Facts we can stomach

An opinion piece in the Sunday New York Times, titled Change we can stomach, contends that chefs and consumers can change how farmers farm by buying "delicious" food. The author, Dan Barber, is the chef and co-owner of a New York restaurant and apparently is regarded in some circles as a leading food writer. In Barber's mind, delicious means only locally produced, organic food.

There is much to be said for this movement in agriculture, including the opportunities it provides for young and beginning farmers. Barber, though, sounds false notes on several fronts. This line rings flat, for example: "Until now, food production has been controlled by Big Agriculture, with its macho fixation on 'average tonnage' and 'record harvests.'"

Until now? You mean ever since we were hunting and gathering, we've been Big Agriculture? If we're not helping serve $100 meals in NYC, are we then, all the rest of us, big bad Big Agriculture? And,by the way, has anyone in ag journalism ever used the phrase "average tonnage"?

Later in his piece Barber claims that "organic fruits and vegetables contain 40 percent more nutrients than their chemical-fed counterparts." What?

Here's what the Organic Farming Research Foundation says on the topic of the nutrient superiority of organics versus conventional: "The definitive study has not been done, mainly because of the multitude of variables involved in making a fair comparison between organically grown and conventionally grown food."

On Barber's Web site, he talks about working with the Kellogg Foundation and other organizations to "minimize the political and intellectual rhetoric around agricultural issues…." Dude.