When I think about the Greg Niewendorp affair, what seems to hit me first isn’t the involvement of the state police, or the irritation of the sheriff, or Greg’s tough talk, but rather it is his view that depleted soil is causing the bovine TB problem in his area of Michigan. Soil deficient in important minerals creates pasture that is similarly deficient, which leads to cattle (and deer) that are deficient—and thereby susceptible to bovine TB—in his view. (Actually, I’ve read previously of studies showing that today veggies contain fewer nutrients than those raised 50 and 100 years ago, though it wasn’t clear if the cause was depleted soil or genetically managed veggies.)

The relationships between soil, plants, animals, and humans seem so obvious as a I write this, but I think to many of us city folk, born and bred on a diet of industrialized agriculture and medicine, and its supposedly miraculous seeds and drugs and instrumentation, the notion that something as fundamental as depleted soil could be at the heart of the bovine TB problem, along with other nutritional problems, is nothing short of astounding. As I’ve written before, Greg has compensated for the depletion by providing his animals with mineral supplements.

Two factors account for my astonishment. (And here’s my industrial agriculture mind at work):

First, there is a disconnect in our (nonfarm) minds between plants, animals and people. It doesn’t occur to us that if animals are deficient, then they are susceptible to disease, just like people are. It stands to reason also that the meat and milk such nutritionally deficient animals produce will be deficient, or pathogenic. And if such products are treated via pasteurization or irradiation, well, they will be even more deficient.

Second, there is this faith in the scientific-health establishment. If they say it’s pathogens that are at fault, and all we have to do is wipe out the pathogens, well, they should know. That also feeds further into the disconnect—the pathogens are made to seem separate from the animals and people—“invaders.” Never mind that the science is bought and paid for by the businesses that stand most to benefit from this perception.

I’m going to take this idea a little further, based on some of the comments in response to my posting about the raw-milk-NAIF issues not falling neatly into liberal-conservative labeling.

I am coming to the realization that a divide is emerging in American society over health and nutrition. On one side are the vast majority of Americans, who live primarily on processed foods, for their convenience and salty or sweet taste; these individuals, if they worry at all, worry mainly about limiting fat and cholesterol. They retain faith that medical technology or miracle drugs will make them well if they get sick. To them, people like Greg Niewendorp are wackos, pure and simple.

On the other side are the rapidly growing numbers of people who have concluded that their health is linked inextricably to consuming unprocessed whole foods that strengthen their immune systems, and to avoiding Big Pharma and Big Medicine as much as possible. These individuals may not have bought completely into things that Greg is preaching, but they are at least open to hearing about them.

I’m not sure where this all goes, politically speaking, since the inexorable trend has been toward what Dave Milano describes as “a people nurtured by a maternal government and paternalist businesses.” More troubling is that the divide looks to be increasingly divisive, given the growing numbers of examples of abusive behavior by the governmental authorities toward the producers of the unprocessed foods.