The Modern Economy Consists Of The Commodification Of Everything

Like consumers, farmers do not have much choice either. Farmers plant crops that are demanded by the global food market. Essentially, farms are no longer owned by farmers and the farmers become the laborers. Also, it sometimes is all or nothing for farmers. For one, some land can only be used for one crop, for example coffee, and if something goes wrong with the crop, farmers lose everything. Second, unskilled labor jobs are dwindling, so there might not be much else a farmer could do if something were to happen to their land. It seems that when crops do well, farmers should be making a lot of money, however, the food processors and distributors are the ones who make most of the profit. Because of this, farmers are left with pennies compared to what the others make. Farmers and consumers have fought to control the food system, but what other choice do they have than to support it?

The world continues to face a wide-scale food crisis. The effects of this crisis reach from the farmers who grow and raise the food to the very system of laws that are in place to govern the system itself. Food giants are reaching deep into their pockets for lobbying in order to take advantage of both the producers and the consumer all in the name of profit. Moreover, farmers are being driven to suicide, and the ecosystem’s livelihood is treading a fine line. Both Michael Pollan and Raj Patel bring to light these problems and offer suggestions to help lessen their severity. Though there are many philosophies on which they both agree, they both have their own ideas to fight back. Pollan seeks to challenge the consumer as an individual while

Many support agricultural modernization, as a solution Africa’s, and many other impoverished nations hunger problems. This would include the industrialization of their agricultural industry, using modern, genetically enhanced seeds, and fertilizer. Yet, some of the same groups that are promoting the organic movement in the United States are advocating against the globalization of modern industrial agricultural practices (Paarlberg 179). Those who support modernization of such nations argue that the current process in inefficient, and inadequate. They believe that globalization of the highly capitalized, science-intensive, agricultural system that has been developed in the West, is the answer to the worlds hunger problems. They also warn that if the West abandons its current practices, it may fall victim to famine due to inadequate production (Paarlberg 179). However, supporters of organic production point to the fact that each year, approximately ten million tons of chemical fertilizer are poured onto our corn

The agricultural industry: the farms, plants, animals, and farmers, have supported this great country for so long, but lately we have turned our backs on it. Today, we live in a materialistic society, people wanting more and better items, not settling for products that will accomplish the same job.From looking at the fruits and vegetables in the grocery store, we see the bruised or smaller ones left, while the big and brightly colored ones are selected first. In our society today, changes are constantly being made to help expand and evolve the agricultural industry, but it has yet been able to do so. To this day farmers across this nation have not been completely successful in providing for the people who make up this country. In the stores

Astyk and Newton, in their essay: The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Go Hungry, explains that “around the world, industrial agriculture has consolidated land ownership into the hands of smaller and smaller populations” destroying local self-sufficiency (518). Individuals are no longer able to grow own fresh, healthy foods to feed their family. They now depend on industrially grown crops and processed foods loaded with chemicals for food. Additionally, because of the farm policy, farmers that continue to cultivate healthy produce like fruits and vegetables get little or no government support, thus the higher prices of fresh produce seen today at our grocery stores.

As the Earth’s population grows at breakneck pace over the next several decades, who will feed the world’s people? Agriculture has undergone an extensive expansion and transformation throughout the last few centuries, beginning with the Industrial Revolution of the late 1700s. New technology allowed for better and greater methods of production. With the development of modern technology, people try to think some way can plant less, get more. Many farmers plant only one crop in the same place year after year. However, those against monocropping claim that it is very hard on the environment and actually less profitable than organic means of farming (“Monoculture Crops – Learn About The Effects Of Monocropping”). In addition, the destructive nature of agriculture has recently shown its hand. While our supermarkets, convenience stores, and restaurants are filled with abundant food options, people forget to ask themselves where all this food comes from. Globalization has opened up economies of scale and has allowed people to tap into different types of products, whether that is food or clothing. But the availability of an increased mass market comes at a cost. However, today, the modern farming techniques have grown into a headache for farmers and governments alike, because they are the consequences of overproduction, industrial waste and other problems arising from the modern methods of agriculture. Thus, modern techniques are harmful to environments, animals, and humans.

In “Farming and the Global Economy”, Berry points out that local farmers need to take control of their markets by producing locally for their communities and then not relying on large corporations for supplies and following their level of “quality”. This is the key to healthful ecosystems and human communities that Berry describes. Essentially, farmers need to decrease their dependence on global economic forces that enable large scale food transportation and deprive them of the necessary skills and knowledge for longevity. According to Berry, “if communities of farmers and consumers wish to promote a sustainable, safe, reasonably, inexpensive supply of good food then we must see that the best, the safest, and most dependable source of food

Hunger stalks America and many other countries. How the world deals with hunger is dependent on cultural attitudes and the understanding of what hunger means to the individual and communities. In the United States, the majority of hungry people are the elderly, children, and the disabled which represent a bloc of people unable to provide for themselves with employment. The understanding that governmental systems and institutions responsible for food insecurity are failing, is becoming mainstream in the population, not the previous idea that agriculture does not produce enough food. How to provide physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to meet dietary needs and food preferences for healthy lives is a problem of political and economic exclusion, social injustice and discrimination (Cunningham 2017, Lecture 1). The right to food security should be an uncompromised right of humanity, no matter the cost to government or agriculture.

