Food For Thought: The High Cost of Convenience in our Food System

I.         Introduction

In a nation such as the United States, consumers are flooded with an assortment of industrialized food products made in abundance for low cost each time they step into a grocery store. For typical consumers, questions or concerns about the origins of their food are on the periphery- and infrequently front and center when the media chooses to draw attention to them. The food system’s reliance on industrial-scale agriculture has become one of the most significant problems facing our contemporary food system. In some ways, the industrial food system has served its intended purpose, where virtually an entire nation feeds itself through the current food system (grocery stores, restaurants, etc.). However, while it has made it possible to produce large quantities of food at a low cost, it has also led to a host of negative environmental, health, and social consequences. This reliance on monoculture farming practices, heavy use of chemicals, and excessive water usage have degraded the soil, caused biodiversity loss, and polluted waterways. The prevalence of highly processed foods and added sugars in our diets has also contributed to the rise of chronic diseases. Additionally, the impact of industrial agriculture falls disproportionately on marginalized communities, low-income populations, and developing countries. In this essay, we will explore how the most significant problem associated with our contemporary food system is its reliance on industrial-scale agriculture and food production, which can lead to negative consequences for the environment, public health, and social justice.

 II. The Industrial Agrifood System and the Environment

Through large-scale monoculture farming practices, heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and excessive water usage can lead to soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and pollution of waterways. These environmental problems can have far-reaching consequences on ecosystems, including declines in wildlife populations, loss of fertile land, and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental problems created by the industrialization of the agrifood system have been largely addressed with industrial solutions that come with their own set of new, possibly larger-scale risks. Guptill summarizes, “the industrialization of the agrifood system in terms of three “technological revolutions”: the mechanical revolution, beginning about 1900, the chemical revolution, beginning at the end of World War II in 1945, and the biotechnology revolution, beginning in the 1980’s” (Guptill et al. 2016). Each of these revolutions consequently creates what is known as a treadmill pattern, where each new technology brings new problems, thus creating a need for more technologies as the cycle continues. During the chemical revolution, the use of chemicals in pesticides, insecticides and herbicides indisputably boosted agricultural production. However, this revolution came with risks. Guptill describes during the 1950/60s how “persistent pesticides like DDT were building up in animal tissues throughout the food chain. For example, insects covered in DDT were consumed by other insects, which were then eaten by frogs hunted by birds and other predators. DDT accumulated in the tissues of these longer-living predators…DDT was banned in 1972…but environmentalists and consumers are still concerned about the [pesticides] that remain” (Guptill et al. 2016). Chemical fertilizers have also created a problem called nutrient pollution, where industrial farming areas’ runoff carries excessive nitrogen and phosphorous to bodies of water, causing algae and other aquatic plants to grow too aggressively. When these plants die, the amount of dissolved oxygen is reduced, causing eutrophication, and consequently creating a dead zone where other aquatic life cannot survive. After this period, the biotechnology revolution was formed to address the problems of the agricultural chemicals used years before. During this time, the genetic engineering of crops was introduced. Because of this, genetic crop engineering technologies have had a huge impact on the two most important agricultural products in the US: corn and soy. Potential adverse effects of genetically engineered organisms affecting humans may include new allergens, antibiotic resistance, production of new toxins and concentration of toxic metals. Guptill also mentions, “environmental groups concerned about genetic engineering are also raising the alarm about genetic pollution, especially in relation to “pharming”, which uses genetically modified crops to produce medicines… the costs to address pollution, pesticide and herbicide resistance, and corporate control of agricultural genetics comprise the third time we pay, individually and collectively, for industrial food” (Guptill et al. 2016). Finally, the Factory Farming Awareness Coalition states that, “industrial animal agriculture is one of the leading contributors to climate change, responsible for about 15.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions” (Dalzell, 2021). This means that the meat and dairy industry has become so industrialized that it emits almost as much heat-trapping gas as all planes, trains, and cars in the entire world. Factory farming also exacerbates deforestation and water scarcity, not to mention the tons of crops, food, and antibiotics that are required to keep these animals alive in heinous conditions. Dalzell states that US factory meat and dairy farms are, “responsible for 55% of water consumption, whereas domestic water use makes up only 5%” (Dalzell, 2021). Overall, the environmental consequences of industrial agriculture are significant, and urgent action is needed to address them. By transitioning to sustainable agriculture practices that prioritize soil health, biodiversity conservation, reduced factory farming and reduced chemical inputs, we can mitigate the environmental damage caused by industrial agriculture and create a more sustainable food system for future generations.

