Future of Food
With human population endlessly expanding and administration restricting the source of man labor in agriculture, will salad eventually disappear from our menus? Michael Liedtke assured us we will still get to enjoy salad, thanks to our future farmers--robots. In his article Meet the Farmers of the Future: Robots, Michael Liedtke visited an indoor farm established by Iron Ox. The robot Angus automatically care for plants, such as moving them to a bigger space when they reach a certain size. The CEO of Iron Ox Brandon Alexander noted that Angus will be a great farming method in the future because its ability to conserve water and avoid the expensive human labor. Liedtke pointed out that indoor farming with robots can potentially be a solution to food deserts in metropolitan areas in the U.S.; and in large scale, it can supply enough fresh food for a growing population without further exploiting the environment like industrial agriculture does. The cost of growing plants in robot farms are also reduced due to the lack of need of man labor. Robot farming also seems to work well with the current administration because nearly half of the farm workers in the U.S. are not legal residents or citizens--it allows agriculture to be independent from the labor illegal immigrants provide. The progressing technology in agriculture seems to be catching up to the new issues emerging in recent years.
This new technology could be a great tool. The robot farms seem to hold similar goals to AeroFarms, as noted by La Gorce, where plants are grown in tall towers. Both robot farms and AeroFarm’s methods are suitable for the urban setting, growing plants in limited space and providing plants to areas lacking fresh food. As a result of these local plant supplies, freshness is guaranteed. Both farms are not dependent on natural elements and they can avoid further exploitation of land. However, along with the elimination of natural environment in agriculture, the natural cycle of carbon can no longer be in the big picture. According to Sasha Swerdloff, many things great for the environment could be achieved through composting--improvement in soil health, water conservation, collection of carbon in the ground and therefore reduction in greenhouse gases, increase in crop growth. In addition, Velasquez-Manoff’s article provided insight in how composting (a traditional and natural agriculture method) could be economically beneficial for farmers and could help better the environment by trapping carbons underground and therefore reducing greenhouse gases. As Velasquez-Manoff’s article mentioned, Whendee Silver, an ecologist at UC Berkeley, found treated land were potentially able to absorb carbon for decades. Silver also noted the treated land kept more moisture and enabled more plant growth. Though the great advances technology can make in improving our environment, they are much more expensive that allowing the complete cycle of life in agriculture as stated by Wick in the article. Therefore cost is also an important factor when considering what would be the best for the future of agriculture. The remaining question would be: is farming the natural way or the technological advanced way more suitable for the growing demand for food and endangered environment of Earth?
This new technology could be a great tool. The robot farms seem to hold similar goals to AeroFarms, as noted by La Gorce, where plants are grown in tall towers. Both robot farms and AeroFarm’s methods are suitable for the urban setting, growing plants in limited space and providing plants to areas lacking fresh food. As a result of these local plant supplies, freshness is guaranteed. Both farms are not dependent on natural elements and they can avoid further exploitation of land. However, along with the elimination of natural environment in agriculture, the natural cycle of carbon can no longer be in the big picture. According to Sasha Swerdloff, many things great for the environment could be achieved through composting--improvement in soil health, water conservation, collection of carbon in the ground and therefore reduction in greenhouse gases, increase in crop growth. In addition, Velasquez-Manoff’s article provided insight in how composting (a traditional and natural agriculture method) could be economically beneficial for farmers and could help better the environment by trapping carbons underground and therefore reducing greenhouse gases. As Velasquez-Manoff’s article mentioned, Whendee Silver, an ecologist at UC Berkeley, found treated land were potentially able to absorb carbon for decades. Silver also noted the treated land kept more moisture and enabled more plant growth. Though the great advances technology can make in improving our environment, they are much more expensive that allowing the complete cycle of life in agriculture as stated by Wick in the article. Therefore cost is also an important factor when considering what would be the best for the future of agriculture. The remaining question would be: is farming the natural way or the technological advanced way more suitable for the growing demand for food and endangered environment of Earth?
