Gray 1

The Industrialization of Food Production:

The Perceived Solution That Turned into the Problem

Jena Gray

Word Count: 2,540

Gray 2

Sohoni—SOCL 205

The Perceived Solution That Has Turned into a Big Problem

In 1792, Thomas R. Malthus wrote “An Essay on Population” in which he synthesized

the world’s fear of hunger into distinct thoughts: Population grows faster than means of

subsistence and these means of subsistence are finite and limited. Malthus did not factor major

technological advances into the equation when he wrote about overpopulation and hunger.

Desperate desire for sustenance to feed rapidly growing populations became the driving force

behind the Green Revolution, the perceived solution, which has morphed into the modern system

of industrialized food production. The conflict theory unveils abuses in power and unequal

allocation of resources which determine why, despite the original intent behind the Green

Revolution to solve global hunger, the industrialization of foodstuffs has failed to amend global

hunger but rather has further exacerbated the issue.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Green Revolution originated in Mexico during the 1940s with its main goal being to

produce more crops to match the pace of rising populations worldwide (Borlaug 2002). Through

the neo-classical lens, the industrialization of food was the perfect solution to global hunger. The

higher masses of food produced, the more of the masses could be fed. Norman Ernest Borlaug

received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for developing “high-yielding crop varieties that helped

prevent famine worldwide” (Asiado 2012). Forty-three years after the Nobel Peace Prize was

presented to him, worldwide hunger is a major global issue. Capitalist ventures encouraged the

“growth of crops that would be most productive” so that farmers growing a variety of crops

converted to monoculture cultivation. Crop specialization developed into commonality as farms

did not have the constraints of waiting for the land to fallow (Bradley 2010). Tremendous profits

Gray 3

are gained for nations that export massive quantities of a standardized food item; thus, these

nations began to import varieties of crops for daily consumption (Asiado 2012).

The conflict theory recognizes that the intent to solve global starvation was noble but

idealistic; the Green Revolution never could have, or will, solve world hunger. The true motive

behind mechanization, rather than to relieve the world of hunger, is money. If the aim of the

Green Revolution was to expediently maximize profits on the smallest acreage of land for the

cheapest cost, then the automation of farming has succeeded. Society constantly engages in

power struggles for control of scarce resources, such as food. The entities with the greatest

amount of power are able to formulate rules governing who controls the largest quantities of

food. Therefore, the consumerist model of food mechanization disproportionately affects the

poor who are susceptible to famine through unjustifiable distribution patterns.

The Problems

In order to maximize profits, nations specialize in few crops in order to compete within

the world market. Monoculture farming causes lesser-developed countries to shift their focus

from multi-cropping for survival to economically-motivated farm practices: “growing crops…as

targets for export rather than for daily consumption” (Asiado 2012). Farmers devote millions of

acres to grow genetically engineered cash crops year after year without the need to wait for the

soil to fallow. Land then becomes a scarce commodity because "the most fertile lands that had

provided the community with their food would instead be…used for production of exportable

cash crops” leave stark shortages of available sustenance for local communities (Bradley 2010).

The shift in subsistence focus has forced farmers "to look for other sources for food despite the

increased crop production, unable to live off the food produced on their farms" (Asiado 2012).

While the current system of production increases food quantities worldwide, it simultaneously

Gray 4

pushes growers off of their farms. Farmers produce massive volumes of nourishment for the

world yet they themselves starve due to the global affluent inequitably distributing food among

the poor.

Widespread food insecurity from the mechanization of farming has forced predisposed

nations into heavy reliance on other countries for food supply in order to avoid starvation. The

neo-classical system has taken the life-giving force of humanity, literal daily bread, and created a

world in which individual lives are transformed into dehumanized externalities, “a world in

which any value could be reduced to a market value” (Lappé 1971: xviii). In the case of a

national disaster like drought or war, all countries, even those with the most resources, hoard

their means so as to dispel the potential for starvation. Lesser-developed countries which rely on

imports or food aid for daily consumption suffer if perchance their motherland winds up on the

wrong side of the war front. Affluent countries always have the ability to revoke food aid if two

nations’ interests conflict. The pattern is ingrained in society: the prosperous take advantage of

the unfortunate as a result of the unquenchable thirst for power and control. Hence, the world-

wide affluent snag the biggest piece of the figurative pie for them when allocating resources to

the rest of the world.

