It’s a testament to Pollan’s wild success that the pushback against his books, opinions, and celebrity is sharpening and deepening. The In Defense of Farmers group in Madison, which is planning to counter Michael Pollan’s speech there, is probably the grassroots farmer-based group that it claims to be — and that’s going to make Pollan’s task more challenging in the months to come.
Because it’s one thing to write books for likeminded readers, or to persuade readers to become likeminded readers, and it’s another thing entirely to turn and face the industry that one has so matter-of-factly dismantled and discredited — not only in books (Omnivore’s Dilemma, In Defense of Food, etc), film appearances (Food Inc, King Corn, etc), and many NYT articles, but in the mass rejuvenation of the food and farming movement itself.
The first act of the sustainable foods movement is closing. It began, I’d argue, with the Rodale organic farmers of the forties and fifties who saw what chemical agriculture was doing to themselves and their customers, and this first act has culminated with the wild success this summer of Food Inc. This movie was so successful in its message that (a) it has been accepted as “fact” by many mainstream audience members and (b) has spurred an opposition backlash in ways that Omnivore’s Dilemma and Fast Food Nation never did.
But for the sustainable foods movement to reach a second act, Michael Pollan needs one, too. If hestays entrenched in his anti-ag rhetoric, I don’t foresee sustainable foods and farming making big headway past its 1-2% US marketshare. Rather than pitching his argument to likeminded folks, who accept the idea of “industrial agriculture” without question, Pollan needs to begin pitching his argument more directly to grassroots advocates of industrial agriculture like In Defense of Farmers.
To do this, if he’s as smart and compassionate as he usually is, Pollan will need to separate the smaller commodity and livestock farmers from Big Ag (Monsanto, DuPont) and Big Food (Kraft, General Mills, Conagra, etc), and address small farmers as if they are allies. One of the fascinating aspects of talking to small conventional family farmers and ranchers is how dutifully they’ll defend big CAFOs and factory farms. They’ll say, “We all have the same practices. You attack them, and you’re attacking us.” I had an exchange with one farmer who I believe said he had a 200-head dairy and he was defending a 10K-head CAFO operation. Totally nonsensical, to me, but to him, he really didn’t seem to see a difference. I asked if he had manure lagoons or if there was antibiotic run off spilling into his wells. Those questions went unanswered.
And it’s too bad because part of the sustainable food movement/industry’s second act needs to be dedicated to showing these small farmers that they may have already have an integral role in the changing landscape of the food market. Because these folks do get “sustainability” albeit, with a slightly different spin than most sustainable foods advocates might prefer to define it. These smaller operations tend to have a more intimate relationship with their farms, they engage in soil conservation and other good practices because that’s how their parents and grandparents farmed, and they look to the future of their farm’s financial and ecological well-being — in short, they’re “sustainable,” in so many words. These are farmers who have real stories and great narratives that define them as separate from the anonymous food that Pollan rails against.
That’s not to let anyone off the hook. In my opinion, these small conventional farmers — let’s call them Small Ag — should have a legitimate beef with Big Ag, not Michael Pollan. Pollan’s not the one who’s selling them down the river by ruining their great stories with awful practices. Simply ignoring pollution and other agricultural ills and asking us not to talk about them is not the answer, Small Ag. You need to see that associating yourselves with bad actors is a bad strategy, and that Michael Pollan and sustainable foodies aren’t out to destroy you.
But that means Pollan and the rest of us have to change our rhetoric and become more specific about who the villains really are.
I have a hunch that sustainability can actually find converts and allies in these smaller, more “in touch” farmers and ranchers — or at the very least, we can find common ground. Are we ready to do that?
Bravo! I’ve had similar discussions many times in my sustainable ag classes. In short – the organic label only covers a small percentage of all food. If we’re going to actually make changes that matter, we have to work in cooperation with “conventional” farmers and even processors. If only Pollan and the rest of the sustainable food movement are listening.
Anastasia
http://geneticmaize.com
It is so easy to see the world as Black and White or US and Them.
It is probably easier for small ag to identify with big ag than with a Berkeley academic. It’s too bad we can’t see the shades of gray in these discussions.
I absoluetly agree Barth. Further more, there are clear economic justice arguements to be made in support of small conventional farmers. Conventional farming relies too heavily on loans, crop insurance, patented seed stock, etc. Without crop insurance farmers are more likely to diversify to protect their economic interests, seed saving allows farmers to breed plants that more closely fit their specific land, and keeps more of the profit on the farm instead of giving it to Ag giants. There are a million ways in which our current conventional agricultural system siphons money away from the farmers and diverts money to banks, tractor companies, and Food processors. I hope that people from the sustainable food movement will help small conventional farmers to see that their greater economic interest lies with sustainable agriculture rather than the giants of factory farming. It is a happy coincidence that economic justice for farmers will also lead in many cases to better environmental choices, and greater health for consumers.
Thank you for saying this. I have sent links to contacts in the world of ag cooperatives, asking for their thoughts. I very much hope we can start a new conversation based on mutual respect instead of fear or anger.
Let’s face it, small family farms are under siege from many directions – and that should NOT include the sustainable food movement.
I think there are sincerely grassroots elements to the pushback against Pollan and sustainable/organic farming, but this particular protest has some serious corporate connections.
Mlsna, as I pointed out earlier, is vice-president of the board for the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association. Check out their website. They don’t even attempt to hide their corporate connections.
Laura Daniels is also a dairy farmer, but she is also a part-time consultant for Vita-Plus, a large, multi-state livestock feed company. Her husband, Jerrad Searls is a full-time employee of Vita-Plus. She is also on the board of the astroturf organization AFACT, which was started with funding from Monsanto by a Colorado PR firm to promote the use of rGBH and fight labeling laws:
http://itisafact.org/about-us/
At the last DATCP (Department of Ag, Trade, Consumer Protection (ha!), Vita-Plush and DBA testified heartily in favor of the Wisconsin Livestock Siting Law – an undemocratic law that pre-empts local community efforts to regulate factory farms. This should come as no surprise, since they and their hired guns at the law firm of Michael, Best, and Friedrich, were the ones that greased the skids to get this horrid piece of legislation passed.
This “protest” has industry stink all over it!
Thank you VERY much for the info. It’s so difficult to tell Small Ag from Big Ag that I’m left dizzied.
So how DO we engage small conventional farmers in a real discussion about sustainability? Any ideas, anonymous poster? Is it even worth trying?
offers a recap on the event in Madison.