marcszar_king_corn


 * King Corn: You Are What You Eat -** //Aaron Woolf, 2007//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// Two friends use this film to study the effect corn has had on our society. They note that this crop has been heavily subsidized by the federal government for generations and examine the effect that corn has had on our agricultural practices and family farms, our health, our politics, our food supply (HFCS), and our environment. They conclude that corn has had numerous negative unintended consequences on our society.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * The narrators stress that the numerous corn subsidies established in the 20th century were done with good intentions - farmers were struggling and at the time many people in the nation were still suffering from hunger so it seemed like the perfect opportunity to subsidize and expand the production of corn so as to solve the hunger problem.Through the force of sheer inertia, corn has become a staple ingredient in all our food products.
 * //Legal?//
 * The narrators decide to grow an acre of corn and discover that they will receive $28 in direct subsidies - the rate of subsidization increases if you decided to grow even larger acreages of corn.
 * //Economic?//
 * Corn is the backbone of the economy of many midwestern states - there is nothing else to do other than farming and farmers have already invested so much infrastructure, planting practices, equipment, stock, and other materials into corn production that it would be very difficult to diversify their crops. The system of perpetual, ingrained subsidies continues the corn economy.
 * //Technological?//
 * Farms in the midwest have consolidated and grown progressively larger over the years - the shift has been towards agribusiness while incredible improvements in machinery and fertilizers/petrochemicals have allowed farmers to dramatically increase production, leading to a supply glut that had to be used somewhere - hence the use of corn as additives and filler in other food products, as a means to feed cattle, etc.
 * //Media and informational?//
 * There is very little awareness over how prevalent corn has become in our food supply. Several researchers are interviewed to discuss the negative health repercussions corn has had on our diets and health.
 * //Organizational?//
 * A vast, complex agricultural network has been developed such that all the excess material from corn is distributed to all sorts of agricultural operations - for example, corn silage is fed to cattle (one bystander says that its just as well we slaughter corn-fed cattle after 6 months because they would die from the corn diet not long after that anyway). High Fructose Corn Syrup has largely supplanted cane sugar as a sweetener in all our foods and beverages (this was rare before 1970 because it used to be too expensive to make).
 * //Educational?//
 * Education is not specifically addressed in the film.
 * //Behavioral?//
 * "If the American people wanted strictly grass-fed beef, we would produce grass-fed beef for them. But it's definitely more expensive and one of the tenets in America is that America wants and demands cheap food." Here a farmer shows us that their agricultural decisions are largely driven by social expectations and demands for cheap food. We constantly say that we want better, higher-quality options, but in actuality we always gravitate to the cheapest options, so we are indirectly subsidizing the production of unhealthy foods ourselves.
 * //Cultural?//
 * The narrators discover that the entire culture of the small farming community in which they settle revolves around subsidies. The pace of life is still slow but all the farms - whether they are still local farms or large agribusiness operations - depend on subsidies to keep the entire regional economy working.
 * //Ecological?//
 * The ground is severely damaged and degraded after decades of growing a single crop on it (No crop rotation). The corn requires massive inputs of ammonia fertilizer to grow successfully on the land - it works very well as the yield from the land is now 4 times greater than in the era before petrochemical fertilizers.

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// The discussion on HFCS in our beverages was fascinating - the film pointed out that we drink many more calories now than we ever did before and that the body seems to be able to absorb more calories from beverages than from solid food (i.e.- the stomach doesn't send the same or as strong "stop" signals to calorie-rich beverages as it does to heavy foods). Hence the alarming rise of diabetes, obesity, and other health problems.

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// The film reveals that most farmers operate at a loss - they lose money growing the corn and the government uses subsidies to make up for their losses. The film argues that this subsidization encourages the overproduction of corn. However, there is no evidence that the farmers ever make any handsome profits off the subsidies - it really is a modest lifestyle. So I don't understand the argument for why corn continues to be overproduced when it seems most farmers could easily live a better life by abandoning farming and moving to the cities or suburbs.

//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?// The film should compel us to find means to stop all the subsidies to corn. Clearly the subsidization of the crop has led to an oversupply that has forced us to use the excess supply in as many foods as possible. I wonder what would happen to the dynamics of our corn supply and our corn additives if all the subsidies for the crop were removed - would we revert to cane sugar consumption (and continue experiencing health problems) or would the sugar content in our foods actually drop?

//What audiences does the 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?// The film is directed towards the general public, especially at younger generations (around the same age as the narrators) who are struggling to come to terms with the fact that life expectancy for our generation is at risk of being less that that of previous generations. The narrators sought to show the audience just exactly how corn has infected every aspect of our food supply in an attempt to raise awareness that the way in which we grow crops can directly affect our health.

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// The film doesn't attempt to goad us into any specific action but merely tries to raise awareness about the composition of our food supply. I suspect that quite a few individuals might try to make an effort to watch what they eat, though it will probably prove to be impossible to completely avoid HFCS and other corn additives.

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?// The film could have elaborated on the environmental damage that growing monocrops causes, especially when very large regions are devoted to the production of a single crop year after year. The film mentioned the damage to the soils but didn't elaborate on the destruction caused to the larger ecosystem and biosphere.

< Back to my portfolio