The Industrial Food System Has Failed Us

A version of this article first appeared in the April 2026 issue of Country Life in BC and the article below was published in the May, 2026 issue of Revive the Table

Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel Rosenberg published a deeply unsettling article in

The New York Times, outlandishly titled “Stop Worrying, and Learn to Love Industrial

Food” (February 8, 2026). Instead of encouraging people to eat real, traditional foods

and make strides towards building a more resilient and sustainable food system (in

which well-managed animals are an essential part), the article tells readers to embrace

industrial food, suggesting we should all be grateful for affordable, convenient foods.

My book Radical Farm: Animals, Food and Our Future tells a very different story. As a

former vegetarian turned rancher, my book explores the benefits of well-sourced animal foods and the value of a real food diet. I encourage people to build food security in their communities by supporting local producers, and the importance of understanding how production methods impact our health, the environment and the lives of animals. Thereis tremendous value in prioritizing whole food ingredients, and a better path forward does not include accepting the status quo. Informed consumer demand holds tremendous power in shaping our food system and articles like this, with their underlying push towards plant-based eating, are extremely misleading and counterproductive.

Dutkiewicz and Rosenberg say, “Virtually all the food we eat, junk and vegetables alike, is part of an industrial system. Acknowledging that fact and embracing the system’s scale, reliability, safety standards and abundance is a far better path to improving it than chasing a fantasy of Edenic premodern food that never existed.” Yet this is a false dichotomy and one that encourages people to accept things as they are, remainingdisengaged and removed from their food sources.

The food most people eat today is undeniably different than the ingredient-based eating of prior generations. The low-fat guidelines that began in the 1980s completely

transformed the standard American diet in many ways (and influenced other countries

to follow suit), most notably the transition from real-food fats to factory produced seed

oils. Over the years, full-fat dairy shifted to low-fat versions; certain foods became sanitized or irradiated, and a list of additives never-before-used became commonplace. Methods of processing morphed from time-honored practices that boost nutrition, such as turning full-fat milk into yogurt or fermenting cabbage into sauerkraut, to widely accepted industrialized methods that produce ultra-processed foods. Homemade cakes and cookies are a far cry from the chemical complexities of today’s packaged treats. Just one example: Twinkies used to be made with simple ingredients back in the1930s and were said to have a shelf life of just two days!

Returning to a real food diet shouldn’t be seen as idealistic, and history shows that a diet built around whole food ingredients is not a fantasy. Humans have been eating meat our entire existence and Indigenous Peoples hunted and fished long before they were pushed off their land. And as Nina Teicholz explains in her book The Big Fat Surprise, newcomers to America enjoyed an abundance of wild game (and it is with utmost confidence that I assert that wild game and fresh fish are more nutritious than deep fried chicken or frozen fish fingers). Sugar production didn’t ramp up until the late 1800s and eating meat, dairy, eggs and traditional fats was customary until the mid-1900s. Farming and procuring food locally was common, providing people access to high quality nutrition close to home. History has also shown us the power of the collective; in 1943, the Victory Gardens were said to produce 40% of the fresh produce in America.

Celebrating the reliability of industrial food misses the fact that reliable garbage is still garbage. Sure, we need calories to survive, but we need nutrients to thrive. Our goal shouldn’t be to simply keep people alive, but to have a healthy and productive

population. The mental and physical health of vast numbers of people in North America demonstrate that the current system does not serve the people.

