A while back, the American–the magazine of the American Enterprise Institute–published an article by farmer Blake Hurst called “The Omnivore’s Delusion,” taking to task “agri-intellectuals” like Michael Pollan who have criticized industrial farming.

Here Tom Philpott points out some of the holes and omissions in Hurst’s argument. Philpott acknowledges that the sustainable food movement hasn’t grappled with some of the big, hard questions about transitioning to a different system of food production, but also points out that Hurst doesn’t address the many serious environmental impacts of industrial farming that call into question its long-term future.

I lean somewhat toward the more middle-of-the-road views espoused by folks like Paul Roberts and James McWilliams: some kind of “industrial” (i.e., large-scale, mechanized) food production is probably inevitable simply to feed people, but distinctions need to be made between sustainable and un-sustainable varieties. (For instance, a modified form of industrial grain production vs. industrial animal farming.) In other words, neither Roberts nor McWilliams sees the solution as a return to an idyllic agrarian past.