On a hunch, I grepped the article for the words "nature" and "natural", the latter appears only ahead of the word "gas" and the former not at all. "Rural" appears only in terms of where the farms are, not as any sort of lifestyle beyond farming as a profession. I'll bet that all is deliberate. Pollan is careful to avoid using romantic arguments, or at least telegraph it when he does, and he has to be aware that people are ready to shoot holes in his work if he tries to sneak in any nostalgia. In _In Defence of Food_ (I agree that the book is uneven, the essay it is based on is better) he clearly warns up front that his thesis is "totally unscientific".
So he has to call his program something, and "natural" is right out. "Sun food agenda" may be an unfortunate hook, but I agree: you do need a hook.
> This is very nasty I think completely unjustified. Do you really think
> Pollan is unaware of the role migrant laborers play in farming? His home
> state of observation is California. I think he probably has the statistics
> on that subject readier to hand than you or I.
Regarding this and some of shag's remarks, I don't know about his opinions about farm labor in general (I recall him saying something about the effect of pesticides, but I might be mistaken), but then I wouldn't presume that he necessarily has anything insightful to say. It would be a plus if he did, but he already writes very well about food, nutrition, agriculture and the policies and science around them.
The conceit of a "Letter to the President," with appeals to be a good example, suggest at least an average niavite. To expect him to be an effective labor reporter and visionary on top of all that is like expecting me to say something intelligent about the credit crisis.
-- Andy