Final Draft: Eat Organic, or All Is Lost

Where our food comes from can make an impact on the environment, either for the good or the bad.  Grocery stores have many food choices ranging from foods with organic labels to foods that are not organic.  There is a large gap between the number of choices that are organic and those that are not, and the majority of those choices are not organic. Conventional agriculture and organic agriculture are very different forms of agriculture, but both provide the foods available in grocery stores.  Conventional agriculture is, at this time, the dominate way of farming.  The way animals are held and raised for consumer consumption can be differentiated as either inorganic or organic as well.  In both forms of agriculture, crop and animal, organic farming provides a healthier alternative means of production for the environment.  Although there are many choices in a grocery store, organic foods should be seriously considered over inorganic produced foods because organic farming reduces chemical pollutions, animal pollutants, and preserves our lands and plants species.

Conventional farming techniques implement the use of chemicals for synthetic herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.  When we choose foods that are not labeled as organic, we may not only be getting more than we bargained for with chemical covered foods, but we also contribute to the continued use of chemicals for the production of food products.  In crop agriculture farmers face challenges, in areas of weed control, pest control, and fertilization of crops for the purpose of greater yield. When it comes to growing crops, conventional agriculture and organic agriculture use different methods to help get the best possible results.  For the control of weeds, conventional agriculture uses chemical herbicides.  Weeds can become resistant to herbicides, rendering the herbicide, or combination of herbicides, less effective as time goes by (Mortensen et al., 2012).  Mortensen et al. (2012) asserts that more a greater amount of herbicide is the result of better resilience against the chemicals of the herbicide.  Mortensen et al. also argues that the use of combined herbicides, the use of two herbicides instead of just one, can also result in herbicide resilience in weeds.  Due to the fact that organic agriculture does not implement the use of chemicals for weed control, organic agriculture must rely on other forms of management (Gomiero et al., 2011).  According to Howard (1943), Altieri (1987), Lamplin (2002), Lotter (2003), Altieri & Nichols (2004), Koepf (2006), Kristiansen et al. (2006), Gliessman (2007), practices to control weeds in an organic manner include “appropriate rotation, seeding timing, mechanic cultivation, mulching, transplanting, flaming, ect.” (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Since organic agriculture methods do not involve the use of chemicals for weed control it helps keep harmful chemicals from entering the land in which the crops grow and in turn offers environmentally friendly methods of weed control.

Pest control is another factor that farmers must take in account in managing their crops.  Again, solutions for pest control in conventional farming involve the use of chemicals.  Crops are treated with chemical pesticides to kill pests that would otherwise cause damage to the crops.  Kabaru & Gichia (2001) report that, synthetic pesticides have been the primary solution for pest control for around the last 50 years (as cited in Shrivastava et al., 2010).  Pesticides do not distinguish between the species of pests on farm land that harmful to crops and the natural enemies of those pests that damage crops (Pimental et al., 1992, 1997; Kruess & Tscharntke, 1994; Pimental, 1997; Barbosa, 2003; Altieri & Nicholls, 2004; Perfecto et al., 2004; Bianchi et al., 2006; Crowder et al., 2010) (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Solutions to pest control in organic agriculture without the use of pesticides are prevention and biological control (Shrivastava et al., 2010).  In organic agriculture, there are organic pesticides that are allowed in the treatment of crops to eliminate pests (Shrivastava et al., 2010).    Shrivastastava et al. (2010) asserts that the majority of organic pesticides “have low residual activity” but does also concede that the use of the approved organic pesticides is still controversial and debated over whether or not they are truly environmentally safe.   Unfortunately, it cannot be said with complete assurance that every product on the grocery store shelves has not be subjected to any kind of pesticide; however, in organic agriculture pesticides are not heavily relied upon nor are they the only means of pest control.

Fertilizers are used as an aid for crops.  Fertilizers are meant to help plants grow bigger and produce more and better results than a plant would on its own.  In Araujo & Melo (2010), it is reported that conventional farming uses synthetic, or chemical, fertilizers.  Chemical fertilizers are said to lead to degraded soil and increases the toxicity of the soil (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Conventional agriculture depends on chemical solutions for weed control, pest control, and for the purpose of growing food better all at the expense of the environment of the lands in which the farming is done.  Organic agriculture uses organic fertilizers which promote sustainability (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  There are different practices for fertilizing the soil for crop growth in organic farming.  Employing practices such as “crop rotation, intercropping, polyculture, covering crops and mulching” (Araujo & Melo, 2010) are all organic means of fertilization without using synthetic fertilizers.  Although organic farming may permit some usage of organic pesticides, it uses far less chemicals for weed control and fertilizing than does conventional farming.  The significantly higher usage of chemicals on conventional farming lands leads to increased amounts of chemicals into the environment.  These chemicals pollute the land and are not sucked back up after using the chemicals, but are instead left in the ground.  Continued purchases of inorganic foods are an indirect way to promote the continued use of the chemicals that infect the environment.  A well known and terrible effect of chemical fertilizer usage is the “dead zone” of the Gulf of Mexico, which is the result of chemical usage in the “corn-belt corn production” (Pimentel et al., 2005). Organic farming does not rely on chemical usage like conventional farming.  With the high usage of chemicals in conventional farming it is alarming that so little attention is given to that fact, and it is frightening that conventional farming foods are so prevalent in food selections in stores.  By choosing organic foods, people can choose not to support the use of so many chemicals and instead support the health of the environment.  Organic farming techniques go beyond the scope of plant based foods and into more natural and less environmentally devastating way to raise animals for consumer consumption as well.

Animal agriculture presents different issues that can cause environmental stress.  In animal agriculture, animals are raised for eventual consumer consumption.  Conventional farming emphasizes animal management procedures that produce high output over environmental friendly procedures (Putting Meat, n.d.).  Organic animal agriculture raises animals in drastically different ways than conventional.  When we go through the stores, beef, pork, and chicken are the most prominent forms of meats available for purchase.  In conventional farming, the use of confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs, are implemented to help provide high output (Jing et al., 2010).  Waste lagoons are common on the CAFOs; waste lagoons are essentially small ponds that contain waste from the animals housed on the CAFOs (Jing et al., 2010; Starmer, n.d.).  Animals cannot be made to quit ridding themselves of their waste; it is a natural process that takes place regardless of what anyone does.  Since organic farming does not implement waste lagoons, it makes sense to move away from conventional farming and toward organic.  Organic animal farming provides open pastures for cattle, allowing cattle to roam over a large area in which waste can be absorbed by the land or even used as fertilizer.  Either way, organic farming keeps a far smaller number of animals per area of land where conventional animal farming keeps many animals in confined spaces.

Since animals in CAFOs are kept in such close quarters, measures need to be taken in order to help prevent the spread of diseases.  Antibiotics used in swine CAFOs are used in large amounts and lead to antibiotic resistant strands of infectious microbial (Chen et al., 2010).  Chen et al. (2010) reports that through the waste lagoons, adverse effects are created by environmental pollution of the resistant strands of microbial which can transfer to animals within the area.  Along with antibiotics, growth hormones may be used as well; some of these substances used in poultry contain arsenic (They Eat, 2006).  Again, as with the other pollutions that result from animal waste, the arsenic present in runoff at the facilities that use the substances the arsenic can pollute water sources (They Eat, 2006).  The conventional animal agriculture management techniques are appalling.  Even if regulations were constructed and enforced to reduce the possibility of pollutants, there will still be the risk of contamination of the environment until conventional animal agriculture ceases to exist and organic agriculture takes center stage.   Feed provided for animals raised in non-organic practices have environmental impacts as well.

Feed farms in conventional farming, like at cattle feed farms, provide large amounts of corn in the feed provided for the animals (Woolf, 2007).  The corn is actually not part of a healthy diet for the cattle and is conventionally grown corn (Woolf, 2007), which loops back to all the issues of conventionally grown crops that are discussed in previous paragraphs.  In order for the animals to be considered organically raised, they must be fed a 100% organic diet (Organic Livestock, 2004).  Conventionally raised animals cause pollutions to the environment through their care in every aspect while organically raised animals are raised through more natural processes and do not contribute to polluting the environment.    From chemicals to animals, there is plenty to be alarmed about within the subject of crops; the different characteristics of crop treatment can be an issue of importance for the environment as well.

Different farming methods can have different results on the soil in which crops are planted.  The differences that occur between organic farming methods and conventional farming methods are substantial and should not be ignored.  Conventional farming methods include the use of chemicals through fertilizers and pesticides; due to the extensive use of these chemicals, the result has been raised toxicity levels of the soils exposed to the chemicals and has caused the degradation of the soils (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Those pollutants that conventional farming employs are polluting the environment and ruining the soil they are used on, which can only further the reliance that conventional farming has on its chemicals.  The differences in organic and conventional farming include more than the use of chemicals.  The non-chemical methods implemented in organic farming promote soil fertility (Broad & Cavanagh, 2012), the opposite of conventional farming.  The healthier soil in organic farming can use water more efficiently than soil in conventional farming (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Conventional farming cannot even sustain its own soil, and with the poor soil requires more water than organic farming.  Organic practices actually help improve soil conditions, which would seem to be a much more desirable outcome than the results provided by conventional farming.  Organic foods may cost more in the stores, but conventional farming certainly runs high costs for the environment.  Some risks or consequences may not be quite as obvious.