The article’s most ludicrous claim compares the environmental footprint of tofu to beef. “It matters much more what is produced than how it is produced,” Dutkiewicz and Rosenberg claim. “Tofu is going to have a smaller ecological foodprint than beef. That holds true even if the tofu comes from soybeans grown on giant farms using pesticides, and the beef is grass-fed and organic.” The idea that tofu produced with pesticides could ever be healthier or better for the environment than grass-fed beef is

preposterous. Beyond the pesticides mentioned, tofu is almost always made from

genetically modified soybeans grown with synthetic fertilizers. Unlike the burning of fossil fuels for synthetic fertilizer production, ruminant animals are

part of the natural carbon cycle. Properly managed animals support biodiversity and

improve soil health and aggregation, leading to land that is better able to withstand

drought conditions and flooding. Unfortunately, many conventional agricultural practices, for which the industrial food system depends, are degrading our soils, killing beneficial insects and causing desertification, which accelerates climate change and makes famine a looming threat. Those opposing livestock production often fail to recognize that removing animal products from our plates only serves to push the burden of foodproduction onto other forms of agriculture that also come with impact.

Beyond the environmental considerations, grass-fed beef is more nutritious than tofu.

While research does show increased phytonutrients and improved omega-fatty acid

profile of grass-fed meat over conventional, even conventional beef has superior

nutrition when compared to plant-based protein sources. Animal foods contain all

essential amino acids for better protein synthesis and contain nutrients that are

impossible to obtain from plants alone. Most notably, B12, heme-iron and the

bioavailable form of vitamin A. Remember, it’s not what is written on a nutritional label

that matters, it’s what the body recognizes and absorbs.

Dutkiewicz and Rosenberg claim that most households don’t have time or inclination to cook all their food from scratch. This strikes me as another patronizing shrug of defeat, rather than any attempt to address the underlying issue, which is that most people are overworked, overscheduled and overstimulated. We don’t have to cook everything from scratch to see tremendous benefits, from better digestion to improved sleep and increased energy. Time is certainly a factor, but many people simply don’t know how to cook from scratch, can or ferment- all skills worth learning. Making your own kombucha, sourdough, pickled beets or meatloaf aren’t complicated. It’s about prioritizing the benefits of doing so and working traditional skills into your daily and weekly rhythms, a little at a time.

I agree with them that we should eat less sugar and remove soda machines from schools. Considering how addictive these packaged items are designed to be, I also agree with their statement that “Consumers should make better choices when they can and eat less of the obvious junk.” And yet, this seems like contradictory advice from those championing the benefits of industrial food. A lot of this so-called “obvious junk” is not always so obvious, with an array of misleading marketing and labeling. It’s challenging to navigate the misleading nonsense, which makes avoiding as much prepackaged food as possible a much better approach. I will acknowledge that there are factory-made items, such as canned vegetables and beans, that deserve a place on our grocery store shelves. These items shouldn’t be lumped together with soda or bread that is so full of preservatives that it fails to mold. Many people now understand sugary candy bars to be “obvious junk” but what about those granola bars, crackers or cans of soup, all with a disturbingly long list of ingredients? This isn’t good everyday food, and it is making people sick. Sadly, many people do not know what it feels like to be truly nourished and satiated. A real food diet can return food to its rightful place as enjoyable fuel.

While the Dutkiewicz and Rosenberg claim that “Food that is local, organic and low-tech is vastly more expensive than food grown through conventional methods,” they fail to recognize the hidden costs to our health and well-being as well as society at large.

Supporting local food builds food security in our communities and good production

methods uplift animal welfare and benefit the environment, on which we all depend. And if we don’t support local food now, what will we eat when supply chains break down?

Dutkiewicz and Rosenberg encourage us “to stop demonizing industrial food, and

instead think about how to make it better.” The same holds true for the local food

systems the authors denigrate. Crippling regulations and excessive land costs are

obstacles to decentralizing our food system and creating conditions that support local

economies and community resilience. These factors, as well as the challenging

socioeconomic factors that limit affordability and access to whole foods, need to be

addressed, all while continuing to advocate for ecologically beneficial farming practices that produce nutrient-dense, real food ingredients. A better food future for our children does not include remaining beholden to the very system that has failed us.

Abey Rae Scaglione is a farmer on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia.

She is the author of Radical Farm: Animals, Food and Our Future, www.radicalfarmbook.com.

A version of this article first appeared in the April 2026 issue of Country Life in BC.