Monday, August 3, 2009

"In Favor of Industrial Farming"

. Monday, August 3, 2009

Or, "The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals". A Missouri farmer pushes back against the likes of Michael Pollan and Food, Inc., and argues that those criticizing industrial farming don't have a grip on the realities that farmers face, or the necessary trade-offs of moving to an all organic, more "natural" norm of farming. For starters, we'd have to cull the human population by several billion people, engage in more environmental degradation, and speed up climate change. There's another component, familiar to IPE students:

We are clearly in the process of deciding that we will not continue to raise animals the way we do now. Because other countries may not share our sensibilities, we'll have to withdraw or amend free trade agreements to keep any semblance of a livestock industry.

Agricultural policy has been one of the major sticking points in the Doha round of WTO talks, and there is reason to suspect that if the U.S. starts requiring organic or free-range certifications for food imports that developing countries will respond with retaliatory "process" tariffs of some kind, and having WTO backing to boot. Which might be worth it, but it does up the ante quite a bit.

Here's the concluding argument:

But farmers have reasons for their actions, and society should listen to them as we embark upon this reappraisal of our agricultural system. I use chemicals and diesel fuel to accomplish the tasks my grandfather used to do with sweat, and I use a computer instead of a lined notebook and a pencil, but I'm still farming the same land he did 80 years ago, and the fund of knowledge that our family has accumulated about our small part of Missouri is valuable. And everything I know and I have learned tells me this: we have to farm "industrially" to feed the world, and by using those "industrial" tools sensibly, we can accomplish that task and leave my grandchildren a prosperous and productive farm, while protecting the land, water, and air around us.

Unsurprisingly, the article was published by the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank. There is hardly any discussion of the various ethical claims most often made about agriculture policy. The article instead focuses on the practical difficulties of moving in the direction that the Pollanistas prefer. The author does not claim that we shouldn't move in that direction, only that we should have a true appreciation for the full package of what we'd get.

I hope this article inspires some honest rebuttals. I don't know of anyone who is completely comfortable with the way food is manufactured in the U.S., but we rarely have open and informed discussion of agricultural policy in this country. Instead, public commentary often devolves into ill-informed, emotional moralizing. We can, and should, do better.


Amanda Cook said...

Ok here I go, responding to your disappointment that no one responded to this. :)

First and foremost, it seems highly disingenuous to claim that we need industrial farming to preserve freedom for farmers. The current system is probably the most dictatorial one that farmers have ever been under (at least since feudalism?). Monsanto owns patents on seeds, and claims that it is ok to own patents on a life form because they put a lot of work into developing a GM seed that can withstand super-high doses of chemical pesticides (which, of course, they also sell). They would argue that the reason their seed is successful is because of supply/demand/miracle of the market. But farmers, if they use those seeds, can't gather the seeds from their crops and replant them the next season. If they use Monsanto's seeds, they become perpetual slaves to Monsanto, bypassing the natural sustainability of plant life. Moreover, there are farmers who want to opt out of using Monsanto's seeds so that they can continue to gather and replant seeds from their crops. But those farmers get screwed because the Monsanto seeds literally blow onto their fields from their neighbors, and then when Monsanto sends agents to try to nail them for patent infringement, the farmer gets screwed even if he is innocent. That doesn't exactly sound like we are putting farmer's best interests first here.

Not to mention that industrial agriculture is often a disaster. The so-called "Green Revolution" in India produced really great results for about ten years, and then productive yield sharply dropped. There is a ton of starvation now, even more than before the arrival of industrial agriculture. Now farmer's are essentially coerced into selling their produce to giant supermarket chains, and so they are able to keep less profit. Also, industrial agriculture turns farms into one-crop farms, making farmers unable to live off of the crops they grow (which is tragically ironic). Suicide rates among farmers in developing countries are ridiculously high (read Raj Patel's "Stuffed and Starved," it is an amazing book).

And that doesn't even touch on the health problems associated with industrial farming. All of the crazy strains of flu that are spreading around the world (bird flu, swine flu, etc) are caused by the terrible conditions in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The ecoli outbreak a few years ago was a result of cows being fed corn (which fattens them quickly, but makes them sick) rather than grass. And, when food is more monoculture (the entire US farm system produces corn almost exclusively), the food system invents new uses for corn (like HFCS) that are decidedly not healthy. So now we have the obesity epidemic and our hospitals are filled to capacity with diabetics. Oh, and 70% or something of antibiotics used in the US are fed to healthy animals in CAFOs to prevent their getting sick (because the conditions are so bad)--hence, antibiotic-resistant organisms, which are another huge impending health disaster.

