Andrew Chavis
Debate Paper #6
Should the US de-industrialize its food supply?
November 5, 2012
Word Count: 1805
Should the US De-Industrialize its Food Supply?
The debate surrounding industrialization and its effect on the US food supply
has centered on the controversial question: “should the US de-industrialize its food
supply? Our food supply has been industrialized for quite some time now. Towards
the late stages of industrialization, the US wanted to make agriculture more
efficient; we wanted to “save” people from farm labor. Thus we decided to turn
farms into businesses to produce foods cheaper and faster. Food companies have an
enormous amount of power and it continues to go unchallenged, as lawmakers have
made it nearly impossible to fight for stricter food conditions and better food
quality. Grocery stores carry processed meats that sell for the same price as fruits
and vegetables. The foods that we eat today contain pesticides and other harmful
substances that cause long-term health problems like cancer and diabetes. Even
with all the facts and figures advocating the negative effects of industrialized food,
people continue to eat McDonald’s, Chic-Fil-A, etc. Several stakeholders are involved
in this twisted circle of industry food including all food suppliers from H-E-B to
Randalls. Other stakeholders that produce the foods include industrial farmers as
well as organic farmers that limit the use of food additives and genetically modified
organisms. In my opinion everyday consumers play the most important role in this
argument, from buying the products to deciding what foods are produced. As a
nation we need to stray from industrialized foods because of the hazardous health
and environmental consequences by producing more organically grown foods.
Vegetarianism is always a viable option, growing more popular everyday.
Advocates of de-industrialization in the US food supply are not all delusional
tree-huggers; they are looking for healthier, more efficient ways of producing our
foods. Worldwatch Institute has a vision for a sustainable world, a world without
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The Worldwatch Institute, along with several
other agriculture experts and agribusiness workers believe that organic farming can
ultimately eliminate world hunger and not only augment our nation’s food supply,
but the world’s. Fueled from biased theories that lacked sufficient evidence, critics
claimed that organic farming wouldn’t even produce a small fraction of
industrialized farming. According to recent studies, it seems that switching from
conventional farming to organic farming is more suitable in developed nations
where farmers use large amounts of pesticides and fertilizers to produce maximum
amounts of food. Unfortunately, it will take some time for organic farming to surpass
industrialized farming in yields because of the restoration period that the soil has to
undergo to be used for production again. Worldwatch argues that the methods of
organic farming combine old techniques with new techniques. The key difference
between organic and conventional farming, however, is that it’s “not the technology
that comes out of a chemical plant,” but the technology that encompasses the
benefits of agricultural innovations and natural farming routines. Many up-to-date
experiments were conducted to see if organic farming yielded less than
conventional farming. Amazingly, organic farming showed almost no difference in
Andrew Chavis
Debate Paper #6
Should the US de-industrialize its food supply?
November 5, 2012
Word Count: 1805
production in developing countries yet showed a slight difference in yields in
developed countries. “University of Essex researchers Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine
looked at over 200 agricultural projects in the developing world that converted to
organic and ecological approaches, and found that for all the projects-involving 9
million farms on nearly 30 million hectares-yields increased an average of 93
percent. A seven-year study from Maikaal District in central India involving 1,000
farmers cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili,
and soy were as much as 20 percent higher on the organic farms than on nearby
conventionally managed ones. Farmers and agricultural scientists attributed the
higher yields in this dry region to the emphasis on cover crops, compost, manure,
and other practices that increased organic matter (which helps retain water) in the
soils.” These incredibly favorable statistics illustrate that US has plenty of resources
to make the change. It’s affordable, it’s better for the environment, it’s ethical with
respect to treating animals humanely and it’s healthier for our nation.
The Worldwatch Institute possesses very agreeable facts about the pleasures
of organic farming. So why do they fail to mention vegetarianism as one of the
solutions to the negative consequences of conventional farming? According to the
American Dietetic Association and the USDA, “A vegetarian diet can provide
complete nutrition for optimal human health including all 10 essential proteins
(amino acids).” Organic farming also requires more land space for production than
industrialized farming.
Blake Hurst, a conventional farmer in Missouri writing for The American
Magazine in his article “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals,”
argues that making a switch from conventional farming to organic farming isn’t as
easy as it sounds or entirely necessary. The recent innovations in the past decades
have made foods more affordable and easier to produce. So why should we destroy
all of our progress? Hurst argues that critics deal with projections and estimations,
not entirely aware of what happens in the real world of industrialized farming.
Family farms do most of the farming that is considered “industrial” which questions
how someone could call farming industrial in the first place. Certain farm animals
have to be closely watched to prevent them from harming themselves or other
animals. For instance, “Young turkeys aren't smart enough to come in out of the
rain, and will stand outside in a downpour, with beaks open and eyes skyward, until
they drown.” Thus, “free range” farming isn’t the best option for all animals. Hurst
tells a story about the downside of “free range” farming, “Lynn Niemann was a
neighbor of my family’s, a farmer with a vision. He began raising turkeys on a field
near his house around 1956. They were, I suppose, what we would now call ‘free
range’ turkeys. Turkeys raised in a natural manner, with no roof over their heads,
just gamboling around in the pasture, as God surely intended. Free to eat
grasshoppers, and grass, and scratch for grubs and worms. And also free to serve as
prey for weasels, who kill turkeys by slitting their necks and practicing
exsanguination. Weasels were a problem, but not as much a threat as one of our
typically violent early summer thunderstorms. It seems that turkeys, at least young
Andrew Chavis
Debate Paper #6
Should the US de-industrialize its food supply?
