Assignment 3: Part 2 ~ ANTI Industrial Agriculture Group
Identify which stakeholders you might represent in society and outline the main arguments in favour of your reasoning.
Remember to also review the discussion board set up for the alternate position and push that group to defend their arguments by asking questions and sharing counter-points.
20 Replies
As a green supporter, I would be against agricultural industrialization. We need healthier food. With out using pesticides and chemicals we don't have to worry about the quality of our food. The industry also ruins the environment. All the transportation used to get the food to us from far away releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The pesticides can contaminate bodies of water and the animals in or near them. These are both good reasons why we should limit industrialization of the food business.
As I am on the side Anti Industrial Agriculture, I would represent:
- Environmentalists (Industrialised farming often destroys ecosystems and forests + contributes to global warming)
- Those who like/eat/can afford organic food (they would support more organic production, not industrialised)
- Farmers (They cannot compete with big businesses)
- Fishers (Industrialised farming damages fisheries with pesticides)
Arguments:
- Agricultural innovation leads to destroying present, and sometimes rare, ecosystems or habitats, and contributes to deforestation
- It also helps global warming, which is becoming an increasingly pressing issue - the sea level is rising and the glaciers are melting
- Contributes to possible respiratory diseases - air pollution already increases the risk of getting lung and heart diseases, and this will just increase the risk
- Small farmers will be out of a job - machines replace humans, puts many in poverty
- Organic food is much more humanely produced, and is often healthier and safer (Production uses no pesticides, product itself has no pesticides)
- Genetically modifying a species will possibly confuse/disrupt a present healthy ecosystem
From the point of an Economist
30,000 years ago hunter-gatherer supported 6 million people
3,000 years ago primitive agriculture fed 60 million people
300 years ago intensive agriculture fed 600 million people
Today industrial agriculture attempts to feed 6 billion people
AS shown by the above data from Wikipedia, Industrial Agriculture has expanded the Earth's carrying capacity, in the short term. However, due to the environmental impacts (use of fossil feuls for the machinery lead to global warming, the use of pesticides leads to bioaccumulation as it did with DDT, has health repercussions, etc.) the carrying capacity in the future will be reduced.
This was proved in John Nash's game theory which states that the Nash Equilibrium between two parties needs suboptimal results in order to get the best possible result.
Also, monocultures are detrimental for the surrounding environment. The use of pesticides there destroyed the crops of small farmers in the vicinity. This put many people out of work with only a few jobs for the large corporations.
As an environmentally aware consumer, I would be against agricultural innovation. Many fruits are picked before they are ripe, to reduce costs in transportation (as there is less risk of them spoiling). This means that they taste bland. Agricultural innovation is also detrimental to the environment. For example, many of the technologies (e.g. heavy machinery) pollute the air and water. Fertilizer run-off in bodies of water can cause a huge overgrowth of algae, which uses up the oxygen. Agricultural innovation is also risky to consumers. Pesticides may be detrimental to our health. Furthermore, genetically modified fruits and vegetables may not be safe. For example, some crops are modified to have more vitamins, or spoil more slowly. However, we don’t know if that’s changed. The fruits/vegetables could have also gained unhealthy aspects (e.g. unstable compounds) in the genetic modification process. Genetically modified crops may also be less resistant to some diseases. For example, Gros Michel bananas were modified to be “perfect”, meaning that the genetic makeup of every banana was the same. However, when the Panama disease, a fungus emerged, the sameness meant that the disease swept through the banana trees, making them extinct (since they were the same, none of the trees were resistant to the fungus). A major crop going extinct is very bad for a consumer, as it causes a shortage of the crop and prices going up.
A group that it greatly influences would be us (as consumers) -
The amount of pesticides used for agricultural reasons can't possibly be good for us. Perhaps small amounts aren't as bad, but when you are getting small amounts anytime you eat something industrially grown, it adds up, especially today when consumers' health is already at risk.
Throughout the past two health classes we have discussed how many people today aren’t eating healthy and aren’t exercising. In many cases people are unhealthy due to personal reasons, but if there is anyway that we can work to improve our health, even if it’s by simply not buying industrially grown products, then why not?
We’ve also discussed macro economic conditions being part of the influence for industrial agriculture. And an example of these macro economic conditions is quantity. But a better quality over such a vast quantity is always better if it’s going to make us (and other living things better) in the long run.
