What Makes Industrial Agriculture 'Industrial'? What are the Main Concerns?
There is no canonical definition of industrial agriculture. Some locate its origin simultaneously with the industrial revolution. Others point to the era in which the key chemical components of plant nutrients - nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus (NPK) were identified and ultimately synthesized to produce commercial fertilizers as a pivotal point of change. Still others observe that genetic modification techniques and patent protection are characteristic features of industrial agriculture in the current era.
Various definitions might serve various purposes, and almost all identify crucial transformations. But one characterization that I think marks the critical differences from other traditional modes of agricultural production is offered by the Union of Concerned Scientists' statement on "The Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture." Industrial-style agriculture is characterized by "farms [that] are often very large, highly specialized, and run like factories with large inputs of fossil fuels, pesticides and other chemicals, and synthetic fertilizers derived from oil."
One point of their critical discussion is the damage to natural systems through the use of "huge amounts of water, energy, and chemicals, often with little regard to long-term adverse effects." They note also concerns about economic costs and benefits, which they note are difficult to assess because of our incomplete understanding of potential harms.
Also noted in "Industrial Agriculture: Features": "A key feature of industrial agriculture is its cultivation of a single crop for food, feed, fiber, or fuel purposes, a practice called monoculture. Monoculture results in economies of scale that can reduce production costs and as a result the prices of commodities in the marketplace. From this primary feature, others, such as the reliance on pesticides, necessarily flow."
One of their principal concerns is the reliance on an increasingly narrow genetic base for the bulk of crops. They note that "at the beginning of the 1990s, only six varieties of corn accounted for 46 percent of the crop, nine varieties of wheat made up half of the wheat crop, and two types of peas made up 96 percent of the pea crop. Reflecting the global success of fast food, more than half the world's potato acreage is now planted with one variety of potato: the Russet Burbank favored by McDonalds."
Their website offers a number of other useful publications. An analysis of public policy impediments and opportunities for science-based sustainable farming are found in their "Toward Healthy Food and Farms." Among the main points are concerns about the amount of subsidies that skew planting decisions.
Various definitions might serve various purposes, and almost all identify crucial transformations. But one characterization that I think marks the critical differences from other traditional modes of agricultural production is offered by the Union of Concerned Scientists' statement on "The Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture." Industrial-style agriculture is characterized by "farms [that] are often very large, highly specialized, and run like factories with large inputs of fossil fuels, pesticides and other chemicals, and synthetic fertilizers derived from oil."
One point of their critical discussion is the damage to natural systems through the use of "huge amounts of water, energy, and chemicals, often with little regard to long-term adverse effects." They note also concerns about economic costs and benefits, which they note are difficult to assess because of our incomplete understanding of potential harms.
Also noted in "Industrial Agriculture: Features": "A key feature of industrial agriculture is its cultivation of a single crop for food, feed, fiber, or fuel purposes, a practice called monoculture. Monoculture results in economies of scale that can reduce production costs and as a result the prices of commodities in the marketplace. From this primary feature, others, such as the reliance on pesticides, necessarily flow."
One of their principal concerns is the reliance on an increasingly narrow genetic base for the bulk of crops. They note that "at the beginning of the 1990s, only six varieties of corn accounted for 46 percent of the crop, nine varieties of wheat made up half of the wheat crop, and two types of peas made up 96 percent of the pea crop. Reflecting the global success of fast food, more than half the world's potato acreage is now planted with one variety of potato: the Russet Burbank favored by McDonalds."
Their website offers a number of other useful publications. An analysis of public policy impediments and opportunities for science-based sustainable farming are found in their "Toward Healthy Food and Farms." Among the main points are concerns about the amount of subsidies that skew planting decisions.
Our Daily Bread (Geyrhalter, 2005):
This German documentary seeks to capture the objective reality of the modern industrialized methods by which we produce our food. The majority of the film consists of imaginative shots that portray standard processes within the European agrifood industry, such as sewing seeds, applying pesticides, harvesting crops, inseminating livestock, milking livestock, slaughtering livestock, and processing meats. Many scenes contain only diegetic sound (i.e. sound whose source is visible on the screen), granting the film a sense of raw objectivity that one may not find in more overtly politicized food documentaries.
