Everyone has an agenda, but not everyone makes their agenda apparent. And a good journalist does what he or she can to set aside any bias and write factually and objectively on topics for which the writer may not agree.
In many parts of my life -- especially my work professionally in print and online journalism -- I seek out that balance both in my own work and in the work of others. Last night, a colleague and I had a brief, but important, discussion about our feelings toward different farming methods.
My bias, as it may come out in this blog, is in favor of sustainable farming, which often incorporates organic and organic-like processes (such as the grass-roots Certified Naturally Grown). However, I did grow up in Indiana, where corn and soybeans are abundant -- as are the pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to encourage their growth and easy harvest. If I could call the world a perfect place, we wouldn’t have any of those chemicals being sprayed onto our food.
Of course, the world is not a perfect place, and I have come to accept these things that I perceive to be imperfections. Conventional farming is solidly ingrained in society and supported by our government through federal subsidies. Authors and advocates such as Michael Pollan have highlighted the links between chronic health problems in America and the rise of processed and chemically altered food. They have also shown us that conventional farming produces crops that are less nutritious for the current generation than they were for our parents’ and grandparents’ generations.
The key, though, is that conventional farming produces. Period. It’s not what it produces, it’s simply that it does produce. Without this method of farming, people would starve. Usable farmland is being devoured by development as the population of the world grows and grows. That forces the agriculture industry to seek higher yields and to make those yields more affordable to consumers. Pollan gained my respect when, after chapters of promoting his vision of the ideal agricultural society in his book “In Defense of Food,” he did make concessions that the ideal won’t work for everyone.
Sustainable farming can’t survive against the rising price of land, and people without a farming ancestry rarely can afford -- or would choose -- to become first-generation farmers.
Accepting things for what they are doesn’t mean standing idle while the environment and health of society deteriorate. Speaking for change is good. Telling the government to spend more encouraging sustainable agriculture projects and less on conventional ones is good. Walking to the farmers market and buying the fresh produce there is good.
And realizing that conventional farming has its role in our modern, populated world is okay, too. We don’t have to love it, but failing to acknowledge it is simply irresponsible.
