A Disturbing Peek Behind the Curtain of Ag Criticism
Posted: September 28, 2009
“You think critics of modern food production just don’t understand the realities of farming? But consider how little you may understand about the philosophy behind their complaints. Today’s farmer is just as generationally divorced from the modern, urban liberal-arts university as his city cousin is from the farm,” says blogger Mike Smith in his new blog at “Truth n’ Food.”
Smith offers up a lengthy, thoughtful, and concerning look at the genesis of the tribulations being faced by farmers and the food industry today. A weird recipe of social psychology, history, politics, economic, cultural, and a modicum of science have led to some segments of our society that hate modern food production if not farmers themselves. They hate you because you trust science, because you are largely white and male, because they think you are messing with their kids, and because you are perceived to be the next generation of global imperialists who use food as a bargaining chip.
There’s a reason the most popular book criticizing the safety and sustainability of the food system, now being used on in college courses from science journalism to environmental management on campuses from California to Wisconsin is written not by a food scientist, but by a Berkeley journalism professor.
Smith notes that in today’s communications rich environment the “text is never as important as the context” in regard to understanding issues. Right or wrong this strange shift in public belief has elevated the novel to as powerful a guide for policy as the science text.
Susan Winsor Said,
September 29, 2009 @ 8:01 am
I’m curious where you get the impression that “They hate you because you trust science, because you are largely white and male, because they think you are messing with their kids, and because you are perceived to be the next generation of global imperialists who use food as a bargaining chip.” I’m not sure it’s that simple or black and white. Your blog would be more credible if you cite some examples of the points you’re making–quote some of these critics etc.
I would argue that many food critics level their criticisms at “our industrial food supply,” ie., food and chemical companies and the system in general rather than at farmers per se. I feel that farmers enjoy a pretty healthy image or no image at all in the public mind, due to them being out of sight to most consumers. I have a relative that thinks that seed company signs at test plots are signs of genetic engineering, not simply IDs for various hybrids. Part of our problem might be that the criticism of agriculture fills a void that our industry has left; we have not gotten our story out there. Reminds me of the Alar apple scare.
“Mendel in the Kitchen” is a wonderful pro-ag book that doesn’t seem to get much play in the popular media relative to Michael Pollan et al. I wonder if ag shouldn’t step forward and make the next volley-write letters to the editor of the NYT, schedule debates with Barbara Kingsolver and MIchael Pollan.
Mike Smith Said,
October 1, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Susan:
> “Part of our problem might be that the criticism of agriculture fills a void that our industry has left; we have not gotten our story out there. Reminds me of the Alar apple scare.”
Agreed. Alar is the perfect analogy. “Industrial agriculture” got beat (and apple farmers suffered, big and small), not because it didn’t get the message out, but because it got the wrong message out. Agriculture was talking science, economics and medicine, while the attackers were talking ethics, philosophy, “deep ecology.”
My point is the same is happening today. We are busy talking about how scientifically adept we are, while those opposing the system of modern agriculture are talking about how unjust that system is. We are not speaking the same language.