Outline

I. Introduction

Thesis: Americans today ingest harmful chemicals and poisons on a regular basis because of water run-off from pesticides used in modern farming practices.



Body

II. A history of farming and how we used to eat. How it has not always been that we consume harmful chemicals. Why farmers, sometimes you without realizing it, use such practices.



III. How does this happen? Explain the process of how chemicals make it from the large corn fields to your own body. What damage does this cause? Also, discuss what damage these practices have on tne environment, especially water and animal life. Also the damage to soil in the fields in which these methods are practiced.



IV. Alternative Practices. Provide examples from all over using safe farming practices with little or no harmful chemicals.



V. Conclusion

What can you do about it? What are something that you can do on a small scale that can lead to making a big difference on how we consume food and the way we live our lives. Using such practices can make us healthier and in some cases, spend less money in the process. Also, discuss my ideas about the future. For instance how our practices may change and what the future may hold. I will discuss the role oil depletion will play in this process and how we may not have a choice in the future but to eat local foods.





Bibliography





Baker, Andy. "Fluorescence properties of some farm wastes: implications for water quality monitoring." Elsevier Science 36.1 (2002): 189-95. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Feather, Peter. "Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution." Economic Research Service (1995): n. pag. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Geldreich, Edwin. "Concepts of Fecal Streptococci in Stream Pollution." Water Envirnomental Federation 41.8 (1969): 336-52. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Johnson, Scott. "The On-Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73.4 (1991): 1063-73. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Jordahl, J.L. "Comparison of Alternative Farming Systems." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture n. pag. Web. 22 Feb 2010.

Mader, Paul. "Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming." Science 296.5573 (2002): p. 1694-97. Web. 22 Feb 2010.

Shortle, James. "The Realitive Efficiency of Agricultural Source Water Pollution Control Policies." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68.3 (1986): 668-78. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Weber, Karl. Food Inc.. 1st. New York: Public, 2009. Print.

Willer, Helga. The World of Organic Agriculture. London: Earthscan, 2008. Print.

Food Inc. p.183-218

The readings continue on within the book mostly along the same lines that that have been reiterated by previous authors. One of the first authors discusses modern eating habits and how different they are from previous generations. One of the main reasons modern farming practices are practiced is because it produces such high yields and they are deemed necessary in order to provide for such a large group of people. One of the authors uses the bison/cattle example to make the point that not too long ago, the entire population was provided for without using such practices. I think this has a lot to do with to what people become accustomed. Once people, especially Americans, become accustomed to something, it is very hard to live without it. The cheap and efficient way of consuming processed foods is like a drug to the American population and the world abroad. The idea of me not being able to go through the drive through window at a fast food restaurant and only pay a few dollars for an entire meal is something that makes me squirm in my seat. Is it possible for people to return to healthy, non-processed foods? Of course it is possible but how easy that transition would be quite difficult to get started and to maintain.

The reading that really stuck out to me in this part of the book is the section by Joel Salatin. I had mixed feelings about this section. I liked that he provided many answers to the question: What can I do? He provided options such as buying locally and planting a garden. However the viewpoint to which he approached these ideas I saw as pretty extreme. The section where he talked about owning a chicken in your own apartment and blatantly ignore zoning codes I saw as taking things a bit too far. Also, to ignore health food laws? He makes valid points using historical examples about how the law has not always been correct on issues. I have just not gotten to the point with this issue where breaking the law and "defying" the government as Salatin puts it, is the correct way to go about dealing with this issue. Does a change need to be made in the way we consume our food? Yes. Is there something we can all do that can help the situation? Yes. However, ignoring law, no matter how insignificant, is not the way to go about it.

Position Statement

The position I am going to take in my paper is that of safer farming practices. I really did not know which side I was going to take when I started proposing this paper. Both sides have legitimate arguments. Farmers need mass producing farming techniques in order to meet the growing demand for food. Also these modern farming techniques are harming our environment. Before further research I was convinced that organic farming methods were not efficient enough to provide for the growing demand and dramatic increase in population size. Population growth and demand for food will be my hardest argument to counter because the world’s population is growing at such a rapid rate. But after reading Food Inc., I have come to understand that there are many organic farmers who have actually had an increase in their food production since going organic.

Food Inc. 92-177

The main argument that the author makes in the first half of the reading deals with the use of corn to produce and ethanol fuel force. The author makes very good points with statistics that strongly support his argument. It is a definite shame that so much food that is going to produce fuel that could be used to feed the billion people around the world that are starving. I could not agree more. However, I am going to respond to this reading probably a little differently than many people will. The author states that there in no shortage if fuel. Which yes technically is true, we are forgetting the enormous demand for oil both domestically and around the world. Oil production is the highest it has been in the history of the world. The supply of this oil, however, is depleting. You would have to have been living under a rock for the past few decades to not hear about the oil crisis our world is facing. The processing of corn to ethanol based fuel is in reaction to the worldwide demand for alternative resources to petroleum based fuels. Here lies the problem of trying to solve a world problem: there is no easy, best solution that is going to make everyone happy. Manufactures chose to use corn to produce ethanol because it is one of the most abundant resources in which to produce fuel. Again I am not saying that the trouble being added to world hunger by ethanol produced fuel is not legitimate, I just wanted to make the point that we have this problem to fix another problem.