On the side of Anti Industrial Agriculture, I could represent:
-Environmentalists (damaging to the environment and disrupt the ecosystems. Crops shouldn't be genetically modified just to produce more, safer or better food)
-Fishers (damaging to fisheries, pesticides used for these crops could leak into the water and affect various underwater ecosystems. could affect the fish, which could potentially damage the industry)
-People with money to buy organic food products would argue against genetically modified food
-It would cost much more money to modify the crops rather than just growing them
-Pesticides used on the crops could be health risk and be potentially dangerous to humans if they somehow got into their drinking water or if they just managed to get to humans in any way
From a nutritionists point of view, industrial agriculture is unhealthy because of all the pesticides sprayed on the fruits so that pests and insects won't eat them. Ingesting pesticides can cause detrimental health problems such as mental issues. Health problems include: birth defects, genetic modifications, blood disorders, and nerve disorders, which can lead to a multitude of adverse health effects on people and other animals that eat the pesticide fruits, such as domestic dogs and cats. The pesticides can get into lakes and ponds, which cause the algae to grow very quickly relative to the other organisms, and this decreases the amount of oxygen fish and other organisms need. The pesticides also kill organisms in the water. Also, the bioacumullation that occurs with the pesticides can affect lots of animals in the food chain.
but before you get healthier food you need to make sure that food is available to everyone! we need to make sure people can live before we care about the environment. and if you innovate agriculture, then you can mass produce cheaply and feed more people
also, genetically modified food might not actually be better, just cheaper.
Sara, your points are somewhat nonsensical, it is not the transportation of goods that does much damage to the environment. Secondly industrialising agriculture will make it MORE AFFORDABLE and with larger more nutritious crops we will not need to produce as much, that is beneficial to the environment. Lastly, jsut because food may be genetically modified does not mean it is unhealthy. In fact many products are enhanced by boosting their nutrition values.
This post was edited on: 2011-05-02 at 12:11 PM by: duncan
Agricultural Innovation provides its consumers with convenience. It gives the consumers cheap and plentiful food, and it benefits the economy greatly. While being very appealing to consumers, it can be questioned, "Is it really worth it? What are the risks and hazards?" The answer, is no. Agricultural Innovation is not beneficent and is harmful to animals, the consumers, and the environment. Agricultural Innovation acquires both, environmental, and social costs, of which can not always be replaced. It also inflicts damage upon fisheries, not to mention animal waster, which causes surface and groundwater from pollution. And of course, we must not forget the pain and suffering that Agricultural Innovation inflicts on us, the consumers. Agricultural Innovation provides us with numerous increased health risks, due to pesticides. As well, the profound use of fossil fuels in Agricultural Innovations, contributes and leads to increased pollution levels, and global warming. Although, it may seem as though Agricultural Innovation only has small effects, the negative and horrible impacts that this growing method contains, will catch up with us. Therefore, before supporting Agricultural Innovation, one must remember all of the risk it poses on not only us, but the environment as well. In the end, you the consumer can decide...would you really rather have cheaper and larger amounts of foods, and end up paying these "cheap" prices with perhaps your life, or the destruction of the environment? 
As a consumer that is concerned more about the environment than the economy, I would clearly be against agricultural innovation, because in the long term, aspects of it are detrimental to the environment. For example, newer technology and factories pollute the atmosphere, because the smoke harms the environment by contributing to the greenhouse effect. Although genetically modifying crops and using pesticides could produce a larger crop or bigger animals, there are many disadvantages that make it not worthwhile. For example, pesticides are not good for anyone consuming the product, because they can increase health risks. Who knows what could happen as a result of eating too much genetically modified food? Pesticides can also run off into sewers and bodies of water, which means that they can pollute our own water supplies, and harm aquatic ecosystems, as well as the ecosystems surrounding the crops. Furthermore, from my own experience, organic foods often taste much better than genetically modified ones. Overall, genetically modifying products creates unintended consequences, harming other ecosystems and possibly having negative effects on its consumers.
uts-ioana wrote:
From the point of an Economist
30,000 years ago hunter-gatherer supported 6 million people
3,000 years ago primitive agriculture fed 60 million people
300 years ago intensive agriculture fed 600 million people
Today industrial agriculture attempts to feed 6 billion people
AS shown by the above data from Wikipedia, Industrial Agriculture has expanded the Earth's carrying capacity, in the short term. However, due to the environmental impacts (use of fossil feuls for the machinery lead to global warming, the use of pesticides leads to bioaccumulation as it did with DDT, has health repercussions, etc.) the carrying capacity in the future will be reduced.
This was proved in John Nash's game theory which states that the Nash Equilibrium between two parties needs suboptimal results in order to get the best possible result.