If you add on top of those reasons the additional fact that real food (ie fresh veggies and animals that were treated right and fed what they were born to eat) tastes way better and is probably more healthful than its industrial-ag counterpart, AND the fact that animals are really being treated like crap by the industrial-ag system, to me it is a no brainer. The current system is not working. The right-wing propaganda that claims that the only way to feed the world is to expand industrial-ag is based on the faulty assumption that the current system is working. Especially if you were to take into account all of the externalities (health epidemics, etc) of industrial-ag, I don't see how that argument can stand. It seems to me that the best way to support farmers is to buy directly from them (through community supported agriculture or farmer's markets), which allows them to grow what they want and to be free from the giant thumb of Monsanto.

Ian Cook said...

To discuss this issue, we first have to realize the degree to which modern agriculture science orthodoxy has crept into our collective consciousness during the years before Michael Pollan was writing best-sellers and "Food, Inc." was playing at multiplexes.

Monsanto/Cargill/ADM and friends have taught us not just how to farm, eat and cook, but also how to research, write and think. The practice of agronomy today is an act of shilling for the industrial agriculture industry. If one aspires to a career in alternative agronomy, he or she will find paltry funding, no professorships, and little institutional support; but plenty of ostracism. So your call for "open and informed discussion" and an end to "ill-informed" arguments is like asking to play fair with a stacked deck.

Liz said...

I wanted to leave a really great response but I think the first one pretty much covers a lot of what I think.

One thing to add, though: One of the first signs of a country gaining in wealth is that the people in that country start eating more meat. I think one of the issues is that in the case of the U.S., we think we are entitled to eat meat every single day, often more than once a day. If we all just cut down to eating it only once a day or every other day, it would dramatically change the demand, and would allow for a move to more sustainable farming on a wider-scale.

However, you don't just get 300 million people to stop eating fast food or buying giant bags of Tyson frozen chicken for 7 dollars. Eating less meat would improve most people's health, as well as positively benefit the environment, but the system isn't going to allow that. Too many business are dependent on America's appetite for meat. The vast majority of people don't think twice about where their food comes from. Sure, we live in Chapel Hill, and live in a fantasy land of local and organic food. But go to the midwest, and people really aren't thinking about it as much.

Anyway, it seems to me the only thing that will change the industry is consumer demand. However, American's don't like to spend that much money on food. Compared to many other countries, we spend much less of our take home income on food than other countries. It also seems that America's lack of a defined food culture could also contribute to this somewhat. We love food, but I don't think most of us are as connected to it and where it comes from as other cultures. Our food culture is just that we love it and we want more of it. We have t.v. channels dedicated to it, and there certainly aren't too many celebrity chefs showing us any good vegetarian dishes.

All that to say: if you want to change the industry, you have to change millions of people's mindset about their own meat consumption, which is something that I don't think is going to change. And getting all these people shell out more $$ for more sustainable raised meat is also unlikely.

Kindred Winecoff said...

Okay, I'm going to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, and keep in mind (as I said) that I really don't know all the much about this.

First, at least two of you said things like "we spend less money on food that we used to": isn't that a good thing? If we spent more money on food (as a society), then we'd have less to spend on things like health care, say, or education. Similarly, even if we could redistribute money from corporations to farmers, why would we be sure that that would yield a net social benefit? We would make some farmers richer at the expense of the owners and employees of corporations. What's the moral case for privileging farmers over anyone else in this way?

So if we were successful in dismantling Monsanto et al, we would in effect be making food more expensive (which is regressive) thus cutting the standards of living of the entire population, while putting thousands of people out of work in the process. I don't see how that's a net gain for society.

Now, the corporatization of food: it seems that the main reason this has happened is because there are large returns to scale in farming. I.e., larger farms are able to produce much more efficiently than smaller farms. (As far as I know, this is true of both "industrial" and "sustainable" farms). Those returns may not be constantly increasing, but at least up to a certain point this seems true. Similarly, single-crop farms are more efficient than multi-crop farms for the same reason (although it is my understanding that industrial farms often rotate crop to replenish the soil). Efficiency gains mean cost gains, so food becomes cheaper, which means more people can easily afford it. This is good, right?

