Pro (for) Argument: Why corn subsidies cause more harm than good.

I support the argument that corn subsidies cause more harm than good. The existence of corn in the food chain has interfered with all plant and animal species' essential biodiversity necessary for balancing the ecosystem. In the reading "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Pollan reveals how a supermarket stocked with various foodstuffs from both plants and animals dominated by a specific element: corn. According to Pollan, when investigating an industrial food chain, one should structure multiple plants and animal species stocked in a store or supermarket, which is not the case. The American Supermarket turns out to be a narrow biological foundation dominated by a single plant species called the corn (Pollan). For instance, corn feeds the chicken, steer, and salmon for the consumers to have their end products. It means that corn is present in steak, pork, and eggs creating an imbalance in the ecosystem that is harmful to the ecosystem's survival, displaying corn as a dangerous addition to biodiversity.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Corn dominance in the ecosystem has resulted in the extinction of other plant species due to its ability to adapt in harsh conditions making the plant a preference to others by farmers. The basic need for any living thing is to acquire nutritional values that will nourish their growth and development system as an individual or collectively as a species. The ecosystem habits a variety of plants and animals that depend on one another for survivability. Pollan, in the reading, determined that corn plants can compete for growth resources such as sunlight than other plants in the ecosystem, equipping them with the ability to adapt to climatic conditions. The adaptability feature disadvantages other plant species making them prone to extinction since planters prefer crops that can survive. Without the ability to adjust, scientists will improve all plant traits to survive the ever-changing climatic conditions. Still, corn remains a hindrance to this idea, making it dangerous since it can result in the extinction of other plant species in the ecosystem.

In a human society, power and control over others emanate from an individual or a group's ability to provide the essential human needs like food for the broader community. The ability of corn to dominate other crops in the food chain brought a resource imbalance that public influencers utilize to have power over others. From the historical era, the colonists recognized corn's value to adapt to harsh conditions and produce enough food to feed a large population (Pollan). A revelation that they used to control their colonies in the New World. The author of the reading includes a Mexican Historian Arturo Warman's idea that "corn was the means that permitted successive waves of pioneers to settle new territories." With other crops dying in the ecosystem, the likeliness of a resource imbalance resulting in the elite members of the community control others using hunger is a tool for taking over power in the society. The idea is eminent in the modern society where powerful nations control other countries, explicitly using corn. For instance, some developing nations have spent many resources to purchase maize from developed states as an economic strategy to fight hunger brought about by universal corn production imbalances. In summary, I pro argue for the claim that corn subsidies cause more harm than good due to the imbalances created by the crop species to both the ecosystem and the society in general.

Reference

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma. New York: The Penguin Press, 2006. Print.