Organic food production and consumer perspectives

Ethics and Morality

Organic Food

Instructions:

Should the promotion and use of locally-grown, non-genetically modified, organic produce, if cost effective, be a mandatory ethical responsibility of all participates within the culinary art field? Some points to include are cost effectiveness, cold weather climates that only get fresh vegetables part of the year, and the complexity of the food production system

PLEASE INCLUDE:

compare and contrast differing arguments on the topic, demonstrate your mastery of your research sources (paraphrasing, quoting and citing them).. Here you are encouraged to state your preferred viewpoint [i.e Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Ethicist, Nonconsequentialist (Rational) Ethicist, Virtue Ethicist, etc. Or some combination of the different positions] and how that viewpoint will impact on your approach to the material. A conclusion that summarizes your argument and considers the wider issues at stake.

The Sustainable Food Movement and Ethics

Introduction

The sustainable food movement embodies a fundamental challenge to the American way of life. It forces Americans to examine their lifestyle and the consequences it has on the environment, on animal life, and even on their own health. Although the sustainable food movement certainly has valid critiques of our current system of food production, it has not provided a feasible alternative to the current system that accounts for basic economic realities such as the world's growing population.

The organic food movement in particular overlooks the many benefits of the current system of food production, which allows us to produce far more food on less land than pre-industrial agriculture. Its proposal that the nation switch to a local produce model is neither necessary nor economically feasible for the United States. Thesis: From a utilitarian perspective, it would harm the interests of a large majority of society, who do not live next to small farms producing the foods that the need.

The Organic Food Movement

In Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan presents a damning critique of the American food distribution system. He illustrates how the country's huge industrial might has turned our natural, sun-based food production system into a fossil-fuel-based food production system. These fossil fuels process corn into feed for our livestock as a substitute for grass as well as corn syrup and other derivatives for humans in order to preserve packaged goods.

Pollan argues that the switch to a fossil-fuel-based system is toxic both to our environment as well as our bodies. He claims that the use of feed in lieu of grass diminishes the nutritional value of the meat produced from the livestock.

Pollan believes that we need to revolutionize our way of getting food in order to detoxify our diets and our environment. Traditional alternatives to the industrial food-distribution system, such as organic foods and certifiably "free-range" chickens, are no longer sufficient. (Pollan, 135). In fact, organic farming has simply become another branch of the industrial food-distribution system.

Pollan argues that Americans should attempt to return to a pre-industrial agricultural system. Food would be sourced locally, from family farms such as Joel Salatin's minor ecological rotation farm. (Pollan, 229). He recommends "Relationship Marketing," a food distribution system centered around the relationship between consumers and local farmers like Joe Salatin. (Pollan, 240). Such a localized food distribution system will reduce artificial costs as well as allow consumers to know what they are eating.

The Economic Feasibility of Local Production

Pollan certainly makes valid points regarding the toxicity of our current food production system. Our system of food production has much room for improvement. However, the solutions that he proposes for improving food production and distribution are not economically feasible.

The current food distribution system exists for economic reasons, not of pure malice. The current food distribution system "…does involve transportation costs, but it also puts food production where it is cheapest," in the most fertile areas of the country and away from urban centers. (Cowen). Putting them near areas where people actually live would not only be an inefficient, sub-optimal use of that land but would also reduce the amount of land available for housing. Under Pollan's system, urban areas in regions with relatively limited amounts of arable land will have a scarcity of affordable food.

The use of fossil-fuels is what allows the world to sustain a population nearing 7 billion people. Norman Borlaug, founder of the green revolution, "…estimates that the amount of nitrogen available naturally would only support a worldwide population of 4 billion souls or so." (Hurst) Thus, about 40% of the world's current population would not be alive if not for the use of artificially synthesized nitrogen, as Pollan himself noted. (Hurst)

Benefits of Current Food Production System

Pollan also overlooks the many benefits of our current food production and distribution system. The fossil fuels that Pollan derides improve our environment by reducing the need to produce forages and other inputs needed for natural fertilizers. (Hurst). This, in turn, reduces the need for expansive, costly irrigation systems. In short, it allows us to reduce the amount of land needed to produce a certain food supply, thereby preserving more land for other purposes or as reserves.

The current food production system also has key health benefits for the overall population. For one, it allows people all over the country, even those in isolated agricultural zones, access to the ingredients necessary for a balanced diet. A balanced diet is crucial for preventing health problems. However, many regions of the country, such as the Midwest, depend on distant regions on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts to supplement their carbohydrate-heavy local supply.