III. The Industrial Agrifood System and Public Health

The second issue with industrial food production is the impact on public health. In addition to food contamination due to pesticides and chemical fertilizers, the prevalence of highly processed foods and added sugars in our diets can contribute to the rise of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. The book, “Weighing In” describes how, “since the mid-1970s, farm productivity in the United States has grown tremendously. Corn and soy, major inputs to food processing, have seen especially dramatic increases in yields per acre…the commodity subsidy system that provides price supports to corn and soy has been the most specific target” in regards to increased obesity levels (Guthman, 2011, p.116). Corn, specifically, is omnipresent in processed food and fast food meals through high fructose corn syrup, oil, and more. Guthman states that some scholars have argued that, “commodity subsidies make these ingredients artificially cheap, especially in comparison to fresh foods… food is so cheap that [Americans] eat more of the high-calorie cheap stuff and less of the lower-calorie and more expensive good stuff” (Guthman, 2011, p.117). Practices in industrial farm policy such as subsidies and industrial dynamics make food cheap and consequently lead to obesity. In the interest of productivity, the food and farm industry, “encourage the use of obseogenic inputs and processing aids. Thus, what may be making us fat is what has been allowed in the production of food rather than how much we eat” (Guthman, 2011, p.117). The prevalence of these highly processed, inexpensive, low-nutrient foods has increased significantly in our contemporary food system. High in calories, sugar, and unhealthy fats and lacking essential nutrients, these processed foods often lead to overconsumption and an increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and other health problems. The industrial agrifood system’s reliance on monoculture farming practices and heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers has led to a decrease in the nutritional quality of many crops, prioritizing quantity instead. This further contributes to public health issues due to a lack of nutritional diversity in the American diet. The conditions of factory farms are especially threatening to public health. FoodPrint states that, “in 2012, livestock and poultry on the largest factory farms produced 369 million tons of animal waste, almost 13 times more waste than that of the 312 million people in the US… the [animal waste] mixture stored in lagoons consists not only of animals excrement but also pathogens such as E. Coli, residues of antibiotics, animal blood, bedding waste, cleaning solutions and other chemicals” (FoodPrint, 2018). Additionally, the gases from manure pits such as, “hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and methane fill the air, along with dust and irritants” (FoodPrint 2018). Communities near factory farms are ultimately deeply negatively affected in regards to their health, air and water quality. The industrialized meat and dairy industry have led to lower nutrient levels in the products as well. With the switch from feeding livestock grass to corn and other byproducts due to overproduction, the levels of omega-3 fatty acids, high-quality fats and other vitamins and minerals typically found in meat have been dramatically reduced. This leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. Likewise, the same pattern has been seen in eggs from pastured hens and dairy cows. In conclusion, the industrial food system has had significant impacts on public health, contributing to the rise of obesity and related chronic diseases in the United States. Highly processed foods, low-nutrient crops, and the concentration of power in the hands of large agribusiness corporations have created a food system that prioritizes profits over public health and nutrition. This leads to a proliferation of unhealthy foods and a lack of access to healthy, affordable options for many communities. To address these issues, we need to transition to more sustainable and equitable food systems that prioritize the production and consumption of healthy, whole foods, reduce the prevalence of highly processed foods, and promote equitable access to healthy food options for all communities. By prioritizing public health and nutrition in our food system policies and practices, we can create a healthier and more sustainable future for ourselves and future generations.

