To the Editor:
Re “Factory Farms Are Our Best Hope for Feeding the Planet,” by Michael Grunwald (Opinion visitor essay, Dec. 15):
As government director of the International Alliance for the Way forward for Meals, I take difficulty with Mr. Grunwald’s essay. He claims that “we should always consider all farming as a mandatory evil.” We completely mustn’t.
All over the world, our alliance helps farmers and fishers who’re on the entrance strains of manufacturing ample meals that helps boost biodiversity, create better climate resilience and supply solid livelihoods. No evil required.
The type of meals manufacturing methods that Mr. Grunwald insists we should settle for have been rightfully lambasted for many years by leading experts for his or her dependency on fossil fuels and poisonous chemical substances — all whereas really producing little or no of what you or I might consider as meals. (Suppose high-fructose corn syrup or feed crops for livestock.)
These methods are “environment friendly,” as Mr. Grunwald claims, provided that you ignore their true costs — to our well being, setting, local weather and extra. As somebody who has heard numerous tales from communities devastated by the poisonous toll of pesticides and artificial fertilizers, the air and water air pollution from manufacturing facility farms, and the soil loss and land degradation from industrial farming practices, to not point out the exploitation of employees and animals in these methods, this isn’t a way forward for meals I’ll settle for. Nor must you.
Anna Lappé
Berkeley, Calif.
The author is the writer of “Weight-reduction plan for a Sizzling Planet.”
To the Editor:
I had simply are available from morning milking after I learn Michael Grunwald’s essay, along with his evaluation that “we should always consider all farming as a mandatory evil. It makes our meals and it makes a large number.”
I milk six cows, all with names after all (Buttercup, Carnation, Lilac, Daisy, Dodie and Dandelion), on our 40-acre one hundred pc grass-fed dairy farm in northeastern Washington State. And evidently I’m a key contributor to the terribly inefficient and nature-destroying small-scale diversified farming that must be changed by uber-efficient large-scale industrial agriculture.
Mr. Grunwald sadly makes a traditional mistake of accepting that the ends justify the means. He focuses on making essentially the most meals with out considering the myriad detrimental results of commercial agriculture past the environmental penalties. These embody the consequences on meals high quality, farmer and employee well being, the material of rural communities, manufacturing resiliency, financial alternative and meals safety.
In nature, all issues are linked, and the extra we separate out meals manufacturing from nature, the extra we make sure the continued manufacturing of low cost, low-quality meals on the expense of farmers, fields, animals and our rural communities.
Virginia Thomas
Chewelah, Wash.
To the Editor:
Michael Grunwald is correct that industrial agriculture produces numerous meals on comparatively little land. He’s additionally right that many farming practices which are stated to be higher for nature produce much less meals, which might result in meals shortages or the conversion of extra forests into cropland.
However we do want to vary how we develop meals. Along with driving deforestation, agriculture contributes about 40 p.c of human-caused methane emissions and nearly 70 percent of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions, and makes use of 70 percent of our planet’s freshwater.
We’d like a system that enhances manufacturing per acre, whereas additionally defending pure sources, individuals and animals. We are able to obtain lower-methane meat and dairy by way of options like optimizing animal well being to enhance productiveness and feeding cows dietary supplements that safely cut back methane of their burps. We are able to reduce the overuse of fertilizers with out forgoing their huge advantages. And we will ease pressures on land and water use by adapting crops and livestock to local weather stressors. We should additionally dramatically cut back meals waste — nearly one third of all food by no means makes it on our plates.
We have to attempt for options which are scientifically confirmed and steadiness a number of priorities in order that we will feed the world with out irrevocably harming it.
Britt Groosman
New York
The author is vp for agriculture, water and meals at Environmental Protection Fund.
To the Editor:
Michael Grunwald says that though large-scale animal agriculture harms the setting, our authorities ought to attempt to enhance it fairly than pursuing alternate options. However his case isn’t compelling.
Mr. Grunwald rejects the promise of small, environmentally pleasant farms. He says they eat up an excessive amount of land for the quantity of meat they produce. Industrial farming, he provides, is extra environment friendly, partly as a result of “its pesticides and herbicides kill bugs and weeds that stunt crop development.” However these poisons trigger great injury, together with the deaths of pollinating bugs on which a lot flowers relies upon.
Mr. Grunwald additionally dismisses the hope that plant-based diets will cut back the necessity for giant industrial farms. The demand for meat, he says, is projected to extend. However this projection would possibly change if the general public higher understood the environmental impression of its meals purchases.
Lastly, we want a fuller dialogue of animal struggling in manufacturing facility farms. It’s horrendous. I’m unsure that the farms, that are designed to become profitable, are able to offering really humane situations. However till they do, we should discover methods for our animal family to reside full, free and joyful lives.
Invoice Crain
Poughquag, N.Y.
The author is co-owner of the Secure Haven Farm Sanctuary, which provides a lifelong dwelling to farmed animals rescued from slaughter.
To the Editor:
Michael Grunwald glosses over the struggling that industrial agriculture causes billions of animals throughout this nation by warehousing them in excessive confinement, usually immobilized in cages or crates.
I’ve personally visited the feedlot highlighted in his piece, and it’s not the norm. On typical feedlots — and much more so at industrial pig and rooster operations — the stench hits earlier than you see the animals, and their distress stays with you lengthy afterward.
I’ve additionally seen how native communities are harmed by this business that toxins their air and water and decimates their economies.
We received’t resolve starvation by doubling down on a failure-prone system. We’d like funding in accountable, resilient farming practices that deal with animals with respect and regenerate rural communities and our land.
Federal laws launched final yr — the Industrial Agriculture Conversion Act — would fund farmers’ transition to extra humane, sustainable practices. Manufacturing facility farming just isn’t an inevitability, and we can not resign ourselves to just accept the human and animal struggling that it leaves in its wake.
Daisy Freund
New York
The author is vp for farm animal welfare for the A.S.P.C.A.