The filmmakers utilize the official website as a medium through which to better explain their collective vision, particularly through downloadable interviews with the director and editor.
The filmmakers utilize the official website as a medium through which to better explain their collective vision, particularly through downloadable interviews with the director and editor.
King Corn (Woolf, 2007):
This documentary follows two college friends – Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis – as they move from Boston, MA to Green, IA to grow an acre of corn in the hopes of learning more about how this crop came to dominate our plates as well as our politics. In particular, the filmmakers emphasize the government’s purposeful use of subsidies as a means for encouraging farmers to produce the greatest possible yields for diminishing profits. The most telling experience comes when Ian and Curtis attempt to follow their harvest as it literally flows through our industrialized food system (in one form or another) to end up on your plate.
The film is available for free streaming here.
The PBS website is an excellent resource where you can learn more about the film and its subject matter, including a timeline on the history of corn with a specific focus on the roles of the Farm Bill and the cattle and artificial sweetener industries.
The PBS website also contains links to a variety of pertinent websites and news articles.In addition to elaborating upon the film, the official website allows users to explore some of the filmmakers’ other, like-minded projects.
The film is available for free streaming here.
The PBS website is an excellent resource where you can learn more about the film and its subject matter, including a timeline on the history of corn with a specific focus on the roles of the Farm Bill and the cattle and artificial sweetener industries.
The PBS website also contains links to a variety of pertinent websites and news articles.In addition to elaborating upon the film, the official website allows users to explore some of the filmmakers’ other, like-minded projects.
FRESH (Joanes, 2009):
This documentary serves as a critical analysis of modern industrialized agriculture, particularly scrutinizing the monoculture system and the corresponding abuse of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The primary effects of these practices include global loss of biodiversity and mutation of pests and diseases, which increases the quantity and intensity of regional food insecurities. More optimistically, FRESH also follows some of the commercial and urban farmers, food retailers, and community activists who are working to improve the quality of our food by offering healthy, ethical alternatives for conscientious consumers. Several key points highlighted in the film are:
The official website offers a variety of ways to participate in the growing fresh food movement – petitions, events, job and volunteer opportunities, and more! You can sign up for the FRESH e-mail list in order to stay updated on the latest information and actions, or you can explore the website to see what interests you most. The website also includes educational resources for grades K-12 as well as for Christian, Jewish, and Interfaith groups.
- what exactly makes the industrial model of farming industrial, and the ways it differs in its environmental impact from farms that produce a number of products simultaneously and in an interactive manner
- the fact that 70% or US row crops are grown to feed herbivores while the remaining 30% goes to feed pigs, people, and poultry
- the limited markets farmers have for the sale of their crops, given the concentration of large-scale food producers
- the nature of the poultry industry, with the chicks, feed, and standard specifications of processes determined by long-term contractual arrangements with large poultry producers
- the vast difference in economic yield per acre for industrial farms (estimated at $150) and Joel Salatan's $3000
- the arguments for decentralization of agriculture: public health, national security, individual farm profitability, crop biodiversity, expanded consumer choice, environmental impacts of enhanced soil preservation and safer waste disposal
The official website offers a variety of ways to participate in the growing fresh food movement – petitions, events, job and volunteer opportunities, and more! You can sign up for the FRESH e-mail list in order to stay updated on the latest information and actions, or you can explore the website to see what interests you most. The website also includes educational resources for grades K-12 as well as for Christian, Jewish, and Interfaith groups.
Is Modern Agriculture the Number One Enemy of the Planet?
This NPR story asks us to consider the following: "Cropland and pasture now cover 40 percent of our planet's land surface; farming consumes nearly three-quarters of all the water that humans use for any purpose; farming accounts for a third of all the emissions of greenhouse gases that humans release into the environment. (Those greenhouse emissions come from clearing forests or grassland for crops, the emissions of methane from rice paddies, and the conversion of nitrogen fertilizer into nitrous oxide — a powerful greenhouse gas.)"
The story rehearses many of the common complaints against industrial agriculture: large monoculture crops, exacerbated by contamination with pesticides and fertilizers, leads to the destruction of soil, global warming, lack of improvement and agricultural marketing in developing countries, conversion of land for growing grain for biofuels, as well as the increased demand for meat. You can hear the entire story from All Things Considered on NPR's food blog, The Salt.
