The Future of Food.
The Future of Food Introduction The Future of Food is a documentary film by Deborah Koons Garcia of the year 2004. It defines an investigation into genetically engineered, unlabelled and patented foods sell in grocery stores. The documentary explores the opinions of farmers who disagree with the food industry. This also covers the details of the impacts in their livelihoods and lives; the political and market new technology that is changing what people eat. Farmers argue that they are legally responsible when other food company owners invade their crops. The details of the film oppose patenting living organisms and further describe the abolition of traditional cultural practices (Stephen, 2005). The Future of Food also gives an evaluated view of the cost of globalised industries of the food worldwide on human lives. It demonstrates that international food companies are driving farmers off their properties gradually in several countries. This means that monoculture farming may eventually lead to global dependence on food corporations by the human race. Ecological disasters risk may also increase because of the reduction of biological diversity. For example, subsidized US corn replacing Mexican local corn varieties. In addition to this, the film defines a substantial fear of massive losses that local food systems may incur, and that gene banks will not be accessible to save global agricultural industries (Lisa, 2007). According to the Deborah, terminator genes may lead to a catastrophe that could be widespread to affect the supply of food if they reach the plants in the wild. Several stories reported in the film revealed Monsanto Food Company suing many North American farmers. There are several ethical theories that the film covers including loss of farms, genetically modified plants, loss of crop diversity, intellectual diversity, government-industry ties, and food consolidation and the free market and food bill. The number of population farms have reduced as compared to the past century meaning the number of people in need of fresh farm produce is below 30%. Several fundamental factors contribute to the loss of farms such as better technology, advanced occupations meaningless labor force and more centralization into industrial farms meaning food companies take away land belonging to farmers (Deborah, 2004). From the interview with Andrew Kimball, these farmers need patent protection to be able to maintain their long-term investments and make new inventions. This way no company will take what rightfully belongs to them. Without pricing and patent, which supports remarkable progress, intellectual property ownership is impossible for farmers. Farmers being the sole manufacturer of fresh farm products, food companies such as the Monsanto are not able to buy seeds from farmers. This gives farmers a chance to produce revenue from their sales and recover the substantial expenditure in development. The farmer’s product remains safe until the patent expires. Monsanto being an agricultural industry delivers seeds to farmers, and when these farmers hide their seeds for their own use or competitors, Monsanto sues them for breaching their contracts (Stephen, 2005). In most cases, these farmers are not able to fight against Monsanto because it has patents, which are necessary for the development of their products. Filed lawsuits are because farmers fail to honor their agreement. On the other hand, Monsanto only sues farmers who have not exercised their rights to owning their own seeds hence causing them to lose their land and seeds. Monsanto defiles farmers’ rights and originality especially when they recognize competition in the market. Percy Schmeiser is the only farmer who fought the seed company, won the lawsuit; that is because he exercised his rights, and refused to give in to Monsanto’s intimidation (Stephen, 2005). Many farmers exercise the concept of seed hunting by trying to find seeds that will save the world from global food shortage. Genetically modified plants motivate the concept of seed hunting. These plants use chemicals to germinate and are not beneficial to human health. Scientists are working towards finding seeds that can replace the genetically modified plants which have allergic reactions and cause serious health conditions. Monsanto sues farmers yet most of its seeds are genetically modified. The theory of substantial equivalence defines the requirements for food industries that need funding in order to eliminate genetically modified plants and get natural healthy plants that will help define the future of their health (Stephen, 2005). The ethical theory of employment of government policy makers working for private sectors defines intellectual diversity. The world is losing intellectual diversity throughout the government and university systems because of control by large biotech corporations. Because of research funneled money into countries and schools, seed companies such as Monsanto have employed legislators who are not opposing genetically modified food. No questions are come up regarding the production of better natural seeds that can benefit humans. The government is not conducting any research projects to eliminate unhealthy food among humans as long as large companies are making a profit and developing the economy of the country (Deborah, 2004). On the other hand, it is evident that the healthy available food seems to be the most expensive in the market. This means that people have no better option because the government is allowing patenting of unhealthy foods that cause breast cancer. Many scientists working towards finding healthy seeds and the cure for cancer do not get chances to use the gene because of the high charges. For this reason, the world has also experienced the loss of crop diversity such that there is a limit in