Supporters of the Green Revolution may portray the industrialized farmer as more

prosperous but tend to leave out the "higher costs associated with these new practices” (Bradley

2010). Poor farmers in lesser-developed nations cannot pay for costly machinery, chemical

fertilizers and pesticides, “nor can they afford to annually purchase genetically modified seeds”

(Bradley 2010). Consequently, extensive debt piles atop of these farmers burying them next to

their freshly planted engineered grain. Large food corporations such as Monsanto or Perdue

require specific equipment and maintenance for cultivators. Constant demands for upgraded

Gray 5

equipment induce growers to feel as though "[they] have no say in [their] own business" (Kenner

Food, Inc.: Carole Morison). According to Food, Inc., a typical grower with two chicken houses

has borrowed over $500,000 yet earns only $18,000 each year (Kenner 2009). For a chicken

farmer, it costs between $280,000 and $300,000 per chicken house plus additional costs to

preserve the newly updated equipment. Financial control is a common tactic multinational food

corporations employ that slants the power dynamic away from the agrarians (Kenner Food, Inc.).

Food subsidies create immense strains on food security within individual countries and

throughout the world. The government subsidizes corn, wheat, soybeans, and other products to

ensure the commodity crop can be sold below the price of production. Farmers are generously

compensated for the growth of commodity crops which incentivizes farmers and generates a

bigger supply for the market. Corn is cheap and fattens animals in a shorter period than is natural

for an animal to bulk up (Kenner Food, Inc.). The availability of corn and its other ‘properties’

make corn the ideal candidate for mass-feeding cattle on feedlots, chickens and pigs in

overcrowded conditions, and catfish from fish farms. The all-around inexpensive way of

production drives prices for meat down. Over forty years ago, Lappé saw the subsidization of

corn immerging as a major issue because transnational food corporations “feed almost half the

world's grain to livestock, returning only a fraction in meat while millions starve. It confounds all

logic. Yet the pattern has intensified” (1971: xvii). In addition, these subsidies have "skewed our

food system to the bad calories…the reason that those calories are cheaper is because those are

the ones we are heavily subsidizing" (Kenner Food, Inc.: Michael Pollan). Junk food is cheaper

since the wheat, corn, and soybeans are subsidized and, for this reason, "one of the biggest

predictors of obesity is income level” (Kenner Food, Inc.: Michael Pollan). Thus subsidies

Gray 6

enable the wealthy to purchase healthy foods while forcing the poor, who can only afford junk

food, to submit themselves to undue health risks.

Society has been indoctrinated to think if only production increased, global hunger would

cease to be an issue. The facts are clear, according to FAO, “global production is 17% greater per

person today than it was 30 years ago, despite a 70% population increase” (2002: 9). Ten years

ago there was already enough food for worldwide populations to live off of, “at least 2,720

kilocalories (kcal) per person per day” (FAO 2002: 9). In 2013, new advancements in

technology and agrology have been made yet we are barely any closer to relieving starvation.

Despite having enough food for the world, transnational corporations control the allocation of

foodstuffs; they have incredible power in shaping the government; and have the ability to cut

food aid if national interests conflict. These food transnational corporations “share the

characteristics of having global investments in the food industry and controlling much of how

food is grown, processed, distributed, and/or purchased” (Phillips 2006: 40). With so much

influence divested among few food conglomerates, there would be high risks associated for an

individual or a country to question the methodology or procedure of food production for fear of

revocation of food aid.

Media plays a fundamental role in framing the myth “that nature’s to blame for the

massive deprivation hundreds of millions of people now experience” (Lappé 1971: xvii). In order

to combat hunger, outputs must increase (Lappé 1971). The media has framed the issue of global

hunger “as an efficiency problem and would-be solutions tend to promote technical

improvements over reduced consumption" (Krause 2009: 285). The media are owned by a small

cluster of those with affluent means. They may be few in number but grand in their power to

determine which stories they should or should not promote. The media places the emphasis on

Gray 7

growth which fosters the misperception that the Green Revolution has in fact “forever changed

the way agriculture is conducted worldwide, benefiting the people of many nations in need of

increased food production” (Briny 2008). Greed and power are the cornerstones to the Green

Revolution; global hunger gets put on the back burner in preference to profit thus confirming that

“hunger is human made” (Lappé 1971: xvii). The world is not “in urgent need of more food for

the malnourished, the vulnerable, [and] the victims of famine” but rather the world desires fair

allocation of food to these starving people (Phillips 2006: 43). The conflict theory recognizes the

thematic recurrence of how “the poorest and most disadvantaged groups are still unable to

provide for themselves due to the system that is flawed by design” (Bradley 2010). Nevertheless,

the myth that consumerism and increased production is the solution to starvation continues to

spread through the media despite the world’s surplus of food continually overflowing into more-

developed countries.

