Response to Pollan/Hurst discussion by Annemarie Russell

616145 — 2024-11-01 17:18:13 UTC

I found the whole discussion on the role of nitrogen interesting and it got me thinking about how other things farmers use for agriculture could be criticized, like pesticides or GMOs.

6301831 — 2024-11-01 17:18:20 UTC

I thought it was interesting that Pollan had a lack of research and evidence in his argument. I feel like this really hurt his credibility which is what he was primarily basing his argument off of.

6293601 — 2024-11-01 17:19:15 UTC

I found Pollan's tone in his article pretty tone-deaf as he didn't do enough research to build a more persuasive message given his credibility, and it was prevalent in the podcast where he backtracked on his implied accusation of farmers in his article.

6287622 — 2024-11-01 17:19:56 UTC

In regard to the rising prices of oil and other fossil fuels, I thought the argument for farming relying less on industrialization and technology was interesting, especially with the rise of new things like electric tractors.

2024-11-01 17:20:06 UTC

Conventional farming is actually more sustainable than organic due to the fact that the current population is only supported by the nitrogen that is created via the process that uses fossil fuels, and organic farming practises uses significantly more natural resources such as water that conventional farming is more sustainable than organic

2024-11-01 17:20:09 UTC

a comment that was made during the discussion was the talk about the monoculture of corn and how it can cause a lack of biodiversity because of its mass consumption ( haddy )

615724_3 — 2024-11-01 17:20:57 UTC

I thought that the question of ethics between organic farming and industrial farms was very intriguing. Feels almost like a double edged sword where on one hand you have animals that are dying due to weather conditions, and overcrowding and on the other hand you have animals living in unnatural environments and walking around in their own feces.

2024-11-01 17:21:01 UTC

Pollan's ethos strongly connected himself with the smaller farmers, such as the lady from the podcast. He talks about organics and the choices that should be had. Smaller Farms in the suburbs have far more of these liberties, like less land to deal with, smaller customer pool, less loss in the end if things don't work well. Also she had only been in the business for 3 years opposed to 30, meaning she is less impacted by the problems of farming and is more susceptible to changing her ideas.

6157611 — 2024-11-01 17:21:17 UTC

Pollen's tone in the omnivore's dilemma is investigative and often critical of industrial agriculture, using irony and humor to point out the bad of the system. But Hurst's tone is more defensive, straightforward, and occasionally confrontational, as he feels the need to defend the hard work and decisions of farmers.

615792 — 2024-11-01 17:21:34 UTC

I found the interviewers overall tone was fairly shakey and heavily dependent on the outside callers to continue the conversation. It seemed that right before he brought Hurst onto the podcast, he was struggling with coming up with discussion points for Pollan.

2024-11-01 17:21:36 UTC

I appreciated how we discussed organic farming versus conventional farming today. This topic brought up questions of ethics on sustainability for a large population with conventional food compared to the quality and how more resources are needed for organic farming.

615731_2 — 2024-11-01 17:22:15 UTC

It was interesting how hursts article was very sarcastic. It ridiculed against Pollans writing making comments about how in the freezing weather plants do not grow well, and Pollan would evidently be surprised by that fact. Just because of how Pollan mentioned that farmers could take a trip to florida for the whole winter, but since during the freezing weather makes it even more of a need to stay home to care for the crops.

2024-11-01 17:22:20 UTC

In The Farm, Michael Pollan seems to believe that GMOs are unnatural. When discussing the F-1 seed hybrid, he states "One capable of coaxing 180 bushels of corn from an acre of Iowa soil." referring to the seed. The word "coaxing" makes it sound like farmers are tricking the Earth into growing more crops. After the discussion, do you believe GMO seeds belong in the agricultural industry? Why or why not?

2024-11-01 17:22:45 UTC

The most intriguing part of the conversation in my opinion was the environmental and health impacts of monoculture on the nation. Since 99% of our corn is yellow dent corn, and such a big part of our diet relies on corn products, there is a valuable question to be asked: should we be focusing on organic vs. non-organic or rather the species in which we are farming? It seems that a more biodiverse ecosystem could be started by the farmers, but possibly the government should put "safety nets" in place to combat this issue.

2024-11-01 17:22:52 UTC

I thought it was interesting when we discussed the ethics of technology in agriculture and how farming has grown to rely on technology more and more (especially since the turn of the 21st century). Those who are critical of industrial farming fail to really consider how it has changed many farming practices for the better. Most notably, farmers no longer have to depend on rigorous manual labor, which was not only taxing to the farmer but also to the amount of crops that were produced. It is possible that those who criticize technology's role in farming are just afraid of change, which we related to society's reaction to the development of airplanes, cars, and Email.

