Matthew Watson

SOCL 399
Philosophy of Food
May 10, 2016
Vertical, Urban Agriculture as a Solution to Metabolic Rift
Introduction
In the year 1900 the average American farm was just shy of 150 acres in size (Census of
Agriculture, 1940). More recently, the United States Department of Agriculture found that the
midpoint acreage for domestic cropland was 1,105 acres in 2007 (MacDonald et. al. 2013).
When grocery shopping, many of us would like to imagine that the owner of a small, bucolic
farm personally selected our food with care, but, from these figures, it is abundantly clear that
this scenario is highly improbable. Historically, as crop subsidies became more prevalent and
farms began to consolidate in the agricultural industry, small-holder farmers were no longer able
to operate independently, while still being successful. This phenomenon was paralleled by
broader societal trends of urbanization, as well as the penetration of neoliberal ideology into
national economic policy. Because of these changes in socio-economic conditions, the food
system has come to rely on vast, industrialized farms and lengthy food chains in order to provide
the quantity and variety of cheap foods that our consuming, urban public desires. If a smallholder farmer wants to exist within this space, they must generally become highly specialized, in
which case their method of farming rarely has the capacity to scale or give them any real
influence within the industry.

These systematic developments have created a conventional industry of agriculture that

fosters rampant labor abuse, widespread environmental destruction, and unsustainable business
practices. Such enormous and ever-mounting social costs of modern farming are often viewed
by corporations as externalities, which corporations ignore and simply pass on to taxpayers,
or to future generations (Albritton 2010:349). I view these detriments as being directly
attributable to the growing disconnect between producers and consumers. Throughout this paper,
I will discuss this disconnect, which I view as a result of agribusiness and agribusiness-policy,
from the theoretical lens of Karl Marxs concept of Metabolic Rift. Considered through this
frame, Metabolic Rift explicates the causes of environmental crises that occur alongside
capitalism, and aids in making visible the growing separation between the Individual, the Social,
and the Ecological. Subsequently, due to trends of urbanization in populations, and the
industrialization of food production, I assert that the un-conventional, hyperlocal growing
opportunities offered by certain forms of vertical, urban agriculture have the capacity to mend
the Metabolic Rift that affects people and their food systems. Within this article, I explain how
vertical farming can have the scaling ability and potential impact to achieve this objective; I also
assert that farmers have a responsibility to adopt such technologies in order to maintain the
integrity of farmings tradition and values.

Theoretical Lens
While primarily considered as a thought leader in the field of classical sociology, Karl
Marxs contributions to environmental sociology have also been praised by numerous scholars,
including John Bellamy Foster. In his article, Marxs Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical
Foundations for Environmental Sociology, Foster highlights Marxs interest with these

environmental topics by analyzing his writings on the political economy, which theorize around
items such as soil fertility, organic recycling, and sustainability (1999:370). During the writing
of Capital, Marx became fascinated by research on soil science and fertility, which was being
completed by two soil chemists whom he respected, Justus von Liebig and Christian Freidrich
Schonbein. As he worked on his critique of capitalist ground rent, he also wrote to his coauthor, Freidrich Engels, and said, I had to plough through the new agricultural chemistry being
done in Germany which is more important for this matter than all the economists put together
(Foster 1999:378). This research led Marx to theorize his concept of a capitalist exploitation
of the soil, which formed the foundation for his proposal of Metabolic Rift (Foster 1999:379).
In the first volume of Capital, Marx addresses this exploitation, and condemns certain effects of
capitalism, writing: it [capitalist production] disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and
the earth, i.e. it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the
form of food and clothing going to claim, Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the
techniques and the degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously
undermining the original sources of all wealththe soil and the worker. (Marx 1975: 63738).
Through this framing, we are witness to the theoretical breakdown between Individual, Social,
and Ecological that Marx later lays out.
Metabolic rift, at its foundation, is therefore the large scale aggregation and processing of
resources to make products, without replacing those same resources that have been used to
support ones efforts. As capitalism, industrialization, and urbanization progress, these systems
and their participants drive a wedge between people and their land, causing an exacerbation of
historical tensions between urban and rural areas the countryside and the city (Lewis
2014:243). The more that people become detached from the ground and resources that they