Now if a company has monopoly powers, which has happened somewhat with the major Agri businesses, then that's bad. If things are truly as bad for farmers who choose not to use Monsanto seeds as Amanda says, then that's a tragedy (and easily remedied by the Justice system, as far as i can see). But we all agree that other farming models are possible, right? I mean, I know you guys buy at least some of your food from non-Monsanto-using farmers. It may be more expensive, but that stuff is obviously out there. So there's no determinism here: farmers have alternatives. They choose Monsanto because it's cheap and brings high yields. Am I correct here?

I'll continue in another comment...

SBD said...

No, Will, you're not correct.

The justice system is woefully inadequate in dealing with the monopolistic nature of Monsanto and agrobusiness more broadly. Monsanto has been successful many times over in court in defending its right to charge farmers for the privilege of using seeds that have cross pollinated with Monsanto's patented seeds.

Furthermore, I really don't understand your willingness to defend big agrobusiness. The farm bill is the biggest piece of market-distorting pork in the US government. If factory farming was so efficient, why would we continue to see such large subsidies, quotas, and other non-tariff barriers to trade?

This isn't an argument over whether to leave the market alone or encourage small-scale farming. It's an argument over whether to continue to give agrobusiness the preferential subsidies, legal protections, and other political/economic goods we currently provide or whether to level the playing field a bit to allow for a less distorted market.

If agrobusiness didn't get the political goods it currently does, smaller farms could compete and more diverse ways of farming could flourish.

AND, even if food was more expensive at the market, we'd get much more savings in terms of reduced government spending on the farm bill and reduced government and private spending on health care.

Kindred Winecoff said...

Now as to health: it's certainly true that some diseases have formed in industrial farms. It's also true that diseases have formed in non-industrial farms. In fact, it's true that diseases have always been found in food in all places at all times to at least some extent. However, I've never seen it demonstrated that *more* diseases (in percentage terms) develop in industrial farms than in non-industrial farms. Maybe such studies are out there, but I haven't seen them. Similarly, the studies I've seen comparing the health effects of organic vs. non-organic have been mixed at best.

Which is why consumer demand is much higher for industrially-farmed products: it's cheaper and any deleterious side effects are slight (if existent at all). (Liz, I'd also argue that many poor countries eat as much, or more, meat as more developed countries. Many Argentinians, for example, eat almost nothing but meat and some starches. I think it's less about pure incomes and more about culture. Now the type of meat eaten may be about incomes, but that's another story.)

As to whether or not it works: is it then simply a coincidence that richer countries tend to have more industrial agriculture? remember, the European Agricultural Revolution was what led to the Industrial Revolution, and the Green Revolution in the 20th century has had astounding results. I don't know much about India, but Wikipedia is much more sanguine than Amanda and claims "Famine in India, once accepted as inevitable, has not returned since the introduction of Green Revolution crops." Surely we can at least agree that the increasing standards of living that India has gained over the past 30 years would have been impossible under the pre-Green agricultural system.

Lastly, I'd reiterate what Liz said: it's relatively easy to live and Chapel Hill and be conscientious about this stuff, but it's much harder to do so while living in a city. Or a part of the country where very few crops grow. Without large distribution networks and scale returns, food options would be narrowed greatly for much of the human population and what few foods were available would be much more expensive. This was the story of the history of the world until the past few centuries. But because of large-scale production and distribution we've effectively escaped the Malthusian Trap. On net, aren't these developments positive?

sbd said...

The point about health care is largely about the fact that HFC (which is only economically viable because corn is subsidized and the price of sugar is kept artificially high through quotas) directly leads to diabetes. While advances in health care in the US mainly come from keeping people with disease alive longer, our health care advances have not decreased rates of disease (one exception might be decreased rates of advanced stage cancer due to earlier detection).

I'm not arguing that all people should be required to buy a certain type of food that is produced a certain way. What I am saying is that the current system distorts the market and that this distortion is not welfare improving. Poor people have the highest rates of the types of diseases most closely related to the food system we have now (diabetes, heart disease, etc), so I'd hardly say that the current system works well for them. The utility function for food is not linear, rather there is an ideal caloric intake.

