BechtelFedUp!

** Director: **Angelo Sacerdote ** Release year: **2002   The central argument of this film is that there are many problems with our current agricultural system. This can be seen in a variety of ways. For one, much of the world and even people in parts of America can barely find enough food to survive. The corporate answer to this is to simply produce more. As this film shows, however, that is not really a solution. In fact, over production causes a number of problems itself. The truth is that it is not our lack of agricultural technology that is responsible for problems like global hunger; it is the social and economic consequences that are to blame.
 * Title: ** Fed Up!
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

** What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **  __The Green Revolution __ The first sustainability problem mentioned in the film is the Green Revolution. This revolution was largely concerned with the development of technologies that allowed for large scale farming. These new technologies include breeding more robust plant species, developing better water management facilities, and, most notably, the development of pesticides. Each one of these technologies has its own problems associated with it. By breeding more resilient and efficient plant species (mostly grains and maize), it became more valuable to produce monocultures of crops. These systems could easily be mechanized and blown up to large scales, but also required the use of huge amounts of water and pesticides. Since these crops grow very fast, they require a ton of water. Also, because there is such an abundant amount of a single crop in one area, a few insect species could thrive. To keep the insects under control the easiest solution was pesticide. These early pesticides were derived from nerve gasses used during World War II and the associated farming techniques very much mirrored the war that had just ended. It certainly was almost the same mentality. The first pesticides developed included DDT and chlorine compounds which boasted a long life span and the ability to build up in crops. For obvious reasons all of the substances have since become banned. Many of the practices stayed around however.  __Farm Land Value __ With the Green Revolution came many changes in how agriculture was handled and who did most of the farming. Farms changed hands from small families to enormous corporations. As a result the value of the land changed as well. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, one acre on a large scale farm (greater than 2000 acres) in 1998 had a net value of $21.40 per year. Had that same acre been owned by a small scale farm (less than 10 acres) it would have produced upwards of $1,960 in a single year. This is a direct result of the unproductive nature of monocultures. This is a drastic difference which begs the question, why are large scale farms still more profitable? The answer lies in government farming subsidies and how products are handled further down the road. Subsidies and cheap processing is required to maintain corporate competition in the market place, so this is what we see. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> __<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Genetically Modified Organisms __ <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The most significant problems that the movie addresses are those resulting from the creation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Genetically engineering a plant is far different that simply breeding variations and has been banned in Europe already. In the United States, however, there is no ban, there has been no testing done, and there isn’t even a requirement for companies to label their products which contain GMOs. This should be regulated by the Food and Drug administration, but instead they are seen as just the same as natural food products. This puts the entire population at risk, but at least corporations won’t lose any profit. Another serious problem that can result from GMOs is genetic pollution. Even when they are still in the trial phase, if pollen from GMOs is leaked it can travel as much as 4 km and breed with native species. It is nearly impossible to stop this from happening because the pollen is so small. It is also impossible to sort GMOs from similar natural species without genetically testing every individual. Some GMOs are specially designed to produce industrial or pharmaceutical chemicals and when these genes are leaked it can lead to serious problems for humans and other parts of the food chain. The Starlink Scandal is a perfect example of this. The genetic modification of agriculture also closely resembles the Green Revolution in that an expensive technology which has very few benefits compared to its problems and risks. Some special GMOs also require special pesticides.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film was very persuasive because it was very well organized and to the point. It conveyed a large wealth of information. It was also very persuasive because it contained many expert testimonies and opposing viewpoints. There were many facts presented in the film and arguments for both sides in many cases.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I was mostly not compelled by how the film was paced. It seemed to me that it started our racing forward and throwing a ton at the viewer. A little later on it came to some incredibly slow parts were there was no writing and very little text on the screen. I definitely feel like these extrema made the film’s argument more difficult to follow.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What audiences does the film best address? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I feel that this film best addresses a young to middle aged audience who already has prior knowledge of the agricultural system and its flaws. This would certainly make the film easier to follow through the faster sections. This film as also very factual and didn’t seem to have a whole lot of fantastic imagery. I would definitely recommend it to my environmentally conscious friends, but not likely to many others.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The best thing that could have been added to enhance the environmental educational value of the film is to show some of the negative effects of agricultural problems. This would include some of the effects of high water and fuel usage; such as global warming. Furthermore, the film could have gone into some of the details of what the effects of pesticides are to humans and other organisms. The film could have also shown what has happened to those who once used to be farmers but have since been bought out by corporations. It is difficult to see that GMOs appear very much different from regular crops, but the director could have done a better job showing this explicitly.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">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. ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The points of intervention suggested by the film are greater support for local and organic farmers and lobbying for greater regulations on farming corporations. The movie specifically points towards Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and Farmers Markets for places to find these kinds of foods. There is a great amount that interested community members can benefit from becoming part of a CSA. For one, they get healthy local produce, but there is more. Joining a CSA also builds stronger community ties and helps educate the public about where their food comes from. Some CSA members even help out with the production of their food. This builds a mutual relationship between producer and consumer. The only difficulty is to provide access to CSAs to more dense urban areas. This is where Farmers Markets become very helpful. There are often very reasonably priced and delicious items that can be found at the market to fit most income brackets. Because the farms are so close by they are often priced similarly to corporate produce. Lastly the movie suggests that everyone take political action to stop corporations from putting them at risk and being so wasteful.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film compelled me to seek out where the nearest CSA is to Troy, just in case I ever get a car and decide I want to buy all my own food. It turns out that according to [|http://www.localharvest.org] there are several CSAs just a few miles from campus. There are the Denison farms, Homestead farms, Burd farms, and several others. Based on my current location it certainly wouldn’t be too difficult to become a member of one of these. Another thing that I was compelled to find out was exactly how many pesticides are being used in the United States and exactly how many have been banned. I was able to find this list of banned pesticides [] and this list of all currently registered pesticides []. As one can clearly see from the two lists, there are many pesticides which have been banned or restricted, but this number is miniscule compared to how many are out there total. It is pretty scary that most of our foods have been bathed in these chemicals, yet most people have not idea or choose not to do anything about it.