This week on the Enlightened Omnivore Podcast, I sit down with Jack Bobo of the Rothman Family Institute for Food Studies at UCLA to tackle one of the most polarizing questions in modern food culture:

Can agriculture actually be part of the climate solution—or are we arguing ourselves into a corner?

We start with regenerative agriculture, but the conversation quickly zooms out to something bigger: why food debates feel so toxic, and why progress keeps stalling.

Jack offers a simple but powerful reframe:

“Most food fights aren’t about values. They’re about metrics.”

Most of us want the same things—healthy people, a livable planet, farmers who can stay in business. But we measure success differently: carbon, water, biodiversity, labor, price. Cue the shouting.

Here’s the surprising part: Jack argues that many U.S. agricultural sustainability metrics have improved dramatically since the 1980s. Less land. Less water. Fewer emissions per unit of food.

The real problem? We’re producing more food than ever—and not improving fast enough to keep up with demand.

We dig into why doom-and-gloom narratives backfire, how policy can accidentally export environmental damage, and why the next 25 years may be the most important food transition in human history.

The takeaway is simple—and radical:

You don’t fix the food system by creating more villains.

You fix it by choosing better ones.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit enlightenedomnivore.substack.com/subscribe