I’ve spoken with many agribusiness officials and farmers over the years, and encouraged them to think outside the box and consider the benefits of growing plants in place of animals. This concept can be met with resistance, especially from those heavily invested (financially and emotionally) in industrialized animal agriculture.  A couple years ago, I spoke to a group of young dairy industry leaders who challenged my proposition that plant (not animal) farming is the most efficient and ecologically sound way to feed a large human population. They argued that intensive animal agriculture is the most efficient way to produce food. In response, I explained that their views were the exact opposite of what the empirical evidence shows and I asked where they got their information. I was somewhat amused when they told me the name of the book: “Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastics” by Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington, DC that is funded by chemical and agribusiness companies such as Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra and Cargill. Avery’s position relies on narrow, short sighted assumptions to promote intensive ‘high yield’ farming. With the growing awareness about demand for oil outstripping supply, one of Avery’s statements is particularly notable in its shortsightedness and inaccuracy. He wrote: “Critics of mechanized farming warn that the world is rapidly running out of petroleum. However, the world’s current low oil prices testify that new systems for discovering and recovering oil have expanded the supply more rapidly than the demand in recent decades.”  I believe it’s time for Avery and others of his ilk to rethink some of their fundamental assumptions and to look more carefully at the actual state of our planet and our own health.