The article with all its inaccuracies and misleading language felt like it was written in pursuit of a somewhat manipulative agenda. When I got to the end and r

The article with all its inaccuracies and misleading language felt like it was written in pursuit of a somewhat manipulative agenda. When I got to the end and read the book it's excerpted from it, it made sense: "Never Out of Season: How Having the Food We Want When We Want It Threatens Our Food Supply and Our Future". At least the article makes an effort to blame monocultures, but instead of proposing a better model for a more diversified agriculture, it implies that current troubles are an inescapable result of post-industrial consumerism. But I assert what we're seeing is a result of big agricultural companies' unwillingness to change course on a model that was supposed to maximise profits without any thought of long term viability - a phenomenon that is currently slowly changing through consumer demand for more variety. Increasing variety is the answer to the robustness problem. When I was a child, there was precisely one type of tomato in the supermarket, and it wasn't great. Today, I typically see more than five, and they all taste pretty good. If I had five types of banana to choose from, that wouldn't be the end of the world either (neither would be the banana dying out, for that matter). "Having the Food We Want When We Want It" is a highly misleading premise.