You say that consumer demand tells us that the market wants "conventional food," but what the market really tells us is that people want cheap food. "Conventional" food is artificially cheap, so who's to say that the market wouldn't want sustainably grown food if it was subsidized to the level that "conventional" is?

Plus, what about the points about the justice system's inadequate protection of farmers' rights?

Kindred Winecoff said...


As you know, I'm completely with you on the Farm Bill and subsidies/supports for the farm industry. But I would be willing to bet a lot of money that if those were eliminated the biggest effect would be an immediate collapse of any remaining small farms (who also receive tons of federal aid) and even more corporatization of the industry. Why? Because of what I said before: scale returns from production and distribution. These certainly do exist in agriculture just like most other businesses. I would expect more, not less, market domination by Big Ag companies. What's your model for thinking differently?

As for Monsanto, again, I really don't know much about it. But if Monsanto has really been successful "many times over" in defending their case, then... maybe they're right? I mean, I know injustices happen in the judicial system, but usually they aren't repeated over and over again. And it's pretty tough to argue that a small-time farmer couldn't get a sympathetic jury in a case against a big corporation.

I'm not trying to defend big Ag companies. I really don't care whether they live or die. What I care about is standards of living. And it seems like industrial farming improves standards of living everywhere it's tried. I'm sure there are some side effects, but are they so severe that they are worse than the alternatives? I'm not convinced of that.

SBD said...


Subsidies drive farmers towards certain crops and towards certain methods of production that only make sense from a large-scale perspective. Then, the small farmers need to compete on price with the large factory farms that keep prices artificially low. The end of subsidies will make it easier for smaller farmers to pursue polyculture and will allow them to get more money for their yield. I firmly believe that ending subsidies would be good for small farms. That's why a lot of small farmers campaign for reduced subsidies - because they see subsidies as actually driving them out of business.

Really? Monsanto could be right? Or maybe our intellectual property laws are flawed. I can't see any way in which it is right to charge a farmer for a seed she didn't even want in the first place. In fact, I think it is more right for Monsanto to be sued for screwing with the DNA of seeds a farmer owns without her consent.

I think industrial farming has in the past improved living standards, but our scientific knowledge has changed. Also, the benefits of increased caloric consumption have started to be greatly impinged by the side effects (health, environmental, etc). Also, I'm not suggesting forbidding industrial farming, I'm just saying lets stop subsidizing it.

Kindred Winecoff said...

Totally agree: eliminate the subsidies, tariffs, and quotas (including the ones going to small farmers). If we could do that, I'd guess we'd see what would happen. I'm just having a hard time seeing how the Big Ag companies lose market share in that scenario. There were 1.4 million recipients of farm subsidies in 2008. 33% of all U.S. farms get subsidies. This includes many small farms. Yes, many of those are indirect subsidies to Big Ag companies, but only because they keep the individual farmers in business and buying their products. The point is, both large and small agribusinesses benefit from subsidies, but the larger businesses would have an easier time staying in business if the subsidies were eliminated because they could still capture scale returns. (Another thing: much of our agriculture industry would probably shift to poorer countries if we ended all supports; this might be good for consumers, but not so good for local producers.)

I do you think would be right that there would be more diverse farming, and that would be a good thing. But to the extent that crops are substitutable for small farmers, they are all also substitutable for industrial farmers. Right?

I didn't mean Monsanto was right in some moral sense. Just the legal sense. If the intellectual property laws are screwy then that's one thing, but it's not Monsanto's fault. If they protect their property as defined by the law, then they are "right" in a legal sense. Which is what I meant.

Amanda Cook said...

I wrote a really detailed response to this all yesterday and then proceeded to lose it all, and I am way too lazy to do it again. But Will, suffice it to say that I think you are wrong about the standard of living necessarily increasing because of industrial ag. I dragged out my copy of Raj Patel's Stuffed and Starved, and there are some really interesting facts and evidence (which I as a theorist am typically referring to only vaguely) showing that the actual amount of food available per capita has been steadily decreasing since the 1980s in India despite the "miracle" of the Green Revolution. Moreover, the power dynamics that have resulted within India as a result of the Green Revolution are also devastating, and the industrial ag techniques that have been introduced really only work under perfect conditions. For example, it needs tons of irrigation and so the groundwater level is dropping precipitously. Also, today 233 million Indians are undernourished, including 43% of children. So, at a minimum, your definition of "improved living standards" deserves a closer look. Sorry I am too lazy to do a better job backing myself up, but if you pick up a copy of the book it is pages 124-8.

