Veal Politik

I briefly talked about the ethics of food consumption/production in my post titled “oh, nein”. Ryan recently shared this link on his Google Reader feed, and I wanted to respond. The article is an interview with one of the leaders of the “Green Revolution” in the ’70s, a huge boom in farming productivity based on genetic manipulation and more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides.

Here is my response from Google Reader:

I, for one, am shocked that an interviewee who is partially responsible for creating our current system of agriculture/food science denounces modern critiques of his creation. In a friendly interview. And his refutation of the health benefits of organic food is phenomenal. It does not seem at all biased, slanted, ignorant of current research, or evasive.

All sarcasm aside, most people I’ve talked to and/or read don’t claim that the Green Revolution was evil. Clearly this man saved millions of people from starvation and changed the way we see the future of humanity.

Similarly, I doubt many people would say that the Industrial Revolution shouldn’t have happened. But does that mean I still support 7-day weeks, 16 hour days, and child labor? Do I think that coal can be used with no regard for air quality?

I don’t think that the industrial food system needs to be eliminated. I don’t know that the benefits of eliminating the industrial food chain, or forcing the food system to transition into completely organic method, for that matter, would outweigh the problems it would cause.

But the fact is that there are serious problems caused by the modern food chain. Problems we never expected, problems that we never realized would be related to our agricultural philosophy, and problems that we still don’t totally understand in relation to mankind’s manipulation of genetics/nature.

Do these problems mean that society as a whole should reject the whole idea? No. But do these problems lead me to buy organic grocery products when possible (which addresses some of the problems of the industrial food chain but not all) and buy local whenever possible (which solves even more of the problems)? Yes. Do these problems mean that we need to take a closer look at an industry whose regulatory oversight is just as invested in maintaining the status quo as the industry itself? Yes. Does this mean that we need to ask hard questions about the ethical, as well as the pragmatic, dilemmas related to our food production? Yes.

All due respect to Mr. Borlaug. He deserves all the credit that he has gotten, and much more. But that doesn’t change the need for constant re-evaluation and improvement. Regardless of what a 95 year old man thinks is “foolish decisions”.

I may be naive. But, honestly, I’m don’t think that Whole Foods is going to save the world, although you would think that they could, for the prices they charge. I’m sure that my food buying habits won’t change the way that industrial meat processing works. I’m sure that many people shop ‘organic’ because it’s trendy, or it makes them feel warm and fuzzy without confronting any actual issues. I acknowledge that there are possibly more pressing pragmatic considerations than some of the ethical issues raised by bioethical philosophy. I agree that mass starvation is a more important ethical concern than whether the chickens were allowed to ‘freely’ range.

But I don’t think sweatshops are OK because people need coats, and I don’t think industrial cattle feedlots are OK because it means you can make cheaper hamburgers. I refuse to accept the false dichotomy of processed industrial food chains vs. starvation and skyrocketing food cost. I pay attention to what I buy because it makes me more aware of the world at large, not because I look hip walking out of Trader Joe’s.

And most of all, I don’t understand why it’s controversial to claim that an industry, in collaboration with their governmental ‘oversight’, is more concerned with self-preservation and profit margins than with the consequences or implications of their actions. Is that really that hard to believe? I’m not sure why ‘trusting the big industry’ is the default position. I mean, now, of all times, are we trusting industries to essentially regulate themselves? Really?

Who’s being naive now?