The Omnivore's Delusion?

I found a thought-provoking article by a Missouri farmer, written in response to "agri-intellectuals" (his word choice) such as Michael Pollan who presume to know how to farm better than industrial farmers.

It's a good article, because it adds a hefty dose of realism and common sense to the debate about our food supply. It's something to consider in all other environmental debates as well. Blake Hurst (aka Missouri farmer) sums up his point best with this:

"Pollan thinks farmers use commercial fertilizer because it is easier, and because it is cheap. Pollan is right. But those are perfectly defensible reasons... farmers have reasons for their actions, and society should listen to them as we embark upon this reappraisal of our agricultural system."

The reason: to provide the greatest amount of food at the cheapest possible price. No one can argue against that. But I think he's too close to the issue. This is demonstrated by his use of anecdotal evidence throughout the piece, such as the actions of his neighbor and meetings attended by his father. While I appreciate his use of common sense and farming logic to deconstruct some of Pollan's more fanciful ideas, I'd like to see interviews from a wide variety of industrial farmers about their farming methods and motives.

Even if most farmers agree with Hurst, his argument has another weakness, illustrated here:

"[Pollan's] other grand idea is mandatory household composting, with the compost delivered to farmers free of charge. Why not? Compost is a valuable soil amendment, and if somebody else is paying to deliver it to my farm, then bring it on. "

Part of the reason our food is cheaper is thanks to technological advances such as fertilizer and genetically modified crops. But when you consider government subsidies and the environmental damage caused by locating, collecting, refining, and transporting the oil used in fertilizer, diesel engines, and processing crops; not to mention the farming practices themselves which depletes soil and creates runoff that makes most waterways in the area unswimmable and unfishable, the food isn't cheap at all.

Organic farming eliminates many of these costs, but unfortunately creates new costs that are borne by the farmer instead of the ephemeral environment. Bugs, mold, and lower crop yields are all possibilites that no farmer would happily embrace, especially since no economic cushion currently exists to help the farmer make that risk.

Unfortunately, our food system is set up to favor industrial methods. Large-scale organic farming just doesn't work, but large-scale industrial does work, as long as environmental and public health costs are ignored of course. It's the economy, stupid.

To transform our agricultural system, our government needs to subsidize organic farming practices and phase out subsidies for industrial farming. This will raise food prices, so the government will also need to subsidize basic food products to keep it affordable. The environment is a public good, and it's up to our government to maintain it. Funding? Cut the military budget in half, cease all military aid, raise taxes for the wealthiest Americans, legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it, etc. The possibilities are endless. My favorite solution: tax the hell out of high-spending lobbying organizations.

I have an idea for quite possibly the most boring (to everyone but me) reality show ever: an organic farmer and an industrial farmer switch farms. The drama!