621384_1 — 2024-11-01 17:23:15 UTC

Something that I found interesting was the use of corn and soybeans in our agriculture, and how by strictly depending on the two causes us to destroy our already declining biodiversity. Which then causes us to depend on imports from other countries to get other means of produce.

2024-11-01 17:23:16 UTC

I really liked the balance in the podcast between Polland, a well educated journalist looking into the farming industry, and Hurst, a farmer from many generations of farmers who's deeply rooted in the farming industry. I think the ethos was established well between these two sides finding common ground to talk about changing farming for the better. And I liked how they included callers who are currently experiencing and living these issues. I think the authors and callers together help to prove the sense of urgency of this conversation within the world of agriculture.

(Hallie Carroll)

626332 — 2024-11-01 17:23:53 UTC

I appreciated Hurst's essay's satirical nature in contrast with Pollan's article's accusatory tone. However, I thought it was interesting that their combined presence on the podcast was very laid-back and not as much an argument on farmers' roles in using organic and industrial means of farming. Pollan shifted his accusations and almost seemed to represent the opposite of what he wrote compared to what he said on the podcast which weakened his ethos further. Pollan not only was he accusing farming without being a farmer, but he seemed to not know where he lied on the issue of organic versus industrial farming and whether the farmers or the industry was to blame.

2024-11-01 19:25:00 UTC

Quality vs Quantity. I thought this question really evoked a lot of great thoughts and comments. The thought of how producers care more about how much they are selling, instead of the quality of it sparked me. How companies compete with eachother for their profit, but not the profit of what the consumers will be having.

6157261 — 2024-11-01 19:25:31 UTC

Reading Hurst's and Pollan's writings was very interesting especially on the topic of organic farming. I thought that Hurst was being very reasonable with his views on organic farming because it's very hard to achieve. Pollan raises the question of the ethics behind technological farming but I believe that, while organic is desirable, the way the food industry in America is built makes it very hard and less rewarding for organic farmers.

615946 — 2024-11-01 19:26:10 UTC

I was thinking about how in The Farm Pollan talks a little about how the farmer´s farm he is visiting is struggling and that farmer could not sustain his farm or life without the additional help of his wife's income since she had two jobs. This made me wonder if in some way farmers could get paid more, if that increase in pay would make more of them want to go organic since organic farming is much more expensive than industrial farming. I also wonder if that would even be possible to raise the wages of farmers because their wages seem to be based on supply and demand.

2024-11-01 19:26:55 UTC

I think Hurst's credibility is somewhat questionable, first of all because his response is more emotional, but secondly because there is misinformation in the article and no suggested solutions. It seems like he's just angry and doesn't even consider possible solutions but wants to stick to the status quo. When you look at his arguments against animal welfare, he mentions that turkeys will look up at the sky and drown in the rain. I did some research and it turns out that is a myth, and other destructive animal behaviors he mentions are at least somewhat influenced by stress which is prevalent in factory farms.

6304841 — 2024-11-01 19:27:43 UTC

I believe Pollan's proposal to change farms to organics is better for the environment. But I believe that his proposal is not realistic. Instead, having a higher expectation for urban farmers to change to organics is far more realistic. Urban farmers have easier access to the local communities and can afford to try and move to organic farming. Their commute time is far less and it wouldn't be too much of a strain to make the switch. Though I think Pollan has good intentions, Hurston provides a voice to rural farmers who cannot afford to make this change. Putting a greater emphasis on urban farmers could ease both sides.

2024-11-01 19:27:56 UTC

One interesting point that was made is that if we were to go completely organic, it would be difficult for farmers in rural areas to make a profit. It takes longer for their produce to be sent to consumers, and a lot of food would be wasted due to getting spoiled before it gets sold. I agree that there are ways our agriculture industry could be improved,but when questioning why farmers aren't organic, this is an obstacle for many.

625897 — 2024-11-01 19:28:01 UTC

A lot of people were talking about how it was possible to farm organically and sustainably, but in the podcast Hurst said not to turn away from technology. I think that technology could help farmers be sustainable without having to be organic as well. The podcast also mentioned experimentation, which I think is interesting because it implies that new technologies are being experimented with. Pollan also agrees that farmers need to experiment, so I don't think he meant to give the message that farmers should farm organic.

6157721 — 2024-11-01 19:28:02 UTC

I was interested in the relationship between the farmer, corporation, and consumer. Someone brought up the idea that the farmer could be considered the "middle man" in this relationship, and therefore the food is not going directly to the consumer. But I think that the corporation could be considered the middle man, instead of the farmer. The food is produced directly by the farmer and it ends up at the consumer, but along the way, it is processed and sold through corporations and industries simply trying to make a profit. This made me wonder if an all organic agricultural system would be easier to create without those corporations in the middle of the process. However, because America is so heavily dependent on these industries, it would be essentially impossible to flip that whole system entirely.

