Cieszko+Food+Inc.


 * 1) ** Food, Inc. (2009) Robert Kenner

The central argument of this film is to open our eyes to where our food comes from. Most of us go our entire lives without having any clue as to where or how our food is processed. The expansion of the few corporations that control the whole industrialization of food is having detrimental effects on society. The film puts the burden of this responsibility on the shoulders of consumers for continuing to create the demand for these unsustainable practices. I think it’s safe to say that instead of farms raising cattle and chicken for food, we are instead producing food in “factories” that happen to take the form of cattle and chicken. One of the major contributors to why this is so, is McDonalds. They have a quality control in place that requires every hamburger in every store to taste the same, meaning the cattle used in the meat must all be raised the same as well. Major corporations are also forcing small farmers to change their habits as well. They force these small farms to become more uniform and commercialized and if they refuse to change, the farmers lose their contracts and in turn lose their livelihood. Because many government officials once had their hand in the food business, they sympathize with the food corporations and thus the farmers get no protection from the government. Examples of this protection include the Veggie Libel Laws and Kevin’s Law which both place a large amount of emphasis on the protection of the food industries.
 * 2) What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **
 * 3) What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

The secret worker cameras and the interviews with the chicken farmers were a good basis of persuasion for me, however I was further convinced when meat producers declined to provide any information or even speak in the film.
 * 4) What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

I was convinced that the way we eat causing these practices to continue, however I am not compelled by the fact that we are being asked to completely change our eating habits. Organic food, although a good alternative, is just not enough to sustain the general population. This is because of several reasons including economic issues and simply overpopulation.
 * 5) What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

This film is definitely addressed to the everyday consumer. It is targeted at the mothers or parents of families that purchase their families’ food. The strategy is to shock consumers into buying more sustainable food.
 * 6) What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

Interviews from the other side of the argument would have been a very interesting addition to the film. Changing consumer habits in food purchase would help to rid the market of a demand for this type of food production. This includes knowing what you are buying by reading labels more carefully as well as buying food that is locally grown.
 * 7) What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **
 * 8) What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does **
 * not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. **

I was first interested in how food relates to everyday life and how different people view food. It seems that most, if not all, of our activities revolve around food in some way. Therefore I thought it would be critical to look into this. [] This is a further look into this issue and how the general opinion and attitude on food contribute to our choices as consumer. []
 * 9) What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) **