Sahagun 1

Evan Sahagun
Professor Olliff
ENGL 115
12 November 2014
E3T
Although industrial agriculture and food processing often may pose a detriment to society
at an individual basis, at large it is necessary for the mass which must be supported by it. The
population itself, is the largest proponent as to why the industrial food system must exist, in
place of the agrarian farming method used by itself in the past. It is in place as a sustainability
effort, and for its efficiency. The production of food, regardless of its form, is an effort to feed
those who must be fed. Because of this, a growing population means that a more efficient system
of doing so must be organized. Without it, there runs the risk of the population being underfed. A
massive, or industrial, food processing system which has been put in place, however may be
beneficial to certain companies at the head of it, would not exist if there was not a public it
needed to feed. Over time, with different methods of production changing what goes into the
food, it is now plausible and likely that an industrial food system may actually be of great
detriment to those who are being fed by it. However, its benefit by existence greatly outweighs
its negative impacts on nutrition values, for its importance in sustaining diets of the population it
provides for. Because of this, the industrial food system, which has seen great proliferation over
time, is a necessary part of the United States.
Although economics and profits definitely take part in incentivizing companies to take
upon an industrial way of processing food, the primary reason why this has become as
commonplace as it is today is the population and its growth. To say the least, such a system

Sahagun 2
would not function at all with a small population. There would be too much output with not
enough people to feed, and therefore a great surplus of food. However, once the population
grows, a sort of takeoff process begins, noted distinctly by population growth exceeding
agricultural output (Zhou 249). Although it may not be immediate, what would slowly happen is
that the consumption levels by the population would be less than satisfactorily as result of there
not being enough food, and population growth would come to a halt, and the agricultural food
system would be insufficient. For reasons such as this, the United States began to need an
industrial food system when its population came to a certain point that agriculture alone was
overshadowed by it.
One of the key ingredients of this process that was taken up by the United States is corn.
A simple grain when spoken of lightly as this, however massively important to a process which
keeps Americans fed. Although a wide variety of applications have been used only since and
after its discovery by early Americans, the use of corn dates back to the early colonization time.
Farmers were adept in growing wheat on this new land, however in a new environment, its yield
was not very satisfactory, about 50:1. Corn, however, yielded about 3-6 times that. Moreover,
corn was valued for its versatility, This one plant supplied settlers with a ready-to-eat vegetable
and a storable grain, a source of fiber and animal feed, a heating fuel and an intoxicant (Pollan
25). Because of these obvious and supportive uses for the grain, it began its course of dominating
food systems in the United States. The more modern applications did obviously not come up
until later, when scientists and agriculturalists alike came up with and executed new ways to
grow and distribute the corn. A notable time for this was Fritz Habers invention of nitrogen
fertilizer. This began the more industrial agriculture which is seen today, as this new mode of
fixing nitrogen allowed farmers to nourish their corn crop with synthetic fuel, rather than direct

Sahagun 3
sunlight. Afterwards, particularly around and before the Great Depression, American farmers
overproduced corn. As reason, it was cheap today and paid to produce more, and so more corn
was output by these farmers. Adversely, the depression was weakening the buying power of
Americans, resulting in this overproduction of corn to simply be a surplus, rather than increased
profit. Along with that came various ways of deciding what to do with the corn, and thusly the
wide array of applications seen in the industrial agriculture system today, such as vegetable oil,
sugar, ethanol, starch, and many more. These start to lead into a discussion over whether or not
the industrial food system is beneficial as it poses risk on those who it feeds.
The blemish of the industrial food system is primarily its nutritional value, undermined
by that of naturally grown foods by agrarian food production. What is primarily the motive in
causing this lies in the food companies. As any other, they are profit-driven, and profitincentivized. If there is a way to cheaply produce something which would otherwise cost more
resources and money, and then place the cost on the consumer in the form of nutritional
transaction, the company would surely adopt it. Because of this simple economic standpoint of
food companies, they are encouraged, so to speak, to spend the least on producing as much food
as possible. As long as they are benefitting from it, Exactly what corn is doing in such food
systems has less to do with nutrition or taste than with economics. For the dream of liberating
food from nature is now primarily a dream of the feedersof the corporations that sell us our
food (Pollan 93). It is inarguable that industrial food is not the healthiest it can be, and that if
nutrition is the objective, industrial food would not suffice. However, this perspective is not
focused in the industrial food system, rather, on the individual it provides for. Because of this,
the individual must be accounted for, and particularly their free will. The industrial food system
is not to blame, nor should it be at fault, for the more unsightly outcomes of those who are fed by

Sahagun 4
it. The industrial food system is one way in which food is produced in the United States, and
although it is of the most popular and expansive, there is certainly choice when it comes to what
to eat. And with no stated intention of producing healthy food, it is doing no wrong. The wrong
is done by the consumer who falls to this system, and most notably, by choice.