Climate Change
On The Washington Post, Caitlin Dewey published an article on June 11, 2018 about eating and climate change (The U.S. diet is a climate disaster. Here are four easy fixes.). Dewey explained the impacts of American diet on the climate—high intake of animal protein and consumption of food that required transportation which results in the emission of a tremendous amount of greenhouse gases. The author provided four tips for consumers to reduce greenhouse gas generated. The tips included to reduce intake of red meat and dairy, to purchase locally grown vegetables and melons, to support business that’s cautious about greenhouse gas emissions, and to decrease spending in food. According to the author, livestock generate greenhouse gas in their digestive process, hence the negative environmental impact of consuming red meat and dairy products. Simply an eighteen-percent reduction in protein intake can largely decrease the American diet’s impact. Though plants’ production generate much less greenhouse gas than red meats’ and dairy products’, vegetables and melons require long distance transportation to reach markets all over the U.S. Therefore, Dewey advised purchasing local vegetables and melons. Even though it would be hard for consumers to make a change on the industrial level, supporting grocery stores and restaurants that monitor their carbon footprints could make a positive effect in climate change. Lastly, Dewey stated to reduce spending in food could minimize negative environmental effects because this act decreases the natural resources required to produce food. However, Dewey would not recommend this last tip if it compromises the practicality or nutrition of one’s diet.
This news resonated with Annick de Witt’s article. It highlighted the effectiveness in reducing emission by slightly decreasing meat intake and substituting beef with other proteins (such as seafood, poultry, and beans), similar to what The Protein Scorecard conveyed; Dewey thereby acknowledged difficulty in completely eliminating meat in one’s diet like de Witt mentioned. In “The Limits of Locavorism”, however, Dewey’s tip of eating local was refuted. The Week’s staff argued that transportation would contribute only a small fraction of carbon cost of food on average; and that sometimes transportation would be more energy efficient than attempting to produce a food in a place not naturally suitable for its production. Although Dewey wrote that lowering food spending would be the most difficult to execute without influencing nutrition, Waite and Lipinski’s article pointed out that an average American family waste as much as 1,500 dollars worth of food each year. Waite and Lipinski expressed that preventing over-consumption, finishing leftovers, reducing portion sizes, and freezing food are all useful strategies that could help a family to decrease spending on food and to be environmentally friendly.
This news resonated with Annick de Witt’s article. It highlighted the effectiveness in reducing emission by slightly decreasing meat intake and substituting beef with other proteins (such as seafood, poultry, and beans), similar to what The Protein Scorecard conveyed; Dewey thereby acknowledged difficulty in completely eliminating meat in one’s diet like de Witt mentioned. In “The Limits of Locavorism”, however, Dewey’s tip of eating local was refuted. The Week’s staff argued that transportation would contribute only a small fraction of carbon cost of food on average; and that sometimes transportation would be more energy efficient than attempting to produce a food in a place not naturally suitable for its production. Although Dewey wrote that lowering food spending would be the most difficult to execute without influencing nutrition, Waite and Lipinski’s article pointed out that an average American family waste as much as 1,500 dollars worth of food each year. Waite and Lipinski expressed that preventing over-consumption, finishing leftovers, reducing portion sizes, and freezing food are all useful strategies that could help a family to decrease spending on food and to be environmentally friendly.
McDonaldization
In a CBS news published on October 17, 2018 and titled McDonald’s, Burger King, Five Guys among 22 burger chains given “F” over antibiotics, the author reported many of the McDonaldized restaurants used antibiotic-enriched beef. According to the article, antibiotics are used to stimulate growth and prevent disease, as opposed to treating bacterial infections. More importantly it is considered a norm in the meat industry. The article suggested the government should take action to reduce the misuse of antibiotics, otherwise there can be severe consequences. An example of the consequences was that a scrape on the human body can turn into a call of death due to resistant bacteria.
Among the dimensions of McDonaldization explained by George Ritzer in The McDonaldization of Society--efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control--three of these dimensions could be considered contributors to the excessive use of antibiotics in the meat industry. First is efficiency, in which food are to be served quickly will likely require the food to be cooked fast. However it will be dangerous if beef patties in a hamburger contained bacteria and were not cooked thoroughly by the time it reached the customer. Antibiotics will at least help to reduce that occurrence. Second is calculability, in McDonaldized systems quantity is considered equally as quality. Without antibiotics to stimulate growth of animal and to prevent meat loss (due to death of animals from diseases), there can not be enough meat to reach the quantity expectation of customers. Last is predictability, in which food being sold should be the same across geographic space and over time. If a large quantity is the standard size, it must be persistent in different places and in future times as well. Therefore antibiotic use is essential in maintaining the McDonaldized systems.