Another of the many differences between organic farming and conventional farming is the inclusion or restriction of the use of GMs.  GM stands for genetically modified, and GM plants are those that have been either bioengineered or genetically engineered, or have had both changes made as defined by Perr (2004) (as cited in Singh et. al., 2006).  It isn’t that all conventional farming grows GM crops, but there are no restrictions to using GM crops.  In organic farming, however, the use of GM crops is prohibited (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Although at first glance it may seem that GM foods actually offer great benefits as listed in Singh et. al. (2006), there are risks to the use of GM foods that are known and perhaps some still unknown (Singh et. al., 2006).  GM crops can be altered so they do not need pesticides, but as pests build a tolerance to the plant’s new changes, the use of pesticides or more alterations will again be needed (Singh et. al., 2006).  Any conventional farming that uses GM crops will be stuck in a cycle in which the outcome can only be negative toward the environment or unknown.  Organic crops offer natural solutions such as mentioned in Broad & Cavanagh (2012), since farmers use seeds that have been “in-bred”, making it so the seeds grow well within the local ecosystem the parent plants were a part of and in the soils those parent plants grew.  Organic crops are unaltered crops that can be cultivated naturally to work with the environment making them superior when keeping the environment in mind.  GM crops also pose possible danger to the diversity of plants (Balezentiene, 2011).

Cross pollination and accidental seeding, through means such as transportation of seed, can cause GM crops to grow or cross with other plants (Craig et. al., 2008) (Singh et. al., 2006).  With unknown long term affects of the GM alterations, limiting crops to only organic origins will help prevent any potential adverse affects on the environment.  As stated in Balezentiene (2011), conventional farming has had a negative influence on the “floristic diversity” of the areas surrounding such farms.  Balezentiene (2011) reports that organic farming is helpful to surrounding plant life due to the methods used in organic farming.  The results are in for organic farming, but still pending for GM crops that are allowable in conventional farming.  With so many things to consider between organic foods and conventionally farmed and raised foods, organic continuously comes out on top as a better choice for the environment.

People must speak out with a unified voice, as consumers who want organic foods to be the prevalent choices in stores to promote a healthy environment.  Right now in the market place, organic foods are no doubt more expensive than there conventional farmed counterparts, but that is because there are many fewer organic farms than conventional farms, so the prices must be higher in order to keep up with the supply.  If organic farming becomes the prevalent form of farming, or better yet the only way of farming, the supply for organic foods will be higher and thus allow the prices of organic foods to be lowered.  Right now, chemicals make their way through the environment, animals crowd at feed factories, and genetically altered crops are being made and grown.  Right now choices are being made in stores.  Right now, make the right choice for the environment and choose organic.

References

Araújo, A. S. F. de, Melo, W. J. de..  (2010, November).  Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system.  Biomassa microbiana do solo em sistemas orgânicos.  Ciência Rural, 40(11), 2419-2426.

Balezentiene, L..  (2011).  Alpha-Diversity of Differently Managed Agro-Ecosystems Assessed at a Habitat Scale.  Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,  20(6), 1387-1394.

Broad, R., Cavanagh, J..  (2012).  CAN DANILO ATILANO FEED THE WORLD?   Earth Island Journal, 26(4), 56-60.

Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., Ripandelli, D.. (2008, January)  An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops.  Euphytica International Journal of Plant Breeding, 164, 853-880. doi 10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M. G..  (2011, January-April).  Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture.  Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1/2), 95-124.

Jing C., Michel Jr., F. C., Sreevatsan, S., Morrison, M., Zhongtang Y..  (2010, October). Occurrence and Persistence of Erythromycin Resistance Genes ( erm) and Tetracycline Resistance Genes ( tet) in Waste Treatment Systems on Swine Farms. Microbial Ecology, 60(3), 479-486.

Mortensen, D. A., Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., Smith, R. G..  (2012, January).  Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management.  BioScience, 62(1), p75-84.

Organic Livestock Workbook. A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed Practices.  (2004). National Center for Appropriate Technology.  Retrieved from http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/AG/Main/PDFsForOrganicAgAndMOCA/livestockworkbook.pdf

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P.,Hanson, J., Seidel, R., Douds, D..  (2005, July). Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: Environmental and Economic Issues.  Report 05-1, http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2101/1/pimentel_report_05-1.pdf.

Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. (n.d.).  A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Retrieved from http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf

Shrivastava, G., Rogers, M., Wszelaki, A., Panthee, D. R., Feng C..  (2010, April/March). Plant Volatiles-based Insect Pest Management in Organic Farming. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29(2), 123-133.

Singh, O. V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., Jain, R. K.. (2006, April). Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern.  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 71, 598-607.  doi 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8

Starmer, E..  (n.d.).  Environmental and Health Problems in Livestock Production: Pollution in the Food System.  The Agribusiness Accountability Initiative Leveling The Field, Issue Brief 2, 1-8.  Retrieved from http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/AAI_Issue_Brief_2_1.pdf

 They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories.  (2006, August).  Union of Concerned Scientists.  Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html

Woolf, A., Ellis, C., Cheney, I., Mosaic Films. (2007). King Corn.  USA

Workshop:GIRARD GAUL RESEARCH DRAFT 2 -asduckworth

Workshop: GIRARD GAUL RESEARCH PAPER DRAFT 2
Overall
1. What does the author do particularly well? Be specific. I liked the way you clearly explain the environmental problems this growing demand for meat has caused as well as what the negative impact is relating to the greenhouse gases and what there sources are. I never realized the dramatic impact this made and what caused it.

2. Ask the author for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions. Was there any particular concern you had about your first draft? If so, would you please specify what it was so I might be able to provide some helpful suggestions. Author did not respond to my question (at least from what I could see).
Thesis
3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? Yes.

4. Does the thesis follow the format we’ve been using (ALTHOUGH clause, argumentative claim, BECAUSE clause with 3 reasons of support). Is thesis bolded or underlined and in last sentence of intro paragraph? The thesis has the ALTHOUGH clause, argumentative claim, and BECAUSE clause, but does not have 3 reasons of support stated in the thesis statement. The thesis is bolded in the last sentence of the intro paragraph. In Draft 2, the thesis statement still did NOT have 3 reasons of support; however, the thesis IS bolded in the last sentence.
Content

5. How many words is the draft, not including References? 1,490

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! I still felt this was an 8. I found the topic to be quite interesting.

7. Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Where you state, “It is essential for farmers to use proper grazing systems in order to help reduce the total output of these harmful gases.” , what types of proper grazing systems were you referring to? You should provide several examples to help the reader more clearly understand how this can be achieved. You did not attempt to expand on or further explain what types of proper grazing systems could be used to do this.

8. What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? Farmers may claim to be using types of proper grazing systems; however, until we can see the positive impact this would show in the environment, people would not believe it to be true. Seeing is believing.

9. Has the author dealt with these objections? If not, suggest some good places to deal with them. No, the objections still have not been addressed. Without specifying what types of proper grazing systems should be used, it will be challenging to address the objections.

10. Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection? Yes.

Style

11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic? Yes, there are easy transitions from one paragraph to the next. The author does not jump from topic to topic.

12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening? Does the essay have an informative yet interesting title? Yes, the opening caught my attention. Your first sentence was a terrific “hook” sentence. It made me want to continue reading; however, the title did not really catch my attention. Sometimes a question can be a perfect way to make the reader want to read further, so making the title more concise and appealing would help here.

13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction? If your buddy’s conclusion just restates the thesis, call him/her on that, and help them come up with a better conclusion. Maybe give them tips from the Hacker handbook (section C). Yes, the concluding paragraph brings closure to your thesis and its direction. The concluding or final paragraph made me want to start shopping with having a more environmentally smart conscience.
Research

14. Does the draft contain at least 10 sources (5 peer-reviewed/scholarly sources from EbscoHost or another database). The draft contained 15 sources.

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis? You did equally use the sources to support the paper’s thesis.

16. Does the author use in-text citations after every quotation, statistic, paraphrase, idea and opinion borrowed from research? Are the in-text citations done in correct APA formatting? The author uses in-text citations after all quotations, statistics, paraphrases, ideas and opinions. The in-text citations are still missing the year on most of them. The APA format requires author’s name and year of publication, and I still don’t see the year of publication on most of them.

17. Does the author have anything on the Reference list that is not used in the essay (she/he should not). No

18. Does the author have more quotations/statistics/paraphrases/etc in his/her paper than personal opinion? Essay should read as an argument, not as a report. The essay has more personal opinions; therefore, this makes it more persuasive to the reader and much less like a report.