Kindred Winecoff said...

I tried to find Patel's book, but Google Books doesn't have a preview. But I'll take all his stats at face value, since they actually demonstrate how the Green Revolution was a success. Why? Per capita calculations don't hold population growth constant. India's population was not constant: it grew by 22% (according to official census) from just 1991 to 2001, representing some 200 million people. It's gone up another 150 million or so this decade. Meanwhile, food grain production nearly *doubled* from 1980-2000. This population growth simply would not have been possible without the Green Revolution, which quite literally allowed India to escape the Malthusian Trap for the first time in their history. So while many people are still very poor and undernourished (mostly because the government isn't distributing food to them; you're right, power structures suck, but this isn't new), 350 million people in India likely would've starved to death over the past 18 years without the Green Revolution. Famines like the Bengal Famine, which were a semi-regular feature of pre-Green Revolution India and killed millions at a time, have literally not occurred once since the Green Revolution.

I'm not sure you really appreciate how bad India was before 1980. Sub-Saharan Africa had nothing on India. It's a completely different country in roughly one generation. This isn't all due to the Green Revolution, but many of the other reforms were probably not possible without it.

I'm not saying that the Green Revolution has been a complete panacea, and it may not even be sustainable in the medium-run (because it is water-intensive, for one thing), but I don't understand how it could possibly be considered a failure. India went from being a food importer to an exporter. It got more self-sufficiency, ended famines, and allowed for population growth. It gave opportunities to free up capital for human development (like increased education) that have helped the country develop economically. Are there downsides? Surely. There are downsides to everything. But they pale in comparison to the alternatives, as far as I can see.

Amanda Cook said...

Ok so you have to forgive me if my argumentation isn't quite what it usually is, I'm going to fall back on the fact that I had brain surgery last week. (I plan to use that as an excuse as much as possible.)

Patel doesn't ignore the population growth issue, and he acknowledges that "it's indisputable that yields are higher than before." No one (even the vocal critics) deny that. But that misses the point, because the Bengal famine wasn't caused by lack of food, but by inability allocate it. See below:

"Despite this, farmers warn against this kind of technology because 'the miracle seeds come at too high a cost.' The miracle of the seed was that they could, under the right circumstances, provide an unnatural abundance. When those circumstances were right, abundance was almost certain. The problem lay in the fact that circumstances were almost never right. The seeds required irrigation, leading to competition for water, which has resulted in groundwater levels dropping over a foot a year in some areas. Irrigation led to increased salt deposits in the soil, rendering increasing areas of the land unusable. Green Revolution monocultures also expunged indigenous biodiversity....The cost of fertilizer could only be borne by those farmers who were able to access credit, so smallholdings in the Punjab dropped by a quarter. (This is another sign that the technology wasn't really designed to benefit farmers so much as to provide one crop, cheaply, to urban consumers.) Annual debt for Punjabi farmers is far higher than the national average.

"Let's just say, for a moment, that we're appalled by rural poverty and believe that efficient markets and new technology will solve hunger for both rural and urban poor. To think this, though, we would ignore one of history's most wretched lessons in economics. Recall that the Public Distribution System (which was largely dismantled in the 1990s) was expanded in the wake of the 1943 Bengal famine, in which over 3 million people died. The paradox is that, at the same time as people died of hunger, there was enough food in Bengal to be able to feed them. Amartya Sen showed that modern famines weren't related so much to the absence of food as the inability to buy it. Looking at the 1943 famine, Sen found not that food had been lacking in Bengal. In fact, there was plenty of it around. It's just that those who owned it had hoarded it, knowing that less food meant higher prices....The only way that famine can be overcome is to guarantee rights to hungry people that trump those of grain-hoarders at the waist of the food system hourglass. The only way Sen sees this as possible is through, at a bare minimum, a functioning democracy."

Amanda Cook said...

So a few things: The yield is higher, but totally unsustainable. The groundwater is dropping, the land is becoming unusable because of salt deposits, and monocultures of crops are more susceptible to blights and stuff. I don't think it's fair to call these things "downsides" that are better than the alternatives, because they aren't sustainable. Sure, they are minor downsides now, but what about in 10, 20, 30 years?

