its hard to trust either side 100 % on this issue imho. Both sides have agendas, & possibly their financial livelyhood influencing their answers. I take each side with a grain of salt, and try to make the best choices for my family, and those are often times dictated by money in the budget(people can have an opinion that I care about regarding my choices when they pay my bills, or walk a day in my shoes) .

I have enjoyed a 2 sided debate, vs the way this subject had been "discussed" on LTH previously. It appears one side does not like this subject debated, and think that their way is the right way, and should be accepted as fact, and those that dont follow that way are "missing out", and are ignorant.

Like I said before soap box preaching & demonizing falls on deaf ears with me, makes me want to go out and eat condor meat, and baby seal.


edited for spelling, and grammar

Jim, I hear that condor meat tastes just like spotted owl.

auxen1 wrote:Jim, I hear that condor meat tastes just like spotted owl.

mmm.... condor egg omlette, and spotted owl sausage....

Eat Chicago/Michael,

Wanted to come back to your links referencing the misdeeds related to glyphosate. You peeked my interest so I googled one of the links and did a bit of reading during the current thunderstorm.

In regards to falsification of lab results, am I right that a lab that did testing for hundreds of companies and used by the various manufacturers of glyphosate was found to have been sending on bogus results for a lot of their work? Many of the companies, manufacturers of many different chemicals, had to then repeat the lab results. The companies owner went to jail. Do you think that it's misleading without more information to suggest more than the lab itself is tainted?

And, links supplied to address the challenge that glyphosate is harmful to humans looks to be about another chemical entirely. Am I correct that the links address surfactants (additive that makes a chemical stick to its desired target) and not glyphosate itself? Some surfactants can be bad, bad news and persist in the environment. But if this is the case I suspect that its off point and doesn't relate to what we were talking about.

Let me finish by saying that the elimination of all synthetic chemistries in agriculture is fine with me and I'd like to see that in my lifetime. Especially some of the nasties used in food production in the humid tropics...let's tackle them first....and certain insecticides. But there's a balance that needs to be struck until we get there that involves producing enough food for everyone to eat three squares a day.

Demonization of a product because you don't like who invented it seems agenda driven and not knowledge driven. From what I've bumped into online this afternoon, I'm seeing more of the former in regards to glyphosate.

I still buy Bayer aspirin.

auxen1,

I had thought that our exchange of Thurs.-Fri. kind of left things off at an appropriate ending. The links that you asked for and I presented didn't cause you great concern, and I was fine with that. I can answer your pointed questions, but I don't think that it really contributes to this discussion.

I don't want to be pushed into the corner of "under no circumstances should a chemical be used". I am not a 100% organic buyer, nor do I believe it's an overall solution. I have never made this assertion here. I believe there is significant room for reform and change in the US food systems. I do not believe that it will happen through demonization or soap-box preaching, (to quote Jim). I'm trying very hard to avoid that.

I have said more than once in this thread that I am not alleging Mr. Hursts practices are dangerous or more environmentally dangerous than his tilling operations. But, I have also said that I just don't want to take his word for it. I'm sure the dry cleaner down the block from me would tell me that everything they're doing is clean and tidy too.

My original point was that Mr. Hurst's piece fell odd to me when he essentially said, "the soil used to go down river, now it doesn't because I have herbicides". I think most laymen would read what he said and ask, "which herbicides? and where do they go?" Not an attack, not a demonization. A request for more information where I felt he glossed over it.

Still, this is a side point to me that arose out of Jim pointing out that he learned something and I felt the article fell short of educating by just making an assertion.

Still, that's a side issue to my biggest problem with the article. My biggest issue, and the point that I originally made in this thread, is that Mr. Hurst attacks points that Pollan never made.

To wit:

Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemna wrote:Perhaps the greatest challenge to farming organically on an industrial scale is controlling weeds without the use of chemical herbicides. Greenways tackles its weeds with frequent and carefully timed tilling.....But this approach, which I discovered is typical of large-scale organic operations, represents a compromise at best....