The Revolving Door explains the phenomena of having high-ranking former employees

of food corporations with immense power in influential governmental positions. The Green

Revolution was “a planned international effort financed by famous international organisations,

such as the Rockefeller Foundation…” and conveniently Dr. Borlaug, the “father of the Green

Revolution,” was and is the Senior Scientist at the Rockefeller Foundation (Asiado 2012;

Borlaug 2002). Margaret Miller was the Chemical Supervisor for Monsanto and is currently

staffed as the FDA Branch Chief. Linda Fisher was the Vice President of Government and Public

Affairs at Monsanto and currently resides as the Deputy/Administrator for the EPA. The

government has been infiltrated by former high-ranking employees of large food corporations

like Monsanto and Perdue. These former employees have the power and ability to affect laws

that protect or could potentially harm their interests. Justice Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto

Gray 8

attorney before he wrote the majority opinion on a case that decided farmers would no longer be

able to save their seeds from year to year. The decision costs farmers another annual cost and

ignores the centuries-old tradition of saving seeds from the good harvest each year. When

lawmakers blur their perception of what is good for them and what is good for their constituents,

the conflict theory would step in and cite an abuse of power. If a policy that supports, for

example, farmers’ rights, becomes a law, the implementation and success of promoting

sustainable consumption policies are rarely enforced or acknowledged owing much to the fact

that there are legislators with large stakes in the food industry.

CONCLUSION:

The heart of the issue does not necessarily lie in the mechanics themselves but rather in

the people who grease the wheels and turn the levers to keep this system of production

functioning. The people in power are the root of the problem; the problem of fair distribution of

goods is as essential to life as food is. The only true solution to the exploitation of the poor is

more equitable distribution. Yet the conflict theory is pragmatic enough to recognize fair

allocation of food or goods in general simply will not happen due to the nature of humans and

our obsession with power. The food industry can change only if consumers demand their food to

be different. The market will shift automatically and create an increased supply of non-

mechanized foodstuffs with a subsequent decrease in the demand curve for the current system of

food productivity if that is what consumers want. One of the reasons why Wal-Mart now

incorporates organic products is because consumers demand them. In order to invoke change that

will be approved by those in power, one has to work within the neo-classical model to

understand that the central drive for all aspects of society is money. Although undesirable, the

most realistic solution requires adoption of the neoclassical model of the market because the

Gray 9

conflict theory recognizes there is no way fair distribution would be carried out. Therefore,

consumers have a monumental influence on the market and "through their food consumption

activities [they] share direct responsibility” in determining which foods get stocked on the

shelves (Arce 1993: 53). The bourgeois structure, the façade that consumers have little to no

power against huge food corporations is what those in power want the powerless to believe. But,

if and when consumers realize the weight they hold in the market, the “powerless” have the

ultimate power to demand which kinds of foods are produced in whichever manner. In this way,

there are manners in which consumers have agency in maneuvering and reforming the food

industry, possibly avoiding the magnitude of food insecurity and exploitation currently present.

REFERENCES

Arce, Alberto. 1993. “New Tastes in Industrialized Countries and Transformations in the Latin-American Countryside: An Introduction to the Local Cases of Mexico and Chile.” International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 3(1). Retrieved April 7, 2013 (http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/3/arce.pdf).

Asiado, Tel. 2012. “Agriculture in History and the Green Revolution.” Sustainable Living Ideas. Retrieved April 7, 2013 (http://tel.world.edu/2012/05/15/agriculture-in-history-and-the-green-revolution/).

Borlaug, Norman. November 2002. “Biotechnology and the Green Revolution: Norman Borlaug.” Retrieved April 23, 2013 (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/borlaug.html#fullbio).

Bradley, Joshua. 2010. “The Green Revolution: Facts and Fallacies.” Retrieved April 7, 2013 (http://www.joshuabradley.org/green_revolution/pros_and_cons.html).

Briney, Amanda. 2008. “Green Revolution: History and Overview of the Green Revolution.” About.com. Retrieved April 7, 2013 (http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm).

Kenner, Robert. 2009. Food, Inc.. Documentary. Los Angeles: Magnolia Home Entertainment.

Krause, Rachel. 2009. “Developing conditions for environmentally sustainable consumption: drawing insight from anti-smoking policy.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 33:285-292.

Gray 10

Lappé, Frances. 1971. Diet for a Small Planet: The Book That Started a Revolution in the Way Americans Eat. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group.

Phillips, Lynne. 2006. “Food and Globalization.”Annual Review of Anthropology 35:37-57.