Also, you talk reverently of the fact that India became a food exporter. That sort of reverence is typical of economists, but I don't think it really makes sense when you step back. In order to be a food exporter, you need to produce vast quantities of commodities that sell well on the world market. So all of the farmers switch from producing diverse and nutritious foods into producing nothing but, stepping away from India for a minute, coffee beans, or cocoa beans. All of a sudden, farmers are totally screwed because they have to sell all of their crops to giant corporations (what is an individual farmer going to do with coffee beans?) who give them as little money as possible, and on top of that they don't even have any of the food they grow in order to feed their families. This is the problem with the programs funded by the WTO and like orgs. And then the economists say "WOW! Look! India (or Africa, or whereever) is producing way more than before! They are net food exporters now! Isn't that great?" This is what happens when we divorce numbers from values and from the actual stuff that is happening on the ground. Why is being a food exporter a goal for a country like India? Especially with it's soaring population growth, shouldn't the goal be a nutritious diet for its growing population? Especially with suicide rates among rural farmers on the rise, we should realize there is a problem here.

And by what definition is dependence on industrial ag megacorporations an example of "self-sufficiency"?

I'm not trying to say that industrial ag hasn't accomplished anything, because it is clear that yields have increased. And I'm not naive enough to think that buying overpriced veggies at a farmer's market in Chapel Hill will solve the problem. At this point, we have the entire structure of the world food system to overcome. But, I think it is a mistake to claim that the current system is better than alternatives as if the current system is working. The current system is highly f'ed up and entirely unsustainable. Of course in terms of solutions to all of this, it is hard to know where to start, because the problem is so huge and so structural. For one, like Sarah said, stop the subsidies. Also, I think we need to advocate for our farmers in the US and also in developing countries. They all face such huge pressures and basically have no freedom to grow what they want (watch Food Inc.). And I'm glad to live in Chapel Hill rather than the middle of Kentucky, because I love that I can give my money directly to farmers, even if that is not an option that most people have. (Oh, and btw, I think our farmer's market even accepts food stamps.)

Kindred Winecoff said...

I think the "brain surgery" excuse will work for quite a long time. Probably for the rest of your life if you learn to play it right. : )

Actually, Amartya Sen argued that the British (who still controlled India in 1943) were too pre-occupied by WWII to distribute food effectively. In any case, Sen's analysis has been called into question by other researchers. FWIW, Amartya Sen was not critical of the Green Revolution.

You said: "Why is being a food exporter a goal for a country like India?" Considering the historical context, because it meant going from a reliance on subsistence farming (and susceptibility to droughts and famines) to a middle-income country that is rapidly moving towards being a high-income country. It meant escaping the Malthusian Trap. It meant creating social, political, and economic opportunities for 1.2 billion people that literally did not exist when I was born.

Before that, you seemed to advocate that poor farmers in India not grow cash crops. I don't understand: why is it a good thing for poor people to get poorer? And why is it a moral good for farmers to grow wheat instead of mushrooms, even though mushrooms are worth more? What ethical principle are we operating under here?

It's probably impossible to come to consensus here. I look at India's social, cultural, political, and economic development over the past 3 decades and am shocked at how well market liberalizations and industrialized agriculture have worked (and not just in India; there's a good reason why the Green Revolution spread all over the world very rapidly). If I read you right, you look at it as a de-humanizing process that has been captured by corporations at the expense of human dignity. I view subsistence farming and extreme poverty as even more de-humanizing than having to deal with a corporation. You view the shift from subsistence crops to cash crops as an opportunity lost. I view it as an opportunity gained. Moreover, the only model that has been successful in lifting peoples out of the Malthusian Trap is industrialization. Everything else has failed (or hasn't been tried on a large scale).

That doesn't mean the transition has been painless; transitions never are (and trust me: dismantling the "entire structure of the world food system" would come with heavy, heavy human costs). But it does mean that the citizens of India are much better off than they used to be, even if they have a long way to go.

Amanda Cook said...

I am too exhausted to continue arguing about this, and I know that the only way to end a debate with you is probably to let you have the last word, so I am done. But I just want to clarify that I am not persuaded.

See you tonight! :)

"In Favor of Industrial Farming"




Add to Technorati Favorites