Farmer in Chief, Ominvore's Delusion, and Farmers: What do you think of Michael Pollan's Ideas?

In a letter to the president, Michael Pollan urges change in the food industry. Problems with health care, energy, and climate change are all liked to food. Producing cheap food, instead of quality food, has become the goal. Leading to use of vast amounts of fossil fuel and green house gas emissions. Cheap food also leads to health problems, because it is not as healthy. On farms, we have separated crops and animals in monocultures, creating problems that don’t exist in nature. Creating sustainability within farms and moving from fossil-fuel-based fertility to sun-based fertility would be much more beneficial. Pollan feels we need to change food culture, and move to a decentralized system.

Blake Hurst argues against many of Pollan’s ideas, saying his solutions are oversimplified and lack understanding of the industry.  Hurst feels technology has changed farming, but it has changed the rest of the world as well. Both consumers and farmers benefit from cheap food. Using additives prevents mold, fungus, and bugs from getting in our foods. Keeping animals enclosed keeps them safe.  Technological advancements made producing more food possible by putting nitrogen in the soil. He says Pollan is right in arguing that farmers use chemical fertilizer because it is easier and cheaper. Hurst thinks those are perfectly valid reasons.

The NPR interview explores issues effecting farming today. Many farmers feel that Pollan attacks them and that many of his ideas are either unrealistic or ill-informed. Pollan claims that he is not critical of farmers, but does question some practices and the current system, which he feels gives farmers limited choices. Hurst feels he has choice in this competitive industry. Both Hurst and Pollan do, however, agree that current farming is harming the environment. As Hurst points out, farming relies on technology and specifically the ability to synthesize nitrogen has enabled us to feed the world. This comes at a cost to the environment though. Pollan urges innovation in farming; using sunlight, putting animals back on farms, and new crop rotations. Currently we don’t know if we can feed the world in a more sustainable way, but we have to try.

It is hard to decide where exactly I (and other consumers) should stand in this debate. Obviously I want my food to be healthy, but I also want it to be a cheap as possible. Farmers struggle enough already and making harsh regulations may only make their lives harder. It is clear though, that something needs to change. We can’t keep relying on fossil fuels to produce our food. Something must be done. Like all other industries, the farmin industry should move forward and benefit from technology, but maybe not in the way that it is now. Indusrty should work to use what nature has provided instead of looking at the production of each product separately.

Who is more right in this debate, Pollan or Hurst?

Are the solutions proposed by Pollan plausible?

How much responsibility does the government have in making changes in the food industry?