy.

eatchicago wrote:I support a much more practical approach and a cogent discussion. I encourage everyone to read the original article linked AND Mr. Pollan's book that Mr. Hurst is rebutting and make their own decisions.

Best,
Michael

Or just invest 2 hours of your time as see the movie Food Inc as the alternative view to big ag. It's basically a cliff's notes version of Pollan's books and Super Size Me rolled into a documentary. None of these are an end-all be-all from my perspective but they opened my eyes a little and made me think a little more about most of the issues addressed in this thread.

JeffB wrote:Further regarding the idea that Big Ag = conservative, it's been my own personal, anectdodal, probably insignificant, observation that many (in my experience most) of the organic, natural, etc. family farmers with whom I deal are tremendously conservative, both politically and socially. That's not my side, but I buy the stuff happily anyway. Big business very often takes up both sides of the political aisle, with alternative, small, "good," whatever business served by neither conservative nor liberal politicians.

Like these these conservative folks? I agree, though - generally speaking, it's the small farmers who are the most conservative and Big Business that's really neither.

jimswside wrote:I guess it comes down to my opinion that I dont think my food is being poisoned simply because I dont pony up the $$$ to buy organics.

I can't speak for others on this thread but I'm not so sure the issue (or solution) is only buying organics. Even Pollan suggests the idea that one day, we'll have organic Coke but that doesn't mean its going to be good for you.

I hope that one day, we can find a middle ground where the quality and safety of our food is high, the environment is less polluted, people's health is improving, farmers can make a living, and we can all afford it.

I believe that farmers are not evil and they don't want to poison us. I also believe that large corporate entities that develop, manufacture and sell pesticides/herbicides and a bunch of other "cides" have a bottom line that may not always include our health or the environment.

I don't think there's a black and white answer or a side to take yet, as it's a moving target evidenced by the growing big organic companies and the emergence of more sustainable non-organic local farmers. The line is blurry and the best we can do is educate ourselves in the meantime.

tyrus wrote:
I hope that one day, we can find a middle ground where the quality and safety of our food is high, the environment is less polluted, people's health is improving, farmers can make a living, and we can all afford it.

I believe that farmers are not evil and they don't want to poison us. I also believe that large corporate entities that develop, manufacture and sell pesticides/herbicides and a bunch of other "cides" have a bottom line that may not always include our health or the environment.

I don't think there's a black and white answer or a side to take yet, as it's a moving target evidenced by the growing big organic companies and the emergence of more sustainable non-organic local farmers. The line is blurry and the best we can do is educate ourselves in the meantime.

very well put, I agree.