depend on, and the more that food and nutrients are taken from native soil and shipped into cities
to feed urban populations, the greater the public apathy around environmental responsibility,
recycling, and stewardship will be. Subsequently, this rifting of interdependent relationships
creates opportunity for large agri-businesses to step into their roles of carving up and dividing a
nations land into huge swaths, whose resources then become accessible to only a few. It follows,
then, that agribusiness, in an increasingly neoliberal framework, gains the ability to dominate
trade, control and further exploit the land, and take whatever it can for profit maximization. In
seeking to disrupt this damaging trend found in agricultural markets today, I assert that
conscientious, environmentally friendly urban agriculture models can begin to repair a Metabolic
Rift that has been historically crafted, and can reconnect the act and spaces involved with food
production back to the common, modern citizen.
Is Large-Scale Urban Agriculture Beneficial?
Within this section, I explore if urban agriculture can theoretically repair some of the
societal damage enacted by certain forms of traditional, conventional agribusiness. Two main
points of consideration must be entertained in order to gain insight into this prompt. First, the
organizational methods available for large-scale, vertical, urban food production require
examination. Second, the social dichotomy between the town and country must be analyzed, to
see what processes are needed to break down these barriers and effectively scale urban
agriculture efforts. A discussion of these aspects enables us to postulate how we might make
steps towards addressing the Metabolic Rift in our American food system.
In terms of the organizational and methodological aspects of urban growing, because I
am examining the feasibility of implementing large-scale systems of metropolitan food

production, space and efficiency are incredibly crucial constraints to inner-city farming. A
methodology that would be widely applicable across various urban zones must ultimately solve
for problems surrounding space, recycling of resources, and waste management, among other
issues. In the book, Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs, and Sustainable Cities, Jac Smit highlights
input-output theory as a useful tool for thinking about how to solve some of these problems.
Input-output theory traces how resources and their usage are characterized within a city, this
either being open-loop (which cities often are), meaning that resources flow in and wastes flow
out, versus closed-loop, in which waste must not be regarded as a disposal problem, but as a
resource for sustainable development (Jac Smit 2001:10). Therefore, when exploring urban
agricultural solutions, we must be cognizant of how they maximize the usage of space and waste
within the communities in which they would be installed.
To gain insight into organizational approaches to urban food production, I choose to
explore vertical farming as a solution, in order to determine how it may offer opportunities to
repair the Metabolic Rift. I also examine how this system of production would be managed, as
integration into the urban community is immensely important. Vertical farming has the capacity
to entail a great many forms, but namely it is representative of a farm that is scientifically
engineered to fit within a small spatial footprint. Primarily designed to coalesce with the existing
vertical arrangement of a citys infrastructure, the objective of vertical farming is to provide the
most efficient means of generating large amounts of food goods where there typically would not
be the average farm space to do so. This method of farming is most frequently conducted using
the technologies of hydroponics and aquaponics. These are complex, engineered systems of food
production that use a growing medium, rather than soil, as well as climate-controlled