19. Are they any quotations that are longer than 2 lines? Yes

20. Are there any quotations that you think should instead be paraphrased? Remember that too many quotations lead to clunky and chunky essays. No

21. Any quotations should be commented upon. They are there to support the author’s argument, not to make it. Does the author comment after every one? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was. The quotation that was longer than 2 lines was necessary to share as it provided information that showed the degree to each part of the harmful emissions that livestock contribute.

Other
Is there any other feedback you’d like to give your buddy? I found this research paper to be informative and quite interesting. It really did make me want to change the way I shop at the grocery store despite the fact that it is more expensive to eat in a healthier way. Nice job, Girard!

Workshop 2: Nicole Lamers Research Paper Rough Draft 2

1. 1.      What does the author do particularly well? Be specific.

I really like her thesis statement and I think that she has very good transitions.

1. 2.      Ask the author for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.

 

1. 3.      Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis?

There seems to be a little opinion, but overall it lacks opinions.

1. 4.      Does the thesis follow the format we’ve been using (ALTHOUGH clause, argumentative claim, BECAUSE clause with 3 reasons of support). Is thesis bolded or underlined and in last sentence of intro paragraph?

yes

1. 5.      How many words is the draft, not including References?

2,467

1. 6.      On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest!

Like I wrote last time environment is not really my thing, so it is really hard to say. Though I have to say some parts interested me, but at some points it is fact after fact and you don’t break up the facts with opinions.

1. 7.      Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader?

I think right in the beginning she should be throwing some examples and clarifying a little more to catch the interest of the reader.

1. 8.      What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise?

People who live pay check by pay check who live in the now may not see the environment as a concern to their food choses when they need to buy cheap food.

1. 9.      Has the author dealt with these objections? If not, suggest some good places to deal with them.

She kind of deals with it in her conclusion by saying buy organic now and later down the road organic may become cheaper.

1. 10.  Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?

I think she had pretty good connections through the paper.

1. 11.  Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?

She has good transitions some paragraphs could use improvement, but she made what she wrote work.

1. 12.  Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening? Does the essay have an informative yet interesting title?

Her introduction catches my attention, then loses it, then catches it again. She explains organic and inorganic and that might be something to save for the first paragraph of your body and not a part of your introduction. I like the title.

1. 13.  Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction? If your buddy’s conclusion just restates the thesis, call him/her on that, and help them come up with a better conclusion. Maybe give them tips from the Hacker handbook (section C).

She brings the discussion back down to the conclusion.

1. 14.  Does the draft contain at least 10 sources (5 peer-reviewed/scholarly sources from EbscoHost or another database).

Yes

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?

She has the sources spread about some sources are used more in different areas, but overall she doesn’t rely on just 2 main sources.

1. 15.  Does the author use in-text citations after every quotation, statistic, paraphrase, idea and opinion borrowed from research? Are the in-text citations done in correct APA formatting?

Yes

1. 16.  Does the author have anything on the Reference list that is not used in the essay (she/he should not).

All of them looked like they were used.

1. 17.  Does the author have more quotations/statistics/paraphrases/etc in his/her paper than personal opinion? Essay should read as an argument, not as a report.

It looks like some of the quotations she has cleared up, but the ones she did use seem to be correctly used.

1. 18.  Are they any quotations that are longer than 2 lines?

Nope

1. 19.  Are there any quotations that you think should instead be paraphrased? Remember that too many quotations lead to clunky and chunky essays.

No she barely used any quotations.

1. 20.  Any quotations should be commented upon. They are there to support the author’s argument, not to make it. Does the author comment after every one? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.

She quoted lists and some terms used, I don’t think it is necessary to comment after quotes such as these. I think that she did an excellent job with the usage of quotes.

Other?

Is there any other feedback you’d like to give your buddy?

Thumbs up and Good LUCK!

Responses #11-15

3 Articles

Article 1

1) Who is the audience?

This article, “How Factory Farms Are Killing Seals,” by Tom Philpott, is directed towards the general public and convincing them of the issues of releasing antibiotics into the environment. Most people are not aware of the issues associated with bulk food-animal farms.

2) What is the main point of the article?

This article is focused on alerting the general public to the issue of releasing antibiotics into the environment and the effect it has on oceanic mammals.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

This article is effective because it does not drown the reader in a pool of facts and graphs. This article provides just enough information to entice the reader to learn more and study further.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

If people are not aware of this issue then no one will ever attempt to stop this. There are very dangerous and very real hazards to humans that can arise from this issue. The pandemic outbreak of antibiotic-resistant diseases is a very real possibility.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

There are not really any counterarguments. The meat farms simply deny the fact that there are any effects. They claim that there are no definite studies to back up the idea that there are hazards to dumping antibiotics into the waterways.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would delve deeper into information regarding the deaths of the sea life, including mammals, fish and invertebrates. On top of that I would research the amount of antibiotics and other chemicals dumped into the waterways and their effects on the wildlife.

Article 2

1) Who is the audience?

A Popular Science article called “Fast Food,” discusses the 2009 completion of a vegetable-based Formula One racecar. This article is directed towards the average person that reads average magazines. It is not directed towards scientists or environmentalists. It is simply directed towards the average reader.

2) What is the main point of the article?

The main point of this article is to alert the average person to the new developments in green engineering. It alerts the average person to the new technology available to allow consumers to be green conscious.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

It is an effective article that shows the new technology for green engineering. It is not preachy and does not drown the reader in volumes of facts.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

The implications are huge. New green vehicle technology can revolutionize the automotive industry and overnight create a competitive market that can produce high quality vehicles that are less harmful to the environment.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

There are no counterarguments addressed. However, I do foresee difficulties in promoting this technology to aircraft manufacturers and the military.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would be curious what technologies have been developed. I would also be interested in the cost of manufacturing this technology for the average household vehicle.

Article 3

1) Who is the audience?

In the May 2009 issue of The Environmental Magazine, there is an article called “Eating Mercury.” This article is directed to the more healthy-eating population. This article is more likely to be overlooked by the average person.

2) What is the main point of the article?

The main point of this article is to provide the reader with information regarding the consumption of Mercury that is found in corn syrup.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

This article is a little dull to read, however, it is an interesting topic. The whole idea of corn syrup being the evil anti-Christ of society is rather overdone. However, Mercury being the culprit in corn syrup is a new take one it.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

The implications from consuming Mercury are hazardous. Mercury consumption can affect nervous systems, fetal development and other developmental processes.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

No one argues that the consumption of Mercury is dangerous. However, recent studies have shown that the human body does no differentiate between the consumption of sugar cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. The body simply understands sugar.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would like to further understand the contamination of corn syrup by Mercury from factory processes. I would like to know exactly how much contamination there has been.

1        Website

1) Who is the audience?

This National Geographic Society website is directed towards the average person. It provides simple methods any person can follow to save electricity, insulate your house and other small scale green ideas that make an impact on a large scale.

2) What is the main point of the website?

The point of the website is to provide environmentally sound ideas for the average person to follow. National Geographic is a trusted website that everyone knows about and has heard of. This website is a good method of conveying green ideas to the general public.

3) How is or isn’t the website effective?

This website is effective because it is not directed to the intense environmentalist. Not everyone wishes to go to a dedicated environmental website. However, by having this important information available to the common person on a well-known and trusted website, it is possible to draw in a new crowd of people that are environmentally conscious and at the same time not eco-nuts.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

This is an environmentally beneficial method of getting green ideas out to the general public. Aside from National Geographic being a trusted website, there is no pollution from websites. There are no advertisement handouts or flyers to get blown off of telephone poles or news boards. There are zero negative impacts from websites.

5) How does this website propose to fill a niche?

There are plenty of dedicated environmental websites that focus on the eco-junkie and radical environmentalist. However, this website is focused on National Geographic, but it provides a stable and trusted medium to convey this information to the general public.

6) What are the pros and cons that you can see of this purpose?

It promotes environmentally safe practices and methods of going green in the society of today.

 

 

1 Video

The movie Food Inc. discusses the issues with commercially produced foods. The movie covers topics such as bulk produced corn that finds its ways into the food sources of cattle. Since cattle are not genetically designed to consume corn this creates issues such as producing E.coli. The movie also discusses the use of corn in nearly every food product in today’s market. It then covers the problems with genetically modified seeds such as corn and soy.

On top of making the viewer afraid to eat almost everything in today’s world, the movie covers the abusive methods corporations treat the company employees as well as the abuse the animals suffer throughout their lives prior to slaughter. It discusses how animals are genetically modified to produce larger breasts or grow from a newly hatched chick to a fully adult chicken in only 49 days rather than 60 days. It is from these genetically modified animals that a majority of our meat products come.

Finally the movie discusses methods that the average consumer can follow in order to purchase organic foods. It also discusses ways which people can insist on only purchasing and eating organic foods, and once the demand for organic is high enough then corporations will begin to require organics be produced. The power lies with money. Once organic products become the money maker then corporations will begin to produce organic products.

The movie is extremely informative and is very easy to watch. It is produced in an entertaining fashion as to keep the viewer entertained without drowning them in tons of facts. The movie is designed to be watched by the average person and be understood by the average person. Overall it is a very entertaining and terrifying movie.