Based on Tim Wu’s article, it is apparent that convenience has become a core value of our society, for a good reason. Convenience contribute to our freedom and therefore grant us more time to invest in events like learning and doing something we love. However, this value can also be limiting to us since we can be so used to convenience that we simply are not willing to do the things we meant to do anymore (mostly of the time not convenient). We as a society have a high level of reliance on convenience, therefore it would be hard to remove McDonaldized systems like fast food chains from our life and economy. Therefore simply urging government to take actions to limit antibiotics will not be effective because the economy that heavily relies on McDonaldized food can collapse as a result.
Among the dimensions of McDonaldization explained by George Ritzer in The McDonaldization of Society--efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control--three of these dimensions could be considered contributors to the excessive use of antibiotics in the meat industry. First is efficiency, in which food are to be served quickly will likely require the food to be cooked fast. However it will be dangerous if beef patties in a hamburger contained bacteria and were not cooked thoroughly by the time it reached the customer. Antibiotics will at least help to reduce that occurrence. Second is calculability, in McDonaldized systems quantity is considered equally as quality. Without antibiotics to stimulate growth of animal and to prevent meat loss (due to death of animals from diseases), there can not be enough meat to reach the quantity expectation of customers. Last is predictability, in which food being sold should be the same across geographic space and over time. If a large quantity is the standard size, it must be persistent in different places and in future times as well. Therefore antibiotic use is essential in maintaining the McDonaldized systems.
Based on Tim Wu’s article, it is apparent that convenience has become a core value of our society, for a good reason. Convenience contribute to our freedom and therefore grant us more time to invest in events like learning and doing something we love. However, this value can also be limiting to us since we can be so used to convenience that we simply are not willing to do the things we meant to do anymore (mostly of the time not convenient). We as a society have a high level of reliance on convenience, therefore it would be hard to remove McDonaldized systems like fast food chains from our life and economy. Therefore simply urging government to take actions to limit antibiotics will not be effective because the economy that heavily relies on McDonaldized food can collapse as a result.
Poverty and Food Insecurity
When people mention the United States, they always considered it a developed country where its citizens have it all. However, according to the article New report reveals 30,000 Detroiters do not have access to healthy food by Jerilyn Jordan, despite our nickname of “super nation”, not everyone has access to what they need. This news provided statistics from a Detroit Food Metrics Report regarding food security in Detroit, Michigan. There were as much as 74 full-line grocers that carry dry, canned, and fresh food (fresh food like meat, dairy, produce), as well as other items that’s not food; however, 30,000 residents of Detroit still didn’t have access to a full-line grocery store. Based on a graph of grocery store distribution in Detroit, each grocery store covered an area that was a circle of one-mile radius, preventing the formation of food desert area within that circle. Nonetheless some stores clustered together and therefore the area they covered together are much smaller than they could if they spread further apart. In addition, there are also food desert areas that overlap with the circles grocery stores formed, the report explained it was a “mismatch in federal food policy” (Hill and Kuras, 2017). The news also pointed out that 40% of households were enrolled in food stamps (SNAP) system, but 48% of households are food insecure.
The statistics provided an insight into difficulties Detroit residents face in the fight with hunger. This article resonated with the article written by Tracie McMillian, she pointed out that people were not able to choose what they eat based on their free will and they have became what the system molded them into. That was precisely how food desert came about, in the capitalist society if a business wish to survive they must make profits and all they consider would be revolve around profit, neglecting all other factors. According to Jane Black, institutions like schools could help resolve food dessert. If the institution choose to cook healthy food and use locally produced foods, that could add access to fresh food to a system that was solely based on produce transported from elsewhere. The phenomenon of food desert could also be a result of the differences in taste between people of different classes. In The Economist article, difference in taste was a very strong evidence of difference in class, therefore grocery stores might make decisions to target higher class customers (for example moving to a higher class area) and consequently created food deserts in poorer communities.