food variations. Most available foods such as wheat, soy and corn only provide calories, which makes them unhealthy in terms of nutrition since they only cover one aspect of balanced diets (Deborah, 2004). Genetic pollution massively affects food consolidation in that through the limited availability of resources for finding the right seeds, there are limited suppliers meaning there is not enough available food at the grocery stores. It is therefore, evident that most food companies concentrate on the need to make a profit and not the health of humans. This pollutes the human system with so many health conditions and diseases. It is unrealistic for the food industries to concentrate more on profit such that they destroy the varieties of maize products only to sell their products. For example, suppliers prefer genetically modified plants to Mexican corn; meaning even the little available healthy food is not sufficient to most people because of the high prices (Deborah, 2004). According to research by Dr. Ignacio Chapela and Dr. Jorge Soberon, it is evident that large seed companies purchase all farms that produce good seeds so that their products will not dominate the market. In other cases, these industries pollute the good farms so that their products are no longer trusted by consumers. The research also reveals that 80% of food in the grocery stores is genetically modified. The food bill goes higher gradually as a result of processed food is easily accessible and affordable for many individuals. In addition to this, there are further government regulations that keep the market from being free to explore other options (Stephen, 2005). Several farmers in America are enjoying the high profits from genetically engineered crops as well as reducing environmental impacts on the farms. While the profits are high and enjoyable for farmers, it is extremely essential that they recognize how genetic engineering will affect environment and agriculture in the future. Biotech companies push subsidies through their independence by scientists and regulatory agencies worldwide. This creates a gap in the food market due to the domination in the market by genetically engineered crops, which many consumers prefer because of their prices and farmers because of their profits. For this reason, there is not sufficient assessment of economic and environmental impacts in terms of farm sustainability (Walsh, 2010). It is not proper that Monsanto continue to benefit while farmers rely on subsidies to stay in the market. The government needs to develop new methods of encouraging self-reliant techniques of food production among farmers. This means that small-scale farmers need the government’s support to eliminate intimidation, monopolistic and bribery by the large food companies. This way, they can also gain complete control of the global food supply. Monsanto and other companies are not good for the market because they have taken over the supply of food, invaded genes into staple crops, and injected foods with viruses and pesticides, which endanger and destroy the lives of farmers (Adams, 2007). They have also used every tactic to destroy the genuine and unique work of farmers by intimidation with legal threats to control the market. Some countries such as India have had reports of animals dying because of the chemicals in the crops. This means that genetically engineered crops are poisonous to human life. Biotech companies are helping farmers in developing countries such as India, Paraguay and Brazil by encouraging farmers to produce their own food that will benefit consumers in several ways. For example, they will have easy access of healthy food and affordable prices; they will also help other consumers outside their country by exporting food. It will not only benefit consumers’ health but also the economy (Adams, 2007). It is non-ethical for biotech companies to make a profit because, despite the methods of empowering farmers, they are still not entirely healthy to consumers. Unhealthy foods sell out the future of humans for money. This is through the regulation of government policies that do not consult scientists to evaluate products before supply. For this reason, the film reveals to viewers who are not aware of the dangers involved in consuming genetically engineered crops what they need to consume. It presents detailed information for consumers about what remedies to use in cases of illnesses and gives all an understanding of what chemicals are poisonous to human health (Walsh, 2010). In conclusion, The Future of Food is a film that acts as a revelation to all consumers of food. This is because of the sources of the food, which have dangerous pesticides that are poisonous to human health. The genetically modified plants have no nutritional value and instead create immune deficiencies and negative environmental impacts. It also means that the genetically modified plants do not pass through safe testing to ensure the safety of consumers and the environment. Each biotech agricultural products should pass through proper reviewing before selling. Despite the high charges in acquiring healthy tips and products, the food companies need to exercise the right process to ensure the safety of consumers. References Adams, M. (2007). Review: The future of food, a documentary that exposes the biotech threat to life on our planet. Retrieved From: Deborah, K. (2004). The future of food. Retrieved From: Lisa, R. (2007). The future of food: Genetically engineered foods, global biopollution and the resurrection of local food systems. Retrieved From: Stephen, H. (2005). The future of food: When food from the laboratory leaves a bitter taste. Retrieved From: Walsh, J. (2010). Genetically engineered crops benefit many farmers, but the technology needs proper management to remain effective. Retrieved From: