Sophie Stousland
Ms. Juzwik
College Prep 6th period
01/05/14
The Effects of Agribusiness in the United States
The United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world; however, Americans
spend less on food than any other country around the globe (Shilhavy). Many Americans
prefer to buy cheap, mass-produced foods created by agribusiness companies even though
they have the means to buy higher quality foods from smaller farms. Agriculture has long
been a building block of the United States, helping the nation thrive for centuries. In 1820,
seventy-two percent of the American population was working in agriculture (Broadway,
Stull, 43) on smaller family farms. It was the only method to produce food to feed the
growing population and was therefore highly significant. A dramatic shift occurred In the
early 1900’s as only forty-one percent of the population remained in the agribusiness
industry due to new machineries and technology that took the place of people and farm
animals (Broadway, Stull, 44). In 1980, one of the most significant impacts on farming was
the introduction of biotechnology in farming. From that point on, biotechnology has been
progressively used more frequently to increase the quantity of livestock and crops (Historical
Timeline). Unfortunately, agribusiness industries today are harming the environment and
destroying small farms. Agribusiness is the part of agriculture that produces, distributes, and
sells food. One section within agribusiness is biotechnology, or the manipulation of
organisms or biological systems to produce something new. A common type of
biotechnology utilized is genetically modified (GM) crops, which is food that comes from an
organism whose DNA has been altered and is not natural (Labrecque, Charlebois, Spiers, 1).
1
The large agribusiness industries, combined with the use of biotechnology, are negatively
affecting the quality of food and the disintegration of small farms in the United States.
Agribusiness Companies
Large agribusiness industries control almost all of the food supply in the United States, and
some corporations do not use ethical methods. An example is Nestle, a company that has made
its way onto the Global Exchange’s “Top Ten Corporate Criminals List”. The corporation uses
child labor for extremely low pay and at times even forces the children to work extremely long
hours. These large companies target poor areas where people need to find work and would do
almost anything for a job (Global Exchange). This is only one example of a violation of human
rights out of many that large agribusinesses contribute to in the U.S.. Additionally, other
agribusiness companies have been blamed for human rights violations, toxic pesticide use,
dangerous chemical additives, illegal deforestation, and the dumping of harmful waste. Despite
being responsible for all of these appalling actions, the government has not always punished
these companies and at times has even given them “special treatment” (Agribusiness
(Agriculture)). This is not fair to all because many other, smaller companies do not receive the
same benefits as the large, more powerful ones do. The bigger companies receive more profit
and then, as a result, have more power. In conclusion, large agribusiness companies that control
almost all of the food production in the United States use immoral methods to obtain profit with
little concern for their impact on people and the environment.
Biotechnology and GM Crops
Due to today’s innovations, it is possible to create genetically modified crops and
livestock with biotechnology; the question remains, however, whether it is actually beneficial
2
for the world to do so. There is evidence of negative effects that may occur as a result of
biotechnology such as unexpected allergic reactions and the spread of toxins to plants and
wildlife. There is also a growing fear of biotech industries taking over the agriculture
landscape completely (Labrecque, Charlebois, Spiers, 2). These events are extremely
detrimental to the environment and the people living in the area and are some instances of the
damaging effects of agribusiness. Additionally, agriculture specialist Wanki Moon explains,
“The U.S. is opposed to mandatory labeling, but has introduced guidelines for voluntary
labeling…” (2) This means consumers are not be able to tell whether or not the product they
are buying was made with natural ingredients or was genetically modified in some way.
Even though the United States has imposed voluntary labeling, many companies are still able
to choose to not inform customers of the origins of their food. The companies can still
choose to be dishonest and unethical with their means of labeling. This is not fair to the
population who are being deceived by lack of knowledge of what food they are buying and
putting into their bodies. Overall, biotechnology and genetically modifying crops has proven
harmful to the population as well as the environment and a large portion of the public is
unaware.
Public’s Opinion
Even though companies insist GM foods are safe, most of the population is wary and
their willingness to buy or not buy GM foods is the driving aspect in public policy.
Biotechnology industry consultant Brian Skillings explains that “food derived from
biotechnology are ‘at least as safe’ as traditionally derived foods” although some people are
still hesitant to buy and consume biotechnology foods (Schurman, Munro, lV). He states that
the foods are ‘at least as safe’, yet he is a biased source of information as a blatant pro
3
biotechnology supporter. People’s fear of genetically modified food is shown in a study that
indicates, “citizens in the U.S. will pay a 10-12% premium to avoid biotech cereal” (Moon,
317). Another piece of evidence pointing at the public’s uncertainty states that about 29.7%
of people would pay more for non-GM foods (Moon, 323). Therefore, it is clear that most
Americans do not want these unnatural foods and will even pay a larger price to not consume
them. If people do not buy the products, they are not helping support the agribusiness
corporations or contributing to the harm biotechnology and agribusiness industries are
causing. Overall, the majority of the population in the United States is against GM and
biotech foods; therefore, these unnatural foods should not be produced.