 

 

 

Works Cited

The Green Guide. National Geographic Magazine. 23 April 2012. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/

 

Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Participant Media. 2008.

 

Philpott, Tom. “Factory Farms Are Killing Seals.” Mother Jones.24 February 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/how-factory-farms-are-killing-seals

Gross, Alexandra. “Eating Mercury.” The Environmental Magazine.  1 May 2009. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=97ed8678-525d-4320-8878-4ab83e085e45%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=8

 

Rdsenwald, Mike. “Fast Food.” Popular Science. 1 August 2009. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f9c69530-7b33-4898-a6e2-d93e71d453af%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=8

Response #11-15

Response #11-15

Article #1

The very name of the article, How Factory Farms Are Killing Seals, is thought provoking. How can farms be harming sea creatures? Author Tom Philpott reveals an ugly side to farming that the industry wants covered up. This piece is written for anyone who doesn’t want the sea life of our planet to suffer for our need for cheap food. The focus of the article if the fact those bacterial strains that are easily killed by antibiotics get passed around in factory farms. The livestock are then treated with antibiotics but the bacteria are not all killed, it just moves from one animal to another, gaining immunity to the antibiotics. Eventually a super bug is created that makes its way into the ocean by way of animals feces in the watershed. Now a super strong, highly contagious bacterium is in the ocean food chain and spreads into animals. The animals’ immune systems where never designed to handle human enhanced germs and they suffer greatly. The truly scary part is these diseased animals are found in areas humans swim too. So now the problem has come full circle, and humans have to clean up their own mess. The writing itself is short and to the point, this makes the information effective and easily understood and obsorbed by the reader. The environment is already taking a hit for human messiness. Not only did farmers let the super bugs get into the natural environment, they failed to think of the results of craming millions of animals together and trying to kill every germ. There are no real arguments; the path of these bacteria can be traced from farm to seal. What I want to know is what can be done to stop this cycle before the super germs get into humans and we have no way to stop them. This need to be researched as it is a huge problem that we are creating diseases we can’t treat.

Article #2

While the title Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management is not the catchiest phrase ever, this article confronts a growing problem that will affect all members of society. Author David Mortensen highlights a growing problem that could destroy our food supply which would bring all of society crashing to a halt. Currently the common way to control weeds in a field of crops is to make those crops resistant to the herbicide that kills all the weeds. If the crop is genetically engineered to not die while a poison kills everything else growing in the field everything works out right? Wrong! The problem is that weeds are growing immune to the herbicide as well. Stronger and stronger chemicals are created to keep up with the weeds evolution. These chemicals pose a greater danger to the surrounding environment by seeping through the ground and casing pollution and other effects that are not completely understood. The article is pretty effective but uses too much wordy language. Simpler language would make the article more accessible to everybody. Again there is not much that can be argued the weeds are getting stronger and farmers have no permanent solutions. A deeper look at the effects of these stronger chemicals in the wild and a look at possible solutions would be greatly beneficial to the case Mortensen is making. If farmers keep going in the direction they are going now the weeds will outgrow the herbicides and humans will not be able to control them.

Article #3

At first I didn’t know what to make of the title of this article; German blue chip firms throw weight behind North African solar project. What does that even mean? Turns out some big companies in Europe are getting to getter to build giant solar plants in Africa and transmit all that power across the sea to Europe. It is a simple sounding plan but one with huge implications for all parties. Author Kate Connolly explores the many pluses and minuses to such a complex plan. The goal is to help all parties and get clean power to Europe. If this plan works it could be replicated around the world and its progress should be watched by all people who want clean energy. The article is effective in that it covers all sides and considers many views. It makes sure the African nations will profit from this new plan as well as the large European companies fronting the bill. The argument were made and countered that the long transmission of power may not be feasible. New technologies allow power to be sent longer distances for cheap and with little loss. The environment will benefit greatly because if the plan works, Europe will suddenly create no pollution to provide power to the many countries and peoples of the continent. I would like more information on how the power will get from one side of the Mediterranean to the other. There are many technical hurdles that must be met that the article does not fully cover.

Video

The movie Collapse hits the viewer like a slap in the face. Director Chris Smith holds back no punches in this movie built around a riveting interview of a prominent investigative journalist, Michael Ruppert. This film is aimed at all Americans who need to wake up and come to terms with the impending collapse of our civilization. Ruppert says that he is trying to reach out and educate people until he reaches “the hundredth monkey.” This saying is referring to a study conducted of monkeys where once a hundred monkeys learned a skill or new way of doing things the rest of the monkeys followed suit. Ruppert’s main point is to reveal the deep rooted problems America faces and to convince the viewer it is time to at and prepare for what is come; the end of the world as we know it. The movie is very effective in portraying the dark implications of what he is saying. The simple basement or bunker the interview takes place in sets a dark forbidding mood right from the beginning. Throughout Ruppert’s testimony videos and news clips show the evidence backing up what he is saying. The filmmakers also put in long blackouts that allowed the words to sink in to the viewer and emphasized important points. Environmentally this film didn’t talk about pollution or global warming specifically; it mainly was about how the environmental restraints, such as a limited amount of oil, are what will end the global economy. There are many counter arguments that are not addressed specifically. Ruppert at one point says he doesn’t do debates because he is right and the facts are with him. This also brings up the argument that this man is a crazy conspiracy theorist. The next thing to research would be to check if his predictions have come true in the past and where he gets his information. A fact check conducted independently by the viewer would add great weight to the words of this man. This movie does bring up a lot of questions and Mr. Ruppert seems to have all the answers, which is hard to believe.

Website

Trash Trip is a website dedicated to exploring waste that has been spread from coast to coast. There are many posts revealing the many deposits and uses of the trash everywhere. It also serves to highlight the massive quantities of valuable resources that go toward handling our trash. The website is very effective, using a blot style of postings and pictures to not just tell of the mess humans have made but also show it. The amount of pollution humans have put into the natural environment is unacceptable and all humans should be concerned. Our society cannot continue this way, we need to reduce our waste and find new ways to deal with the massive piles of trash that are destroying the world we live in. A counter argument is that this trash is not that big compared to the vastness of nature. This may be true if you just consider a bucket of waste just as a piece of trash. What this site points out is the potential for that waste to get in the water supply and contaminate and harm many forms of life. The website has found its focus and fills the role to show that damage our trash has on the world around us. I see no cons to its existence; all of humanity should see that we need to reduce our waste and clean up our planet. I only wish that more websites could show the damage humans have caused and that more people would pay attention.

Response #11-15

Article #11

In the article Captain Charles Moore, Neil Greenberg discusses the ramifications of plastic in our oceans with the man that discovered the great Pacific garbage patch, Captain Charles Moore. The great Pacific garbage patch with discovered in 1997, and while it is not an island of trash, it is a huge area where water of different temperatures mixes. The trash gets swooped up in these currents and if it doesn’t float around on the surface, it sinks to the bottom. Along the way, birds and marine life eat the plastic thinking it’s food. This can cause toxins to leach into the animals and poison them.

The purpose of this article was to inform the public that this problem exists. We go about our lives with blinders on, not thinking about the implications of out actions. I really don’t think that many people know about the great garbage patch. This is detrimental to our environment. Toxins in the water equal toxins in our food. They say, “You are what you eat”. Well, I don’t want to be that.

The only way this is going to turn around is with global knowledge of the problem. Informing the US that there is this problem only helps part of it. The next step after global knowledge is finding an alternative. Charles Moore is right when he says that we have to slowly start a program. People will not like having their convenient plastic taken away, but in the end, it’s better for our world.

References

Greenberg, N. (2009). Captain Charles Moore. Earth Island Journal. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Vol. 24. Issue 1. p47-50. 4p

Article #12

In the article Eating Mercury, Alexandra Gross discusses the study completed by the FDA that tested 55 random brands of food for mercury. The incredible thing is, 17 out of the 55 had mercury in them and I’m just now reading about this for the first time. Supposedly the process of making high fructose corn syrup requires caustic soda. There are different ways to make this, but a few of the plants are using old technology. The old way of making caustic soda involves mercury and somehow it’s getting into the food products.

I understand from the article that this study was not done on a grand scale, and that is what the high fructose corn syrup companies are going with. They are saying that this was not a formal study by the FDA, just something a few people did, but I say so what! Even if it was a private study, shouldn’t this prompt the FDA to do a large study? From what I’ve been able to find, it doesn’t look like much has become of this problem and that, in and of itself, is a problem.

From further research I found out that while he was Senator, Barack Obama came up with a bill that would get rid of mercury cell technology in these plants. However, I could not find anything that says if he followed through as president. There is nothing that states if mercury cell technology is still being used. This requires further action as high fructose corn syrup is in 90% of products. (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2009). There’s really no way to completely avoid it. This is very distressing.

