To the Editor:
Re “Factory Farms Are Our Best Hope for Feeding the Planet,” by Michael Grunwald (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 15):
As executive director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, I take issue with Mr. Grunwald’s essay. He claims that “we should think of all farming as a necessary evil.” We absolutely should not.
Around the world, our alliance supports farmers and fishers who are on the front lines of producing abundant food that helps boost biodiversity, create greater climate resilience and provide solid livelihoods. No evil required.
The kind of food production systems that Mr. Grunwald insists we must accept have been rightfully lambasted for decades by leading experts for their dependency on fossil fuels and toxic chemicals — all while actually producing very little of what you or I would think of as food. (Think high-fructose corn syrup or feed crops for livestock.)
These systems are “efficient,” as Mr. Grunwald claims, only if you ignore their true costs — to our health, environment, climate and more. As someone who has heard countless stories from communities devastated by the toxic toll of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, the air and water pollution from factory farms, and the soil loss and land degradation from industrial farming practices, not to mention the exploitation of workers and animals in these systems, this is not a future of food I will accept. Nor should you.
Anna Lappé
Berkeley, Calif.
The writer is the author of “Diet for a Hot Planet.”
To the Editor:
I had just come in from morning milking when I read Michael Grunwald’s essay, with his analysis that “we should think of all farming as a necessary evil. It makes our food and it makes a mess.”
I milk six cows, all with names of course (Buttercup, Carnation, Lilac, Daisy, Dodie and Dandelion), on our 40-acre 100 percent grass-fed dairy farm in northeastern Washington State. And evidently I am a key contributor to the terribly inefficient and nature-destroying small-scale diversified farming that needs to be replaced by uber-efficient large-scale industrial agriculture.
Mr. Grunwald unfortunately makes a classic mistake of accepting that the ends justify the means. He focuses on making the most food without taking into account the myriad detrimental effects of industrial agriculture beyond the environmental consequences. These include the effects on food quality, farmer and worker health, the fabric of rural communities, production resiliency, economic opportunity and food security.
In nature, all things are connected, and the more we separate out food production from nature, the more we ensure the continued production of cheap, low-quality food at the expense of farmers, fields, animals and our rural communities.
Virginia Thomas
Chewelah, Wash.
To the Editor:
Michael Grunwald is right that industrial agriculture produces a lot of food on relatively little land. He’s also correct that many farming practices that are said to be better for nature produce less food, which could lead to food shortages or the conversion of more forests into cropland.
But we do need to change how we grow food. In addition to driving deforestation, agriculture contributes about 40 percent of human-caused methane emissions and almost 70 percent of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions, and uses 70 percent of our planet’s freshwater.
We need a system that boosts production per acre, while also protecting natural resources, people and animals. We can achieve lower-methane meat and dairy through solutions like optimizing animal health to improve productivity and feeding cows supplements that safely reduce methane in their burps. We can lessen the overuse of fertilizers without forgoing their enormous benefits. And we can ease pressures on land and water use by adapting crops and livestock to climate stressors. We must also dramatically reduce food waste — nearly one third of all food never makes it on our plates.
We need to strive for solutions that are scientifically proven and balance multiple priorities so that we can feed the world without irrevocably harming it.
Britt Groosman
New York
The writer is vice president for agriculture, water and food at Environmental Defense Fund.
To the Editor:
Michael Grunwald says that although large-scale animal agriculture harms the environment, our government should try to improve it rather than pursuing alternatives. But his case isn’t compelling.
Mr. Grunwald rejects the promise of small, environmentally friendly farms. He says they eat up too much land for the amount of meat they produce. Industrial farming, he adds, is more efficient, partly because “its pesticides and herbicides kill bugs and weeds that stunt crop growth.” But these poisons cause tremendous damage, including the deaths of pollinating insects on which much plant life depends.
Mr. Grunwald also dismisses the hope that plant-based diets will reduce the need for large industrial farms. The demand for meat, he says, is projected to increase. But this projection might change if the public better understood the environmental impact of its food purchases.
Finally, we need a fuller discussion of animal suffering in factory farms. It is horrendous. I’m not sure that the farms, which are designed to make money, are capable of providing truly humane conditions. But until they do, we must find ways for our animal relatives to live full, free and happy lives.
Bill Crain
Poughquag, N.Y.
The writer is co-owner of the Safe Haven Farm Sanctuary, which gives a lifelong home to farmed animals rescued from slaughter.
To the Editor:
Michael Grunwald glosses over the suffering that industrial agriculture causes billions of animals across this country by warehousing them in extreme confinement, often immobilized in cages or crates.
I have personally visited the feedlot highlighted in his piece, and it is not the norm. On typical feedlots — and even more so at industrial pig and chicken operations — the stench hits before you see the animals, and their misery stays with you long afterward.
I have also seen how local communities are harmed by this industry that poisons their air and water and decimates their economies.
We won’t solve hunger by doubling down on a failure-prone system. We need investment in responsible, resilient farming practices that treat animals with respect and regenerate rural communities and our land.
Federal legislation introduced last year — the Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act — would fund farmers’ transition to more humane, sustainable practices. Factory farming is not an inevitability, and we cannot resign ourselves to accept the human and animal suffering that it leaves in its wake.
Daisy Freund
New York
The writer is vice president for farm animal welfare for the A.S.P.C.A.
