Picture an angry young man with a sign. He appears to be agitated, holding a sign that condemns what his opponent stands for. There's a chain link fence behind him.
Take a second to capture how you feel about those three sentences. Has your heart rate jumped? Do you associate with the protester? Do you want to get in his face?
Whatever your reaction, that is the first impression you get when reading The 10 Reasons They Hate You So, a clearly provocative post on the site Truth in Food.
With your blood now pumping, the author, Mike Smith, takes you through the first five parts of "his" defense of industrialized food (his agenda is clearly bigger than his own). Had he not presented the image I mentioned above or used words like "hate" in his title, the piece would have likely slipped under the radar. My guess is he knew exactly what he was doing.
Right from the start, Mr. Smith works hard to make "good food" advocates out to be a powerful force hellbent on destroying our abundant food system. He goes so far as to refer to these people as the "food-consumer-activist complex." It's laughable to pit citizens against the real force in our food system - the Food-Pharma-Health Complex, especially when you consider how unchecked these industries have become in the U.S. economy.
Now on to Mr. Smith's Top 10:
#1: They hate you because you trust in science.
Science is Mr. Smith's answer to the world's problems. The advancement of science has always offered tremendous power in improving our well-being. But when it becomes entirely controlled by for-profit entities that leverage it for the sole purpose of making money, all bets are off. You see, our democratically-elected government has been giving capitalism a free ride for decades, allowing near-monopolistic industries to hide behind science. Consumer health be dammed, we've got to feed the world (and our shareholders) with calories (and cash), regardless of the side effects. I'm fairly certain that most serious sustainable food advocates don't question the value of science. What we do question is the application of scientific discovery, which has been concentrated in the hands of a handful of corporate giants through invention or acquisition with a single bottom line in mind - money.
#2: They hate you because you're messing with their kids.
I'm not a highly educated woman, but I am the father of four kids. Does that mean I can't be against industrialized food? Is it out of the question that I am concerned for more than my own family? It would seem that being concerned about the welfare of children equates to being a "new-age anti-tech advocate." How does Mr. Smith rationalize such an absurd claim? He bashes leading sustainable food voices that have extensive knowledge backed by equally extensive research to back up their claims. Mr. Smith, I'm starting to believe you don't like women; or kids for that matter.
#3: They hate you in order to fight the power.
What is science other than man's way of trying to make sense of (and control in many cases) what is an otherwise complex world? I would never suggest that such a quest is without merit, but to put it ahead of the human spirit is what bothers many who push back against science-driven industry's onslaught to reshape the natural world. Apparently, Mr. Smith believes that man has the potential to do this without harm. I wonder if he stopped to think that all of that is based on "belief." On a related note, after bashing academically inclined thinkers several times by this point in his post, Mr. Smith is starting to appear very academic to me with his citing of Gandhi, Foucault, Borlaug, Berry and others. I wonder if he realizes that he may just be one of "us".
#4. They hate you because you're white.
Minority ownership of U.S. farms is concentrated in small, barely-getting-by farms, not the heavily subsidized, monoculture crop farms that feed our industrial food system. Stop playing the "Farm Card" Mr. Smith. It is without merit. I'd also recommend you stop acting like an academic with phrases like "today's postmodern critics of food production deal in symbol and metaphor." Letting your true colors show through like this can't be good for your reputation in the non-foodie, profit-at-any-cost industrial food space.
#5: They hate you because you're male.
Again, Mr. Smith plays the Farm Card, this time with regard to gender. He tries to make it sound as if all those women working on farms are on par with the male-dominated, monoculture, heavily subsidized farm operations that dominate farming acres and revenues. You miss again, Mr. Smith. The problem is that after making such an argument, first on race, then on gender, you give the reader such a clear indication of your bias. Did you intend to do that? Did you intend to convince those opposed to your position to convert? In either case, I must say your tactics lack sophistication and will have little impact other than to further polarize the debate. Well played. Not.
With that, I can hardly wait for Mr. Smith's next five hateful reasons to further polarize the knowledge gap between farmers and eaters. I'm especially excited to read how he invokes Norman Rockwell and Ronald Reagan to make his points. Reagan is a no brainer, but Rockwell intrigues me.
Yipee!