Dan Barber is the co-owner and executive chef at Blue Hill and Blue Hill at Stone Barns. He is an advocate for sustainable farming and speaks out against agribusiness. In his Tedtalk, “How I Fell In Love With A Fish”, Barber informs us that 90% of the fish that we eat have been wiped out of the oceans. He also explains how farms that claim to be sustainable may actually be contributing to the environmental crisis at hand. “For the past 50 years agribusiness has been adamant about feeding more people more cheaply” (Barber) but their methods are not sustainable. In fact, this model is actually very destructive.
Monsanto, the leading agricultural company in America, claims to be “a sustainable agriculture company that delivers agricultural products that support farmers all around the world” (Monsanto). In reality, Monsanto is releasing massive amounts of pollution into rivers, water basins, and the atmosphere. In addition to polluting the air and water, they are responsible for bankrupting family farms, treating animals cruelly, poisoning the third world, and refusing to label their products for GMOs. In fact, over the past ten years Monsanto has been polluting fresh water sources around the globe with hazardous chemicals. Now, after seeing an opportunity, the company is claiming right to these water sources, filtering the water, and selling it back to the public. Additionally, some family farms are becoming contaminated with pollen from Monsanto controlled farms, which commonly use chemicals such as roundup. These family farms can then be sued for using the chemicals without permission. Many farms have gone bankrupt this way. These examples clearly highlights how agribusiness is mostly interested in making profits, and not about ...
... middle of paper ...
...s this relationship. He explains that the flamingos enrich the environment and that the tradeoffs greatly outweigh the negatives. The Viva La Palma is a complete and closed loop which is what makes it “self renewing”. This is the farming model that we should aspire to not only in the future, but what we should be striving to accomplish now. We should not be focusing on net gains, or quantity of output, but rather on the quality of what we are producing and how it is produced.
While I still believe that it will be years and possibly decades before major corporation farms are gone for good, I am confident that the next generations will be responsible for a new wave of thinking when it comes to how we farm. In the next generations, more and more Americans will take steps to become self-sufficient as more light is shed on the devastation that major corporations impose.
After reading McKibben and Hurst’s articles in the book Food Matters, both authors present arguments on “industrial farming”, and although Hurst provides a realistic sense on farming, McKibben’s suggestions should be what we think about.
Industrial farming is a huge waste of natural resources. We use too much energy just to produce the food; per capita, the U.S. uses more energy for food production, processing, and distribution than Asia and Africa use for all activities combined” (145). Not only that, but the amount of water we use is ridiculous in comparison to other farms. Mason and Singer stated that “bread delivers roughly the same calorie count as hamburger beef for one-twelfth of the water usage” (237). This is not even including the loss of biodiversity and land that factory farming causes. The worst part is that, like I stated earlier, the output is not worth the input. Industrial farming is an ineffective way of feeding the population. More nutrients goes into growing and feeding the animals to our preferred mass than there are going into us, which is supposedly the whole point of eating meat, gaining nutrients that are “unavailable in plants.” Frances Lappé called this type institution a “protein factory in reverse – meaning that you
This sounds great. (X) But then why has Monsanto been named one of the world’s most unethical companies?
Alice Waters, in her 2007 article “Farmer Bill Should Focus on Healthful Foods”, instead of focusing on the farming techniques themselves, makes a more pointed inspection over the products and produce
While some industrial farms are bad most of them aren't. This article has changed my point of view on industrial farms completely. While I won't forget that these farms aren't exactly perfect, I will also remember that they could be much worse. Today progress is being made on industrial farms. Now there isn't nearly as much water and fertilizer being wasted as there was several decades ago. If we keep making more progress over the next few years we might be sustainable. If industrial farms were to achieve that goal, it would be a huge accomplishment and an economic relief for farmers around the globe.
As concerns regarding climate change continue to spread, environmentalists are searching for a solution. However, the fact is that cars, planes, trains and ships combined produce less greenhouse gas emissions than the livestock industry. Other resources are also depleted, and in some cases eliminated, because of factory farming. For example, several farms create man-made lagoons to store manure. However, these lagoons are overran and are easily ruptured. The manure in the flooding lagoons act as nutrient pollution in waterways and soil, which wastes valuable land and drinking water. The wasted resources do not stop there as the production of meat products waste so much water that you could save more water by not eating one pound of beef then you could if you went six months without showering. The actions of factory farming towards the environment are blatantly
In one case, South Korea requested that Monsanto pay a part of the sixty million dollars they sued for. The money would go towards medical bills for Vietnam War veterans who fell ill after Agent Orange. Monsanto developed Agent Orange, a poisonous chemical compound, during the Vietnam War. It was part of an herbicidal warfare program used to combat the enemies. In the early 2000’s, veterans fell ill and became hospitalized. They believe that the chemicals used during Agent Orange caused their infections. In defense, Monsanto claimed that there was no direct relation between, “Agent Orange and any serious human illness” (Chang). People should be able to see the dangerous possibilities that Monsanto presents on agriculture. They have the potential to develop dangerous chemicals, and deny allegations if possible. They also have little to no concern for the well-being of people. The main goal for Monsanto is to make money like any other large company. Most people are ignorant to what Monsanto is doing to the food we eat, and what they would try to hide from the public. Monsanto was also involved in a case with a small farmer that made a partnership with them. Monsanto’s claim was that the farmer began illegally using their products. Monsanto signed a deal with a farmer to use his land to grow and sell their crops. The deal forbade the farmer from, “saving seeds from that crop and replanting them” along with his (“Monsanto Takes…”). Monsanto grows sugar beets, soy, and corn using the genetically modified seeds and Roundup Ready they produce. They use their product Roundup Ready as a way to help control the growth of crops before selling them to customers. From the making of seeds, to the soil used, these crops are exposed to several chemicals that go into the food we eat. The farmer planted seeds with the Roundup Ready and some
Monsanto is getting bigger and is now supplying their genetically altered crops to over 70 different countries including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China. That’s over three quarters of the world’s food dominated by one company. They can control everything from the prices, to the farmers crop itself. Without any say, farmers from around the world are forced to pay whatever Monsanto wants because...
