FloresJaredFood

Jared Flores Annotation 9: //Food Inc.//  1.  Title, director, and release year? // Food Inc // ., directed by Robert Kenner, released in 2009  2.  What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central narrative of the film is the deep dark secrets of the food industry. The film mainly discusses the illusion that has been pulled over our eyes. We believe we have a choice in what we purchase and that there are many options. In truth, our purchasing decisions have been carefully orchestrated by a few major food organizations. Farms and kitchens have been set up like factories and assembly lines in order to make fatty, unhealthy foods cheap, while healthy choices, like vegetables and organic food, remain out of price range for financially insecure families. The film also addresses how advances and increases in production rates have led to negligence in terms of maintaining the health code standards of meat products. This has led to dangerous results, such as the deadly E. coli virus.  3.  What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The main sustainability problem that the film draws out is the sustainability of organizations. It is explained in the film that the 46,000 products that inhabit supermarket shelves all come from the same few major corporations. Further illustrating this point is the fact that nowadays, 80% of the beef market is controlled by the top four beef packing companies. This is an oligopoly, and offers little room for fledgling companies in this field to be competitive. Also, the market domination of a small number of sellers, as well as their methods of production, is what allows a hamburger at McDonald’s to be less expensive than a head of broccoli, thus further influencing purchasing decisions of the consumers. Another sustainability problem drawn out by this film is our culture as a sustainability problem. The film mentions how in times long past, food was not processed by factories, but simply hunted and gathered. Meat would be prepared over a simple fire and be consumed when cooked, without being dressed up in sauces and grease. Nowadays, with unhealthy, processed foods being so cheap, this is what we have learned to buy and eat. The film mentions that we have been conditioned to go for three main tastes: sugar, salt, and fat. This has led us to being a widely obese country. One more sustainability problem that the film draws out is economic sustainability. In our current economy, we are delivered affordable, tasty, and unhealthy foods. The overall cost of these products, however, is staggering. Every product costs a great deal of money to produce, process, and package, and the price that we pay is due to the low wages that all those involved in production receive. It is because of our competitive economy that these workers are maltreated.  4.  What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? One part of the film I found compelling was the story of that activist lady and her son. A woman’s young son contracted E. coli from eating tainted meat, and suffered a great deal before dying 12 days later. Hearing that poor woman recount those events was very saddening, and there was so much raw emotion being conveyed in her speech. It’s almost terrifying to think that young children can die due to the carelessness of the meat packing industry. What’s more terrifying is that they know this sort of thing can happen, and they just don’t care. This part of the movie really touched me. Another part of the movie I found persuasive was the part where farmers wanted to talk about their methods of raising livestock and the conditions which their livestock are in. One farmer, Vince, initially had no problem showing what went on behind closed doors, but changed his mind after being contacted by his sponsor. Another woman did show what conditions her chickens were forced to live in, but her contract was terminated after this was discovered. Farmers need their sponsors, and cannot afford to have their contracts dropped, whereas big meat companies have plenty of potential workers, and can easily afford to drop those who cross them. These scenes really showed the power which the meat companies have over the farmers they employ, and was very convincing to me.  5.  What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The only part of the film which I was not convinced by was the part where the farmers of soy beans were at odds with Monsanto. The film did not really help me to understand why it was such a big deal for farmers to be able to save the seeds from the crops they grow. With all the crops that manage to be grown each year, I don’t see why famers want to be able to save seeds. Sure, it’s true that Monsanto not letting them save seeds because of a patent on a genetically modified gene, but farmers are doing just fine growing enough crops. If they can’t grow enough to support themselves then maybe they are in the wrong line of work.  6.  What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? I would very much like to find more information on New Alchemy. They were only given a small segment in the film. Basically, New Alchemy tried to develop alternatives to food and waste treatment, and then get that knowledge to the people. This group seems to have their hearts in the right place, so I want to read more about what they stood for and what impact they have had on society. I believe that knowing this will help me to understand what effect activist groups can have on this situation, and whether or not people listen to what they have to say.  7.  What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? I believe that this is the sort of film that really addresses everyone. After all, everyone eats, and generally, everyone is concerned about their health as well, so a film about both can address a very wide range of people. This film identifies the truth behind the methods of food production that most big companies employ, as well as the effects that this has on society. I think this film will help people to realize that there are better alternatives to the way they currently live, and to think twice before they buy processed meat.  8.  What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film basically suggests for people to do their homework, so to say. People should not buy food from companies that mistreat their workers, their products, or the environment. Also, people should buy organic foods, and only vegetables which are currently in season, so as to avoid supporting big corporations. Basically, this film tells people to avoid supporting the big companies and to start supporting local farms and small, well meaning companies.  9.  What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value? I think the film needed to name more solutions for fixing the problems which it addresses. Sure, withdrawing support from large corporations is a good idea, but there has to be more that people can do. The only way to stop large businesses is to do some real damage to them. I would think that this film could have touched on the subject of boycotting these big businesses, and doing more to get this information to the people. After all, to take down the corporations, there needs to be a large number of people supporting the cause.