The story rehearses many of the common complaints against industrial agriculture: large monoculture crops, exacerbated by contamination with pesticides and fertilizers, leads to the destruction of soil, global warming, lack of improvement and agricultural marketing in developing countries, conversion of land for growing grain for biofuels, as well as the increased demand for meat. You can hear the entire story from All Things Considered on NPR's food blog, The Salt.
Organic and Small Farms: Can They Compete Effectively?
One argument for big ag is the claim that small farmers worldwide cannot meet the needs of a growing population with a growing demand for higher caloric yields.
A 2012 meta-analysis looked at this question. Among the principal findings summarized in the Abstract of their paper, Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture, published in Nature are these:
"Our analysis of available data show that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems."
The debate will continue, but the proponents of multi-national agricultural entities, conducting large-scale farming operations in a variety of countries are the world's only realistic hope for meeting food needs for the 21st century. One of the political skirmishes arising out of the 2012 Rio+20 conference was a sense of frustration leading to the creation of the Global Organic Research Network (IGORN). One of its aims is to establish a series of research centres in the developing world.
A 2012 meta-analysis looked at this question. Among the principal findings summarized in the Abstract of their paper, Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture, published in Nature are these:
"Our analysis of available data show that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems."
The debate will continue, but the proponents of multi-national agricultural entities, conducting large-scale farming operations in a variety of countries are the world's only realistic hope for meeting food needs for the 21st century. One of the political skirmishes arising out of the 2012 Rio+20 conference was a sense of frustration leading to the creation of the Global Organic Research Network (IGORN). One of its aims is to establish a series of research centres in the developing world.
USDA Survey of Organic Farm Prevalence and Comparative Yields
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS) conducted a first-ever, highly-detailed survey of Organic agriculture for the 2008 crop year at the close of the 2007 Census of Agriculture. The data are found in at the US Census website taken from the USDA/NASS Census of Agriculture and other follow-up surveys in Charts 832 and 833. These charts contain data regarding the size of organic farm operations, number of acres of organic production for various crops,, and other information that shows the trends from 2000 through 2008, the last year for which the USDA census has information.
The next Census of Agriculture is set for 2012 and survey forms are set for mailing in December, 2012.
Here are some of the key findings found in the 2008 organic farm survey's accompanying analysis by Steven D. Savage.
The next Census of Agriculture is set for 2012 and survey forms are set for mailing in December, 2012.
Here are some of the key findings found in the 2008 organic farm survey's accompanying analysis by Steven D. Savage.
- The 1.6 million acres of harvested Organic cropland in 2008 represented 0.52% of the total US cropland.
- Organic crop acres are highly concentrated in the dry, irrigated, Western states (43%vs 12% for non-Organic.
- In the vast majority of cases national Organic average yields are moderately to substantially below those of the overall, national average: Winter Wheat (60% of overall average), Corn (71%), Soybeans (66%), Spring Wheat (47%) and Rice 59%; Grapes (51%), Apples (88%), Almonds (56%), Avocados (62%),Oranges (43%), Strawberries (58%); Tomatoes (63%), Potatoes (72%), Sweet Corn (79%),Celery (50%) and Cabbage (43%)
- To have Organically produced the full output of 2008 US crops, it would have been necessary to harvest from an additional 121.7 million acres of cropland (based on 30 major crops and excluding crops for which Organic growers might be growing specialty type) - a 39% increase over current US cropland, or the equivalent of all the current cropland acres in Iowa, Illinois, North Dakota, Florida, Kansas,Minnesota combined
Lower Yields from Organic Farms, but With Enhanced Soil Fertility
A 2002 report, Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming, published in Science details results from a 21-year study of agronomic and ecological performance of biodynamic, bioorganic, and conventional farming systems in Central Europe. The abstract reads as follows: "We found crop yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems, although input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34 to 53% and pesticide input by 97%. Enhanced soil fertility and higher biodiversity found in organic plots may render these systems less dependent on external inputs."