References

Gross, Alexandra (2009). Eating Mercury. E: The Environmental Magazine. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Vol. 20. Issue 3. p19-22. 4p

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. (2009, January 26). High Fructose Corn Syrup’s Not So Sweet Surprise: Mercury! Retrieved from Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: http://www.iatp.org/blog/2009/01/high-fructose-corn-syrups-not-so-sweet-surprise-mercury

Article #13

In the article Oil Exploration Can Be a Boon To Alaskans and Environment, Don Young explains the benefits of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He writes about the native Inupiat Eskimos and the modernization that has occurred since oil has been drilled in Prudhoe Bay. I understand that heated schools and modern plumbing are a great benefit, but what about the downsides? I thought that the Young was completely one-sided in his article. He completely failed to talk about the bad things that can happen with oil drilling. He only discussed how small a space the oil drilling would occupy and the amount of money the US would save. Even the ANWR.org website completely supports the idea of drilling.

I am not opposed or for drilling in Alaska because I do not have all of the information, but I do not think it’s ok to publish material that is so one-sided. After reading this, I would be completely onboard to start drilling, but I realized there has to be something bad because there are still 22% of Alaskans that are opposed to it. After some digging, I found out that some of the bad is really bad. By allowing the oil companies into ANWR, it opens up the floodgates for other industrial companies to come in as well. We have the mentality that it’s only a couple thousand acres out of 1.5 million, what’s a few more? We do this until it’s all gone, then we’re up a creek without a paddle. ANWR is one of the last true wilderness areas in the US. By allowing the oil companies in, it jeopardizes a fragile environment.

The research has also shown that the oil fields would not be contained to one small area. There are pipes that need to be run and roads that need to be built. Then there is also housing for the workers (Natural Resouces Defense Council, 2011). The last issue I will bring up is the pollution that comes with drilling for oil. When oil is drilled, there is waste produced. Where does the waste go? Well, BP was fined millions of dollars in 2000 because it was dumping the waste material down the oil shafts. The waste material has chemicals such as benzene and other toxic materials. There is also the large amount of nitrogen and methane that is pumped into the air. It is also almost impossible to prevent spills. Whether this be diesel or oil, it is extremely harmful to the local wildlife and plant life (Miller, 2012).

Whether it is good or bad, the effects of drilling for oil will extend way outside of the 2,000 acres that they want to use. This is a huge matter that should not be decided by a few people reading an article only containing the good facts. The bad are just too bad to ignore.

References

Natural Resouces Defense Council. (2011, 12 19). Arctic Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs? Retrieved from Natural Resouces Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp

Miller, P. A. (2012). THE IMPACT OF OIL DEVELOPMENT ON PRUDHOE BAY. Retrieved from Arctic Connections: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm

Young, D. (1995, October 13). Oil exploration can be a boon to Alaskans and environment. Christian Science Monitor. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. p. 18.

Video

To put a patent on life seems unethical, but in the movie The Future of Food that has been shown to have happened. Deborah Koons has shown us that major companies, like Monsanto, have produced seeds that are immune to Round-up. They have then patented the gene so anyone that wants the corn with this gene has to pay a premium. What I think is unethical is that crops cannot be controlled like that. Neighboring farms are being charged with patent infringement because their corn has the Round-up Ready gene in it.  Round-up Ready plants still have pollen and there is still wind and bees in the world. There is no way that they can control where their corn’s pollen goes. It can, and will cross-contaminate other crops.

The Future of Food was a wake up call for me. The fact that four companies are running all the agriculture of the US is disturbing. How can American’s be ok with this? Europeans and some other countries are not. I would like to know what’s in my food. I’m not saying to completely take it off the market, I’m sure there is some good coming from it, but there should be something written on the packaging letting us know what we are eating.

It was also disturbing to find out how many people there are in the government that previously worked for Monsanto. There seems to be a conflict of interest there. I know I’ve stated this in previous reports, but you’re supposed to be able to trust the government and they are making it awfully hard. It past due for American’s to wake up from their dreamy lives and find out what’s really going on. I think they would be shocked to find out what is happening right under their noses.

References

Garcia, D. K. (Director). (2004). The Future of Food [Motion Picture].

Website

I chose to look at the earth911.com website because I have used the website on several occations. I even told people to look here for recycling information in my research paper. The website is easy to navigate and has great environmental information.

The first time I went to the website I was curious about recycling plants. There is an area where you can type in your zipcode and what you want to recycle and it will tell you where the nearest plant is. The only downfall of this feature is that you must be very specific. I typed in Styrofoam and nothing came up, but when I typed in polystyrene I found a local plant. Some people may only know the name brand and will not find what they are looking for.

While on the page I noticed an area for composting information. The information was great; they even had pictures of the products they recommend for composting. There was also a link for sculptures made out of trash that had washed up on the beaches in Oregon. These pictures should be on billboards around the world. There is so much trash it’s scary.

Earth911.com is a great website because they’ve put a lot of information in easy to use pages. The layouts of the pages are colorful and beg to be looked at more. The name is also easy to remember, which is a big deal. It doesn’t do anyone any good to have a great website that no one can remember. I will use this website over and over again in the future as I start to “go green”. It’s a long process, but I think this will be a great source of information.

Resources

Earth911. (2012). Earth911. Retrieved from http://earth911.com/

Essay 3 Proposal- Genetically Modified Vegetables: Deadly Veggies

Imagine a world void of everything you know. Where beans, peas, corn and tomatoes once grew only mutant, invincible weeds now grow. Grocery store shelves that once help tortillas, chips, and vegetable soups are now barren. The store’s vegetable section is in a similar state. There is no more popcorn, cereal, soy sauce, potato chips, or pizza. Around the planet, millions of people that relied upon the staple crops of corn, rice and potatoes are starving or dead. Famine has struck the world. Those that continue to consume vegetables suffer from debilitating cancers and paralysis. Imagine a world without vegetables. In the decades preceding this apocalyptic scenario mankind had dabbled in genetics. Following simple processes, scientists had spliced vegetable genes with bacteria, viruses and the genes of other vegetables. The science progressed so fast; scientists focused on whether or not they could accomplish a task and whether or not they should accomplish a task. There had been no accountability for what they were doing. This is the path science has pushed us down. Although genetically modified (GM) crops can provide millions of people with food, local farmers should insist on only purchasing organic seeds for their crops because GM crops can cultivate herbicide resistant weeds, can cause fatal reactions, disabilities and paralysis in susceptible consumers, and can contain high levels of synthetic estrogen which has been linked to causing cancer.

Geneticists began tampering with vegetables back in the 1990s with a single task in mind. Their task was to create a vegetable that was resistant to the common household herbicide, Round Up. Scientists with a company called Monsanto succeeded in altering soy beans to resist this common herbicide (Frewer et al, 2004). This began a biological engineering gold rush. Companies produced GM crops that produce extremely high yield, resilient crops, vegetables that remain edible for months after harvest, and other GM products. Companies such as Monsanto battled each other in a space-race to create, patent and sell the next big-ticket genetically modified vegetable. The reason behind creating vegetable crops designed to withstand a batch of herbicide is simple: fly overhead and spray herbicide over the crops. The weeds all die and the vegetables live on. It is a simple idea with very serious consequences. Over time the weeds develop resistances to the herbicides as well. As the weeds become tougher the farmers are forced to resort to stronger and more potent herbicides. So the initial idea was to make killing weeds easier and now farmers have to resort to extremely dangerous herbicides to kill weeds that were once susceptible to Round Up (Invigorate360, 2009). Now consumers are eating vegetables that have been drenched in poisons that require the farmers to wear head–to-toe protective equipment just to apply.

In addition to herbicide resistant weeds, humans can also suffer severe effects from consuming genetically engineered vegetables. Often vegetables are spliced with genes from other vegetables. Imagine consuming a tomato that has been spliced with nut genes. People that are allergic to nuts can have severe, if not fatal, reactions from eating a simple tomato. People in the Philippines have suffered adverse effects such as developing resistance to antibiotics meaning that human biology has been altered by the GM vegetables that they consume. During the 1990s, 1500 people were paralyzed, over 5000 people were temporarily paralyzed and 37 people died from a syndrome that was linked to genetically modified vegetables (safe-food.org, 2001).

Some GM crops contain Glyphosate, which is added to make vegetables resistant to weeds. This however increases the estrogen contained in the vegetable (Invigorate360.com, 2009). Once consumed, this estrogen can lead to elevated levels in humans which can cause developmental harm. Synthetic estrogen has been linked to numerous types of cancer.

Aside from the obvious hazards of genetically engineered vegetables, there are some hidden dangers as well. Scientists have engineered GM vegetables with a suicide gene. This is a method of forcing farmers to purchase seeds every year instead of harvesting seeds from their own crops and reusing them next season. The way this suicide gene works is it makes the 2^nd generation seeds sterile efficiently killing off the crop after one season. Imagine what happens if this crop breeds with organic and wild crops of vegetables. If GM corn, for example, breeds with unaltered crops and this suicide gene is passed on, the world could see the extinction of corn. This is possible with any crop that is engineered with this suicide gene (globalhealingcenter.com, 2012). There are other issues as well. GM crops all share identical genetic blueprints. This means that should a virus, bacteria or fungus attack the crop it could wipe out the entire crop. There is no genetic diversity to ensure the survival of at least a portion of the crop.

