The Polarization of Agriculture: The

Evolving Context of Extension Work

Abstract
The general public's perceptions and attitudes about agriculture have become more diverse
and divergent in recent years. Extension professionals can find themselves working with
widely varied audiences whose members adhere to a range of agricultural values. This
commentary focuses on how changes in agriculture have affected the work of Extension
professionals. I argue that Extension professionals need to find ways to recognize what their
own agricultural values are and to determine how those values will influence their work.

Keywords: agricultural values, conventional agriculture, nonconventional agriculture,

agricultural ideology

Michael J. Martin
Assistant Professor, Agricultural Education
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
michael.j.martin@colostate.edu

Introduction
Certain topics in agriculture have become increasingly divisive and divergent in the United
States. Extension professionals find themselves working with people who are being pulled
into two broad and polarized camps: supporters of conventional agriculture and supporters of
nonconventional agriculture. Complicating matters, the makeup of each camp is not uniform
—unique groups, each having its own concerns, exist within each camp. For instance, the
concerns of ranchers are not necessarily the same as those of farmers, and the concerns of
organic farmers may not align with the concerns of food justice advocates. Myriad groups
having various positions exist at each end of the spectrum represented by these camps, and in
the middle are American consumers, who have their own issues related to agriculture, food,
and fiber. The discussion of how Extension education must adapt in response to the needs of
an ever-changing society is not new (Agunga & Igodan, 2007; Colasanti, Wright, & Reau,
2009; Jimmerson, 1989; Safrit, Conklin, & Jones, 1995; Strong, Rowntree, Thurlow, &
Raven, 2015). However, this commentary focuses on how changes in agriculture are affecting
the work of Extension educators.

An examination of two groups (unaffiliated with Cooperative Extension) that fund differing
agricultural education campaigns sheds light on these differing agricultural values in play.
The National Ag Day campaign represents the interests of a variety of conventional
agricultural groups (Agricultural Council of America, 2015). The goal of this campaign is to
increase agricultural literacy among the general public. The message of the National Ag Day
campaign is seemingly neutral toward all forms of agriculture. Yet the partners that support
the event include a variety of large-scale agricultural corporations, marketing groups, and
lobbying organizations. In contrast to the conventional agricultural groups promoting
National Ag Day are members of the unconventional Organic Consumers Association (2015).
The Organic Consumers Association is an online grassroots nonprofit group focused on food
safety, children's health, and corporate accountability. The association's primary goal is to
eliminate industrial agriculture and genetic engineering. Its positions call for bans on
genetically modified organisms, the use of waste from concentrated animal feeding
operations as "organic" fertilizer, and the use of glyphosate (a carcinogen-containing
herbicide) for any purpose. These examples are just the beginning of a long list of topics that
span the agricultural divide between the National Ag Day campaign, supported by corporate
interests, and the Organic Consumers Association, which represents a return to more natural
and safer practices. The two ends of the agricultural spectrum denote not only a divide
between conventional industrial farming and nonconventional organic farming but also a
divide in agricultural education.

Describing Agricultural Values

The terms conventional agriculture and nonconventional agriculture are widely accepted
descriptors of the two concepts at the root of the agricultural debate. These terms represent
not only different types of farming but also differing sets of agricultural values.

Conventional agriculturalists argue for the merging of traditional rural and agricultural values
with the latest technological developments in agriculture. A frequent argument of
conventionalists is that the agriculture industry needs to focus its energy on producing
enough food to feed the growing world population (Borlaug, 2000; Conway, 2012; Miller &
Conko, 2004; Murphy, 2007). Conventional agriculturalists can range from small-scale
family farms to multinational agricultural corporations. Obviously, the needs of these groups
can vary greatly, and a variety of interest groups exist to meet these needs. Conventional
agriculturalists identify the goal of agricultural education as fostering greater agricultural
literacy among the general public. The purposes of increasing agricultural literacy are to
advocate for agriculture ideals and to bring agricultural awareness to consumers (Frick,
Kahler, & Miller, 1991; Meischen & Trexler, 2003; National Research Council, 1988).
Another trend is to view agricultural and extension education as agricultural science
education, thereby connecting it to the push for science, technology, engineering, and math
education that is popular in school settings (Phipps, Osborne, Dyer, & Ball, 2008). The
various conceptualizations of agricultural literacy and agricultural science education seem
unbiased. However, the outside agencies that advocate for agricultural education from these
perspectives can have a bias toward arguments that support conventional agriculture
(Brewster, 2012).

Nonconventional agriculturalists argue that our current industrial agriculture system

endangers the health of our planet and is unsustainable in the long run. They generally
advocate for food production methods that do the least amount of damage to the environment
and are centered on social justice for agricultural workers and consumers worldwide (Berry,
1977; Thompson, 2010; Vallianatos, 2006). The groups that fall into the nonconventional
agriculture camp also are diverse and include community-supported agriculture groups and
large-scale organic farms. Also, there are differing concerns among nonconventional
agriculturist groups. For instance, the goals of local food justice groups do not completely
match the goals of grocery chains selling natural and organic items. Nonconventional
agriculturalists argue for various goals in agricultural education. Their education work can
focus on issues ranging from food justice (Alkon, 2013) and eco-justice (Martusewic,
Edmundson, & Lupinacci, 2011) to organic farming practices and healthful lifestyles through
gardening (Pollan, 2006). Although no umbrella term, such as agricultural literacy, exists for
the educational efforts of nonconventional agriculturalists, they do agree that the current
status quo of agriculture (i.e., conventional agriculture) needs to change.