...he goes on to make Mr. Hurst's exact point. Then, he goes on, rather cogently, to say that he believes we can do better work in achieving the ideal that you and I both agree is a positive: fewer synthetic chemicals.

This is why I didn't like the article. I don't think he read the same book I did, or that he rose to the level of the arguments Mr. Pollan presented.

Mr. Pollan presents an ideal, and he calls it an ideal. He recognizes challenges and believes we should not accept the status quo, as it is pushed and endorsed by expensive corporate lobbyists, as the only possible way to do things.

An ideal may be impossible to achieve, but that doesn't mean we should not present it and pose the challenge to achieve it.

Best,
Michael

Michael,

Nicely reasoned post. Thank you. I'm afraid we're in violent agreement on many of the issues.

I came back to the glyphosate links because they (may) represent yet another myth that has evolved into truth or counterknowledge. And as such create a real barrier to honest dialogue. So I felt it important to bring up what I found.

The concept of not accepting the status quo is an interesting one (and the accusation infuriates farmers like Hurst to the point of writing Op Eds). Not accepting the status quo facilitated food production to the point that we could migrate off of the farm and to the city to work in factories and offices. It has allowed safer and more bountiful farming such that we can help feed other parts of the world.

Yes, mankind has put unbelievable stress on our natural environment and agriculture is one of the villains, but not accepting the status quo has allowed us in the last couple of decades to take monumental steps to reverse some of that damage.

Con til represents not accepting the status quo. Converting to con til means a new way of farming and changes to equipment. The status quo would seemingly be far easier.

Con til is on millions of acres, representing a huge environmental undertaking by production farmers in only the last decade.

And its just one example of profound changes in agriculture underway today.

Production agriculture has plenty wrong with it and Hurst skates by those issues that don't help his argument .

But I think that he has justification to be pissed at Michael Pollan.

It's a deliberately polarizing tactic for Pollan to say that we shouldn't accept the status quo (which accuses production agriculture of accepting the status quo). Similar to his saying that companies like Monsanto should "come join us in solving massive food and environmental challenges" (thereby suggesting that's not what they are doing).

When you work incredibly hard at not accepting the status quo and create positive change, and then you're demonized by a writer who seems incredibly diligent but then chooses to ignore too many facts that you know he must know, well you really have to start thinking about motive.

The ideal and the challenge have been out there for years, for generations. And production agriculture with all of its blemishes and failings has been working tirelessly to approach that challenge.

The idea that the ideal is new takes some hubris.

auxen1 wrote:The idea that the ideal is new takes some hubris.

The idea that the status quo, that Big-Ag wants to lecture is really the epitome of hubris.

From my tiny little cubicle, it is a really interesting observation to see how threatened the "system" feels at the perceived power of Michael Pollan and his merry band of followers. It is surely out of panic that we are now being told that, almost literally, the world will go hungry if we walk his path. I am not discounting the sincerity of anyone's feelings or beliefs who really thinks this way. Maybe you are right, just as surely as maybe the people who look fervently for a red cow may also be right. We all take our chances on what we believe.

As Michael nicely summarized above, people like Pollan have taken a good look at the way things are, and, well were not very impressed with that picture. Let's for instance, read the Wikipedia summary of Smithfield Foods.* This is not a good system. So, some try to do it otherwise.

We can be told, ad nauseum on this Forum, that those who try to do it otherwise are, well what is the title of this thread, "delusional". Oh, all sorts of fancy sounding, scientific, calculated-ish questions will be presented. They are not possible and the world will starve. Right? Harry Rhodes and his Growing Home operation are mocked, or at least downplayed, but nowhere in the world presented by Big Ag is such operations envisioned. Come on, the message being driven across is that we just, absolutely, just, cannot do things the way Pollan and others advocate, the way Harry Rhodes and Will Allen and Tom Phillpot and anyone else is trying. That science and an ability to know is only on one side and it is not the side of sustainable. Come, are they really doomed to failure?