environments, which ensure that the density and growth rate of crop production is significantly
higher than that of ordinary means of farming.
Vertical farming is viewed as a promising new food system development in the eyes of
many, not only because of its conservation of space, but also because of its radically more
resource-efficient, closed-loop production methods. For instance, vertical farming offers year
round produce, no crops lost to weather events, no use of fossil fuels to harvest, transport and
refrigerate, no use of pesticides and herbicides, as well as the ability to use far less water (70%
[less]) than outdoor farming (Despommier 2010:234). In the case of aquaponics, the system of
production becomes even more environmentally friendly and can generate larger amounts of
food than hydroponics alone. Aquaponic systems are structured by connecting a traditional
hydroponic growing setup to a series of fish-tanks. This enables the nutrients from the fish
excrement to be utilized as fertilizer for the plants, which can then provide clean water back into
the tanks to grow fish for harvest. Though there are concerns regarding electricity usage in these
types of farming operations, this energy can be obtained through clean energy sources, to
create a fully closed-loop.
Additionally, because these establishments can operate within a small space profile,
which could exist on top of a city roof or on multiple levels throughout a skyscraper, they have
the ability to be implemented to a large degree throughout a city environment. This scaling
capacity can have huge impacts on how certain foods would be purchased and consumed within
a citys limit. For instance, it was estimated that, in Cleveland, it would take just 969 acres of
rooftop hydroponic gardening to make the city 100% self-reliant on all of its fresh and processed
vegetables (Grewal & Grewal 2011:5). In comparison, this is smaller than just one average-sized
farm in the United States in 2007; additionally, it would require nearly triple the amount of

acreage to produce the same amount via intensive urban gardening, and around fifteen times
the space to achieve that through conventional urban gardening (Grewal & Grewal 2011:5).
Because of the technological complexities involved with this method of urban growing,
many of the successful, large-scale vertical farming initiatives throughout United States cities
were implemented by ambitious, well-funded start-ups. Due to the materials, infrastructure, and
land required, the construction and operation of these farms is capital-intensive, and has been
best suited to a firm-centered approach to management. A number of the major players within
the vertical farming industry, including FarmedHere, Freight Farms, Aerofarms, and Freshbox
Farms, have all been recipients of venture capital and rely on large investments to maintain their
operations. Moreover, this entrepreneurial situation within the field of vertical farming generates
a situation in which these companies are on the forefront of creating an entirely new urban
agricultural industry, one which stands in direct contrast to the intentionally smaller forms of
urban food production, such as community gardening. Subsequently, these businesses are
becoming more industrialized, like big agribusinesses, yet they are also moving into cities and
becoming closer to consumers. So, a question then emerges around how they can ensure that
they become integrated into the communities of these cities and engage with their people in a
manner that mends the Metabolic Rift, as opposed to accelerating it.
In his article, Vertical Farming: Social Work and Sustainable Urban Agriculture in an
Age of Global Food Crises, Fred H. Besthorn provides a social work approach to appropriately
handling this integration, so that people, as consumers and citizens, are able to have a more
direct relationship with their food. To ground his argument, Besthorn forefronts the current
problems that exist in urban food systems, including food insecurity and lack of food
sovereignty. While not necessarily directly caused by the Metabolic Rift between social,

ecological, and individual, Besthorn does point towards the current food systems impediments
to food access as a factor exacerbating these social problems (2013:192). He claims, however,
that from a macro perspective, vertical farms ensure greater community involvement as urban
neighborhoods have greater voice and participation in producing their food locally (Besthorn
2013:195). Vertical farming can also offer a variety of solutions to deep-seated structural issues,
such as poverty and unemployment, by ensuring that a sizable number of workers are employed,
not only by the farm itself, but also through opportunities like construct[ing] and maintain[ing]
the farm, and working within the surrounding food industry at supermarkets, restaurants, and
other eateries (Besthorn 2013:196). Moreover, having the ability to grow fresh, nutritious
produce at a level that increasingly approaches self-reliance for a city would also likely place an
influx of healthy foods into local communities, and ultimately drive the price of such goods
down once efficient distribution systems become established. Therefore, Besthorn defends
vertical farming as a potential social benefit in the daily experiences of community members,
provided that the farms are appropriately integrated.
To achieve this integration, social work can assist in opening up avenues of
communication between these farm businesses and the communities that they will be in close
proximity to, and become so entwined with. Social workers abilities can also be leveraged to
provide a comprehensive assessment of community needs, resources, and strengths, which
could help to aid in the effective establishment of these forms of businesses (Besthorn
2013:197). Moreover, Besthorn claims that by engaging with residents of the cities and
communities in which these businesses will be, social workers can determine what types of foods
would be culturally appropriate to be grown on-site, or how the customers would like them to be
packaged, distributed, or prepared (2013:198). Therefore, social work, and community-centered

business models can provide farm-owners with greater insight into the demands of the customers
and individuals who they are articulating with, and help relieve the distancing that they feel on a
daily basis from their available food. This social-work driven approach can also help to alleviate
the problems involved with rigidity and a disconnected industrialization that firm-managed
agricultural reform in our food system might promote. Subsequently, the incorporation of
ideologies and practices from social work may prove useful in ensuring that, despite its probable
organization as a large-scale industry, vertical farming can still produce the reparations of a
relationship between Ecological, Individual, and Social, from within the industry itself.

