Intensive farming: Why we have less choice over our food than we think 

Every time I enter McDonald's, the kiosks are aglow with possibilities. I could choose anything from a classic beef patty to a novel Beyond Meat burger. The meal’s cost rarely exceeds the limited budgets of high school students. We have seemingly endless choices over what food to eat and what our food is made from. 

But does this choice apply to how our food is made? 

What allows fast food companies to churn out a diversity of products in large amounts is intensive farming. This process optimizes the yield of one crop or livestock using synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, and pesticides. The result is increased food production, which our consumption soared to match, and reduced product costs. We also transformed the crops and livestock into various consumer goods, branding many, typically plant-based products, as ethical and environmentally friendly alternatives to others, like meat. 

However, intensive farming has costs that never appear on our receipts. Frequent exposure to pesticides and factory smoke has damaged the lungs of many workers in the intensive farming industry; their wages, among the lowest in North America and Europe, make it difficult for them to access the required treatment. The spread of the COVID-19 virus caused the closure of meat processing plants, a vital component of intensive livestock farming. A similar scenario may happen soon, given that the influenza A virus, transmittable from animals to humans, has been found on over 50% of European pig farms. Maximizing livestock production and sale comes at the expense of animal welfare. On an intensive livestock farm, a pig may be born in a gestation crate, where breeding sows live for years without exercise or escape; the same pig may die suffocating in a carbon dioxide gas chamber, a method designed to maximize the speed and scale of livestock slaughter. 

Furthermore, continuing intensive farming may reduce our food supply in the long term. Repeatedly planting large amounts of a crop in the same plot of land drains the soil of nutrients. Approximately 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are the product of intensive farming because of the high methane and nitrous oxide concentrations in many synthetic fertilizers. The damage intensive farming causes to the environment—which food production relies on—reduces our overall ability to feed the world. 

When producing plant-based patties has similarly harmful consequences to producing beef burgers, our choices are neither as plentiful nor meaningful as we believe they are. We need to undo how entrenched intensive farming has become in food production. Large intensive farming companies' rapid merging and expansion should be controlled, lest they continue overtaking smaller biodiverse or organic farms. Destructive elements of intensive farming, like gestation crates and certain components of fertilizers, must be banned or restricted.

Implementing these changes may mean forgoing favorite meals at fast food restaurants like  Mcdonald's and, generally, consuming less food at possibly higher costs. But this sacrifice is a small price for the well-being of animals, people, and the Earth.

References: 

Constable, Harriet. ​​“The reasons swine flu could return.” British Broadcasting Corporation. 1 Feb. 2021. 

Essig, Mark. “Pig Farming Doesn’t Have to Be This Cruel.” The New York Times. 10 Oct. 2022. 

Harvey, Fiona. “Can we ditch intensive farming - and still feed the world?” The Guardian. 28 Jan. 2019. 

Kristof, Nicholas. “Spy Cams Show What the Pork Industry Tries to Hide.” The New York Times. 4 Feb. 2023. 

Schupak, Amanda. “Meat, monopolies, mega farms: how the US food system fuels climate crisis.” The Guardian. 30 Jun. 2022.

World Animal Protection. “Canadian fast-food companies failing when it comes to chicken welfare says new global report.” Canada Newswire. 27 Jul. 2021.