Global Estimates of Capacity of Organic Farm Methods to Feed the World
A 2006 study, Organic agriculture and the global food supply, looks at 293 sites estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. The authors' abstract reads as follows:
"We also evaluated the amount of nitrogen potentially available from fixation by leguminous cover crops used as fertilizer. Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystems suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use. These results indicate that organic agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply, while reducing the detrimental environmental impacts of conventional agriculture."
"We also evaluated the amount of nitrogen potentially available from fixation by leguminous cover crops used as fertilizer. Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystems suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use. These results indicate that organic agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply, while reducing the detrimental environmental impacts of conventional agriculture."
Environmental Impacts of Conventional and Organic Farming Techniques
Oxford University scientists analysed data from 71 studies published in peer-reviewed journals that compared organic and conventional farms in Europe. The authors of the forthcoming study to be published in the Journal of Environmental Management argue that there are mixed results in evaluating overall environmental impact, and that part of the differences in impact is due to variation in specific techniques within both categories. for example, they found that organic milk, cereals, and pork all generated higher greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product than their conventionally farmed counterparts. Organic beef and olives had lower emissions in most cases. In general organic products required less energy input, but more land than the same quantity of conventional products. Generally organic farms had 30% higher species richness than conventional farms but a minority of studies (16%) suggested that organic farming could have a negative impact on species richness.
Organic Pesticides and Fertilizers
Organic farming involves the use of pesticides and fungicides classified as organic by the US government. See The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances published in the Code of Federal Regulations, PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM Subpart G. The question is whether these natural - as opposed to synthetic - chemicals pose significant inherent health risks, or whether the level of their usage poses risk in the form of excessive food residue. Skeptics note that " just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely wouldn’t want sprayed on your food."
Chemical Intensification in Developing Nations
The Global Chemicals Outlook released in September, 2012 by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) warns that "chemical intensification" in developing nations is associated with the achievement of development goals but that it also poses concerns about health and environmental risks that are not adequately monitored in most instances.
Chemical 'intensification' of economies "means that synthetic chemicals are fast becoming the largest constituents of waste streams and pollution around the world - thereby increasing the exposure of humans and habitats to chemical hazards."
Some of the main concerns in the report arise out of agricultural practices. The report estimates the annual costs of poisonings from pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa at USD $90 billion. Among the report's recommendations is the use of
integrated pest management (IPM), which involves using fewer chemicals, and introducing alternative methods such as crop rotation, providing conditions for natural enemies of pests and better pest monitoring.
Among the highlighted concerns the summary statement includes are the following points:
You can find online from the UNEP an extensive summary of the report issued as a press release.
Chemical 'intensification' of economies "means that synthetic chemicals are fast becoming the largest constituents of waste streams and pollution around the world - thereby increasing the exposure of humans and habitats to chemical hazards."
Some of the main concerns in the report arise out of agricultural practices. The report estimates the annual costs of poisonings from pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa at USD $90 billion. Among the report's recommendations is the use of
integrated pest management (IPM), which involves using fewer chemicals, and introducing alternative methods such as crop rotation, providing conditions for natural enemies of pests and better pest monitoring.
Among the highlighted concerns the summary statement includes are the following points:
- Of the estimated 140,000+ chemicals on the market today, only a fraction has been thoroughly evaluated to determine their effects on human health and the environment.
- Among primarily OECD countries, the data indicate that inorganic chemicals such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid and organic chemicals such as styrene, formaldehyde, toluene and acetaldehyde are routinely among the air pollutants released in the highest quantities.
- Pollutants commonly discharged in large quantities in primarily OECD countries to surface waters include inorganic chemicals such as nitric acid/nitrate compounds, ammonia and manganese and organic chemicals such as methanol, ethylene glycol, phenol, toluene, and formaldehyde.
- Estimates suggest that up to 75 per cent of the e-waste generated in Europe and approximately 80 per cent of the e-waste generated in the United States goes unaccounted for.
- Poisonings from industrial and agricultural chemicals are among the top five leading causes of death worldwide, contributing to over 1 million deaths annually and 14 million Disability Adjusted Life Years. The scope of unintended industrial accidents involving chemicals continues to grow rapidly.
You can find online from the UNEP an extensive summary of the report issued as a press release.
