Words: 1947
Matt Tabak
Food Debate
In the U.S., the agribusiness system is currently the center of a large debate. Specifically, one of
the most prevalent sources of debate is the topic of GMO’s. GMO’s, or genetically modified organisms,
are commonplace in today’s agriculture. They are the reason corn is being overproduced, the reason
new strains of bacteria are forming, and many more problems. Stakeholders for the issue of GMO’s
include agribusiness corporate figures, the American as a consumer of agriculture, farmers in the
current agriculture system, local and organic farmers, and lobbyists both for and against GMO’s. In order
to deal with GMO’s, first we need to look at agriculture industry from the negative perspective and the
positive perspective, then we need to decide how these apply to GMO’s and whether the benefits of
GMO’s outweigh the many already-existing problems and the many additional risks associated with
them. When it comes to GMO’s and the agriculture industry in general, the U.S. agribusiness system
needs to make a few changes, but not many.
Ripe for Change: Agriculture’s Tipping Point (Claire H. Cummings) is an essay mainly arguing that
our agribusiness system needs change. It opens with very brief narrative of the history of the struggle
between humans and nature for production of adequate amounts of food, going on to say that although
it looks like we’re now winning, we are doing so at too high of a cost. Agriculture is bleeding away the
Earth’s natural support systems. The essay goes on to quote facts about the degradation of soil at a rate
of $2.4 billion per year in India, and $400 billion per year in the entire planet. The second part of the
essay makes the argument that social change most likely won’t be what changes our agriculture, but
rather running out of fossil fuels will. Agriculture uses 15% of all energy used in developed countries, so
when oil production stops increasing and starts decreasing, agriculture will face some huge issues. The
third section of the essay is about the “tipping point” of the agriculture issue as a whole. It lays out a few
steps in the “tip.” The first step of which is currently happening, a 20% increase in the organic food
industry each year, totaling over $12.8 billion in 2005. Then next step is for some ideas to “infect” the
Words: 1947
Matt Tabak
public’s opinions and start pushing society towards change; the final step would be one large-scale or
largely felt event that initiates the actual tip. The essay claims we are currently in step two, and with
health concerns about GMO’s and pesticides and other aspects of the food industry on the rise, society
is beginning to push towards change. However, one large issue with change is the current structure of
powerful agribusiness companies and conglomerates. Such groups will try as hard as they can to stop a
change in our agribusiness structure. The final part of the article examines how such companies most
likely don’t have a choice at this point. The idea of global warming and energy becoming a serious issue
is driving the mindset of change in our society today more than ever. The essay also brings into light the
idea that sustainable farming is completely doable with today’s technology and it goes on to cite a list of
things that “can” happen without any facts to say that such things “would” happen.
In Cummings’ essay, most of the claims that are made are backed up by facts. The essay has a
good flow to it, starting with the general background of the issue, bringing in a more specific
background, citing current issues and what is necessary for change, and citing the components of our
current society that line up with those necessities, and finally bringing up a list of things that “can”
happen with today’s technology. What the essay overlooks is the economic costs of implementing such
technology, which is a huge factor. How much can people change when they don’t want to pay higher
taxes or higher prices for food? It is entirely possible that everything in the essay is right and our society
begins to seek change and then cost of food rises and as a result the poverty line would rise and the
poor would be even poorer. The end section also lacks any sort of quantifiable data or even references
to sources of such data to back up its list of possible results of changing the agribusiness society.
The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals (Blake Hurst) is an article with the
primary purpose of defending the current “industrial farmer’s” way of life, comparing it to the
alternative which is organic food. The first section is a reference to a day in Hurst’s life when he was met
with someone who was badmouthing his entire way of life to someone near him without having any real
Words: 1947
Matt Tabak
knowledge to back his claims. This first section is emotionally driven and only intended to set up the
reader for persuasion. The next section, “Industrial Farming and Its Critics,” describes what the critics
claim is the truth and what Hurst claims is the truth about industrial farming. Hurst claims that organic
farming is no more sustainable than industrial farming, due to massively increased slave-like labor
necessary to make up for the lack of protection provided by industrial farming. In this section, Hurst
brings up the economic benefit of cheaply produced food. He cites a study from a newspaper in 2008
when food prices went up and “50 million” more people were going hungry as a result. In the next
section, “Pigs in a Pen,” Hurst gets into the dirty and bloody details of farming. He defends caging pigs
by telling the audience how a mother will often crush her piglets to death or occasionally even eat them
if they aren’t caged. Hurst also brings up the story of Lynn Niemann, who tried to raise turkeys freerange and had the majority of them drown in the first thunderstorm as a result. Hurst also mentions in
this section that farmers still use manure whenever and wherever possible. A huge contributor of
manure is the large pig houses set up in areas where soil quality is poor without the use of manure
produced in the pig houses. In the smallest section, “We Can’t Change Nature,” Hurst opens with all of
the negative media being thrown at current day farming. He then goes on to sum up most of his earlier
points as to why we shouldn’t be focusing on changing to more expensive and just as bloody forms of
farming. Hurst also points out that if we’re changing farming to be more expensive, then the small
family farmer is going to suffer the most. In the final two sections, Hurst brings up the popular
conflicting ideas that our society should eat less meat but use more manure for fertilizer. He also brings
up the idea of using cover crops in the off-season to produce nitrogen naturally. Using cover crops is not
a new idea, and it causes environmental problems in other areas such as water and energy use.