There are vast amounts of money to be made from genetically modifying vegetables. This poses numerous problems when one decides to stop or even limit the modification of foods. Any action taken on a large scale such as lobbying senators or writing petitions to politicians would be met with armies of lawyers, add campaigns, and GM-owned experts claiming all these dangers are exaggerated and untrue. Therefore, stopping GM crops has to be done on a small scale.

Fortunately this is not only more effective, but it is also infinitely easier to facilitate. Every farmer from the largest bulk producer to the backyard veggie gardener can participate. Very little effort is required. In fact the only thing needed is for the grower to insist on only buying organic seeds. Home gardeners can purchase unaltered organic seeds locally and grow healthy vegetables in their own backyard. When purchasing vegetables in markets, consumers can insist that they only purchase organic vegetables. This ensures the consumer is not getting vegetables that could potentially harm their families. This simple action creates a situation where it does not pay to genetically enhance vegetables. It will soon pay to produce organic instead of modified. Often foods purchased at the supermarket are produced from or are fed GM crops. Consumers can insist on purchasing organic meat and organic products such as popcorn, and ice cream. Consumers can also insist on purchasing hempseed oil and olive oil instead of canola oil or vegetable oil which often contain GM products. Consumers can shut down the production of genetically modified vegetable products by simply going organic. Insist on organic seeds, plant organic vegetable gardens, use organic products and eat organically raised meat products. Edmund Burke once claimed that “The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” Nothing can by more true in the world of GM crops. All the dangers of GM crops can be stopped by people simply insisting or organic products. There is no voting, or petitioning, or lobbying, or relying on politicians to make the genetically modified crops vanish. Every person must make a personal decision to purchase organic products.

References

Group III, Dr. Edward F. “Genetically Modified Foods”, Global Healing Center. http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/nutrition/genetically-modified-foods

Invigorate360. “Top 10 Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods”, Invigorate360. http://www.invigorate360.com/reviews/top-10-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food/

L. Frewer, et al, “Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, no. 42 (2004). http://www.ask-force.org/web/Bt/Frewer-Societal-Aspects-2004.pdf

Mothers for Natures Law. “What are the Dangers”. http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/dangers.html

Research Project Part 4: Organic Foods

Organic food is what should be eaten, what should be bought and used because it is the growing basics. The growing basics are what I refer to as the natural science of how earth was supposed to be cared for. Although organic food is more costly, people should invest in organic because of the soil care, climate benefits, and water welfare.

Soil care is probably one of the most important benefits of growing organic. Organic farmers rely on the natural science of recycling nutrient supply unlike conventional farms that depend on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (Araújo, 2010). It happens that since conventional farmers follow the path of using chemicals, the farmers end up causing “soil degradation, reduction of biodiversity, and decrease environmental sustainability” writes Araújo (2010). Araújo (2010) also writes that unlike conventional farms, organic farms protect the fertility of its soils in the long-term.  Unfortunately, it will take not just America, but the world time to help change conventional farmers to organic, and I am not just talking about how long it will take a conventional farmer to be persuaded, but how long it will take them to have a fully matured organic plot. It takes ten years for organic farm land to mature because of all the chemicals that must be worked out of the soil (Crinnion, 2010).

In the long run ten years is worth the effort. Consider that organic preserves soil quality and can also improve it (Gomiero, 2011). The soil fertility can be improved by “crop rotation, intercropping, poly-culture, and covering crops” (Gomiero, 2011). It may seem like more effort than farmers want to put out, but considering they find the time to cover their crops with chemicals, they can find the time to better care for their soil. That is not all, it is proven that organic topsoil is sixteen cm deeper than conventional topsoil (Gomiero, 2011). Now, if sixteen cm more of topsoil can’t convince you that buying organic is worth its price let us consider climate benefits.

Consider that pesticides went over five billion pounds in the years 2000 and 2001 (Crinnion, 2010). Now take that number and put the five billion pounds of pesticides covering the whole earth, except for the farm fields. According to Crinnion (2010) less than 0.1 percent made it to its intended location which leaves 99.9 percent of the five billion pounds of pesticides unaccounted for.  Is the higher cost of organic looking better when you weigh it against the cost of our earth?

Organic farming doesn’t just stray from unnatural chemicals, but it also lowers larger amounts of carbon dioxide and fossil energy than conventional farming (Davidson, 2005). This is not the only chemical positive, organic farming also “reduces nitrogen leaching and increases nitrogen uptake efficiency” wrote Gomiero (2011). Not to mention that organic helps turn carbon dioxide into useful soil material (Organic Farming, 2004).

One of the benefits of not using synthetic nitrogen and other chemicals is that organic vegetables are sweeter than non-organic (Loven, 2008).  Loven (2008) proved this during a blind taste test of organic and non-organic food.  Loven (2008) believes that the vegetables are sweeter because of the lack of synthetic fertilizers, which allows the vegetables to slowly mature. Let us not forget that herbicides, another chemical used on conventional farms, lowers richness and diversity in the environment (Ulber, 2009). Think of these small yet significant benefits that could be created from choosing organic instead of conventionally grown foods.

Now, let us not forget about how organic can also benefit the water. One way that organic does better than conventional farms is that during periods of drought the organic soil holds water better, which reduces the amounts of crops lost (Gomiero, 2011). Organic has forty percent less water run off compared to conventional farms (Loven, 2008). This also reduces the nitrogen being carried away by sixty percent (Loven, 2008). A big possibility why less water runs off in Organic is because of the cropping system diversity that organic farmers use (Loven, 2008). We need our water to be able to be used and not wasted.

The big question here is, are you now willing to pay the few extra dollars for an apple or an orange? We need to start thinking about this ticking time bomb if organic doesn’t out rank chemical use on conventional farms it will sure overtake us for a horrible outcome. It is only matters of time tell we may no longer have choices. Now is a time to make a stand.

 

References

 

Araújo, A., & Melo, W. (2010). Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system. Ciência Rural, 40(11), 2419-2426.

Crinnion, W. J. (2010). Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health Benefits for the Consumer. Alternative Medicine Review, 15(1), 4-12.

Davidson, S. (2005). Going organic. Ecos, (127), 8-12.

GIBSON, R. H., PEARCE, S. S., MORRIS, R. J., SYMONDSON, W. C., & MEMMOTT, J. J. (2007). Plant diversity and land use under organic and conventional agriculture: a whole-farm approach. Journal Of Applied Ecology, 44(4), 792-803. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01292.x

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Critical Reviews In Plant Sciences, 30(1/2), 95-124. doi:10.1080/07352689.2011.554355

Loven, Z. (2008). Organic Works. Organic Gardening, 55(6), 48-49.

Organic farming. (2004). Better Nutrition, 66(1), 20.

Pollan, Micheal, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: The Penguin Press, 2006. Print.

ULBER, L. L., STEINMANN, H. H., KLIMEK, S. S., & ISSELSTEIN, J. J. (2009). An on-farm approach to investigate the impact of diversified crop rotations on weed species richness and composition in winter wheat. Weed Research, 49(5), 534-543. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00722.x

Research Draft 2: Eat Organic, Or All Is Lost

Where our food comes from can make an impact on the environment, either for the good or the bad.  Grocery stores have many food choices ranging from foods with organic labels to foods that are not organic.  There is a large gap between the number of choices that are organic and those that are not, and the majority of those choices are not organic. Conventional agriculture and organic agriculture very different forms of agriculture, but both provide the foods available in grocery stores.  Conventional agriculture is, at this time, the dominate way of farming.  The way animals are held and raised for consumer consumption can be differentiated as either inorganic or organic as well.  In both forms of agriculture, crop and animal, organic farming provides a healthier alternative means of production for the environment.  Although there are many choices in a grocery store, organic foods should be seriously considered over inorganic produced foods because organic farming reduces chemical pollutions, animal pollutants, and preserves our lands and plants species.

Conventional farming techniques implement the use of chemicals for synthetic herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.  When we chose foods that are not labeled as organic, we may not only be getting more than we bargained for with chemical covered foods, but we also contribute to the continued use of chemicals for the production of food products.  In crop agriculture farmers face challenges in areas of weed control, pest control, and fertilization of crops for the purpose of greater yield. When it comes to growing crops, conventional agriculture and organic agriculture use different methods to help get the best possible results.  For the control of weeds conventional agriculture uses chemical herbicides.  Weeds can become resistant to herbicides rendering the herbicide, or combination of herbicides, less effective as time goes by (Mortensen et al., 2012).  Mortensen et al. (2012) asserts that more a greater amount of herbicide is the result of better resilience against the chemicals of the herbicide.  Mortensen et al. also argues that the use of combined herbicides, the use of two herbicides instead of just one, can also result in herbicide resilience in weeds.  Due to the fact that organic agriculture does not implement the use of chemicals for weed control, organic agriculture must rely on other forms of management (Gomiero et al., 2011).  According to Howard (1943), Altieri (1987), Lamplin (2002), Lotter (2003), Altieri & Nichols (2004), Koepf (2006), Kristiansen et al. (2006), Gliessman (2007), practices to control weeds in an organic manner include “appropriate rotation, seeding timing, mechanic cultivation, mulching, transplanting, flaming, ect.” (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Since organic agriculture methods do not involve the use of chemicals for weed control it helps keep harmful chemicals from entering the land in which the crops grow and in turn offers environmentally friendly methods of weed control.

