Back in October, author Michael Pollan wrote an opinion

piece for the New York Times in which he said the upcoming vote on California Proposition 37 would

show whether or not the “Food Movement” had developed into “a movement worthy

of the name.”  Proposition 37

failed for good reasons, but Pollan has raised a good question:  

What would a food movement worthy

of the name look like?

Food is a tremendously important topic –necessary for

survival, but critical in many other ways too.  Our diets influence our health in profound ways.  Food is also an integral component of

culture, history and religion. 

Food can be a source of great enjoyment and is an important medium for

family and broader social interaction. 

A worthy “Food Movement” focused on a topic of this importance should

have at least the following positive goals:

·     

The alleviation of hunger in the world.

·     

Making sure that there is a safe, affordable and

nutritious food supply

·     

Helping people make good food choices for optimal

health

·     

Encouraging food production systems which are

sustainable, just, and which have a minimal environmental impact

I’m sure that many who consider themselves part of the “Food

Movement” aspire to these goals, but some of those who write, speak and blog

for this movement tend to focus on what they are against more than what they

are for.  Additionally, some

writers are anti-scientific, inclined towards conspiracy-theory-thinking, and inclined

to incite fear more than understanding.  

The Food Movement's Least Worthy Tendency

However, I believe that antipathy towards farmers is the

least worthy characteristic of the

current “Food Movement.”

If you reflect on the positive goals listed above, most are outcomes

that can never be achieved without the critical contribution of those who actually

produce the food.  By this I mean

those that produce the 98+% of our food that does not come from small, local or

organic farms.  While there are

some foods for which localness is a real advantage, the fact that different

foods tend to be produced in specific regions is because it makes the most

sense to do so in terms of productivity, quality, and risk.

Scientific and statistical  evidence shows that organic is much less productive, and that it is not expanding in terms of acreage or production at least in our own country.  Organic is growing, but only in cost. 

When many food movement advocates talk about farmers they

tend to do so wielding epithets via terms, like “big,”  “factory”, “industrial,” “chemical,” or

“corporate.”  They tend to imply

negative or malicious or irresponsible motives.   Overall, they write about farmers in a way that

indicates that they don’t actually know any of them.  I don’t think it is a good feature of any movement to

dismiss broad groups with no real knowledge of those they disparage.

 What Modern, Large-Scale Farmers Are Really Like

I wish many of these writers could have the privilege to

meet some of the farmers I have met over the years. Examples would be a grain

producer in North Dakota with a 12,000-acre farm whose “office” is the kitchen

table or the 5,000-acre grain grower in Kansas whose “office” was a desk in the

corner of the machine shed with a brand new runt calf under a heat lamp next to

it.  These are family farms

operated by an individual or two brothers with maybe one hired hand and some

family help at busy times of the year. 

Between the economics, amazing equipment and the steady decline in the

farming populations, this is modern farming, and it is just as noble an

endeavor as ever before. 

I wish these writers could meet farm managers who work at multi-thousand

acre vineyards or orchard companies in California that are actually “corporate

farms”.   Like the grain

farmers, these are all examples of technically sophisticated, business-smart,

environmentally aware, generous and friendly folks who farm today.  Well under 1% of our population is

directly involved in farming today. 

Those who do are worthy of recognition, not demonization.

Farming Isn't Easy

Farmers take on enormous economic risks each growing season

with so many factors outside of their control (weather, commodity prices, pest

outbreaks, new regulations…).  

Rather than being armchair critics, it would be wise for Food Movement

folks to assume that if farmers do something, there is probably a pretty good

reason.  If they apply pesticides,

it is because pests and their damage are real, and that failing to control them

would compromise the production efficiency, quality and safety of their crop.  If farmers grow a certain crop or a

biotech improved version of that crop it is because that is their most rational

economic and risk/management choice. 

The companies that sell seeds, equipment, chemicals or fertilizers to

farmers can only do so if they create real value for their customers. Farmers

are not stupid.  They only stay in

business if they make good purchase decisions.   The products that famers buy support private

investment in the development of better seed, better equipment and better crop

protection chemicals.  There is nothing

sinister about this.  It benefits

farmers and thus, indirectly, all of us.

 The Farmers Most Worth of Food Movement Support

There are a great many “conventional farmers” who are on the

cutting edge of environmentally friendly farming.  They use

best practices like no-till farming and cover cropping to build soil quality

and reduce off-site pollution. They use integrated pest management;

fertilization via precision-variable-rate application for non-irrigated crops,

or “spoon feeding” of nutrients via irrigation; or controlled wheel traffic (GPS and beyond) to avoid soil compaction and to

reduce nitrous oxide emissions (greenhouse gas).   A “food movement worthy of the name” would be allied

with this major group of progressive farmers.  Instead of railing at the farm community as a whole or at the

companies that supply progressive farmers what they need, a worthy food

movement might be brainstorming ways to change the farmland lease and credit

systems which don’t encourage the sort of long-term thinking that is required for farming in the most

sustainable fashion. 

 Farmers are not the problem when it comes to important

things about food or about legitimate goals of a worthy Food Movement. 

Farmers are a significant part of the solution.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com