Omnivores dilemma: corn analysis

Corn Analysis DeVry It has been argued according to the first draft that corn should be done way with, so as to avoid unnecessary expenditure. However, according to the thesis of the paper, that would lead to a world, where there would be no meat, and other human necessities such as flour, and fuel for the cars. This indicates that the paper is against the abolishment of corn because it is a substantial contributor of the world economy. Corn provides man with flour which provides a meal in many third world countries such as Africa who depend on flour as their staple food. This suggests that the abolishment of corn will mean subjecting several families to hunger since they may not be able to acquire a meal for their families (Batch 2006). Eradication of corn may cause suffering to such families, since they have not been accustomed to other types of foods. Nevertheless, similarly to human beings, animals in America feed on corn hence farmers depend on this crop so as to sustain their animals. This suggests that the eradication of corn will create a challenge to farmers who may be forced to look for an alternative means to feed their animals. This eventually may lead to an increase of cost which may affect production and finally lower the rate of economic growth. In addition, corn growing has enabled job creation in several ways, for example, the process of land preparation, processing of seeds to be planted as corn, the manpower that works on the harvesting trucks, have been able to earn a source of income. This shows that corn has been able to improve the living standards of people, and hence should not be stopped. As a follow up of the above, growing of corn has enabled a growth of industries that have offered jobs to people. Corn is taken to industries to be converted into animals’ feeds, fuel for cars so as to be able to be effectively used. This has benefited the people who have been able to be improved in such industries. This indicates that, corn is a significant booster of global industrialization. From this account, it is indeed right to protect and promote corn growing because of its multiple benefits to the world. Eradication of such agricultural process would cerate an expensive alternative of the people involved and at the same time increase the rate of unemployment. According to Pollan (2006), they have suggested that other types of foods that have corn should be used instead of corn itself. However, the author indicates that food that contains corn would be more expensive than planting corn. This is because manufactures would concentrate on the amount of corn in such types of foods instead of the human safety. Ignorance and carefree attitude would increase the rate of sickness among the users of those commodities making them spend extra money in hospitals seeking for treatment. Such patients may not attend to their daily duties which would lower the nation’s economic growth. Therefore, by using associate products, the country would not be improving their economy, but instead they would cause a serious danger. Those against corn goring have indicated that the use of corn products in food may have a future impact on the coming generation; however, according to Biello (2008), animal products can not be compared to plant products in terms of the health problems they may cause to the human body. It shows that the rate at which animal cause illness and after body metabolism would higher than plant products. For example, the side effects of meat to a growing child may be more than the corn hence; corn growing should not be eradicated because of environmental factors since it lacks evidence. According to BBC News (2012), people who rely solely on plant food are identified to be healthy than those who live on animal products. Therefore, corn growing, which produces cooking oils, human food should be encouraged so as to improve the living lifestyle, and the health conditions of the people. This does not close the window of development in agricultural technology. A country that develops ideas to improve their economy can be identified to be a visionary nation. When professionals and experts i9n varied fields come up with ideas and innovations, such events should be thoroughly searched with a deep consideration of the pros and cons involved. This does not create room of disregarding the laid down process that contribute to the growth of the nation in the present. Stake holders should come up with policies that may harness corn growing with the options of reducing costs so as to maintain this sector. As discussed above corn growing has benefited the people in terms of job creation, and health safety. Nevertheless, the high cost of storage and transportation when corn is harvested in bulk should also be considered so as to save on the country’s expenditure thus; corn should not be abolished. References Biello, D. (2008). That burger you’re eating is mostly corn. Retrieved from http://www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm? id= that-burger-youre-eating-is-mostly-corn. BBC News. (2012, March 12). Red meat increases death, cancer and heart risk, says study. Retrieved from http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/health-17345967. Pollan M. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York; NY: Penguin Group, Publishers. Balch P. A. (2006). Prescription for Nutritional Healing. NEW York; NY: Penguin Publishers. Trading economics. (2012). United States unemployment rate. Retrieved from http://www. tradingeconomics. com/united-states/unemployment-rate.