Pest control is another factor that farmers must take in account in managing their crops.  Again solutions for pest control in conventional farming involve the use of chemicals.  Crops are treated with chemical pesticides to kill pests that would otherwise cause damage to the crops.  Kabaru & Gichia (2001) report that synthetic pesticides have been the primary solution for pest control for around the last 50 years (as cited in Shrivastava et al., 2010).  Pesticides do not distinguish between species of the farming land that harmful to crops or the natural enemies of crop damaging pests, Pimental et al. (1992, 1997), Kruess & Tscharntke (1994), Pimental (1997), Barbosa (2003), Altieri & Nicholls (2004), Perfecto et al. (2004), Bianchi et al. (2006), Crowder et al. (2010) (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Solutions to pest control in organic agriculture without the use of pesticides are prevention and biological control (Shrivastava et al., 2010).  In organic agriculture there are organic pesticides that are allowed in the treatment of crops to eliminate pests (Shrivastava et al., (2010).    Shrivastastava et al. (2010) asserts that the majority of organic pesticides “have low residual activity” but does also concede that the use of the approved organic pesticides is still controversial and debated over whether or not they are truly environmentally safe.   Unfortunately it cannot be said with complete assurance that every product on the grocery store shelves has not be subjected to any kind of pesticide, however, in organic agriculture pesticides are not heavily relied upon nor are they the only means of pest control.

Fertilizers are used as an aid for crops.  Fertilizers are meant to help plants grow bigger and produce more and better results than a plant would on its own.  In Araujo & Melo (2010) it is reported that conventional farming uses synthetic, or chemical, fertilizers.  Chemical fertilizers are said to lead to degraded soil and increases the toxicity of the soil (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Conventional agriculture depends on chemical solutions for weed control, pest control, and for the purpose of growing food better all at the expense of the environment of the lands in which the farming is done.  Organic agriculture uses organic fertilizers which promote sustainability (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  There are different practices for fertilizing the soil for crop growth in organic farming.  Employing practices such as “crop rotation, intercropping, polyculture, covering crops and mulching” (Araujo & Melo, 2010) are all organic means of fertilization without using synthetic fertilizers.  Although organic farming may permit some usage of organic pesticides, it uses far less chemicals for weed control and fertilizing than does conventional farming.  The significantly higher usage of chemicals on conventional farming lands leads to increased amounts of chemicals into the environment.  These chemicals pollute the land and are not sucked back up after using the chemicals, but are instead left in the ground.  Continued purchases of inorganic foods are an indirect way to promote the continued use of the chemicals that infect the environment.  A well known and terrible effect of chemical fertilizer usage is the “dead zone” of the Gulf of Mexico, which is the result of chemical usage in the “corn-belt corn production” (Pimentel et al., 2005). Organic farming does not rely on chemical usage like conventional farming.  With the high usage of chemicals in conventional farming it is alarming that so little attention is given to that fact, and it is frightening that conventional farming foods are so prevalent in food selections in stores.  By choosing organic foods people can choose not to support the use of so many chemicals and instead support the health of the environment.  Organic farming techniques go beyond the scope of plant based foods and into more natural and less environmentally devastating way to raise animals for consumer consumption as well.

Animal agriculture presents different issues that can cause environmental stress.  In animal agriculture, animals are raised for eventual consumer consumption.  Conventional farming emphasizes animal management procedures that produce high output over environmental friendly procedures (Putting Meat, n.d.).  Organic animal agriculture raises animals in drastically different ways than conventional.  When we go through the stores beef, pork, and chicken are the most prominent forms of meats available for purchase.  In conventional farming the use of confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs, are implemented to help provide high output (Jing et al., 2010).  Waste lagoons are common on the CAFOs, these waste lagoons are essentially small ponds that contain waste from the animals housed on the CAFOs (Jing et al., 2010) (Starmer, n.d.).  Animals cannot be made to quit ridding themselves of their waste; it is a natural process that takes place regardless of what anyone does.  Since organic farming does not implement waste lagoons it makes sense to move away from conventional farming and toward organic.  Organic animal farming provides open pastures for cattle, allowing cattle to roam over a large area in which waste can be absorbed by the land or even used as fertilizer.  Either way, organic farming keeps a far smaller number of animals per area of land where conventional animal farming keeps many animals in confined spaces.

Since animals in CAFOs are kept in such close quarters, measures need to be taken in order to help prevent the spread of diseases.  Antibiotics used in swine CAFOs are used in large amounts and lead to antibiotic resistant strands of infectious microbial (Chen et al., 2010).  Chen et al. (2010) reports that through the waste lagoons, adverse effects are created by environmental pollution of the resistant strands of microbial which can transfer to animals within the area.  Along with antibiotics, growth hormones may be used as well; some of these substances used in poultry contain arsenic (They Eat, 2006).  Again, as with the other pollutions that result from animal waste the arsenic present in runoff at the facilities that use the substances the arsenic can pollute water sources (They Eat, 2006).  The conventional animal agriculture management techniques are appalling.  Even if regulations were constructed and enforced to reduce the possibility of pollutants, there will still be the risk of contamination of the environment until conventional animal agriculture ceases to exist and organic agriculture takes center stage.   Feed provided for animals raised in non-organic practices have environmental impacts as well.

Feed farms in conventional farming, like at cattle feed farms; provide large amounts of corn in the feed provided for the animals (Woolf, 2007).  The corn is actually not part of a healthy diet for the cattle and is conventionally grown corn (Woolf, 2007), which loops back to all the issues of conventionally grown crops that are discussed in previous paragraphs.  In order for the animals to be considered organically raised they must be fed a 100% organic diet (Organic Livestock, 2004).  Conventionally raised animals cause pollutions to the environment through their care in every aspect while organically raised animals are raised through more natural processes and do not contribute to polluting the environment.    From chemicals to animals there is plenty to be alarmed about, within the subject of crops the different characteristics of crop treatment can be an issue of importance for the environment as well.

Different farming methods can have different results on the soil in which crops are planted.  The differences that occur between organic farming methods and conventional farming methods are substantial and should not be ignored.  Conventional farming methods include the use of chemicals through fertilizers and pesticides, because of the extensive use of these chemicals the result has been raised toxicity levels of the soils exposed to the chemicals and has caused the degradation of the soils (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Those pollutants that conventional farming employs are polluting the environment and ruining the soil they are used on, this can only further the reliance that conventional farming has on its chemicals.  The differences in organic and conventional farming include more than the use of chemicals.  The non-chemical methods implemented in organic farming promote soil fertility (Broad & Cavanagh, 2012), the opposite of conventional farming.  The healthier soil in organic farming can use water more efficiently than soil in conventional farming (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Conventional farming cannot even sustain its own soil, and with the poor soil requires more water than organic farming.  Organic practices actually help improve soil conditions, which would seem to be a much more desirable outcome than the results provided by conventional farming.  Organic foods may cost more in the stores, but conventional farming certainly runs high costs for the environment.  Some risks or consequences may not be quite as obvious.

Another of the many differences between organic farming and conventional farming is the inclusion or restriction of the use of GMs.  GM stands for genetically modified, and GM plants are those that have been either bioengineered or genetically engineered, or have had both changes made as defined by Perr (2004) (as cited in Singh et. al., 2006).  It isn’t that all conventional farming grows GM crops, but there are not restrictions to using GM crops.  In organic farming, however, the use of GM crops is prohibited (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Although at first glance it may seem that GM foods actually offer great benefits as listed in Singh et. al. (2006), there are risks to the use of GM foods that are known and perhaps some still unknown (Singh et. al., 2006).  GM crops can be altered so they do not need pesticides but as pests build a tolerance to the plant’s new changes the use of pesticides or more alterations will again be needed (Singh et. al., 2006).  Any conventional farming that uses GM crops will be stuck in a cycle in which the outcome can only be negative toward the environment or unknown.  Organic crops offer natural solutions such as mentioned in Broad & Cavanagh (2012), where farmers use seeds that have been “in-bred” making it so the seeds grow well within the local ecosystem the parent plants were a part of and in the soils those parent plants grew.  Organic crops are unaltered crops that can be cultivated naturally to work with the environment making them superior when keeping the environment in mind.  GM crops also pose possible danger to the diversity of plants (Balezentiene, 2011).

Cross pollination and accidental seeding, through means such as transportation of seed, can cause GM crops to grow or cross with other plants (Craig et. al., 2008) (Singh et. al., 2006).  With unknown long term affects of the GM alterations, limiting crops to only organic origins will help prevent any potential adverse affects on the environment.  As stated in Balezentiene (2011), conventional farming has had a negative influence on the “floristic diversity” of the areas surrounding such farms.  Balezentiene (2011) reports that organic farming is helpful to surrounding plant life due to the methods used in organic farming.  The results are in for organic farming, but still pending for GM crops that are allowable in conventional farming.  With so many things to consider between organic foods and conventionally farmed and raised foods, organic continuously comes out on top as a better choice for the environment.