I'm holding out hope for my guys, 'cause so far, my guys are doing a damn good job. Is the job my guys do ideal. There's affordability and accessibility problems for sure. In many ways, it is a lot more work to get your food my way (but that work can be fun too.) The results of your guys are myriad, and as noted several times in this thread, have hardly been addressed. To think that those guys are my future is not a vision I share.

*OK, Wikipedia is not the best resource per se, but I happened to have done some pretty extensive reporting on Smithfield in my professional capacity and I know that what is shown here is a good slice of what's happened.

It is surely out of panic that we are now being told that, almost literally, the world will go hungry if we walk his path

This is what I find so unconvincing about their arguments; they basically come down to, "Man changing how we raise things produced this bounty, so we don't dare change anything more about it or everybody might starve!" To me that's like Detroit arguing that the 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass is so perfect, if you try to improve its gas mileage, the highway system will collapse. Hey, Big Ag, your customers are noticing that a lot of your products taste like the containers they're shrinkwrapped in and they're raising concerns about the way you raise them. Quit whining and respond to that market pressure with further innovation. No industry has ever improved its position by attacking its customers rather than its problems. At this rate Michael Pollan will wind up running for president.

Vital,

Your argument is going to get much stronger when you're able to plausibly connect your handful of examples and vision to...

how your vision will replace the calories lost through significantly lower production. Please be specific.

And, rather than the casual "a bunch of urban gardeners in Chicago grow vegetables and so loss of arable land is not an issue," put a fact or two to that claim. If urban land was 100% maximized this afternoon, what sort of food production would that equate to and what % of the whole would that constitute?

Please explain from where the labor will be sourced when we revert to smaller farms with less technology since we're well into 100 years of the urban migration going the other way. Who are the kids that we're going to use to do the hard labor required on farm? What will they be paid?

Also explain how land erosion and fossil fuel usage will be lower with the system that you're talking about.

And then explain how when the U.S. population doubles this century from 300 million to 600 million, your vision will increase total food production in parallel with approximately 25% less land than we have today.

I know its a separate discussion from "taste" but it will provide a common understanding since I don't understand today how your vision address our most basic food requirement.

Mike,

Quit whining and respond to that market pressure with further innovation. No industry has ever improved its position by attacking its customers rather than its problems. At this rate Michael Pollan will wind up running for president.

While I don't disagree with you that a lot of industrial veggies and other products are tasteless, your representation that "big ag" isn't innovating is sheer nonsense. You'd have to know next to nothing about agriculture to make such an assertion. (which isn't a dig at you Mike, I know that it's a commonly held belief).

It's pretty easy to advocate what you advocate when the knowledge level is low. Information and data have a way of complicating things.

Take a stab at my questions. Google around. Visit some land grant ag school sites. Visit the USDA data resource site. Build a case.

I don't really believe they're not innovating all the time, though I doubt I like the direction as often as you might, but that's my point-- I find their we-must-keep-the-sky-from-falling argument against pressure from the Pollans and others unconvincing. The reality is, they just don't like the idea of their customers telling them to innovate in a particular direction that might reduce quarterly growth.

Tough! Their— and your— arguments will get better when you can make them in a way that responds to the way their customers are starting to change. Breaking out in a Nixonian sweat complete with enemies list is not a longterm survival tactic for any industry. It reminds me of when Bud tried to fight the microbrewing sector with radio ads making fun of pumpernickel beers. A much better tactic was Miller's-- they bought Red Hook and got in the game.

I think the point is that with a bit of work you can shift the "I believe" discussion to an "I know discussion." But ignore the basic production questions and continue to say that you're unconvinced.

Likening an industry you don't know very well to really bad republicans is certainly another way to go.

And am I correct with the Miller example that you'd support big Ag buying the tiny growers and producers that you advocate? That works for you?

It's all making sense to me.

