Cultural Change: Industrialization of Agriculture

Cultural Change: Industrialization of Agriculture

In the contemporary world, the industrialization of agriculture is both a boon and a detriment. It is often explained as a necessary response to an increasingly larger global population, a way to distribute product more efficiently, and a way to manage the discrepancies between yields, weather conditions, and labor. But one example of this is the way that corn has changed in the United States from being a family run operation to a mega-giant corporate structure that now works to "find" new technologies and markets that can use the product and its derivatives. Essentially, like the invention of the automobile caused the death of an entire industry from the horse era, modern corporate farming has caused the death of an agricultural process that, even with technological changes, has been family run and managed for centuries (Robins, 2006, 41).

What has happened in the agricultural industry is the change from a resource based "supply and demand" industry, to a clear oligopoly of power. A standard definition of an ologopoly power is when four firms together control more than 40% of the market share in any given industry. In the U.S. agricultural market, this ratio varies between 60 and 80% depending on whether it is beef, pork, poultry, flour and corn, or soybeans. Concentrated market share monopologies continue to be on the rise, appearing to believe that a 60-80% share is just not enough. Instead, these corporate behemoths, most who are managed by individuals who have likely never planted a seek or run a combine in their lives, dominate international markets to the considerable detiment of farms and processing locations around the developing world (Sarris and Hallam, 2006, 135-36).

There are clearly several negatives regarding this totalitarian approach to agriculture. While some see no choice in order to increase production, others see the lessening of biological diversity becoming so severe that, if the trends continue, within 50-60 years, we will have lost most of the genetic diversity in food crops. Experts also agree that over the long-term, this corporate agricultural focus is unsustainable for the following reasons:

It creates an out-of-balance environmental system due to overuse of pesticides, monoculture, soil erosion, and concentrated animal wastes.

It concentrates market share among a small handful of firms. This removes any market-based pricing programs and results in uncompetitive markets in which consumers suffer.

Because of the lack of genetic diversity, not only are cops more prone to disease; but humans who live near the crops (cross-pollination) are more prone to food borne disease, chemical effects, and potential radition effects from crop irradiation (for freshness).