Sorry, But There’s a Better Way: Responding to the NYT’s Factory Farm Claim

By Harry Rhodes, Executive Director

About a month ago the New York Times published an upsetting article by Michael Grunwald claiming that “…factory farms are the best hope for producing the food we will need….”

We at FACT strongly disagree with this assumption. We believe that there is a better way to produce food. We believe that all animals raised for food should be treated humanely and that all people should have access to healthy, humanely raised, and safe food.

In response to this article, I sent a Letter to the Editor on behalf of FACT, explaining what we view as the problems in Mr. Grunwald’s conclusions, and laying out our vision for the future of agriculture.

Dear Editor,

In his article “Sorry, but This is the Future of Food” Michael Grunwald describes the awful environmental and climate consequences of industrial agriculture, but then goes on “we should think of all farming as a necessary evil. It makes our food and it makes a mess.”

Why does it have to be this way? How have government policies including ethanol mandates, lack of regulation of pollution of livestock facilities, and crop production subsidies contributed to the existing system?  Are there really no viable, healthy, and humane alternatives to this admittedly destructive system that we have created? 

Even the title of Mr. Grunwald’s article indicates an underlying apology: Sorry, but this is what we’re stuck with and will be for years to come.  

At FACT – Food Animal Concerns Trust - we believe that there is a better, more humane way to raise livestock and poultry. Many young and beginning farmers are attracted to these ideas that respect the animals, the land, and the workers. This is the way of the future, not consolidation and more industrial agriculture. This is the future we should be pursuing and promoting, not Michael Grunwald’s bleak vision.