6230381 — 2024-11-01 19:28:05 UTC

One thing I found very interesting was how in the podcast (I think?) Blake Hurst was talking about how the increase in world population made it so that the industrial agriculture that we now find ourselves stuck in is actually necessary in order for people to have enough access to food. It raised the point for me that with a high (and increasing) world population makes it very difficult to be able to balance the need for quantity and the want for quality. So when Pollan wants more strict standards for the farmers in our nation, that is almost getting to the point where in order to have those standards, our population needs to come down, or at least plateau in order for the agriculture to catch up in efficiency (but not sacrificing quality).

619593 — 2024-11-01 19:28:15 UTC

One thing I found interesting in the podcast is how Hurst seemed to defend himself against Pollan's argument and the Pollan presented himself in his claim. Pollan started with where he said that he wasn't attacking farmers but instead the system of farming, and I think that Hurst took it as an attack on farmers anyways, considering that Pollan was promoting some big changes in the agriculture industry and sometimes change can be difficult to deal with. I also found it interesting how Pollan contrasted the fact that he wasn't attacking farmers, but instead they were attacking him when he referenced that the Agri-business was trying to silence his ideas.

2024-11-01 19:28:41 UTC

I feel that due to the cost of planting and consuming organic foods as well as the rapidly growing population going 100% organic farming is unrealistic/unobtainable. This is because if we were to go organic consumers would have to pay more money for food and farmers will have to put in a lot more work to be able to get it all out and planting organic food would be expensive for the farmer. This all can go back, to how ethics is never a yes or no discussion and there are many different factors to look at when talking about these topics.

623699 — 2024-11-01 19:28:52 UTC

initially, the intentions and motives of pollan's writing isn't very clear, especially when considering his lack of credentials in the subject, but after the discussion and some clarification, some assumptions can be made on what he's trying to do. A comment made me realize that he may not actually be trying to be malicious, instead it looks like he is trying to open the floor for debate on an important topic that needs attention. Unfortunately, it seems like it has malicious intent because of the way the writing is being used, like how the book was passed out to students in an area that was notorious for farming. In that context it would look like the book is being harshly critical of farming methods and is trying to undermine their system rather than come up with and debate ideas that would help it like its supposed to.

615988_3 — 2024-11-01 19:28:58 UTC

I totally may be interrupting this wrong, but something I found really interesting specifically during the podcast, was how many of the callers were supportive of Pollan, and seemed more constructive of Hurst. I assumed, that because Hurst was the credible farmer and Pollan was just a commentator whos credibility wasn't very clear, that many of the farmers calling in would side and support Hursts arguement, and oppose Pollans. However, while listening to the podcast, it seemed that many of the farmers were instead supportive of Pollans questions and concerns, and constructive of Hursts idea to keep and support the industrial farming. This made me think that many farmers have concerns of the farming industry, but may be to hesitant as to what may happen to them and their farm, if they decide to actually speak up about it.

(Ryden Powers)

2024-11-01 19:29:05 UTC

I appreciated how Pollan and Hurst were able to recognize that the issues of farming methods aren't black and white. During the podcast, Pollan was able to see from Hurst's point of view that while organic methods have more ethical/environmental considerations, industrialized farming equates to more productivity and ease for farmers. Hurst also didn't shut down the idea of organic methods, and it seemed as though both of them genuinely were searching for the most beneficial solution rather than trying to convince the other they were wrong.

(Claire Mackintosh)

628669 — 2024-11-01 19:29:12 UTC

Today's discussion, made me realize that organic is starting to become a status thing as many of these large corporations are just slapping an organic sticker on produce that farmers grew just to sell it for a higher profit margin. It is similar to the luxury fashion industry where brands take low-quality pieces of clothing print their logo on it and sell it for a much higher profit. Most people don't know that the organic apple they bought is not really organic or the $200 dollar t-shirt is just a Walmart t-shirt with a logo on it.

2024-11-01 19:29:44 UTC

I was listening to one of my classmates describing how Farmers who live in rural areas with small populations have to produce in specific amounts so their produce won't go to waste, However what about those who live in a rural area but with a lot of population how are they going to fulfill the supply and demand of their customers if they could only grow organic and that couldn't meet the customers needs in other words supply and demand, wouldn't this hurt their profit and overall business, including backlashes from their customers for not providing.

6265431 — 2024-11-01 19:30:55 UTC

I found the differences between Pollan and Hurst's approach to the argument to be interesting. While Hurst brought up a lot of good points and made a valid argument, it felt as though he was remaining more confined to what farming looked like to him rather than considering other factors that may play into other farmers work ethics. What I really liked about Pollan's argument was his openness and consideration of different prospectives. He wasn't targeting farmers directly, he was raising a concern about an ethical issue that he wants to become more educated on as to, in turn, educate others.