While Costs to the rich may be contained by global markets, the costs for the global poor may go up
The Cost of Food for the Global Poor click image for a larger view
2009 World Bank figures showing the higher percentages of income that the poor spend for food. One implication of data of this sort is that the poor are far more vulnerable to disaster from even relatively minor fluctuations in global food prices.
|
Oxfam Predictions of 2030 Food Costs click on image for a larger view
Oxfam, the international aid and development organization, estimates that food prices may jump by as much as 180% by 2030.
See their 2011 report, Growing a Better Future: Food Justice in A Resource-Constrained World for the basis of their projections and their proposals for meeting the challenge. |
Wasted Food: Some Global Perspectives
A January 2013 report, Global Food; Waste Not, Want Not concludes that between 30% and 50% of the 4 billion tons of food produced annually around the world is wasted. That amounts to 1.2 to two billion tons that never gets eaten. The report produced by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers is a truly remarkable document not merely because of the staggering facts it highlights but for the analytical framework it brings to bear. It is a tragedy that so much food that could be used to feed the world's growing population is wasted, but behind that tragedy lie additional levels of resource waste that often do not get folded into the calculus when the focus is on hunger.
As the Executive summary notes, "this figure does not reflect the fact that large amounts of land, energy, fertilizers and water have also been lost in the production of foodstuffs which simply end up as waste. This level of wastage is a tragedy that cannot continue if we are to succeed in the challenge of sustainably meeting our future food demands."
For example, the report estimates that around 550 billion cubic metres of water is used to grow crops that never reach the consumer. The report details quantitative estimates for the amount of associated wastes in other agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, and energy.
The report also analyzes the point within the production and distribution process that waste is most likely to occur within different economic settings. On really significant fact is that the problem of waste in countries such as the UK and the US is fundamenatlly different in cause and possible remedy than in lesser developed and developing nations. In less-developed countries, waste tends to occur primarily at the production end of the supply chain due to inefficient harvesting, inadequate local transportation and poor infrastructure for storing and protection against spoilage. At higher levels of economic development the problem tends to arise further up the supply chain because of deficiencies in regional and national infrastructure necessary for timely and safe shipment within domestic and international markets.
In developed nations, food is harvested more efficiently and makes its way to markets in timely fashion and good condition, but it is wasted because of behavior of retailers or consumers. Supermarkets often reject entire crops of perfectly edible fruit and vegetables at the farm because "they do not meet marketing standards for their physical characteristics, such as size and appearance." Moreover, the report estimates that between 30% and 50% of what has been bought in developed countries is thrown away by the purchaser."
As the Executive summary notes, "this figure does not reflect the fact that large amounts of land, energy, fertilizers and water have also been lost in the production of foodstuffs which simply end up as waste. This level of wastage is a tragedy that cannot continue if we are to succeed in the challenge of sustainably meeting our future food demands."
For example, the report estimates that around 550 billion cubic metres of water is used to grow crops that never reach the consumer. The report details quantitative estimates for the amount of associated wastes in other agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, and energy.
The report also analyzes the point within the production and distribution process that waste is most likely to occur within different economic settings. On really significant fact is that the problem of waste in countries such as the UK and the US is fundamenatlly different in cause and possible remedy than in lesser developed and developing nations. In less-developed countries, waste tends to occur primarily at the production end of the supply chain due to inefficient harvesting, inadequate local transportation and poor infrastructure for storing and protection against spoilage. At higher levels of economic development the problem tends to arise further up the supply chain because of deficiencies in regional and national infrastructure necessary for timely and safe shipment within domestic and international markets.
In developed nations, food is harvested more efficiently and makes its way to markets in timely fashion and good condition, but it is wasted because of behavior of retailers or consumers. Supermarkets often reject entire crops of perfectly edible fruit and vegetables at the farm because "they do not meet marketing standards for their physical characteristics, such as size and appearance." Moreover, the report estimates that between 30% and 50% of what has been bought in developed countries is thrown away by the purchaser."
