Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
going to be enough to hallenge the rising public health issues related to bad food
policy. Structural problems require structural hanges. And that's hard.
But, like the utopian assumptions that underpin arguments across the food spec-
trum, the cultural superiority of meat is a myth. Just like the inherent problems hal-
lenging the corporate interests of the food pyramid in the US (Nestle 2003), han-
ging ingrained cultural assumptions is difficult (thus the opposition to Lester Brown
and Pollan and others who advocate eating lower on the food hain). But myths are
powerful and they often prevent dialogue. Let's use the fishing proverb. It helps us
examine the utopian assumptions of both sides. The quantity people argue that if
people can fish for bigger fish, genetically modified with more calories, more people
will be fed. he quality people want to encourage respect for ish stoks and tradi-
tion. How do we reconcile a respectful, yet pragmatic lesson from a parable with
different assumptions about the world?
Looking at these competing utopic visions we can say at least that they can both
learn a litle from the other, whih is good because it means that there is room for
dialogue and mutual learning. Unfortunately, the debate between quantity and qual-
ity is reduced to a crass caricaturization of one another. We can almost see the edit-
orial cartoon featuring tiny, exotic vegetables parading with placards asking, 'WHAT
ABOUT THE CHILDREN?' about to be stepped on by a giant corn cob labelled Big
Ag. The root problem lies in a false distinction between having enough food and
what kind of food. Essentially, we can reduce the problem to a Mannheimian soci-
ology of knowledge in whih both sides have key and important arguments to make,
but eah employs a diferent language rooted in their irst assumptions of what ought
to happen (Mannheim, 1985).
Real steps forward require demystifying the utopian superiority enjoyed by pro-
ponents of both quantity and quality arguments. Moreover, we can't help but see the
irony in a movement that calls for a food system that rests upon respecting local val-
ues, cultures, biographies, and agro-ecological conditions that has gravitated toward
a figurehead telling an entire nation how to eat (see Pollan, 2009) and how the food
system
ought
to be (see Pollan, 2008). At the same time, we have a system that places
into key decision-making positions, at seemingly every opportunity, someone from
the quantity side. For instance, the appointment of a former Iowa Governor as head
of the US Dept. of Agriculture has won litle support from the qualitative side. It has
become a debate of extremes.