So what to do about the problem of the growing demand of fuel? The author, unlike many other people, actually provides and answer to how it is we can begin to use the fuel to feed the masses instead of making it to produce fuel. The answer it to eat locally. Eat foods that do not require it to be shipped half way around the world. If transportation of our food decreases, we can then focus on feeding ourselves, instead of fueling the trucks needed to transport the food needed to feed ourselves. It is simply skipping a step in the food consumption process. The author says that eating less and less meat is a very good way of solving this problem. And again, when trying to solve a world problem, if we started to consuming a significantly less amount of meat, we would see a book written on behalf of meat producers on how eating locally is ruining the lives of meat producers. And round and round we go.

Food Inc. p 3-64

The one part of the film that really stood out to me was the aspect that most of the major food corporations were unwilling to comment on the film or declined to be interviewed. I think this sent a powerful message about the views of the kinds of attitudes many of the big companies had about the production of their own products. I got the feeling that they had a “don’t ask don’t tell” mentality about how their food is made. We as Americans show up to the super markets and see the food neatly placed on the shelves and our thought process stops there. We rarely think of how did this food get here? What were the methods used in the production of this product? We often sacrifice health and/or moral integrity for efficiency and value. If we can get a product that tastes good for cheap, Americans rarely ask questions. The average American would much rather have a double cheese burger from McDonald’s than a homemade salad with organically grown ingredients. I am this average American of which I speak. So it is difficult so have such knowledge provided in Food Inc. and still have reluctance when changing my eating habits. Both the big companies and the local farmers were reluctant to be interviewed for this project for one main reason which the author clearly states: fear. These farmers’ livelihoods depend on contracts with these companies such as Tyson. These companies have such power of the farmers that if the farmers were to speak out against these major corporations, the farmers’ contracts could be revoked and their economic livelihood would be destroyed. It was how this message was displayed in the movie with simple text rolling across the screen that this message was strongly conveyed. The makers of the movie did not need many fancy visual effects for this message, like the author said, they spoke for themselves.

The readings from the film very well supported the arguments of these major corporations not being willing to participate. The author said that it was not his intention to take such an anti-big business approach but to provide arguments for both sides and be able to reach a broad audience. “My goal was to reach a larger audience than just the food activists by including many divergent points of view about the system. Unfortunately, the industrial voices proved to be difficult to include” (33). I understand the author’s point he was trying to make but I have a hard time believing that it was not his intention to make the major food corporations look bad. I agree, however, that once there was further investigation of this matter that the insecurities about the major food corporations were impossible not to reveal.

Research Prospectus and Bibliography

For my research topic I am going to focus on and research farming techniques and the major affect it has on the environment and especially our water supply. Since the founding of our nation, there has been a major change in the way we farm our agricultural goods. Farming as a whole is completely different from the way it was done 250 years ago. Thanks to advances in technology, we can produce more goods, at a more efficient rate, for less money. The question I propose in the paper, is at what cost? What are the techniques used for which we have had these great advances in the production methods of our agricultural goods? What damages have the farming practices of today had our landscapes, rivers, and streams? When one thinks about how farming has changed in America over the past 250 years one can gather the arguments of my paper before I even begin. 250 years ago one would picture a single man plowing a field with a single-lane plow pulled by an ox. How much negative effect can such practices have on an ecosystem? Then today, one would picture the modern agricultural techniques practiced on farms all across America. They picture fleets of 50 foot wide combines tilling, planting, and fertilizing in one smooth sweep on a never ending corn field. It doesn’t make much effort or thought to realize that the modern day farming practices have a much more adverse effect on the surrounding ecosystem.

One main area of focus and concern with this issue is the use of pesticides within these modern practices. One of the things that made farming so difficult before modern fertilizers is the loss of crops due to poor soil and falling victims to insects and animals that would feast on the crops. However today, with modern fertilizers, and soil enrichment chemicals, the yield produced by crops is astronomical compared to pre-modern practices.

The problem ensues when these chemicals are washed away by rainwater and make their way into rivers and streams which then make their way into watersheds and our water supply. It is this same water from our rivers and streams in which we use for drinking, cooking, and bathing. The United States Department of Agriculture estimated that 5 million people die each year from water-borne illnesses. 4 million of these being children die of diarrhea because their digestive systems are not equipped to digest such chemicals. In order to fix this problem, we must determine where these contaminations are coming from. Another problem is that a majority of these contaminations are coming from non-point sources, which are sources from which one particular source cannot be determined, but only narrowed down to a group of possible locations where these contaminates entered our water supply. Point sources, on the other hand, are sources that can be narrowed down and therefore corrected.

Because of their high yields and enormous profit margins, farmers are set on farming practices that continue to poison our water supply and deteriorate our ecosystems. At the same time, the negative effects these farming practices have on our environment are too severe and apparent to ignore. So what do we do? This paper will look at the causes and effects on modern farming practices and what is being done to limit and correct such effects.

Bibliography

Baker, Andy. "Fluorescence properties of some farm wastes: implications for water quality monitoring." Elsevier Science 36.1 (2002): 189-95. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Feather, Peter. "Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution." Economic Research Service (1995): n. pag. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Geldreich, Edwin. "Concepts of Fecal Streptococci in Stream Pollution." Water Envirnomental Federation 41.8 (1969): 336-52. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Johnson, Scott. "The On-Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73.4 (1991): 1063-73. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Shortle, James. "The Realitive Efficiency of Agricultural Source Water Pollution Control Policies." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68.3 (1986): 668-78. Web. 31 Jan 2010.