IV. The Industrial Agrifood System and Social Justice

The third issue with industrial food production is the social justice implications. Low-income communities and marginalized populations are more likely to live in food deserts where access to healthy, fresh food is limited and highly processed and unhealthy food options are abundant. These communities are also more likely to experience the negative environmental consequences of industrial agriculture, such as air and water pollution. Food deserts contribute to social injustice in the contemporary food system because they disproportionately affect low-income communities, which are often made up of people of color. These communities may have limited resources and face systemic barriers to accessing healthy food options, which contributes to health problems and therefore perpetuates the cycle of poverty. In addition, food deserts can perpetuate the dominance of large agribusiness corporations and highly processed food manufacturers in the food system, who prioritize profits over public health and nutrition.  Guptill states, “The scarcity of food as a consequence of poverty is a much more complicated problem than it seems on the surface, especially when examined through an agrifood system lens” (Guptill, 2016). Both the surplus and scarcity of food in America are inherently human creations and, as such, require political rather than technical solutions. But the question persists: how is there food scarcity and inequality in a nation that is overproducing crops at an alarming rate? Food sovereignty activists call this notion the scarcity fallacy. Guptill continues, “Even though farmers are less than 2% of the US population, they produce enough to provide every person in the US with 3,800 calories per day of food energy, which is more than one and a half times what an average person needs” (Guptill, 2016). Although there are enough food calories currently produced to feed the world, the industrial agrifood industry persists in presenting the problem of hunger and food scarcity as an issue of underproduction. On a global level, hunger sometimes persists because poorer people must purchase food and do not have the money to do it. However, the chronic problems of food insecurity in the US have deeper roots in line with systemically created food deserts and the ever-present cycle of poverty that keeps people of color stuck in insecurity regarding food, housing, safety, and money. Another level of social injustice within the industrial agrifood system regards the workers within the system that are responsible for the production of our crops in America. Barry Estabrook, the author of “Tomatoland”, shines a light on the cruel treatment and lack of policies that protect the workers in the tomato fields in Florida, who are mainly immigrants and are ultimately exploited for their work. This pattern is seen in many other crop industries in America, such as wine grapes in the valleys of California. Estabrook states that “any American who has eaten a winter tomato, either purchased at a supermarket or on top of a fast food salad, has eaten a fruit picked by the hand of a slave” (Estabrook, 2011, p. 73). Through relaxed Florida government regulations on labor, health, environmental codes and oversights, the Florida tomato industry has essentially gotten away with years of exploitation and torture of farm workers. Many immigrants, occasionally illegal, make up the majority of the population of farm workers. Because of their status, they lack the ability to unionize and lack safety and protection in their line of work. With a higher concentration of industrial farms, farmers must sell their products cheaper while also taking a percentage of the worker’s earnings. This makes for very cheap labor that is met with little to no pushback, as the immigrant workers lack any power to fight against these farmers. The consequences of this system are extreme exploitation and extreme marginalization, deeming these workers invisible in the eyes of consumers and society. Estabrook continues, “Federal labor laws helped create and continue to support this abusive economy by specifically denying farmhands rights that virtually all other American workers take for granted” (Estabrook, 2011, p.96). Farm workers were denied the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining without the fear of being fired. “In the wording of the bill, the definition of “employee” did not include “any individual employed as an agricultural laborer” (Estabrook, 2011, p.96).  Overall, the industrial food system has significant impacts on social justice, perpetuating systems of inequality and marginalization. Addressing the root causes of these problems, including promoting sustainable and equitable food systems, supporting small farmers, and increasing access to healthy food options in low-income areas, is essential to advancing social justice in the contemporary food system. By working towards a more just food system, we can promote health, well-being, and human rights for all communities and build a more sustainable future.

V. Counter Argument and Final Words

The industrial agrifood system has made undoubtedly made food more affordable and accessible for consumers. The industrial food system has enabled the production of large quantities of food at lower costs, which has helped to feed a growing global population. Additionally, advancements in food processing and preservation technologies have led to a wider variety of food products being available year-round, regardless of season. This has ultimately improved the convenience and accessibility of a variety of food for consumers, particularly those with limited time and resources.

However, the counterargument fails to acknowledge the ever-present negative impacts of the industrial food system, including the destruction of the environment due to industrial farming practices, reliance on fossil fuels for transportation, and the concentration of power in the hands of large agribusiness corporations. Not to mention the public health disparities related to industrial agriculture such as the lack of nutrition and the addition of sugars and chemicals in processed foods as well as the social injustices that many marginalized communities face such as low-income families and agricultural workers. These negative impacts have contributed to environmental degradation, climate change, extreme health issues, human rights violations and many more factors prevalent in America. While the industrial food system has made food more affordable and accessible, we must also consider the long-term costs and consequences of its practices and work towards creating a more sustainable and equitable food system for all.