People must speak out with a unified voice, as consumers who want organic foods to be the prevalent choices in stores to promote a healthy environment.  Right now in the market place, organic foods are no doubt more expensive than there conventional farmed counterparts, but that is because there are many less organic farms than conventional farms so the prices must be higher in order to keep up with the supply.  If organic farming becomes the prevalent form of farming, or better yet the only way of farming, the supply for organic foods will be higher and thus allow the prices of organic foods to be lowered.  Right now chemicals make their way through the environment, and animals crowd at feed factories, and genetically altered crops are being made and grown.  Right now choices are being made in stores.  Right now, make the right choice for the environment and choose organic.

References

Araújo, A. S. F. de, Melo, W. J. de..  (2010, November).  Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system.  Biomassa microbiana do solo em sistemas orgânicos.  Ciência Rural, 40(11), 2419-2426.

Balezentiene, L..  (2011).  Alpha-Diversity of Differently Managed Agro-Ecosystems Assessed at a Habitat Scale.  Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,  20(6), 1387-1394.

Broad, R., Cavanagh, J..  (2012).  CAN DANILO ATILANO FEED THE WORLD?   Earth Island Journal, 26(4), 56-60.

Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., Ripandelli, D.. (2008, January)  An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops.  Euphytica International Journal of Plant Breeding, 164, 853-880. doi 10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M. G..  (2011, January-April).  Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture.  Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1/2), 95-124.

Jing C., Michel Jr., F. C., Sreevatsan, S., Morrison, M., Zhongtang Y..  (2010, October). Occurrence and Persistence of Erythromycin Resistance Genes ( erm) and Tetracycline Resistance Genes ( tet) in Waste Treatment Systems on Swine Farms. Microbial Ecology, 60(3), 479-486.

Mortensen, D. A., Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., Smith, R. G..  (2012, January).  Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management.  BioScience, 62(1), p75-84.

Organic Livestock Workbook. A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed Practices.  (2004). National Center for Appropriate Technology.  Retrieved from http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/AG/Main/PDFsForOrganicAgAndMOCA/livestockworkbook.pdf

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P.,Hanson, J., Seidel, R., Douds, D..  (2005, July). Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: Environmental and Economic Issues.  Report 05-1, http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2101/1/pimentel_report_05-1.pdf.

Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. (n.d.).  A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Retrieved from http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf

Shrivastava, G., Rogers, M., Wszelaki, A., Panthee, D. R., Feng C..  (2010, April/March). Plant Volatiles-based Insect Pest Management in Organic Farming. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29(2), 123-133.

Singh, O. V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., Jain, R. K.. (2006, April). Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern.  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 71, 598-607.  doi 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8

Starmer, E..  (n.d.).  Environmental and Health Problems in Livestock Production: Pollution in the Food System.  The Agribusiness Accountability Initiative Leveling The Field, Issue Brief 2, 1-8.  Retrieved from http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/AAI_Issue_Brief_2_1.pdf

 They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories.  (2006, August).  Union of Concerned Scientists.  Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html

Woolf, A., Ellis, C., Cheney, I., Mosaic Films. (2007). King Corn.  USA

Essay 1 Revision: Too Much Corn

In the last thirty years or so, this country has started to grow a large amount of corn. It certainly isn’t the corn of old. It isn’t the multicolored picturesque corn that we see in absurd illustrations of pilgrim and native harmony. The corn that takes up vast amounts of land in the midwest is essentially a raw material, it won’t taste good to anyone who picks and husks it fresh, expecting a treat. As Woolf (2007) illustrates in the documentary King Corn, this corn must instead be processed and distributed to the various industries that have boomed around it. Some corn goes towards ethanol, some to the sweetener industry, but most goes to containment feed lots as the primary component in the diets of livestock. To sustain these industries, the small corn farmer has almost entirely been replaced by huge farming operations whose efficiency within their trade has become more and more precise, yielding always more corn than we have ever previously seen. Although there have been major innovations in corn farming that have led to greater crop yields, these gains cause environmental dysfunction because the have also increased the number of animals raised and slaughtered for meat; the invention and distribution of corn syrup promotes the popularity of packaged foods, and the corn crop itself demands chemical intervention in the form of fertilizers and pesticides that negatively impact land and groundwater.

The 2007 film King Corn illustrates the flood of corn into our lives in many ways, one of which is through cattle. Decades ago, cows raised for beef were born and supported on farms where for several years they would graze on grass before slaughter. In today’s cattle industry the small farm has been replaced with much larger organizations, similar to corn specific agriculture. These large members of the meat industry are working to meet the demand for ground beef in this nation that wreaks havoc on our bodies and environment. Restaurants and supermarkets are always fully stocked with very cheap meat, meat that would not be nearly as affordable to overconsume if it weren’t for corn. Instead of grazing on grass for three or four years, cows now live their full lives often within one year. They spend this short life in a containment lot that serves to actually prevent them from moving around. The cow’s inability to move or exercise makes for a fattened up animal in a shorter amount of time, and during their confinement they are eating mostly a grain that they have not evolved to be capable of digesting. In an effort to combat the disease caused by the corn based diet the meat industry relies upon for profit, they purchase and distribute more antibiotics to the cows than are utilized by people (Woolf, 2007).

The corresponding corn and meat industries have an impact on the environment in that with more cattle comes more methane from the actual animal waste, which, according to Woolf in King Corn (2007), has been proven to be a factor in rising green house gases. Distributing these very large quantities of low-quality meat products is another environmental concern because of the known consequences of shipping things all over the country or the world, in terms of the use of fuel and emissions from the use of fuel.

In King Corn, we are also exposed to other environmental impacts of the corn industry. While much of our nation’s corn goes directly into producing cheap meat, it is almost as often designated to produce cheap sugar. Just as decades ago people were likely to have primarily eaten grass fed beef in their lifetime, corn syrup would have been considered an expensive or exotic ingredient because it is so complicated and formerly expensive to produce. With the boom in corn farming productivity and crop yields, investment was made into mass producing this sickeningly sweet, very high fructose corn syrup. Corn syrup has become a primary source of sweetener, especially for foods that are tasty, accessible, convenient, and cheap (Woolf, 2007). Many foods containing high fructose corn syrup also contain the dreaded MSG. One could argue that this creates a bit of an addictive effect of these foods in their consumers.

Junk food is frequently seen packaged in individual servings. Individually packaged items require a bit more packaging material than foods bought or sold with the intention that the food will be prepared further by a person. Junk food is effortless for the consumer because it needs no preparation. Ready to eat foods and their low cost and convenience must lead to higher consumption. It would seem that higher consumption of prepackaged, corn syrupy foods would create a need for more packaging materials, and these are often made of plastic or plastic like products. This sort of packaging is not only known to be harmful to the environment in their production but contribute to the always growing problem of excess garbage. Therefore, one could make a connection which suggests that corn syrup has helped to overrun the landfills, or at the very least overburdened this earth with nutritionally useless foods that are metabolically terrible for our bodies and create a harmful demand for plastics.

It is also concerning that the corn grown and used today in the midwest is not a crop that can survive without human cultivation and chemical intervention. In order to grow the same crop year after a year on the same ground, corn farmers must use different types of ammonia to fertilize and prepare the ground for its next population of corn. This is by no means a composting operation. Chemicals used to compensate for the unnaturalness of the event are just that: chemicals, fortified with whatever is needed for a crop not created by the earth but by humanity’s ambition for excess. A farmer growing corn today must use a specific, genetically-modified kernel. This seed is programmed in a way to grow extremely close to its neighbor plant, providing an abundant crop. To protect this crop from its number one enemy it has also been genetically modified to withstand a specific herbicide, it is linked to the herbicide so that when the chemical is sprayed down on the plants, the corn will survive the weed apocalypse. Growing a hardy corn crop as farmers know it in the twenty-first century requires these chemicals to be used (Woolf, 2007). Allowing these chemicals to enter the earth’s flow and water systems undoubtedly has a negative effect on the environment.

It shouldn’t go without saying that the science behind cheap food has most likely at some point come from genuinely humanitarian intentions. We as a nation should be able to feed ourselves with the abundance of information and resources we have. However one could argue that feeding ourselves well may be more important than feeding ourselves a lot. Changes in corn agriculture in the last three or four decades seem very complex. Such changes have not only caused a devastating decline in human health, but the industry has also played a role in the devastating harm done to our precious planet. The way that animals are raised in horrendous circumstances while their waste chokes the atmosphere is blatantly disrespectful to the environment. Thoughtless production and over consumption of soda, candy, fast food and the trash they produce is as shameful as the chemicals used to make corn thrive are potentially dangerous. Corn farming as we know it today has had a harmful effect on our environment.

References

Woolf, A. (Producer, Director). (2007), King Corn [Motion picture]. United States: Balcony Releasing.