On December 13, 2024, The New York Times published “Sorry, but This is the Future of Food,” an opinion essay by Michael Grunwald. The piece is the final essay in “What to Eat on a Burning Planet”, a series that claims to explore bold ideas to secure our food supply. In the essay, Grunwald holds up outdated narratives and “solutions” while encouraging us to embrace industrial food models as the only way to feed a growing human population. It will come as no surprise to most of you reading this that the Agroecology Fund (and many partners and allies) were terribly disappointed in this narrow, and incorrect view about the future of food.
Never pass up the opportunity for healthy debate! When these false narratives are given editorial space, it’s a chance to push back and help readers understand viable alternatives. With good science behind it, agroecology is the future of food. Agroecology Fund Co-Director, Daniel Moss submitted a response, as did many, many people who are close to agroecology movements. Although our letter was not published, we share it as a way to deepen the conversation about the importance of investing in grassroots agroecology movements around the world.
Below is our response:
Dear Editor,
Sadly, Michael Grunwald, the author of “Sorry, but this is the Future of Food” seems to live in a world which precludes learning from mistakes. The acceleration of industrial agriculture is an entirely understandable historical development. Industry created a food system for a growing population centered on robust sales of their manufactured inputs. However, to suggest that today we have to put up with industrial agriculture’s contamination and public health hazards simply because of its historical role suggests that we can’t analyze and apply lessons. At the highest levels of academia and UN agencies, industrial agriculture has been criticized for multiple failings. Ample evidence of poor nutrition and climate change contributions invites new thinking.
Agroecology builds on Indigenous food systems and adds Western scientific analysis on soil health, agrobiodiversity, nutrition and more. Allying with consumers demanding food as medicine, millions of farmers around the globe are joining vibrant movements for agroecology. This groundswell has demonstrated yields commensurate with high input industrial agriculture and challenges the industry mantra that “we feed the world”. This is exactly what we need for a planet in deep crisis. It is a lack of creativity and imagination to accept a broken system.
Daniel Moss
We were thrilled to see that on January 4, 2025, The New York Times published “Changing How We Grow Our Food: Readers disagree with an essay about factory farms.” Agroecology Fund partner and ally, Anna Lappé, Executive Director, Global Alliance for the Future of Food had this response published:
“To the Editor:
Re “Factory Farms Are Our Best Hope for Feeding the Planet,” by Michael Grunwald (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 15):
As executive director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, I take issue with Mr. Grunwald’s essay. He claims that “we should think of all farming as a necessary evil.” We absolutely should not.
Around the world, our alliance supports farmers and fishers who are on the front lines of producing abundant food that helps boost biodiversity, create greater climate resilience and provide solid livelihoods. No evil required.
The kind of food production systems that Mr. Grunwald insists we must accept have been rightfully lambasted for decades by leading experts for their dependency on fossil fuels and toxic chemicals — all while actually producing very little of what you or I would think of as food. (Think high-fructose corn syrup or feed crops for livestock.)
These systems are “efficient,” as Mr. Grunwald claims, only if you ignore their true costs — to our health, environment, climate and more. As someone who has heard countless stories from communities devastated by the toxic toll of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, the air and water pollution from factory farms, and the soil loss and land degradation from industrial farming practices, not to mention the exploitation of workers and animals in these systems, this is not a future of food I will accept. Nor should you.”
Thank you, Anna!