November 5, 2012
Word Count: 1805
ones, are not smart enough to come in out of the rain, and will stand outside in a
downpour, with beaks open and eyes skyward, until they drown. One night Niemann
lost 4,000 turkeys to drowning, along with his dream, and his farm.” Sometimes
stricter farming methods are more beneficial to food production and to the animals.
Hurst goes on further to argue that only an “industrialized” farm can meet the
demands of a growing population. The US population is growing rapidly and we
cannot afford to make a switch in our food production.
Blake Hurst is an excellent advocate for conventional farming. I believe that
he tries his best to treat his farm animals humanely while producing foods as
efficiently as possible. However, organic farming has proven to be as efficient, if not
more efficient, than conventional farming in certain areas of the world. In the US
specifically, we have the ability to switch to organic farming. Hurst also claims that
pesticides have helped prevent bugs from destroying crops. But what about what’s
in the pesticides? These substances have been reported to cause health problems,
which defeat the purpose of even using them. Let’s not forget the fact that Hurst has
a completely biased opinion on the subject, being a conventional farmer and all.
Health experts stress that Americans eat excessive meat that is unhealthy. Perhaps
it’s better if meats are produced at a higher cost to improve our diets.
Perhaps the middle ground that the Worldwatch Institute discussed
previously is what needs to be attained. Mixing the older techniques with the
agricultural innovations of today, we can achieve the most efficient, environmentally
friendly and sustainable method of farming. The third article I decided to read is
called “Is Local Food Better?” by Sarah DeWeerdt. It talks about “food miles” which
means the distance it takes for food to travel from farm to plate. It also talks about
eating local foods, or foods that are within 250 miles. “In 1993, a Swedish researcher
calculated that the ingredients of a typical Swedish breakfast-apple, bread, butter,
cheese, coffee, cream, orange juice, sugar-traveled a distance equal to the
circumference of the Earth before reaching the Scandinavian table. In 2005, a
researcher in Iowa found that the milk, sugar, and strawberries that go into a carton
of strawberry yogurt collectively journeyed 2,211 miles (3,558 kilometers) just to
get to the processing plant.” These alarming statistics illustrate just how
unnecessary industrialized food is. Food miles are associated with other global
concerns like climate change. The different methods of transportation involve ships,
trucks, planes, etc. All of this shipping contributes to carbon dioxide emissions that
contribute to global warming. You also have to factor in how the food was
transported. According to Sarah, “Trains are 10 times more efficient at moving
freight, ton for ton, than trucks are. So you could eat potatoes trucked in from 100
miles away, or potatoes shipped by rail from 1,000 miles away, and the greenhouse
gas emissions associated with their transport from farm to table would be roughly
the same.” Eating locally reduces the amount of food miles in circulation and
ultimately benefits the environment. It’s healthier to eat organic foods rather than
processed, industrialized foods and you can find more organic foods locally than not.
“For local food advocates like Sage Van Wing, that interaction between producer and
Andrew Chavis
Debate Paper #6
Should the US de-industrialize its food supply?
November 5, 2012
Word Count: 1805
consumer, between farmer and eater, is precisely the point. Regarding food miles,
Van Wing says, ‘I'm not interested in that at all.’ For her, purchasing an apple isn't
just about the greenhouse gas emissions involved in producing and transporting the
fruit, ‘it's also about how those apples were farmed, how the farm workers were
treated’-a broad array of ecological, social, and economic factors that add up to
sustainability. Interacting directly with the farmer who grows her food creates a
‘standard of trust,’ she says.”
It is clear that there are pros and cons to both sides of this argument. The
current way in which we produce food is cheaper and faster, but at what cost? I
believe that organic farming is a great solution to industrialized farming because of
the combination of old school and new school farming. It’s environmentally
friendlier, it treats animals humanely and it’s been proven to be more efficient in
some cases. I’m also a fan of local food because it reduces the impact food miles have
on the environment. The critics arguing in favor of industrialized farming need to
adjust to the circumstances of this century. We must innovate with the older
methods of farming to alleviate the problems of food production today.
Andrew Chavis
Debate Paper #6
Should the US de-industrialize its food supply?
November 5, 2012
Word Count: 1805
Works Cited
"Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?" Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch
Institute, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060>.
DeWeerdt, Sarah. "Is Local Food Better?" Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch
Institute, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6064>.
Haddad, Abigail. "AMERICAN.COM." The Problem With Organic Food. The
American, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. <http://www.american.com/archive/2008/june06-08/the-problem-with-organic-food>.
Hurst, Blake. "AMERICAN.COM." The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agriintellectuals â The American Magazine. The American, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusionagainst-the-agri-intellectuals/>.
"Should People Become Vegetarian?" Should People Become Vegetarian?
ProCon, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. <http://vegetarian.procon.org/>.