Food Production Seen as An Engineering Problem: Consumer Demand for Convenience and Beyond
click image for link
What happens on the farm is but the beginning of the industrialized system of global food production that has emerged in the latter half of the 20th Century. "Agribusiness" - a term coined by John Davis, President Eisenhower's Assistant Secretary of Agriculture - involves every step of the supply chain from farm to table, and increasingly, the main steps in the transformation of what we eat lie in the stages of processing that occur beyond the farm.
The concept of "processed food" is a familiar but ill-defined notion. Food industry insiders often define it quite broadly. We might include all fruits and vegetables that have been cut, chopped, cooked, dried, canned, or packaged. But obviously there is a great deal of difference between food items that have been cut, washed, and bagged with minimal preparation or adulteration and items that have been converted into snacks and entres by way of processes that involve chemical additives, preservatives, emulsifiers, stabilizers, flavor enhancers, binders, nutrition supplements and vitamin replacements, and dyes.
Much of the diet of the developed world - and increasingly within the developing world - consists of "ultra-processed" foods that contain many of these exotic, synthesized ingredients having unpronouncable names. But these ingredients often make their way into foods as companions to other key ingredients that are seemingly ordinary food substances such as salt, sugar, and fat. Scientific evidence reveals that each of these when consumed in excess are major threats to human health. They are major contributors to obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and other chronic health problems.
But this just in: an expert panel of the Institute of Medicine has just released a study, Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence. In its review of the supporting scientific evidence underlying the recommended daily maximum levels of sodium (2300 mg for most adults, 1500 for some groups) the panel cast doubt on whether there is adequate basis for those recommendations. The average daily sodium intake around the world is 3400mg).
Ultra-processed foods are dense in salt, sugar, and fat, and often not rich in nutritional value. Given the worries about one of more of these ingredients, why then do consumers buy these products?
Many of the answers are found in Michael Moss's readable tale of the origins of the modern processed food industry. It is a compelling book, carefully documented (see his non-standard reference section that does the work of footnotes without the actual inclusion of footnotes). It is a curiously dispassionate book, written without a hint of outrage, almost wholly lacking in the assignment of blame, and told from the point of view of those who created the food industry geared for the sole purpose of making food consumption convenient. Perhaps the dispassionate tone is a consequence of recognizing the extent to which our food producers were responsive to the fact that seismic cultural shifts - in particular the change of women's roles in the workplace outside the home - has so much to do with the demand for convenience.
Moss tells us that Charles Morton of General Foods coined the phrase "convenience food" (p. 46) and that the notion comprehends a variety of ways in which convenience has come to be understood and built into what we eat. Convenience foods must be "easy to buy, store, open, prepare, and eat" (p. 56). Convenience food responds to and shapes the reality of how most people consume their calories. People prepare fewer of their meals at home from basic ingredients; people have fewer of their meals at home; and people get more of their calories from snacks rather than from traditional meals alone.
In order to make food convenient a number of engineering problems have to be solved. Foods have to be cooked or otherwise prepared in ways that can be preserved on the shelf for extended times without degrading from bacteria or having the ingredients separate. Foods that can be prepared at home in reduced time have to be altered to reduce cooking time, for example, by adding chemicals to pudding so that the process of extended cooking and stirring is simulated. Foods such as cereals have to be extruded through high-heat production processes that kill off both flavors and nutrients. The production of fruit juice concentrates strip out fibers, vitamins and aromas. In short, the quest for convenience creates new problems that require technological fixes, and the solutions often involve a cocktail of artificial chemical additives that interact with salt, sugar, and fat to restore taste, nutritional value lost by the very processes necessary for extended shelf-life and ease of purchase and consumption.
Thus, one reason that more foods are full of salt, sugar, and fat is that they are an inherent part of the technological fix for problems generated by the demand for convenience. And they are the foods that consumers want because they like the taste. But there are deeper questions to be asked, pushing the causal story well beyond a simple market demand analysis. Food is also engineered to increase its taste appeal in order to ensure that these products gain a larger share of the food consumption of each consumer and to encourage each consumer to increase the overall quantity of consumption. So ultra-processed foods that are intrinsically based on high levels of salt, sugar, and fat to make them appealing to consumers are engineered for the further purpose of having them replace other food options and to encourage greater aggregate food consumption in order to drive profits even higher.
