In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan introduces us to the concept that many farmers can no longer support themselves on their own products and have to go to the grocery store to buy food like everyone else. If farming really is this bad, especially the animal side, and the farmers know it, then why would they but from the store....? (Side note: I know many farmers who are part of the "industrialized system" who grow a lot more variety than just corn).
But this was only the first thought to occur to me.
Growing up in central Indiana, in the corn, around the farms, surrounded by the beginning stage of this "industrial system", I knew something was amiss in the story. An article, Here, I found someone else online sharing my exact thoughts - a family farmer from Missouri.
The article outlines many of my arguments very neatly - primarily that Pollan makes it sound way, way worse than it is. Animals filled with antibiotics, in an apocalyptic hellhole, living terrible lives. From my own experiences, and several other online sources, I can confidently disagree with Pollan here.
It frustrates me to see such a negative view of the animal agriculture industry. It's disheartening to see so much science misrepresented. The more I dug and searched for articles (All of which from reputable sources), I see more and more conflict. What this tells me is that the book is journalism - not scientific writing. Berkeley science review, which he ever references in the book, slams him here.
But why? Why would you have to misrepresent, focus on negatives, and distort things to get a point across? I can only figure one answer: journalism. Controversy sells. And nothing sells like the little golden sticker that says "New York Times Best Seller" on the front of the book. So from here, I see the book more as a source of journalism, and regard the representation of science or facts as something that I will definitely have to verify myself.
More to come after the class discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment