Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparative analysis essay
Comparative analysis essay
Comparative analysis essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparative analysis essay
“Food fight!” Two words that filled some young children with joy as they watched tomatoes and cakes flying across the lunch room, but they lose that feeling of joy when they become adults. They eventually learn that for some, good food is hard to come by, and they develop an interest in clinging to what food they can get, some without question, in fact, many without question. This creates a huge problem for them. The shelves are stacked at the supermarket with many confusing labels, some not even true, and when they’re grasping for things they don’t understand, how can they possibly eat healthy? There are two main processes that get the food to the shelves in the supermarket: organic and industrial farming. Both of these processes are shrouded …show more content…
one can be made aware of the positives and negatives of industrial and organic farming, spot the differences and similarities of both methods and those who support them, and formulate an opinion on which practice they believe is the …show more content…
Hurst believes that the technical advances involved in modern farming allow it to feed everyone. “Only ‘industrial farming’ can possible meet the demands of an increasing population and an increased demand for food as a result of growing incomes” (Hurst), he says. He states this after mentioning biotech crops, crops altered to increase efficiency, and uses this quote to highlight the advantages that industrial farming has over organic farming by using advanced like biotech crops. Another point Hurst looms over is the misconception of animal treatment. Many critics of modern farming like to claim that there are no benefits to caging animals and that it is cruel, but Hurst sees it differently. “The crates protect the piglets from their mothers” (Hurst), he says. According to Hurst, mother pigs are known to crush, or even eat, their own children, and crates help protect the young piglets from their mothers. Another example he gives highlighting the value of cages is the misfortune of his family’s friend, Lynn Niemann. Niemann lost four-thousand turkeys to extreme weather conditions and natural predators. If Niemann would have caged these turkeys, he wouldn’t have lost those turkeys, believes Hurst. Another problem critics have with caging is that it supposedly harms the environment. This is due to the
There are many issues regarding the raising and producing of various livestock animals, and the use of pesticides on various types of crops. The movie Food.Inc does a good job explaining these issues, but in a very biased way. It makes agriculturists look like terrible people, when this is not the case.
Pollan believes that American factory farms are places with technological sophistication, where animals are machines incapable of feeling pain (368). In other words, factory farms use plentiful of technology where they do not pay attention to animals feelings. For example, beef cattle who live outdoors are standing in their own waste, and factory farmers do not considered that wrong and unsanitary. Hurst alleges that “turkeys do walk around in their own waste, although they don’t seemed to mind”(5). This shows that factory farmers think that animals really don’t have feelings and really don’t care. Pollan also disagrees with industrial farming because he states that, “American industrial farms itself is redefined- as a protein production- and with it suffering” (369). He affirms this because industrial farming cages their animals. Interestingly, both authors believe that animals still die and suffer no matter what circumstances an animal is living. Pollan believes animals should be treated with respect and not be caged. On the other hand, Hurst asserts that “farmers do not cage their hogs because sadism, but because being crushed by your mother really is an awful way to go, as is being eaten by your mother”(6). So Hurst say that he cages animals to protect them. Also both authors believe that there needs to be ways to enrich the soil, so the farms can have bigger harvest, healthy plants, and keep cost down. However, Pollan believes that farmer should use compost. He states that “the finish compost will go to feed the grass;the grass, the cattle; the cattle , the chickens; and eventually all of the animals will feed us” (370). So he thinks compost is good for the farms. Hurst on the other hand, think manure and commercial fertilizer is good for the farms. Hurst spread poultry litter on pasture and this made cattle production possible in areas
Today’s economy and the environment are hurting due to the lack of nurture we have been providing. Conventional farming rules the world of agriculture, but not without a fight from organic farming. Organic farming is seen as the way of farming that might potentially nurture our nature back to health along with the added benefit of improving our own health. With her piece “Organic farming healthier, more efficient than Status Quo,” published in the Kansas State Collegian on September 3, 2013, writer Anurag Muthyam brings forth the importance behind organic farming methods. Muthyam is a senior at Kansas State University working towards a degree in Management. This piece paints the picture of how organic farming methods
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
Factory farms are beneficial for producing large amounts of food and that’s it. Somewhere in the mid to late 1900’s, factory farming started to become a thing, fewer farms were as a result, but the farms that are still around have gotten larger and larger. In order for factory farms to work efficiently, animals are kept inside facilities that are over cramped and keeping the animals away from their natural habitats. Along with the animals being over worked, they are genetically bred to be food machines (Singer). The “machines” are producing more manure than ever, now the farmers must get rid of the manure, and a good majority of the time a portion of the manure ends up in places it is not supposed to resulting in pollution and adverse affects on the environment. However, Singer argues that only sentient creatures should be considered when talking about equality. Sentient creatures are individuals who can suffer. Therefore, since farm animals can suffer, we should treat them with same equality that humans get. In order to deal with the problems of factory farming and inequality towards animals; Singer believes that humans should know what farmers are doing towards the animals they are eating as well as moving their diets towards being a vegetarian. Through knowledge and a vegetarian diet, they will force the industry to change for the better and stop being the root cause for all the problems on the
The amount of foodstuffs produced by organic farms does not meet the demand of the population, which is the main objective of farming. Observing the United States of America alone and using myself as the average American we
Kalafa, Amy. Lunch Wars: How to Start a School Food Revolution and Win the Battle for Our Children's Health. New York: Jeremy P. Tacher/Penguin, 2011. EBook Reader.