Decisions about the ingredient composition are not made simply on hunches, focus groups, or ideas about what sort of slogans will power successful marketing campaigns. In addition, food production is driven by the findings of basic science that map the process of sensory impact from taste receptors on the tongue to regions of the brain where pleasure sensations are experienced. From the basic science we know that the effects of eating food and consuming various drugs "race along the same pathways, using the same neurological circuitry to reach the brain's pleasure zones" (p. 276). Moreover, we know that for suger there is an optimum sweetness level (the bliss point) for sugar, that increases in fat content continues to enhance sensory pleasure without any signals of satiation, that the two in combination increase the desire for more than people would seek in isolation, and that highly refined versions of these ingredients bring immediate pleasure. And we know that the more people consume salt the more they crave it and the more they consume the more it becomes necessary to consume at higher levels in order to experience the same level of enjoyment.
Salt, sugar, and fat figure increasing in processed foods for a third reason. They are often cheap alternatives to natural flavors and ingredients. Synthetic combinations of these ingredients can mimic the tastes that would be costly to produce.
The story then is a complex one leading to a widespread pattern of consumption of engineered food. Convenience drives an initial decision to include high levels of all three ingredients in tandem with other additives in processed foods, and enhanced desire for the ingredients essential to the production of processed food drives still further consumption of these ingredients, and cost-cutting adds further reasons to add them into the mix.
The way of life and the associated health problems of convenience foods is self-sustaining. We know also that children who are "heavy users" of sodas and convenience foods high in salt, sugar, and fat tend to be heavy users for life, and we know that overweight children tend to stay overweight for life. And we know that there is a significant social class element of this story. Consumption within the lower income and education strata is higher, but on an anecdotal level, Moss notes that food company executives tend not to eat the very products they sell. Nor do they shop in the convenience markets where the bulk of such food is marketed to the economically disadvantaged for whom convenience and low prices are powerful incentives.
Moreover, consumers have very little ability to sort out the evidence for themselves because of conflicting messages that government itself sends (conflicting messages beyond the see-saw of scientific studies released to the public). Food companies enlist government agencies such as the US Department of Agriculture to market high fat products such as dairy and red meat and pressure agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to back off from meaningful warning labels or other forms of regulation that might reduce the levels of salt, sugar, and fat in our diets.
The concept of "processed food" is a familiar but ill-defined notion. Food industry insiders often define it quite broadly. We might include all fruits and vegetables that have been cut, chopped, cooked, dried, canned, or packaged. But obviously there is a great deal of difference between food items that have been cut, washed, and bagged with minimal preparation or adulteration and items that have been converted into snacks and entres by way of processes that involve chemical additives, preservatives, emulsifiers, stabilizers, flavor enhancers, binders, nutrition supplements and vitamin replacements, and dyes.
Much of the diet of the developed world - and increasingly within the developing world - consists of "ultra-processed" foods that contain many of these exotic, synthesized ingredients having unpronouncable names. But these ingredients often make their way into foods as companions to other key ingredients that are seemingly ordinary food substances such as salt, sugar, and fat. Scientific evidence reveals that each of these when consumed in excess are major threats to human health. They are major contributors to obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and other chronic health problems.
But this just in: an expert panel of the Institute of Medicine has just released a study, Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence. In its review of the supporting scientific evidence underlying the recommended daily maximum levels of sodium (2300 mg for most adults, 1500 for some groups) the panel cast doubt on whether there is adequate basis for those recommendations. The average daily sodium intake around the world is 3400mg).
Ultra-processed foods are dense in salt, sugar, and fat, and often not rich in nutritional value. Given the worries about one of more of these ingredients, why then do consumers buy these products?
Many of the answers are found in Michael Moss's readable tale of the origins of the modern processed food industry. It is a compelling book, carefully documented (see his non-standard reference section that does the work of footnotes without the actual inclusion of footnotes). It is a curiously dispassionate book, written without a hint of outrage, almost wholly lacking in the assignment of blame, and told from the point of view of those who created the food industry geared for the sole purpose of making food consumption convenient. Perhaps the dispassionate tone is a consequence of recognizing the extent to which our food producers were responsive to the fact that seismic cultural shifts - in particular the change of women's roles in the workplace outside the home - has so much to do with the demand for convenience.
Moss tells us that Charles Morton of General Foods coined the phrase "convenience food" (p. 46) and that the notion comprehends a variety of ways in which convenience has come to be understood and built into what we eat. Convenience foods must be "easy to buy, store, open, prepare, and eat" (p. 56). Convenience food responds to and shapes the reality of how most people consume their calories. People prepare fewer of their meals at home from basic ingredients; people have fewer of their meals at home; and people get more of their calories from snacks rather than from traditional meals alone.
In order to make food convenient a number of engineering problems have to be solved. Foods have to be cooked or otherwise prepared in ways that can be preserved on the shelf for extended times without degrading from bacteria or having the ingredients separate. Foods that can be prepared at home in reduced time have to be altered to reduce cooking time, for example, by adding chemicals to pudding so that the process of extended cooking and stirring is simulated. Foods such as cereals have to be extruded through high-heat production processes that kill off both flavors and nutrients. The production of fruit juice concentrates strip out fibers, vitamins and aromas. In short, the quest for convenience creates new problems that require technological fixes, and the solutions often involve a cocktail of artificial chemical additives that interact with salt, sugar, and fat to restore taste, nutritional value lost by the very processes necessary for extended shelf-life and ease of purchase and consumption.
Thus, one reason that more foods are full of salt, sugar, and fat is that they are an inherent part of the technological fix for problems generated by the demand for convenience. And they are the foods that consumers want because they like the taste. But there are deeper questions to be asked, pushing the causal story well beyond a simple market demand analysis. Food is also engineered to increase its taste appeal in order to ensure that these products gain a larger share of the food consumption of each consumer and to encourage each consumer to increase the overall quantity of consumption. So ultra-processed foods that are intrinsically based on high levels of salt, sugar, and fat to make them appealing to consumers are engineered for the further purpose of having them replace other food options and to encourage greater aggregate food consumption in order to drive profits even higher.
Decisions about the ingredient composition are not made simply on hunches, focus groups, or ideas about what sort of slogans will power successful marketing campaigns. In addition, food production is driven by the findings of basic science that map the process of sensory impact from taste receptors on the tongue to regions of the brain where pleasure sensations are experienced. From the basic science we know that the effects of eating food and consuming various drugs "race along the same pathways, using the same neurological circuitry to reach the brain's pleasure zones" (p. 276). Moreover, we know that for suger there is an optimum sweetness level (the bliss point) for sugar, that increases in fat content continues to enhance sensory pleasure without any signals of satiation, that the two in combination increase the desire for more than people would seek in isolation, and that highly refined versions of these ingredients bring immediate pleasure. And we know that the more people consume salt the more they crave it and the more they consume the more it becomes necessary to consume at higher levels in order to experience the same level of enjoyment.
Salt, sugar, and fat figure increasing in processed foods for a third reason. They are often cheap alternatives to natural flavors and ingredients. Synthetic combinations of these ingredients can mimic the tastes that would be costly to produce.
The story then is a complex one leading to a widespread pattern of consumption of engineered food. Convenience drives an initial decision to include high levels of all three ingredients in tandem with other additives in processed foods, and enhanced desire for the ingredients essential to the production of processed food drives still further consumption of these ingredients, and cost-cutting adds further reasons to add them into the mix.
The way of life and the associated health problems of convenience foods is self-sustaining. We know also that children who are "heavy users" of sodas and convenience foods high in salt, sugar, and fat tend to be heavy users for life, and we know that overweight children tend to stay overweight for life. And we know that there is a significant social class element of this story. Consumption within the lower income and education strata is higher, but on an anecdotal level, Moss notes that food company executives tend not to eat the very products they sell. Nor do they shop in the convenience markets where the bulk of such food is marketed to the economically disadvantaged for whom convenience and low prices are powerful incentives.
Moreover, consumers have very little ability to sort out the evidence for themselves because of conflicting messages that government itself sends (conflicting messages beyond the see-saw of scientific studies released to the public). Food companies enlist government agencies such as the US Department of Agriculture to market high fat products such as dairy and red meat and pressure agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to back off from meaningful warning labels or other forms of regulation that might reduce the levels of salt, sugar, and fat in our diets.