No Future in Factory Farming
The true costs of industrialized agriculture in a rapidly changing climate.
It’s a cool morning, dew dripping off the leaves of tomato plants and the sun beginning to break over the horizon; a picturesque scene with birds chirping and dark, damp soil underfoot…and clouds of pesticides in the air. Green leaves obscured by swirling mists of chemicals, sparkling in the morning light. This is the reality of mass farming.
If mass farming (meaning non-organic, non-sustainable farming) and factory farming are so bad for the environment, why are they the conventional method of food production today? It’s a very simple answer: money. Large corporations want to make money and when dollars are their bottom line, resource security and environmental preservation are not a priority.
Mass farming and factory farming are inexpensive, especially in comparison to the cost of organic and sustainable methods of food production. “Industrial agriculture has higher yields, and benefits from the economy of scale,” says Jacqueline Maisonpierre, a farmer in New Haven Connecticut. “This allows for cheaper food production giving the customer the benefit of less expensive food.” As such, companies have little incentive to switch to more environmentally friendly techniques. But this cheapness comes at a cost.
When farms use monocropping and apply heavy pesticides and herbicides to crops they are able to save money however in the long term, these methods significantly deplete the soil. Industrial farming as a whole has shifted from human, manual labor to mechanized methods of production and harvest. Because of this, these farms are able to produce higher yields and offer foods at cheaper prices than would be possible if the produce was hand picked and organically grown. These decreased prices mean that fresh fruits, vegetables and meats can be accessible to individuals in lower socioeconomic groups and neighborhoods.“We needed to come up with something that destigmatized EBT [food stamps],” say a staff member at GrowNYC, a program that runs farmers markets around the city. “They need healthy options that are actually affordable enough that they can buy.”
This increasing accessibility of fresh and healthy foods to individuals of all socioeconomic statuses is a clear benefit. This accessibility however, does not guarantee quality and safety of these foods and furthermore, does not erase the negative impacts of industrialized agriculture. When the goal of mass farming is cutting costs, it also means cutting corners, where workers are paid less and conditions worsen and the environment suffers for the benefit of the economy. Furthermore, the decreased costs cannot last. Climate change will only continue to gain intensity, production of vital crops will grow stagnant and prices will rapidly increase.
Clearly the industrial strategies have yielded impressive results in terms of productivity and economic efficiency in the present day, however the degradation of the environment is equally as evident. With rising temperatures, greenhouse gases and carbon emissions as well as increasing land, water, and air pollution, there are clear and significant negative effects to industrialized agriculture. Industrialization has created a cycle of natural resource degradation, destruction of human resources and depletion of economic opportunities With increased pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use in combination with production methods that severely deplete soil, industrialization has created a system that is inherently incapable of maintaining its productivity and benefit to society.
Industrial, mass farming has increased accessibility of fresh foods not only in terms of cost but in geographic location as well. With factory farms, farmers have increased access to technologies such as irrigation and large-scale pesticide distributors, thus eliminating the limitation that natural resources and climate had previously posed to food production. In the short term, reducing geographic limitations appears to be a positive advancement in food production, allowing individuals all over the world access to healthy, fresh foods. However, forcing an environment to produce a crop that does not naturally occur in that location is profoundly damaging.
The microorganisms in soil contribute essential services to sustainable function of all ecosystems. According to Palaniappa Krishnan of the University of Delaware’s Bioresources Engineering Department, soil organisms act as the primary agents in nutrient cycling, regulation of the dynamics of soil organic matter, and soil carbon sequestration, all vital parts in the maintenance of natural ecosystems. Growing water intensive crops in areas of drought requires extensive irrigation that draws from rapidly diminishing water supplies and contributes to the severe environmental degradation that industrial farming incites.
Industrial, mass farming damages every natural process of an ecosystem. From overuse of water, to soil depletion to pollution, it is clear that conventional farming is harmful for the environment. However, the accessibility it provides is a major benefit, with geographic expansion, and cheaper prices than sustainably produced foods, conventional methods of farming represent a much more economically feasible style of production. Mass farming also produces fruits and vegetables with a longer shelf life, another fact that contributes to the economic benefits. But how do conventional farms achieve this extended shelf life?
Part of the extra time on stores’ shelves can be attributed to the increasing efficiency of shipping and packaging processes. This allows less of the viable fresh time of produce to be wasted during transportation and instead is available to purchase and consume for more time than ever before. However, that is not the entire equation.
Synthetic pesticides and preservatives are added to crops to prolong freshness; livestock are treated with antibiotics and artificially bred. Maissonpierre states, “Synthetic fertilizers are produced with petroleum, and a lot of them are actually petroleum based.” Preservatives used on meats and vegetables are filled with toxic chemicals, like petroleum or sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite, which are used to add color and flavor. The International Agency for the Research of Cancer has classified these additives as “probably carcinogenic” meaning cancer causing. So while these practices do contribute to increased shelf life, they also contribute to contamination of unhealthy and possibly dangerous chemicals into fresh foods.
With industrial farming, the sole mission is to increase yield, to provide for more people but really, to make more money. This conventional farming provides reliable and regular production for an ever-growing population but at what cost? When factory and industrial farms are run like companies, with large inputs of fossil fuels and chemicals in pesticides and fertilizers, the primary focus is money, plain and simple. So where does the environment factor in; can we justify rapid and significant degradation of our environment for increasing produce yields?
If we can’t decrease produce yield and let people starve but also can’t justify destruction of our environment, then what is the answer?