The idea of the family farm has been destroyed by large food corporations. As discussed in class, industrial farming typically leads to the mass produ...
Food is the essential vitality of life and the essence of survival. It nourishes one’s physical body to enable pursuit of passion. However, in overwhelming aspects of American society, food is viewed as an enemy. It is seen as the root cause of obesity which carries heavy condemnations of ugliness and weakness. Countless people have become obsessed with food as a means of exerting strength, displaying will-power, and achieving alleged beauty. The way society views nutrition has become misconstrued and disordered, resulting in unhealthy relationships with food, and thus emotional and physical harm. The most effective way to change society’s relationship with food is to target the presentation, practices, content, and intentions of nutrition
Organic foods are those grown without the use of growth hormones, antibiotics, synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizers. Genetically modifying crops is also not preformed in organic farming. Soil fertility can be maintained using crop rotation, cultivation practices, and cover crops. Natural fertilizers and pesticides are still considered to be included in organic farming (Winter & Davis, 2006). Products that are controlled with cultivation conditions rather than chemical-synthetic pesticides include organic products (Woese, Lange, Boess & Werner Bogl, 1999). The use of synthetic pesticides and materials falls under conventional farming. If the materials are on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, it can, however, be considered organic. A process that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring sources is considered a synthetic material (Winter & Davis, 2006).
Industrial farmers see chicken and other animals such as: cow, pigs, and goat as egg and dairy production and not as an intellectual individuals. From the birth of a baby chick to their death on the production line, chicken endure pain and suffer through out their entire short lives. Baby chicks are de-beak then they are move to battery cages that are wired up high in warehouses that are filled with artificial lighten. The cages are so confined that the ...
For years organic farmers and conventional farmers have feuded over which is superior. Organic farmers argue that their product is more eco-friendly because they do not use the synthetic chemicals and fertilizers conventional farmer’s use. Conventional farmers argue that their product is healthier and yields more. People tend to have stereotypes regarding the two types of farmers. Organic farmers are usually thought of as liberal, hippy, tree-huggers while conventional farmers are usually thought of as right-wing, industrialists. Obviously, some do adhere to this stereotype, but a majority of these farmers are normal, hardworking people. Although these farmers, both believe in their methods, one is no better than the other. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but there is no true superior method of crop farming.
Many people in America, from toddlers to the elderly, have shown numerous signs of bad health. People have the desire to keep on eating due to more, new things being merchandised as “new and improved items” from the producers. For example, nowadays, people are eating pure junk that they find satisfying on the grocery food shelf. As, stated by Michael Pollan, in his article, “Eat Food: Food Defined” he affirmed that “real food is the type of things that our
A study of 362 datasets found that organic agriculture produces 80% of conventional yield with 21% standard deviation (Tomek et al. 2012). Second, organic farming requires less energy input which equates to less money spend from the farmers in addition to lowering carbon emissions. A study by the Department of Environment shows that organic agriculture uses 25 percent less than energy than their chemical counterparts, and certain crops like organic leeks and broccoli use 58 and 49 percent less, respectively (Bialis et al. 2013). Third, organic farming does not use pesticides. According to the World Health Center, 20,000 people die annually from the exposure of pesticides (Costa et al. 2014). Fourth, the methods that organic farmers use are better for the environment in the long run. And lastly, organic farming creates more jobs. A study done in United Kingdom shows 93,000 jobs could be created if Britain were to make a full scale shift to organic farming (Herro 2006). Although conventional agriculture is the primary producer for food currently, a large scale shift to organic agriculture is better suited to feed the world because organic agriculture can produce at adequate yield, requires less energy input, do not use
In order to feed the growing population of the world, nontraditional farming and ranching techniques have been used to increase food production. For example, animal mass harvesting systems and feed lots used for chickens and cows allow for faster growing and harvesting of the animal. But are these practices moral? In Paul Taylor’s “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, he illustrates how this treatment of animals is immoral, because of his biocentric view. Bonnie Steinbock would disagree with Taylor due to her speciesic view, illustrated in her article “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”, that places human needs over animal needs in this case.