All in all, Hurst has a very well put-together argument here. He logically lays out a very well
thought-out argument about how industrial farming is no worse for the environment than organic or
any other alternative methods of farming. He defends his claims with logic in every section, barring the
Words: 1947
Matt Tabak
first which was not meant to be making a claim. The way Hurst wrote this article is in an appeal-toemotion format, where his main points are the points most likely to win over his audience from their
emotion rather than their logic, which is not a good thing by itself. However, this appeal-to-emotion
coupled with a logical argument that doesn’t seem to leave any field out makes for an argument that is
hard to not consider. Hurst wins in the logic and emotional appeal parts of arguing, but he lacks in data
citations in most of the article. A similar article written with more factual data rather than logical, but
potentially flawed from lack of data, assumptions would be the ideal article.
GMO Foods: Key Points in the Genetically Modified Debate (Marjorie Olster) is an outside view
of the main points on the debate about GMO’s from both American and European standpoints. The
article opens with the struggle to establish free trade between the U.S. and Europe due to the difference
in opinions over GMO’s. The next section of the article examines whether GMO’s are safe or unsafe. Up
until now, no study has conclusively proven that GMO’s are unsafe, but such a thing is hard to prove.
People in both the U.S. and Europe think GMO’s need more studies done to figure out whether they are
safe or unsafe, but the common thought on the matter is that each GMO will need to be tested
separately in a case-by-case manner. Europeans believe GMO’s have had inadequate testing as well as
inadequate regulation in the U.S. and critics of GMO’s who live in the U.S. tend to agree. The next
section of the article puts GMO’s into perspective in history. Farmers have been genetically modifying
crops for thousands of years. When a farmer has a successful crop, he or she uses seeds from his/her
most successful plants to plant the next crop. The article also claims that genetic engineering, the
modern way to produce GMO’s, is often less effective than natural cross-breeding when it comes to
pest-resistance and drought-resistance. The next section is on labeling of GMO’s in the U.S., with a
general assessment of the country’s current food labeling legislature. Connecticut and Maine have
already passed legislature to label GMO’s in favor of giving the consumer the choice of whether to
consume GMO’s or not, and 20 other states are considering passing such legislature. The final section of
Words: 1947
Matt Tabak
the article contemplates GMO foods causing a divide that can’t be fixed in the free trade agreement
between the U.S. and Europe.
This third article by Olster is a look at the facts about GMO’s and only really makes the claim
that the difference in opinion between the U.S. and Europe over GMO’s will not end any time soon. The
part of this article which most challenges an end to GMO’s is when it brings up the predicted global
population increase to 9 billion by 2050. An increase in food production of nearly 60% will be necessary
to meet the needs of all these people, and non-GM crops will likely not be able to handle such a feat.
The article challenges a pro-GMO opinion by bringing up the lack of scientific data proving GMO’s are
safe, and also by mentioning a quote from the German chancellor saying that Europe is unlikely to
change its opinion on GMO’s.
My opinion on the matter of the agribusiness industry as a whole is that the U.S. needs certain
changes that it is seeking, such as less use of chemical fertilizers, but a lot of the changes that critics are
seeking would only exchange one set of environmental hazards for an increased food price and a
different set of environmental hazards. When it comes to GMO’s, I think that there is no evidence to
even suggest we should not embrace GMO’s as a society. In a way, we’ve been naturally producing
GMO’s for thousands of years. Current day genetic engineering only speeds up the process. When it
comes to GMO’s, the only restrictions that should be put into place are in regards to testing. GMO’s
should be thoroughly tested before put into the general market, or at least there should be ongoing
tests once a GMO is deployed.
Words: 1947
Matt Tabak
Citations
Cummings, Claire H. "Essay - Ripe for Change: Agriculture's Tipping Point." Worldwatch
Institute. World Watch Magazine, Aug. 2006. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Hurst, Blake. "The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals." The American. The
American Magazine, 30 July 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
Olster, Marjorie. "GMO Foods: Key Points In The Genetically Modified Debate." The Huffington
Post. Huffington Post Green, 2 Aug. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.