Also, monocultures are detrimental for the surrounding environment. The use of pesticides there destroyed the crops of small farmers in the vicinity. This put many people out of work with only a few jobs for the large corporations.
so we should feed less than the carrying capacity? does that mean we should let many people just die cause they can't and dont deserve to get the food? 
uts-laura wrote:
As a consumer that is concerned more about the environment than the economy, I would clearly be against agricultural innovation, because in the long term, aspects of it are detrimental to the environment. For example, newer technology and factories pollute the atmosphere, because the smoke harms the environment by contributing to the greenhouse effect. Although genetically modifying crops and using pesticides could produce a larger crop or bigger animals, there are many disadvantages that make it not worthwhile. For example, pesticides are not good for anyone consuming the product, because they can increase health risks. Who knows what could happen as a result of eating too much genetically modified food? Pesticides can also run off into sewers and bodies of water, which means that they can pollute our own water supplies, and harm aquatic ecosystems, as well as the ecosystems surrounding the crops. Furthermore, from my own experience, organic foods often taste much better than genetically modified ones. Overall, genetically modifying products creates unintended consequences, harming other ecosystems and possibly having negative effects on its consumers.
We also inadvertantly consume pesticides that are still on/in fruits and veggies.
The increased use of fertilizers is harmful to us in many ways. The fertilizers contain chemicals that can harm people (especially in excess) such as phosphates, types of nitrogen, and types of salts.
When used in fields, they can runoff when it rains into rivers and streams. The fertilizers can provide nutrients for algae, so if there is an excess phosphates in a body of water, a large number of algal blooms can grow. The algal blooms suck oxygen out of the water, which can kill many of the species that live there.
Although some smaller fish can survive with less oxygen, they often eat the algae. They, in turn, are eaten by the larger fish, which are eaten by us. In other words, we indirectly consume the too much phosphate.
Too much nitrogen, or the wrong type, can kill fish and other sea creatures. Nitrogen pollution is capable of killing all the life in the oceans, and it can cause the disease "methemoglobinemia" in humans which damages blood cells.
Source: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Fertilizer-717/2008/11/harmful-effects-fertilizers.htm
This post was edited on: 2011-05-02 at 12:28 PM by: liwah
It is most certainly true that there are indeed many benefits to industrial agriculture and innovation, from the lowered prices and plentiful stock of the food, to the size of the food and the boost it brings to our economy. However, is all this really worth it? There are many, many risks and downsides to agricultural innovation that the benefits CAN NOT outweigh. With agricultural innovation comes severe damage to out environment, our Earth, our livestock, and even to ourselves. By using and supporting industrial agriculture, you are supporting the immense damage brought to our planet in the form of increased ozone pollution and global warming, the fast using up of our fossil fuels and animal wastage, not to mention the health risks we are bringing to ourselves from all the pesticides used in the agriculture. Another con would be the damage done to our fisheries, which significantly decreases the supply and condition of fish and other seafood. Industrial agriculture also uses up huge amounts of water and energy, and the equipment involved emits harmful chemicals, costing huge environmental and social costs. Think about it. Is all this damage really worth consumer convenience and a boost in economy? Although industrial agriculture may seem like it is helping us today, the effects are only SHORT-TERM, and before long the downsides to this method will catch up to us, with its damages irreparable.
Local farmers, doctors, environmentalists, physicians, and anyone who cares about both their health, and the health of our planet, should support organic agriculture.
As technology advance, we tend to rely quite heavily on machinery or high tech fertilizers and pesticides and are told by doctors or health specialists to eat healthy food such as fruits and vegetables. "healthy" might really not be as healthy as we thought. Fruits and vegetables are pumped with steroids or are genetically modified to appear bigger. They are to be bigger but not necissarily healthier. Pesticides are sprayed onto crops to kill bugs and things that may eat the plants. If what is sprayed onto crops acts as a poison to kill bugs then how can they be healthy for us? Steroids are also pumped into meat that we normally eat such as chicken, lamb and cows. These animals are pumped with steroids to look fatter and bigger. Such things are put in just to look bigger so that we can buy them. Although this is a plus for the economy the main thing that we all should worry about is our health. Steroids and pesticides have even be proven to trigger cancer cells.
[/quote][/i]Our society's heavy reliance[/quote] on industrial agriculture to satisfy our desir[i]e for bigger [i]and better produce and meat has ended up hurting farmers[/i] and consume[quote]rs. Industrial[quote] agriculture is being used for all the wrong purposes; instead of using it to make sure hunger is being eliminated, we are using it t[/i]o create better [/i]look[/i]ing and tasting foods for people who can afford and demand the it. When shopping for produce, people always sort through and try and find the nice looking fruits or veggies. A[i]t the end of the day, the "leftovers" are thrown [i]out and there is pressure on the producers for better fruits.[/quote]
As a fisher, I know that industrial agriculture damages fisheries-there is runoff of pesticides and fertilizers, harming fish. This can lead to the population of fish decreasing,and as a result, a failed fishing industry. People say that industrial agriculture contributes to the economy, but it doesn't contribute to the fishing industry.
sarah
May 2, 2011 at 11:52 AM