What is happening to Small Farms?
The disintegration of small, self-sufficient farms is an ongoing problem caused by big
agribusiness companies. For example, researchers Michael Broadway and Donald Stull state
that in the past all of the work done on farms was completed by human and animal labor,
while machines and technology do a majority of the work presently (44). The new
technologies need less manpower but more money, meaning that most of the time only largescale farms can afford them. This leads to the smaller farms not being able to keep up and,
ultimately, to their failure. In addition, the larger farms receive all of the newest
technological advances first, leaving the smaller ones with older and less efficient methods
behind (Yao-chi, 1). This contributes to the power of big agribusiness companies control
almost all of the food industry. Also, agribusiness experts Broadway and Stull say, “The
goal of industrial agriculture has become the production of large quantities of uniform
products at the cheapest price.” (43) If the objective of companies is simply producing huge
amounts of goods, then they are not concerned with the quality of the goods. Smaller farms,
4
on the other hand, can oversee all of their production and have much better quality goods
than agribusiness companies. Big companies cannot possibly oversee all of the production
that goes on in their immense factories and buildings. The control of the food system
transferred from self-sufficient farms to agribusiness as the number of farms in the United
States dropped from 5.5 million to 2 million leaving less than two percent of Americans
employed on farms at present (44). Smaller, more self-sufficient farms have greater quality
crops to offer to the population and should be the major food producer in the United States;
however, agribusiness has made this nearly impossible.
Large agribusiness companies are taking a toll on small farms in the United States. They
are harming both the environment and the population with biotechnology and GM crops.
Agribusiness industries that control all of the food supply and use biotechnology to
genetically modify crops are weakening small farms that produce higher quality food. Also,
agribusiness companies often do not use ethical methods and the biotechnology and GM
foods have an unhelpful outcome on the population and environment. Both of these aspects
are destroying the small, beneficial farms of the United Sates that have been the country’s
backbone for centuries. When at the grocery store, people must think of the future and a
better the world when choosing between the cheaper GM food and the slightly more
expensive natural ones.
5
6
Works Cited
"Agribusiness (Agriculture) - Compare Companies by Industry - Green America's Responsible
Shopper." Agribusiness (Agriculture) - Compare Companies by Industry - Green
America's Responsible Shopper. Green America, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/responsibleshopper/industry/agribusiness.cfm>.
"Global Exchange Top Ten Corporate Criminals List | Global Exchange." Global Exchange
Top Ten Corporate Criminals List | Global Exchange. Global Exchange , n.d. Web. 15
Dec. 2013. <http://www.globalexchange.org/corporateHRviolation>.
"Historical Timeline — Crops & Livestock."Agriculture in the Classroom. N.p., n.d. Web. 15
Dec. 2013. <http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/crop>.
JoAnne Labrecque, Sylvain Charlebois, Emeric Spiers, (2007) "Can genetically modified foods
be considered as a dominant design?: An actor-network theory investigation of gene
technology in agribusiness",British Food Journal, Vol. 109 Iss: 1, pp.81 – 98
Michael J. Broadway & Donald D. Stull (2010) The Wages of Food Factories , Food and
Foodways: Explorations in the History and Culture of Human Nourishment, 18:1-2, 4365 <http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/you-the-taxpayer-are-funding-the-agri-businesstakeover-of-our-food-supply/>.
Moon, Wanki, and Siva K. Balasubramanian. "Public Attitudes Toward Agrobiotechnology: The
Mediating Role Of Risk Perceptions On The Impact Of Trust, Awareness, And
Outrage." Review Of Agricultural Economics 26.2 (2004): 186-208. Business Source
Premier. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Schurman, Rachel, and William A. Munro. Fighting for the future of food: activists versus
agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of
Minnesota Press, 2010.
Shilhavy, Brain. "YOU the Taxpayer are Funding the Agri Business Takeover of our Food
Supply | Health Impact News."YOU the Taxpayer are Funding the Agri Business
Takeover of our Food Supply | Health Impact News. Health Impact News Daily, 24 Sept.
2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
Wanki Moon, Brian, and Siva K. Balasubramanian. "Willingness To Pay For Non-Biotech Foods
In The U.S. And U.K." Journal Of Consumer Affairs 37.2 (2003): 317-339. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Yao-chi, Lu. "Impacts Of Technology And Structural Change On Agricultural Economy, Rural
Communities, And The Environment." American Journal Of Agricultural Economics
67.5 (1985): 1158. Business Source Premier. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.
7