Citation of Report the Article Mentioned:
Hill, A. B., Kuras, A., Detroit Food Policy Council and Detroit Health Department (2017). Detroit Food Metrics Report 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/373207033/Detroit-Food-Metrics-Report#from_embed
The statistics provided an insight into difficulties Detroit residents face in the fight with hunger. This article resonated with the article written by Tracie McMillian, she pointed out that people were not able to choose what they eat based on their free will and they have became what the system molded them into. That was precisely how food desert came about, in the capitalist society if a business wish to survive they must make profits and all they consider would be revolve around profit, neglecting all other factors. According to Jane Black, institutions like schools could help resolve food dessert. If the institution choose to cook healthy food and use locally produced foods, that could add access to fresh food to a system that was solely based on produce transported from elsewhere. The phenomenon of food desert could also be a result of the differences in taste between people of different classes. In The Economist article, difference in taste was a very strong evidence of difference in class, therefore grocery stores might make decisions to target higher class customers (for example moving to a higher class area) and consequently created food deserts in poorer communities.
Citation of Report the Article Mentioned:
Hill, A. B., Kuras, A., Detroit Food Policy Council and Detroit Health Department (2017). Detroit Food Metrics Report 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/373207033/Detroit-Food-Metrics-Report#from_embed
Migrant Farming
The news article named Blame Trump’s Tariffs and the Weather, New York’s Farmers Do. published on August 22, 2018 presented the difficulties farmers in the US faced this summer. With the drought followed by a flood and Trump administration’s unforgiving immigration policies, summer of 2018 had been a unprecedented pain to many farmers. Some expressed the unique feature of this year’s dilemma compared to previous years—tariffs, weathers, and labor are all sources of negative impact to the farming industry whereas there was “always something that did well” (Pager, 2018). The author Tyler Pager proceeds to talk about the strict immigration policies that was put in place this year, and the resulted labor shortage made many farms hard to operate. Farms rely heavily on labor, for example, dairy farms need workers to milk cows in a year-round fashion. And according to Pager, a huge percentage of labors in New York dairy farms are undocumented immigrants (2018). One of the reason why migrant workers, largely undocumented individuals, are the main and preferred force of labor in farming is because they keep quiet about the oppression they undergo while working in the U.S., as it was mentioned in The American Way of Eating by Tracie McMillan. Therefore employers—in this context are farmers—can gain maximum profit by giving these migrant farmers very low wages without any publicized outcry.
According to McMillan, farm workers usually earn by piece rates, such as if they process an x amount of a certain kind of produce, then they will get an x amount of money for that piece. And it is not surprising for the piece rates to be as low as below one U.S. dollar. Instead of exploiting migrant farm workers and give them low wages, McMillan suggested a huge issue farmers should seek to solve is how to minimize the steps produce go through between the farm and the market. With each step there is additional costs and when it reaches the consumers, more than 80% of the cost are derived from these steps, making farmers’ profits undeservingly low. However, increasing migrant farm workers’ wage contribute to a small, countable sum of increased cost, which McMillan stated only $16 increase in a U.S. family’s annual cost in produce can account for an increased wage by 40%. This difficult summer could potentially serve as an opportunity for the U.S. migrant farming industry to change for the better and wiser, if farmers choose to see the industry in a new light.
According to McMillan, farm workers usually earn by piece rates, such as if they process an x amount of a certain kind of produce, then they will get an x amount of money for that piece. And it is not surprising for the piece rates to be as low as below one U.S. dollar. Instead of exploiting migrant farm workers and give them low wages, McMillan suggested a huge issue farmers should seek to solve is how to minimize the steps produce go through between the farm and the market. With each step there is additional costs and when it reaches the consumers, more than 80% of the cost are derived from these steps, making farmers’ profits undeservingly low. However, increasing migrant farm workers’ wage contribute to a small, countable sum of increased cost, which McMillan stated only $16 increase in a U.S. family’s annual cost in produce can account for an increased wage by 40%. This difficult summer could potentially serve as an opportunity for the U.S. migrant farming industry to change for the better and wiser, if farmers choose to see the industry in a new light.
Industrial Food
In the New York Times news At Hamburger Central, Antibiotics for Cattle That Aren't Sick published on March 23 of 2018, the author Danny Hakim revealed some of the dark sides in the industrial farming.
