There's Always Two Sides to a Story

Though this piece written by Michael Pollan took some time and attention to read, every word was worth reading. Pollan’s “Farmer in Chief” letter was addressed to the next elected president discussing the fact that our country is focusing so heavily on global warming, health care, and energy, but is disregarding our current food system which would assist in improving all three of these issues. Some of these problems have even increased due to our eating habits, where the fast food culture plays a significant role. For example, the price of health care has recently gone up. A reasonable basis for this increase could be due to the fact of the high price of food in supermarkets. Individuals are not able to afford this expensive food. Therefore, they result to fast food restaurants. This is where many health problems arise, leading to increased health care. The same connections are found with global warming and energy issues.  Throughout the entire letter, Pollan continues to stress the importance of government intervention. Towards the end of this letter, Pollan takes his opinion a step further by providing the president-elect and his family a list of tasks in order to take this government involvement in the right direction.

A second article read portrayed criticism of Pollan’s opinions regarding the food industry. Black Hurst’s article is told from a farmer’s point of view. He begins the article in an airplane setting where he overhears a businessman discussing farming. It is obvious from his lack of knowledge that he believes solely what he reads in articles and books. This is the highlight of Hurst’s criticism against Pollan’s writings. Many individuals fail to establish their own opinion of the farming industry. Many immediately assume farming to have been identical to the farming of the 1930s. New technologies have evolved since then. It is important for the reader of these articles to recognize that Hurst is a farmer himself. Therefore, he has a pretty accurate idea of the current farming industry.

My opinion of the farming industry has most definitely changed after reading both extreme opinions of Pollan and Hurst. Until reading these criticisms, I was guilty of reading simply the opinion of another individual. Though Hurst’s article is also just ‘another individual’s opinion’, at least I am now aware of both sides of the argument. Pollan makes very strong points when he mentions the connection the food industry has with the country’s three major issues. Hurst also makes a convincing statement as well as the fact that he himself is a farmer.

I am now finding myself going back to past readings I have read from Pollan. I definitely have a different view on his opinions. I am not saying I completely disagree, but I am certainly not taking his word. For example, Pollan makes a good point when he stresses America’s lack of knowledge of what they are eating, but he also might be taking it a step too far when he makes a list for the president-elect to follow. We, as Americans, should be focusing on the country’s food familiarity overall instead of concerned on the White House. I am now going to try to look more at the bigger picture instead of automatically being convinced after hearing only one side of an argument.

• Do you think Pollan took it too far when he made a list of tasks for the president-elect and his family?
• Did your opinion of Pollan change after reading Hurst’s criticism? If so, what changed?
• Why do you think so many Americans automatically believe what they read without hearing the other side of the argument?