As you walk through the grocery store, your eyes get crowded with images of “organic” and “non-GMO” labeling. Many people are quick to think that organic means it is healthier and more Eco. friendly than conventional foods. Moms wonder “Should I spend the extra three dollars to ensure my child’s health and well-being?”. Unfortunately, some try to educate themselves by watching documentaries like Food Inc.. These movies demonize conventional farming with images of conveyor belt chickens, ammonia strained beef, or farmers wearing gas masks as they walk through fields. Although it is never said out right, Food Inc. gives the impression that conventional farming is the root of all our problems such as environmental, and health problems. The problem
In Richard Schiffman’s article, he deems that industrial farming has a serious drawbacks: industrial farming will impact the environment and people’s health. Schiffman is a writer and a former environmental freelance journalist whose work has appeared in the Washington Post. Schiffman states industrial is easy to pollute the water because industrial farming need to uses a plethora of chemicals. He thinks industrial agriculture is productive and can deliver more massive quantities of food but it is depend on “standardized applications of toxic chemicals and petroleum-based fertilizers"(2) It will pollutes th...
...not have to be this way. For natural agriculture to become a possibility, we must change the system. Changing the system involves change at the policy level. Rather than subsidizing the industrial farmers, government should subsidize the natural agriculturalists. Subsidizing local farmers would not only guarantee local farms remaining in the system but would guarantee land preservation and healthy foods at cheaper costs, allowing everyone the opportunity to join the system. However, “acting alone, secular environmentalists,” such as Polyface and Yokna Bottoms Farms, do not have the strength to fight the necessary political battle (Wilson 3). Working together and building the agriculture network from the bottom up will be the only way to ensure that our food system will work for the earth, not against it. Until then, I see no realistic future for natural agriculture.
Cruelty toward animals, huge economic problems, and major health concerns are just three reasons why factory farming should be banned worldwide. Many people argue that factory farming is the only way to meet growing demands for food in the world today. However, factory farming is just not necessary, especially when it comes down to killing innocent animals in order to feed people. A way to put an end to the factory farming system is by buying our food from smaller, sustainable farms. These businesses still aim to profit from their labor, but that’s not their only objective. (The Issues: Factory Farming, n.d.) They simply will not sacrifice the health of the land or the quality of food simply to make a few extra dollars.
Yet, as he checked various organizations’ websites, no one even mentions the cons of agriculture, and instead, everyone continues to focus on attacking fossil fuels. As he personally approaches more and more of these entities, he discovers it is almost a “taboo” to talk about the detriments of animal agriculture. The executives either refuse to comment, or if they do, does not have much of say about it. It was not until a representative at Oceana finally admitted to livestock being the number one environmental problem, after quite a while prompting of
The “Farm-to-Fork movement” as it is called in some circles aspires to have farmers produce and sell the food as they have for centuries – through natural processes that don’t negatively impact the environment. The result, say advocates, is a better earth, nourishing food and healthier people. The choice of natural and organic food is evidenced by the huge spike in sales by warehouse retailer Costco (Gonzalez). The Washington-based company recently surpassed Whole Foods Market as the number one purveyor of organic foods in the United States (Gonzalez). Costco is projected to make $4 billion in sales of organic products this year, representing more than 1 out of 10 dollars in the organic food sales market (Gonzalez). The Organic Trade Association, an industry group, estimates total organic-food sales in the U.S. to be around $36 billion (Gonzalez). These numbers indicate that the natural food movement cannot be ignored. With that in mind, how will the earth continue to feed itself? The answer is not an easy one. There will be many solutions, spewed by politicians, farmers, scientists and ordinary people. Whatever the answer, it is clear that the world’s people need to change course. Old habits need to be adjusted, from the voracious consumption of meat to the addiction to processed foods like soda. The world will need to find its way back to nature, back to the roots of the land that had sustained people for centuries
From the beginning of this agricultural phenomena, we have been led to believe that factory farms( Also known as CAFOs-Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are supremely efficient. Factory farming began in the 1920’s due to new, industrial farming techniques. Because of new discoveries and methods, crops were now cheaper and easier to produce. Because more grain was available, in turn, more animals could be fed. The factory farming method produced more food and made large corporations more money. (“Factory Farming”) While this may sound like factory farming can only benefit the population, scientists have found the opposite. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, agriculture is the chief cause of water pollution and contamination, due to the intense chemicals this industry uses. This exposes farm workers, wildlife, and citizens of the U.S. as a whole to toxic pesticides. These same chemicals degrade soil for future use, and drains our nation’s natural resources by using about 16% of all the energy used in the U.S. (Union of Concerned Scientists) Factory farming lacks sustainability, but also efficiency. Cattle require about 13 pounds of feed to produce just one pound of beef. (Rodale Institute) This fact alone, shows us that factory farming is not advantageous to our society and our