My name is Farmer Fleeceyou, and I just wanted to thank all of you for the energy you've all put into this discussion, calories that are easily restored by eating my delicious Michigan apples and sugar beets for the reasonable price of $6 per quaint wicker mini-basket at your local church parking lot or nature museum. Please continue to build those appetites, my friends!

- F.F.

I think the point is that with a bit of work you can shift the "I believe" discussion to an "I know discussion."

Yeah, that's me all over in these endless threads. I just gotta stop putting on that pompous air that only I know what's going on and everyone else is a simpleton.

I don't know, I keep hearing "What you want is impossible, and anyway we've, I mean they've, been doing it all along!", but it never gets any more convincing.

I stick by my basic point. Fighting where the market is going philosophically is a sucker's game longterm. If you guys in the industry want to play it, be my guest. But Big Ag only works so well financially because the whole farming system is subsidized up the wazoo and so many of the real resultant costs such as pollution are borne by the public as a whole. I understand your being threatened by the idea that an alternate system might get a few sucks from that teat, or shut it off and compete on a more level field. I understand the need to paint hypertechnologized farming as the only sensible choice and farming as practiced for the first 9,950 years of agriculture as something weird and untried and dangerous. And if you don't want to listen when your target audience tells you they're not buying it, well, you won't be the first marketer I've ever run across who reacted that way.

It reminds me of when Bud tried to fight the microbrewing sector with radio ads making fun of pumpernickel beers. A much better tactic was Miller's-- they bought Red Hook and got in the game.

I'm afraid this is wrong. It was Anheuser Busch that bought Red Hook.

Miller bought Celis, an excellent, Belgian-style brewery out of Texas, and quickly ran it into the ground. They haven't made the same mistake with Leinenkugel, though.

Miller bought Celis, an excellent, Belgian-style brewery out of Texas, and quickly ran it into the ground

They made a similar mistake with Shipyard, a New England brewery they sold back to the owners. Leinenkugel was a different sort of animal.

I'm afraid this is wrong. It was Anheuser Busch that bought Red Hook.

Well, either way it's a lot smarter tactic, even if they usually screw it up in the end, than running sarcastic commercials attacking .000001% of the market. There's nothing half as weird in most microbrews as RICE, Bud.

Mike G wrote:

There's nothing half as weird in most microbrews as RICE, Bud.

I might have to take exception to that.

The key to this whole issue (the big ag issue, not the beer issue), in my opinion, is the role of government (I suppose this is getting the discussion political, but it was already political). I dont think anyone on this board, or even the "industrial" farmers, would argue that individuals shouldnt be allowed to shop at farmers markets, or eat as local or as organic as they want. Over time this may well change they way larger scale farming works. The question is whether governments should force changes in agriculture based on current fashion. If the government came out tomorrow and said industrial farmers cant use fertilizer, or pesticides/herbicides, or any genetically altered seeds, world food production would plummet, and all the local farmers in the world wouldnt be able to make up for it. On the other hand, the government is currently subsidizing large scale farming, and creating artificial demand (ethanol) for industrial crops. I think that this is just as bad. If the government left the market alone, we would presumably see a reduction in land use by large scale ag, which would free up land that could be used for smaller scale, less efficient production. All of this should be done from below, with consumer demand changing farming practice, rather than from above, with government ordering changes based on the politics of the day.

-Will

Will,

Subsidies are argued both ways. And while I'm in the camp that thinks they reduce the cost of food here in the U.S. and have been a good thing for farmers, I'm broadly against them because they tremedously disadvantage agriculture in other parts of the world where food production is a much more critical issue. We have the best technology, best infrastructure and best knowledge system which without subsidies makes it incredibly difficult for farmers in other world areas to compete. And grain is a commodity.

Now, when you stop paying people not to plant they plant more and all of a sudden production spikes up. This floods the market with grain and pushes down prices. Good thing for grain purchasers, bad for farmers. It's a return to the 1970's.

