More handpicked essays just for you.
What does sustainability mean to you
Three pillars of sustainability united nations
Meaning of environmental sustainability
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Sustainability is defined in a multitude of different ways around the world. The definition depends on the individual background of the person and the factors that have shaped them to come to their definition. This interdisciplinary approach makes it hard to come to any sort of conclusion as to how sustainability can be reached by society. However, the three pillars of sustainability have created a simplistic approach to how society can weigh the effects of sustainability on three key areas: the environmental impact, the social impact, and the economic impact. This can be applied to the notion of eating organic and local food, found within the articles “The Locavore Glass Ceiling” by Rebecca Som Castellano, and “”Just Food?” and Reflexive Food Justice” by Nina Holtz. The concept of food miles is also applied to the three pillars of sustainability, which can be found within the article “The tricky truth about food miles” by Lindsay Wilson. All three articles help to …show more content…
People associate eating local, organically grown food as being more ethical in comparison to buying from grocery stores. Eating local does have its benefits, however it does not apply equally on all of the pillars of sustainability. Furthermore, in a world of GMOs and chemical fertilizers, it is rare to see small scale farmers growing and using such things. Genetically modified organisms are used to create maximum yield, and what society deems as the “perfect” appearance of the product. However, through the process of genetic modification, lots of nutritious value is lost in comparison to growing organic, local food. Limiting fertilizers is also beneficial for the environment, as it prevents episodes of eutrophication in surrounding waterways which is often due to the drift or run-off of fertilizers. Given these points, it is clear that the environmental pillar is very much fulfilled in terms of eating local and growing organic
In “Called Home”, the first chapter of the book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year in Food Life, Barbara Kingsolver presents her concerns about America's lack of food knowledge, sustainable practices, and food culture. Kingsolver introduces her argument for the benefits of adopting a local food culture by using statistics, witty anecdotal evidence, and logic to appeal to a wide casual reading audience. Her friendly tone and trenchant criticism of America's current food practices combine to deliver a convincing argument that a food culture would improve conditions concerning health and sustainability. I agree with Kingsolver that knowing the origin of food is an important and healthy benefit of developing a true food culture, but it is impractical to maintain that everyone is able to buy more expensive food. Kingsolver presents a compelling argument for developing a food culture, however this lifestyle change may not be practical or even possible for a poverty-level citizen. The following essay will summarize and respond to Kingsolver’s argument to demonstrate how “Called Home” is a model for novice social scientists.
In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan challenges his readers to examine their food and question themselves about the things they consume. Have we ever considered where our food comes from or stopped to think about the process that goes into the food that we purchase to eat every day? Do we know whether our meat and vegetables picked out were raised in our local farms or transported from another country? Michael pollen addresses the reality of what really goes beyond the food we intake and how our lives are affected. He does not just compel us to question the food we consume, but also the food our “food” consumes.
Michael Pollan and David Freedman are two reputable authors who have written about different types of food and why they are healthy or why they are damaging to our health. Michael Pollan wrote “Escape from the Western Diet” and David Freedman wrote “How Junk Food Can End Obesity”. Imagine Pollan’s idea of a perfect world. Everything is organic. McDonald’s is serving spinach smoothies and Walmart is supplying consumers with raw milk. The vast majority of food in this world consists of plants grown locally, because almost everyone is a farmer in order to keep up with supply and demand. How much does all this cost? What happened to all the food that is loved just because it tastes good?
Steven Shapin is an expert when it comes to telling people the reality of the situation. In his, article “What Are You Buying When You Buy Organic?” Shapin exposes and explains the truth behind the word organic. He explains that our view on organic is not a reality. The small farms that we picture in our heads are really just big business in disguise and these big businesses are trying to do good by supposedly not using harmful pesticides. Which are supposed to not damage the environment but in reality they are probably not making any sort of difference. Some people care about the environment, while others are buying taste when it comes to organic food but using different pesticides are going to help the taste, only freshness tastes the best.
The book The No-Nonsense Guide to World Food, by Wayne Roberts introduces us to the concept of “food system”, which has been neglected by many people in today’s fast-changing and fast-developing global food scene. Roberts points out that rather than food system, more people tend to recognize food as a problem or an opportunity. And he believes that instead of considering food as a “problem”, we should think first and foremost about food as an “opportunity”.
Former editor of Us News and World Report and recipient of Guggenheim Award,Stephen Budiansky in his article, “Math Lessons For Locavores”,published in August 19,2012 addresses the topic of locally grown food and argues it as a more sustainable choice in terms of freshness and seasons.I agree with Budiansky for growing food locally,however; with three other reasons: we can reduce food waste,(which will benefit the environment), and obesity(which will help an individual mentally and physically), and improve our economy. The purpose is to illustrate why locally grown foods would be a finer option for an American lifestyle. Budiansky adopts an informative,persuasive,and insightful tone for his audience,readers
In her article, she gives many reasons why organic foods are not only a better choice for people but also for the environment. “Although the cost of organic foods is high; these form a key component in consumer trend known as a whole health solution – diet that promote health and well-being, prevent disease, help cure illness and protects the environment” (202). Organic food production benefits the environment in ways such it reduces pollution, lowers the level of pesticide use, and improves soil conditions. In a health perspective, some organic foods are said to have significantly higher levels of cancer fighting antioxidant, better flavors, safer than conventional food, and have a higher percent of minerals and vitamins. All these benefits are explained in her article that counter argue the position that organic food is just a fad.
