This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Logan Jordan English 102 Dr. Christina Bucher 3-7-2011 Industrial Farming and Values: An Evaluation of Opposition of Industry and Morals Is industrial farming as awful, evil, and inhumane as it is prescribed? Not according to a Missouri farmer, Blake Hurst, who believes that using industrial farming tools “sensibly,” can protect the land, water, and air while being economic and financially successful (Hurst). In his article, Hurst speaks in a defensive, irritated tone, and possibly rightfully so in response to negative statements made about industrial farming by Michael Pollan. Each writer has opposing viewpoints on both industrial farming, and organic farming. In a negative tone, and opposite to Blake Hurst, Pollan asserts about CAFOs, “These are places where the subtleties of moral philosophy and animal cognition mean less than nothing,” (317). While Pollan continues to criticize industrial farming in other ways, such as the bad conditions that animals endure while in CAFOs, the use of commercial fertilizer and its harmful effects on the environment, the use of herbicides and their harmful effects on the environment, and finally the amount of “cost” used in industrial farming, Pollan’s opposition, Blake Hurst, a family farmer who practices industrial techniques, writes to defend himself against such attacks, and tries to show that high volume animal pens can help the safety of animals, that commercial fertilizer and herbicides can help the environment, and that industrial farming aids to cheaper economic costs of food. Because of these differences in opinions, man readers take a side: the organic views of Pollan, or the industrial views of Hurst. All of these opposing viewpoints of Pollan and Hurst come down to 2 each writer’s definition of “cost,” and by reading each writer’s argument, the reader should be able to make a decision on which argument is better; the more economic expensive, but morally decent organic farming methods which Pollan argues for, or the cheaper industrial farming methods that Hurst defends, which has a moral cost of the treatment of animals and the environment. Possibly his main argument, Michael Pollan believes that organic, free-range farming is the better way to go because of better lives that animals are able to live. Pollan believes in true organic farms, not so much in the “Industrial Organic,” that has swept many parts of the Nation, but in true organic farms so animals will have more freedom to roam. Pollan answered his own question, “So is an industrial organic food chain finally a contradiction in terms?” by saying, “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it is,” (183). Unlike Hurst, Pollan believes in organic farms because animals are free to move around on organic farms. They eat grass, get exercise, are in the company of other animals, and are not locked in a cage. It is impossible to argue, if one believes that animals have emotions, which is hard to argue against being that dogs wag their...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 06/06/2011 for the course ENGL 102 taught by Professor Dr.bucher during the Spring '11 term at Kennesaw.
- Spring '11