One recurring issue I've found I'm having with all these books I'm reading is a matter of terminology. Pollan, Katz, Kingsolver, and even Salatin... they all use the term "conventional farming" to denote industrial agriculture, whereas organic, local farming is "new," "revolutionary," and "alternative."
This, I don't get.
Why is industrial agriculture "conventional?" Conventional is defined as "ordinary; conforming or adhering to accepted standards" (thanks to www.dictionary.com). Industrial agriculture adheres to accepted standards? I don't think so. Conventional also connotes some sort of presence in history. The Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century that produced industrial ag. was only 150 years ago. That's barely a blip on the timeline of the history of agriculture.
Why is organic, sustainable farming labeled as new and alternative? Farming was done organically for millenia before chemicals and technology was developed. It may not have been called organic... it may not have been called sustainable... it was probably done before the word agriculture even came around - but still, industrial ag. is a rogue baby compared to organic.
Is organic farming only called revolutionary today because it is a form of rebellion against the current predominant form of farming? How did the two terms, conventional and revolutionary, get switched around - when did this happen? Was it when industrial farming overtook and overwhelmed the real conventional farming? This terminology baffles me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment