Introduction
The industrialized food system allows for producing larger quantities of food for less, leading to low prices of food products in supermarkets. Nevertheless, as illustrated by Guptill et al., the industrialization of the food system has a lot of drawbacks (160). One possible solution to these issues is the downsizing of food production in the United States, which would improve the food system by addressing health, environmental, and ethical problems. The present paper will show the need for change by overviewing the costs and ethical concerns of industrialization and then explain the benefits of downsizing as an alternative.
Industrialization Costs
First of all, the industrialization of agriculture had a critical impact on the environment by raising pollution and waste levels. Chemicals that are widely used to promote the growth of crops enter the water supply and pollute it, causing damage to animals (Guptill et al. 175-176). The authors note that “There are now more than 400 identified oceanic dead zones, including one in the Gulf of Mexico of about 8,000 square miles caused by fertilizers washing down the Mississippi River” (Guptill et al. 176). The situation in other areas of the country is similar, and it may worsen over the next few years.
Secondly, the technologies used in the farming of meat and dairy products create health concerns for humans due to the risks of infection. In order to prevent animals from dying, many food manufacturers use antibiotics, which are given to animals even if they are not ill yet (Guptill et al. 156). The spread of resistant bacteria in the community leads to the risk of epidemics that cannot be treated with regular antibiotics, thus increasing healthcare costs and impairing population health.
In addition to environmental and health costs, there are also ethical concerns associated with the industrialized food system. The first issue is the reliance of the system on low-paid seasonal labor, which contributes to economic inequality throughout the country. Furthermore, farmworkers are often denied legal health and safety protection and are excluded from minimum wage regulations (Guptill et al. 174). Those who agree to work under such conditions often come from marginalized ethnic and racial backgrounds, and the lack of fair compensation and legal protection thus strengthens the social division.
The second ethical issue associated with the industrialization of agriculture is the poor treatment of animals. Most of the animals are kept confined in small spaces with lots of other animals, leading to diseases and deformities that make them suffer, including mastitis, abscesses, ketosis, bone fractures, and more (Rossi and Garner 493). Unwanted or sick animals are killed in ways causing significant pain and distress, and workers often injure animals during transportation or when they misbehave (Rossi and Garner 494). Most of the harm done to animals is avoidable, but industrialization does not allow for the required degree of control, as well as additional expenditures that may be associated with it.
The Solution
As evident from the previous section, most of the harm caused to people, animals, and the environment is due to the concept of the industrialized food system. When food producers focus on gaining the most output with little cost, issues such as infection, soil and water contamination, and animal abuse are bound to happen. Hence, in order to improve control over food manufacturing technologies and reduce the harm caused by them, it is essential to downsize food production.
The idea of downsizing is embedded in the alternative food movement proposed by Guthman (3). The author describes the alternative food movement as “institutions and practices that bring small-scale farmers, artisan food producers, and restaurant chefs together with consumers for the market exchange of what is characterized as fresh, local, seasonal, organic, and craft-produced food” (3). The author argues that this food system is more beneficial because it ensures a high quality of food products, addresses common ethical concerns, and reduces the environmental impact of food production.
Indeed, all of these effects can be achieved through downsizing and localizing food production. According to Guptill et al., the alternative food movement “defines quality according to the broader social and environmental impact of how those foods are produced, processed, marketed and sold” (241). This means that the quality of food products in a non-industrialized food system will be judged based on the quality of the production process rather than on standardized quality metrics. This will motivate farmers to work to prevent environmental damage, animal abuse, and health hazards.
The downsizing of the food production system will also address the concerns linked to economic inequality. Farmers who supply foods to local markets will be required to hire local workers, thus decreasing the use of immigrant labor in food production. Moreover, monitoring health, safety, and compensation in small businesses is easier, which will lead to the increased regulatory oversight of working conditions. These changes will help to ensure that workers in the agricultural sector are treated fairly.
There are two main concerns that authors express with regards to the downsizing of food production: access and costs. This is because the capacity of local farmers is limited, and their costs are higher than in mass production, leading to higher prices. However, the information provided in the readings suggests that, at the moment, a significant share of food products is wasted. Guptill et al. state that “American farmers now produce 3,900 food calories per person per day in the United States […] That’s nearly twice as many calories as most individuals need” (133). This means that even if the supply of food products decreased by 30 or 35 percent, there would still be enough food for every person in the country. The issue of increased food prices is more pressing, but it can also be resolved if low-income families received support from the government to buy high-quality food. Given the economic costs associated with environmental damage and health hazards caused by the industrial food system, the net rise in government expenditures would be minimal.
Conclusion
Overall, the industrialized food system has a significant negative impact on the environment and population health. The practices and processes involved in mass food production also raise ethical concerns due to the unfair treatment of workers and animals. The proposed solution to the problem is the downsizing of food production in the United States. Increasing the number of local farmers while eliminating large-scale food producers would have a positive impact on the quality of food products. It will also help to address the environmental and ethical issues associated with food production. Although the change would entail some expenses for the government, the benefits of it would be far more notable.
Works Cited
Guptill, Amy E., et al. Food & Society: Principles and Paradoxes. 2nd ed., Polity Press, 2017.
Guthman, Julie. Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice, and the Limits of Capitalism. 2011, University of California Press.
Rossi, John, and Samual A. Garner. “Industrial Farm Animal Production: A Comprehensive Moral Critique.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 27, no. 3, 2014, pp. 479-522.