(167). Heavy taxes on agriculture leads to low productivity and low output (Dennis). New technology is not as efficient: “The heavy harvesting equipment that now does the work of the harvesting has left larger amounts of grain in the field…” (Holthaus 135). Holthaus describes the loss of access to the markets as a result of more contacting and the “growing influence of transnational megacorporations.” Farmers are no longer in control of agriculture; they have little say in what crops to grow and have to listen to the contracted company. Farmers no longer farm for the market, they farm to be able to pay the bank or to meet a contract with a company (167). When farmers decide to contract, they become another worker in the industrial system of agriculture. Farmers lose their markets, which are taken over by large corporations; and lose a percentage of their profit (Holthaus 150). According to “American Farms Keep Growing: Size, Productivity, and Policy,” about 30% of American farms have any significant farm production. 6 percent of all farms account for three-fourths of US farm output.The loss of political power and influence is due to less farmers and their families living on the land, aswell as, less people living in rural communities, which means that they have less authority and voting powers (167). The health of

A supporter of the local food movement would argue, buying locally produced food is safer, more nutritious and stimulates the local economy. This is a warm and inviting illusion, reality proves to be quite the opposite. If every individual followed the ways of the locavore, farmers around the world would in turn suffer from the lack of demand for their quality product. As for sustainability of the local economy, there are communities in impoverished countries that are technically locavore perfection. They consume locally produced crops and livestock because of the extreme expenses involved with modern agricultural inputs and transportation. This perfect domain of locavorism “… is one in which average cereal crop yields are at best one-fifth those of advanced economies, average incomes hover around $1 a day, the probability of being malnourished is approximately one in three…”(Desrochers and Shimizu 34). Nor is there enough useable land on the earth to sustainability feed the growing population with inefficient (local) methods. Specialization and international trade are essential for the continuance of globalization, which brings improvement for all. Switching to locally produced food would not only decrease

People should not have the right to control what they eat. That would be a very shocking and disturbing lifestyle, if the world ever adopted that belief. That is a problem because people should have food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is an important concept for the development of human’s population and the environment. This means people should have the right to their agriculture systems. For instance, Ayres and Bosia believes that those who are food sovereignty activists represents a significant locus of resistance to globalization. But, the author Guthman believes that food movement are meant to oppose industrialized food. Therefore, the authors have some disagreements because of different beliefs. As a result, I believe that the authors do have differences. On the other hand, food sovereignty or food movements should be to reduce industrialized food and protect the environment.

In their 1989 article, Friedmann and McMichael outline two historical food regimes. The first characterized by British hegemony and colonialism, and the second characterized by United States hegemony and the rise of nation states. A possible third regime, designated the corporate food regime, may be subsequently branded as the predominant regime of this era. However, the characterization of this current era as a corporate food regime depends on the extent to which counter movements, such as the food sovereignty movement, which favors small scale local agriculture and production, are successful at undermining the current corporate food system.

Food security is historically defined as the overall regional, national as well as global food supply and shortfalls in supply as associated to requirements (Foster, 1992). The same author contended that, even though, the increased observation of differences in the sufficiency of food intake by certain groups despite overall adequacy of supply, the term has been applied recently at a local, household, or individual level and it has been widened beyond notions of food supply to include elements of access (Sen, 1981), vulnerability (Watts and Bohle, 1993), and sustainability (Chambers, 1989). Different organizations, scholars and institutions define food security differently. However, basic concept remains the same.

There is an ongoing argument in philosophy to whether or not the market should be constrained to certain goods and services, as well as how much power governments should have when intervening in a regulated market. Most people believe that certain goods and services should be kept out of the market due to the fact that these certain goods and services should not be bought and sold in the first place. For example, markets in organs and blood, sex, and pregnancy surrogacy. In this paper, I intend on discussing two opposing views about market commodification. The first being Elizabeth Anderson, she argues that certain goods and services should not be for sale in a market, this is because the spread of these certain goods and services in markets would corrupt peoples personal and civic values. Also, Anderson is opposed to the commodification of these certain goods and services, like blood, sex, and pregnancy surrogacy, because it can easily exploit the people who sell them. In opposition to Anderson, Brennan and Jaworski argue in defense of commodification, but understand that not everything and anything should be allowed for sale on the market. Brennan and Jaworski argue that there are certain classes of goods and services that can be for sale and cannot be for sale. This is depending on whether or not the good or service is right to own or have in the first place. Both authors put out compelling arguments, and I will discuss each of their views on commodification. In closing I

When considering the challenges and opportunities posed by EU non market policies, we must look at both the food producer and the manufacturer as both can have positive and negative reactions. Going forward, global warming is now high on the agenda of policy makers. With agriculture a high contributor, it is unsurprising that measures are being introduced that have effect on the producers’ and manufacturers’. The buzz word now associated with the future of the environment and the food industry is “sustainability”. This refers to sustainable growth as the producers (farmers) try to maximise output. Moreover, with world populations set to dramatically increase up to 2050, the EU and the world must find ways to promote food production. Therefore, policies are now becoming more difficult and multifunctional. This is symbolised through the increasing awareness of the environment and it becoming more and more apparent in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). “The industry realises the need to protect and, where possible, improve biodiversity. Given that the industry’s raw materials are grown in the natural environment, and the industry purchases and processes 70% of EU agricultural production, it is essential that agricultural practices are sustainable.” FoodDrink Europe. (2011). It is here in the CAP that I have found non-market policies to have impacted both positively and, at times, negatively on the food producers and manufacturers operating in the EU. The