Animals were given antibiotics in their food everyday even when they are not troubled by bacteria-induced sickness, the extent of antibiotic usage in industrial farming could be up to 70% to 80% of all antibiotics sales. This practice aims to prevent sickness in the animals in industrial farming as well as to induce growth of animals. Cattle are fed corn instead of their natural diet--grass--to increase fat formation, it increases profit because corn is a subsidized crop and it makes cattle fatter sooner. However, cattle are suffering from diseases because of the corn diet according to Hakim, which in turn requires the use of antibiotics. The usage of antibiotics is simply a band-aid on the system built on a problematic principle; but this band-aid comes with a price of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and the loss of human gut microbe, adding new risks to our health. Although there are recent governmental restriction in the use of antibiotics as growth inducers, big farming corporate and drug companies seem to be able to find loopholes and continue their practice.
This phenomenon of putting on a band-aid can also be applied to fortification of cereals. The process of industrially producing cereal eliminates all the nutrients like vitamins and fibers within the original ingredient, this is the wound; then the industry adds the nutrients in after that detrimental process, this is the band-aid. However, the added nutrients are not comparable to the naturally occurring ones since they are made through synthesis with harsh chemicals as ingredients. Industrial production is an appropriate method to ensure sufficient and affordable food source for a large global population when the intention is to satisfy humans’ basic needs. Nonetheless, when profit becomes the one thing the needle on a compass always point to, it is above all other factors in consideration. In simplified words, the price of having cheap meat are externalized into humans’ potential defeat in the future war with bacteria and perhaps humans’ extinction as a result; and the price of having cheap cereal is to also gobble down chemically synthesized vitamins that the plants producing them would have been closed down if operating in the U.S. In Chelsea Fagan's book about cooking, she emphasized cooking as a tool for survival instead of as a skill to show off on social media, and the core concept of feeding yourself well instead of treating yourself as someone you do not want in your life. Looking at the food industry in the U.S. and reflecting on how well it is feeding people in the U.S., it is not hard to see consumers are playing the role of the "ex you were trying to get rid of"; and perhaps soon survival of mankind will be threatened by the super-pathogens which evolved through the excessive antibiotics use in industrial farming. Regardless of how well one cooks and attempt to feed oneself, it will be almost impossible to be healthy and financially stable when the food one consumes and the associated practices one indirectly supports are problematic.
Animals were given antibiotics in their food everyday even when they are not troubled by bacteria-induced sickness, the extent of antibiotic usage in industrial farming could be up to 70% to 80% of all antibiotics sales. This practice aims to prevent sickness in the animals in industrial farming as well as to induce growth of animals. Cattle are fed corn instead of their natural diet--grass--to increase fat formation, it increases profit because corn is a subsidized crop and it makes cattle fatter sooner. However, cattle are suffering from diseases because of the corn diet according to Hakim, which in turn requires the use of antibiotics. The usage of antibiotics is simply a band-aid on the system built on a problematic principle; but this band-aid comes with a price of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and the loss of human gut microbe, adding new risks to our health. Although there are recent governmental restriction in the use of antibiotics as growth inducers, big farming corporate and drug companies seem to be able to find loopholes and continue their practice.
This phenomenon of putting on a band-aid can also be applied to fortification of cereals. The process of industrially producing cereal eliminates all the nutrients like vitamins and fibers within the original ingredient, this is the wound; then the industry adds the nutrients in after that detrimental process, this is the band-aid. However, the added nutrients are not comparable to the naturally occurring ones since they are made through synthesis with harsh chemicals as ingredients. Industrial production is an appropriate method to ensure sufficient and affordable food source for a large global population when the intention is to satisfy humans’ basic needs. Nonetheless, when profit becomes the one thing the needle on a compass always point to, it is above all other factors in consideration. In simplified words, the price of having cheap meat are externalized into humans’ potential defeat in the future war with bacteria and perhaps humans’ extinction as a result; and the price of having cheap cereal is to also gobble down chemically synthesized vitamins that the plants producing them would have been closed down if operating in the U.S. In Chelsea Fagan's book about cooking, she emphasized cooking as a tool for survival instead of as a skill to show off on social media, and the core concept of feeding yourself well instead of treating yourself as someone you do not want in your life. Looking at the food industry in the U.S. and reflecting on how well it is feeding people in the U.S., it is not hard to see consumers are playing the role of the "ex you were trying to get rid of"; and perhaps soon survival of mankind will be threatened by the super-pathogens which evolved through the excessive antibiotics use in industrial farming. Regardless of how well one cooks and attempt to feed oneself, it will be almost impossible to be healthy and financially stable when the food one consumes and the associated practices one indirectly supports are problematic.