Conclusion
With the development of successful vertical farming technologies, an opportunity, and
necessity, to break down a socio-historically generated antithesis between town and country
has emerged (McClintock 2009:195). Bernard Stiegler puts forth an understanding of agriculture
as meaning, a care taken of the world, and claims that It is a very limited view of history or of
protohistory that opposes town and country. There are only towns insofar as farmlands
formed (Stiegler 2006). From this point of comprehension, he guides us to think not only about
taking care of nature, but also of the world, and encourages a consideration of new technologies,
saying the putting to work of these technologies must be accomplished through a
socialisation which cultivates a care and a trust [confiance]and which constitutes a new
culture, and a new agriculture (Stiegler 2006). From what we have been witness to, in
industrialized, modern agriculture the technologies that have been put to work within the
industry are not to be trusted by those who they produce food for, and they also do not care for
nature nor the world. Subsequently, a breakdown in relationships among the earth, its people,

and the individual consumer has fostered the Metabolic Rift that Marx proposed, and continues
to plague our food systems today. In Stieglers conception of agriculture, however, producers
and consumers have a duty to put forth forms of innovation that are trusted and good, in order to
develop new agriculture and achieve reform. When so many of the fundamental issues that
perpetuate distrust and rifts within our food systems derive from the current, flawed methods of
food production, a suitable alternative is needed. That alternative has presented itself in the form
of vertical farming a way to breach divides between town and country and to build trust among
producers and consumers. The systemically embedded order of industry and urbanization are not
likely to change any time soon, but the ways that we grow food and take care of our planet and
our people can; the time for reform is now.

Works Cited
Albritton, R. (2013). Between Obesity and Hunger: The Capitalist Food Industry. In C. Counihan
& P. Van Esterik (Eds.), Food and Culture: A Reader (Third ed., pp. 342-352). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Besthorn, Fred H. "Vertical Farming: Social Work And Sustainable Urban Agriculture In An
Age Of Global Food Crises." Australian Social Work 66.2 (2013): 187-203. SocINDEX with Full
Text. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Census of Agriculture 1940 [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved May 11, 2016, from
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/1940/03/02/1275/Table-01.pdf
Despommier, Dickson. "The vertical farm: controlled environment agriculture carried out in tall
buildings would create greater food safety and security for large urban populations." Journal fr
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit 6.2 (2011): 233-236.
Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental
Sociology 1. American journal of sociology, 105(2), 366-405.
Grewal, S. S., & Grewal, P. S. (2012). Can cities become self-reliant in food?.Cities, 29(1), 1-11.
Lewis, Q. (2014). Manure Manufactories: Materializing the Metabolic Rift in NineteenthCentury Deerfield, Massachusetts. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 18(2), 242258.
MacDonald, J. M., Korb, P., & Hoppe, R. A. (2013). Farm size and the organization of US crop
farming. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Marx, C. (1975). Vol. 1. Complete Works of Marx and Engels, 23, 578.
McClintock, Nathan. "Why farm the city? Theorizing urban agriculture through a lens of
metabolic rift." Cambridge Journal of regions, economy and society(2010): rsq005.
Smit, Jac, Joe Nasr, and Annu Ratta. "Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities." New
York, USA (1996).
Stiegler, Bernard. "Take Care."." tr. di S. Arnold, P. Crogan e D. Ross), Ars Industrialis:
http://arsindustrialis. org/node/2925 (2006).