DaleFoodInc

Jacob Dale Annotation #3, 10/30/10 Food Inc.

1. Title, director and release year?

The film __Food Inc.__ is a documentary directed by Robert Kenner and was released in 2008.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The central argument film is that the agricultural business has become dominated by a select few corporations such as Monsanto that are abusive towards animals and aid in the destruction of the environment. The industrial method of agriculture and meat production (particularly chicken, pork, and beef as shown in the film) makes use of pesticides and fertilizers that require the heavy use of chemicals based on petroleum which produce unhealthy food and cause Americans to get sick. Our food is being produced by assembly lines with unhappy workers and abused animals. The farms we once had are now owned by huge multinational corporations that have taken control of our entire food system and mechanized it as if it is the automobile industry. We are now in a world where the average supermarket in America has over 40,000 products. Seasons do not exist in supermarkets as we have fruits and vegetables available to us at anytime. This is the benefit of industrialized agriculture. The dominance we see now can be traced back to the 1930s and McDonalds. McDonalds created the revolutionary idea that the factory system could be brought to restaurants. McDonalds remains one of the largest buyers of potatoes, ground beef, and it is one of the largest producers of chicken, pork, and tomatoes. Even though we don’t all eat fast food, we are still eating meat produced by the system to meet consumer demand. Three to four companies control our entire system. This control has caused farmers to be unable to compete and as a result they now work for these corporate giants. Poultry houses cost upwards of $300,000 and upgrades are costly as well. This has led to farmers being controlled by corporations due to the huge debts they owe them. Government has aided these big corporations through subsidies.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film focuses on GMOs and their impact, the sheer size of the corporation, and subsidies. More and more of our food is being engineered to last longer and be bigger. We now have birds that are twice as big that are slaughtered twice as fast before, and chickens enhanced to have larger breasts since the consumer prefers boneless chicken breast. Chicken is no longer raised like it was before. It is now put on an assembly line process with high mechanization and industrialization. Birds are made to be the same size and put close together in order to produce a lot of food quickly on a small amount of land at a cheap price.

High fructose corn syrup is everywhere and over 90% of our food contains traces of corn or soy beans. Corn is even being fed to animals such as cows instead of grass. Cows were never designed to eat corn; they were designed to eat grass. Corporations love doing this since it causes cows to quickly gain weight, and it is a cheap source of food. Mutations are now quite common in cows. These mutations result in causing us to become sick from diseases such as E. coli. It’s not uncommon today to turn on the news and find food being recalled. Mass production is allowing this disease and bacteria to spread rapidly. We are turning more and more to fast food since it is cheap and filling. Many have a hard time affording anything else. We as a society are becoming addicted to fat, sugar, and salt. Something needs to be done to change this system.

The power of companies such as Monsanto is also a problem. Many of the farmers in the movie would not let the investigative reporters come in due to fear of the corporations shutting them down. After dozens of interviews, one farmer allowed the reporters to come in. The farmer emphasized and showed how dust and feces are everywhere in the chicken farm and how the chickens can’t keep up with their rapid growth and weight. Even antibiotics are put into the chicken feed. The farmers can do little about this since the corporations have the ultimate say. As a society, we have become so removed that we do not know what is in our food.

The government is aiding this problem. It subsidizes many industries such as the corn industry to keep it cheap. This causes and overabundance of corn and corn as a result is lower than the cost of production. Tyson and other companies are lobbying congress to maintain their practices.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

The parts of the film that really stuck out to me were the corn segments. I had no idea before this movie that high fructose syrup or soy beans were in over 90% of the food we eat. The most disturbing and compelling portion was when they showed cows with giant holes on their sides. Instead of being fed grass, they were forced to eat corn to becoming fatter quickly. I was utterly disgusted by this. When the cows aren’t healthy, one can be sure the meat won’t be of great quality. The power of companies like Monsanto is keeping the public from being informed about these practices. Food Inc. definitely opened up my eyes to agricultural practices.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

Most of the film was rather convincing. The only things that didn’t compel me 100 percent were when Kevin, a little boy got sick from eating beef as well as the other diseases discussed. I do believe that E. coli and other diseases were most likely caused by the bad meat, but it would have been nice if the film turned to some studies directly or showcased where it got its research. It kind of just threw that stuff out there to play with the emotions of the viewer. Another thing slightly unconvincing was the whole buying organic concept. Many of the same companies have bought out their counterparts, so I do not see how buying organic would help if money is still flowing to the perpetrator.

6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

The film isn’t most likely for children since it focuses on industrial processes and disease. I would say it targets the high school crowd and all American consumers. The film goes into great detail about what happens with our food behind closed doors and has interviews. It tries to make a plea with emotions when talking about Kevin’s mom and her son dying. Its focus is to educate consumers since it is expecting them to be rather uninformed on what is in their food since it is not on the labels.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

The film seems to be talking about the food business in terms of the United States. It would have been nice if it had more of an international focus to give us a picture on how the United States is different from other parts of the world. The film also cited many diseases and negative outcomes from eating beef, pork, and chicken. E. coli seem to be the dominant disease listed. The film should have talked about where it found these standings to show it was not biased. The film talked about government subsidies, but I believe it should have shown more of the inside workings of lobbying groups and Congress in general. The problem doesn’t only stem from subsidies most of it takes place behind closed doors.

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.

The main solution that was talked about was the buying power of the American consumer. As consumers we have a say with what we do with our money. By buying more environmentally friendly products or organic food, we would be supporting better practices. The problem with this is that many companies like Monsanto are buying out organic producers. This caused the organic label to be tainted. Another solution was just being informed on the types of foods we buy. This seems rather hard since the food label does not say everything. I would say it would probably be better to research the company and food on the internet since many brands of food are really just one enormous company. Finally, influencing the legal system is another action. Approaching your congressman and telling them to support legislation that promotes accountability for the sick and compliance with better food labels. Regulations could definitely make a big dent in the practices of these companies. The big problem that continues to influence the matrix is lobbying. These companies have a lot of money which means a lot of influence with the government.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

This film made me seek out to find out what happened with Kevin’s Law and research some organic brands to find out what companies own them. Unfortunately, it seems as if Kevin’s Law has made only small headway. The bill became known as the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act of 2003 and was brought to the floor in 2005. After this it was brought to the subcommittee on Health and since then it was in limbo. It hasn’t made it out of the committee yet.

http://fsem100b3s10.umwblogs.org/2010/04/11/kevins-law/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin%27s_law

My research on who owns what ended me up at the Cornucopia Institute. It turns out that the organic industry is becoming more consolidated as well. Kraft owns companies such as Back to Nature and Boca Foods. Heinz seems to own a large chunk with its purchases of TofuTown, ShariAnn’s, Mountain Sun, Celestial Seasonings, and so on. This is just some of the consolidation that has happened over the years.

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/