6247522 — 2024-11-01 19:31:02 UTC

I feel it's kind of unreasonable to expect the whole agricultural industry to switch to organic, especially when considering the difference in location between rural farmers and urban farmers. Completely switching to organic would affect the shelf life and preservation of produce, and since rural farms are a lot farther away from people than urban farmers are, it would most likely negatively affect them as their products might go bad quicker due to the longer travel time. The crops they produce would go bad much quicker by the time they reach farmer's markets, consequently resulting in more food waste which is a whole different issue in itself.

631023_1 — 2024-11-01 19:31:03 UTC

Going back to whether Pollan needed credibility to speak on this topic, I think that's why he titled his book The Omnivore's Dilemma because he's trying to bring awareness by highlighting the challenges of choices posed by the complex agriculture system or food system in general. In the NPR podcast, he addresses the nitrogen question noting that he himself has not come up with a solution and that there are no alternatives or a final answer that everyone can agree on for feeding the world more sustainably. However, he emphasizes that it's important we try.

AudreySese — 2024-11-01 19:31:12 UTC

From both articles and the podcast it really shows that there are so many different aspects and factors that go into farming. So because of this fact thinking that every farm should change to organic would be unrealistic and even farms start to shift to fully organic that would be a long process. It was also interesting how in the discussion there was talk about what is Pollan's purpose.

(this is Audrey)

619806 — 2024-11-01 19:31:22 UTC

I think that Pollan is curious and concerned with why farmers are still deciding to plant large cash crops like corn, even though it is hurting them. He didn't really understand why, either, but knew it had "something to do with the perverse economics of agriculture,"(Pollan 48). Listening to the podcast, and hearing the lady from Boise say that she has no debt (even though it was still hard to maintain the farm), shows that smaller (organic if it must be called that) farms, or more able to not rely so much on large companies or government subsidies, allowing them to thrive, and grow whatever they want. I find it said to think of so much land being used just for corn (which is mostly feed for livestock) and soybeans. Farms were never supposed this way, and so I support Pollan's claim that getting away from industrial farming would allow for more diversity. Even so, Hurst's counterargument regarding our growing populations, and the need to feed them all, makes it hard to strive for solely local farms. I wonder if there is a way for us to use our technological advantages, to plant large areas of diverse crops instead of just a couple. This would also limit the consolidated market, of just a few farms growing certain food.

631020_1 — 2024-11-01 19:31:41 UTC

something I thought was interesting was in the podcast when they were talking about where farmers are actually located and how that affects how they farm, who they sell to, and who is consuming their product. farmers in more rural areas might have a harder time selling locally because there's not enough people to sell to. while urban farmers might have a better chance at selling to not only more people, but also big distributors who they can make a big profit off of. This affects how and what they can sell on a great scale because there is such a different demographic of people and companies based off of location.

626822 — 2024-11-01 19:32:08 UTC

The average size of an industrial farm can be upwards of several thousand acres. Usually, these farms (that use GMOs) lose about 10-30% of crops to pesticides and disease. Hurst, in his article The Omnivore's Delusion, said that organic farms typically suffer from insects and fungi more than GMO farms. Using this information and the data above, one can roughly estimate that about 30% or more crops are lost in organic farms. So, if industrial farms (that can be several times larger than local farms) switch from GMOs to organic, the amount of crops lost to these pesticides would immensely tank crop output and the overall industry.

2024-11-02 00:39:46 UTC

I think it's understandable, how farmers reacted to Pollen's argument, especially his stance being very idealistic, and coming from someone who has little credentials in the world of agriculture. The farmers felt personally attacked, and most of the beginning of the podcast is Pollen trying to clarify that he isn't attacking the farmers, but rather the system. This put him on the defensive from the start and possibly affected how well he got his message across.

2024-11-02 00:45:20 UTC

It is important to realize how idealistic Pollen's views are. Not all farmers CAN sell locally only, not at all can be organic only. Though some can, in more rural areas, farmers, have the ability to sell locally to everyone. But in larger populated areas in the U.S such as California and New York, that would be insane to ask each farmer to be local and to go into town each day to sell. Farmers simply wouldn't be able to keep up. That raises the concerns of being able to feed the growing population. Pollen has a very idealistic approach, that doesn't consider many of the real-life problems farmers have to face (such as energy costs). This isn't to say no one can do it, it's just that his solution is not a one size fits all.

2024-11-03 22:59:55 UTC

Something interesting was the interpretation from farmers of Pollan's article compared to his in-person discussion about it. Initially, Pollan's article seems very accusatory and attacks farmers causing a very large critique against him from farmers. I also believe that this may be because he didn't have much knowledge about the topic he was discussing, which ended up affecting his credibility negatively. However, after hearing him speak about his article in person, many farmers agreed with points that he made. I realized the importance of tone and interpretation, one idea may sound different from text compared to voice.