Challenge for Extension Specialists in This Polarized

Context
The challenge for Extension professionals lies in managing the passions and tensions created
by competing agricultural values. Some groups may prefer an agricultural education message
that has a particular bent or may expect educators to have strong passions for particular
issues. For instance, rural residents may want agricultural education rooted in conventional
agriculture, whereas urban and suburban residents may want agricultural education designed
around nonconventional agriculture ideas. Extension professionals must become more
sensitive and skilled in working with people who have strong dispositions toward particular
agricultural values. Although this prerequisite may seem relatively simple, designing
curricula and working with differing camps require Extension professionals to have solid
understandings of their own agricultural preferences. These considerations call for Extension
professionals to follow some of the same strategies employed in multicultural education
(Banks & Banks, 2010).

In general, the trend is for Extension professionals in the United States to view agriculture as
a neutral topic (Jimmerson, 1989; Strong et al., 2015). However, if Extension professionals
want to work effectively in the area of agriculture, they need to be conscious of and honest
about the agricultural views that they possess or that their curricula represent. I am not
arguing that Extension professionals become outright advocates for their favored agricultural
position; however, presenting their positions in responsible and respectful ways creates an
atmosphere of honesty, allowing a variety of agricultural ideas to be debated and to flourish.
Average Americans are becoming more aware of the ideological differences in agriculture,
even if they have not personally chosen a side, and they may reject information that they feel
is reflective of hidden biases.

Considering the political complications in modern-day agriculture, the question that needs
answering is this: How do Extension professionals work with people who have polarized
agricultural values while respecting those values, not disrespecting the values of any group,
and providing unbiased information? This question represents the challenge that faces
everyone in agricultural education in the 21st century. We must be able to serve an ever-
divided public and respect polarized differences among people, especially when working
amid agencies that have more biased agricultural messages.

References
Agricultural Council of America. (2015). National Ag Day. Retrieved from
http://www.agday.org/

Agunga, R., & Igodan, C. (2007). Organic farmers' need for and attitude towards Extension.
Journal of Extension [online], 45(6) Article 6FEA6. Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2007december/a6.php
Alkon, A. H. (2013). Food justice: An overview. In A. H. Alkon (Ed.), Routledge
international handbook of food studies (pp. 295–205). New York, NY: Routledge.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berry, W. (1977). The unsettling of America: Culture & agriculture. New York, NY: Avon
Books.

Borlaug, N. E. (2000). Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat of
antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2), 487–490. doi: 10.1104/pp.124.2.487

Brewster, C. (2012). Toward a critical agricultural literacy. In K. Donehower, C. Hogg, & E.

E. Schell (Eds.), Reclaiming the rural: Essays on literacy, rhetoric, and pedagogy (pp. 34–
51). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Colasanti, K., Wright, W., & Reau, B. (2009). Extension, the land-grant mission, and civic
agriculture: Cultivating change. Journal of Extension [online], 47(4) Article 4FEA1.
Available at: http://www.jow.org/joe/2009august/a1.php

Conway, G. (2012). One billion hungry: Can we feed the world? Ithaca, NY: Comstock
Publishing Associates.

Frick, M. J., Kahler, A. A., & Miller, W. W. (1991). A definition and the concepts of
agricultural literacy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 49–57.

Jimmerson, R. M. (1989). What values will guide Extension's future? Journal of Extension
[online], 27(3) Article 3FEA5. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989fall/a5.php

Martusewic, R. A., Edmundson, J., & Lupinacci, J. (2011). Ecojustice education: Toward
diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Meischen, D. L., & Trexler, C. J. (2003). Rural elementary students' understandings of

science and agricultural education benchmarks related to meat and livestock. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 44(1), 43–55.

Miller, H. I., & Conko, G. (2004). The Frankenfood myth: How protest and politics threaten
the biotech revolution. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Murphy, D. (2007). Plant breeding and biotechnology: Societal context and the future of
agriculture. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for

education. Washington, DC: National Academy.

Organic Consumers Association. (2015). About the OCA: Who we are and what we're doing.
Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/aboutus.cfm

Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. (2008). Handbook on agricultural
education in public schools. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.

Safrit, R. D., Conklin, N. L., & Jones, J. M. (1995). Extension's values: A bridge across
turbulent times. Journal of Extension [online], 33(1) Article 1FEA1. Available at
www.joe.org/joe/1995february/a1.php

Strong, E., Rowntree, J., Thurlow, K., & Raven, M. (2015). The case for a paradigm shift in
Extension from information-centric to community-centric programming. Journal of
Extension [online], 53(4) Article 4IAW1. Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2015august/iw.php

Thompson, P. B. (2010). The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics.

Lexington, KY: The University of Kentucky Press.

Vallianatos, E. (2006). This land is their land: How corporate farms threaten the world.
Monroe, MA: Common Courage Press.