Ethanol potentially fills some of the gap. And you're right that it's being subsidized. But that money goes to the petroleum blenders to fund new infrastructure that allows them to incorporate biofuels into their mix. It's pretty clear that without government biofuel subsidies the 10% of our fuel that is renewable would be replaced tomorrow with fossil fuel.

A study last year (Iowa or Iowa State) showed that row crop farmers when given the choice, choose to plant and grow versus taking gov't money not to plant. And, the net net on total subsidies with biofuels in the game is less than without biofuels.

I would be whole heartedly for that delta, the millions and millions saved, being redirected to fund small rural veggie farms on the outskirts of major metropolitan areas. Organic and aquaculture, moon farming and Ram Das farms, I think it would be a very good thing to spend government dollars to shift as much as possible veggie production from California (where it is artificially sustained by irrigation) to the Midwest. I think small local farmers already producing should be allowed to tap into these funds to expand and mechanize their operations.

And so I am all for spending billions on renewable fuel versus billions required to have a military presence on the other side of the world. The cost to figure out how to make renewable fuels work is going to be less that what we've spent on the military to protect our oil supply since the Arab oil emargo (I unfortunately can't source this).

And I am all for funding small, local farms. I don't think your model works well because the barrier to entry is so prohibitive. Small, local veggie farms need financial support to get going. I'm very good with tax dollars going to this.

Where in the United States is the government paying farmers not to grow except for the Conservation Reserve program? Subsidies with restrictions on acres planted went away in the 1990s for most crops including wheat, feed grains and cotton under the so-called Freedom to Farm law. Note that most of the Conservation Reserve land really should be in grass or trees rather than tilled and should not have been plowed in the first place.

The one pernicious exception in Freedom to Farm was that land could not be used to produce fruits or vegetables unless it had a history of producing them. California politicians provided the political clout for this bad provision because they were afraid that higher quality produce in other parts of the country would destroy their markets. Repealing the ban on switching to vegetables would be the largest single act possible for encouraging local production of vegetables. Draconian financial penalties are applied to converting land without a history of fruit or vegetable production but with a history of program crop production. Unless this provision is changed, we can look forward to worsening supply problems for vegetables going to Chicago-area farmers' markets once housing development resumes. Some of the Chicago markets are pretty thin on vegetable growers now, partly because of development in the Lynwood and Tinley Park areas.

Where in the United States is the government paying farmers not to grow except for the Conservation Reserve program?

ek, I'm going to argue that the majority of farm subsidies effect planting strategy to some degree (extensification and intensification). Perhaps it's less direct today, but still there. Your point about the farm bill moving away from these types of subsidies is correct nonetheless.

Thanks for your thoughts on Calif. veggie production and the pernicious deal that has been struck with the other states (which is part and parcel of virtually every piece of legislation). I'm only now beginning to study and understand how unsustainable some of the Calif production is. I'm reading forecasts that as water becomes more costly and climate change effects the fruit trees, some of this production will gradually migrate to Arizona and New Mexico and other areas.

I don't begrudge Calif. it's production, but in the last 60 years the Calif. gorilla has caused fresh fruit and veggie production to just shut down in other regions.

It would be great if some of legislators could grow a spine and write bills to create "fresh veggie bands" around metropolitan areas. I understand that some work is going on today to sort out how veggies can be produced in southern Illinois for the Chicago market close to year-round.

We've been gifted with fresh water and great rail lines and we ought to use them to our advantage.

Pollan and Hurst on "Talk of the Nation"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 113619474#

eatchicago wrote:Pollan and Hurst on "Talk of the Nation"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 113619474#

Thanks for forwarding this. It was a nice snapshot into this debate, especially since it featured the two sides of this story. I think Pollan showed his public speaking chops well, as I'm sure he's been doing for a number of years now. Hurst's demeanor was much less aggressive compared to his article. Overall, I enjoyed the soundbite and I think they both raised some really good questions for the large ag community.