Environmental advocate and cofounder of Eatingliberally.org, Kerry Trueman, in her response to Stephen Budiansky’s Math Lessons for Locavores, titled, The Myth of the Rabid Locavore, originally published in the Huffington Post, addresses the topic of different ways of purchasing food and its impact on the world. In her response, she argues that Budiansky portrayal of the Local Food Movement is very inaccurate and that individuals should be more environmentally conscious. Trueman supports her claim first by using strong diction towards different aspects of Budinsky essay, second by emphasizes the extent to which his reasoning falls flat, and lastly by explaining her own point with the use of proper timing. More specifically, she criticizes many
Food production has many challenges to address: CO2 emissions, which are projected to increase by two-thirds in the next 20 years, as the global food production increases so does the number of people going hungry, with the number of urban hungry soaring. The environmental issues are not the only ones to face; politics and economic globalization take also the big part in the food world. These days agriculture and food politics has been going through many changes but mostly under the influence of its consumers; back in the days people wanted as little as safety, variety and low costs of food. Now consumers demanding way more – greater freshness, nutritional value, less synthetic chemicals, smaller carbon footprint and less harm to animals. And that’s the time when urban agriculture emerged quite rapidly delivering locally grown and healthy food. Within the political arena, there are a few still in charge of defending the conventional food industries and commercial farms to retain the upper level. Against the hopes of nutrition activists, farm animal welfare defenders, and organic food promoters, the food and agriculture sector is moving towards greater consolidation and better sustainability. Although in social and local terms, food-growing activists know their role is under attack. Caught two words in the middle, is it possible to satisfy both?
Trends of moving toward supporting local food producers have increased over the years. People are looking for quality over quantity. “With the explosion of interest in local food, consumers now have more choices of products, labels, and ways to shop, so, many people are left wondering where to start” (Table, 2009). Buying locally supports sustainable food system, beyond just methods of food production and helps to increase food from farm to plate. Supporting locally drastically helps with the reduction of emissions and the negative effect that food traveling has on our environment.
Genetically modified food’s, or GMOs, goal is to feed the world's malnourished and undernourished population. Exploring the positive side to GMOs paints a wondrous picture for our planet’s future, although careful steps must be taken to ensure that destruction of our ecosystems do not occur. When GMOs were first introduced into the consumer market they claimed that they would help eliminate the world’s food crisis by providing plants that produced more and were resistant to elemental impacts like droughts and bacterial contaminants, however, production isn’t the only cause for the world’s food crisis. Which is a cause for concern because the population on the earth is growing and our land and ways of agriculture will not be enough to feed everyone sufficiently. No simple solutions can be found or applied when there are so many lives involved. Those who are hungry and those who are over fed, alike, have to consider the consequences of Genetically Modified Organisms. Food should not be treated like a commodity it is a human necessity on the most basic of levels. When egos, hidden agendas, and personal gains are folded into people's food sources no one wins. As in many things of life, there is no true right way or wrong way to handle either of the arguments and so many factors are involved that a ‘simple’ solution is simply not an option.
The term “organic” is almost everywhere in modern society, whether it’s used to promote a product or it’s debated on whether it really benefits the human diet. Organic food is heavily debated on as it appears more and more in local grocery stores and farmers markets begin to populate, it raises questions such as “Is organic food better than food grown with pesticides and biologically engineered genes?” and “Are there benefits to eating organically over foods grown in any other way?” In terms of what data and results show in research may help lead to answers to most of the heavily debated issues throughout discussions on organic food.
As the global population continues to rise, the amount of food needed to feed the people will increase as well. Two types of agriculture systems have been the backbone for crop production for decades if not centuries: conventional and organic agriculture— both methods could not be any more different. Conventional agriculture, a method that uses synthetic chemical pesticides, technologies or additives, and practices that are unsustainable is the leading producer for our food. On the other side of spectrum, organic agriculture generally, performed in a much smaller scale, does not use synthetic chemicals and utilize methods that are environmentally sound. Most conventional
The source shows the reliability of biodiversity and soil quality that organic farming agriculture exploits, specifically when it has a tight grip of the economy and community that has directly affected livestock, farmers, people, and the global environment as a whole. Organic farms are sometimes difficult to maintain as the land can quite possibly lose its potential of being free from pesticides. As articulated in the source, the piece of land must also need precise qualifications which takes time and patience. This is one amongst many disadvantages a progressive movement such as organic farming must work on. The purpose is meant to enhance a genetically modified agriculture into an innately modified agriculture for a nutritious
Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals--environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. A variety of philosophies, policies and practices have contributed to these goals. People in many different capacities, from farmers to consumers, have shared this vision and contributed to it.