AndersonFilmAnnotation7


 * Film Annotation #7**
 * Food, Inc.**
 * Word Count: 1364**

This film is //Food, Inc.// It was directed by Robert Kenner and released in 2008.
 * 1.** **Title, Director, and Release Year?**

//Food, Inc.// argues that our food system is severely flawed in many ways. It used to be that people bought and ate whole foods, not heavily processed products like they do nowadays. Most food came from local farmers instead of multinational corporations. Now, our food system has many problems and mainly seems to exist to make the large corporations richer.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

One very touching moment of //Food, Inc//. was the story of a very young boy who died of food poisoning caused by eating a hamburger containing a deadly strain of //e coli//. His mom shared the story. At times, she would start almost crying. I felt like this part of the film was very effective: it pointed out the tragedy of human deaths caused by our messed-up food system. “We put faith in our government to protect us, and they’re not providing the most basic protection” when it comes to protecting people from food poisoning. At the time of the child’s death, the USDA did not have the power to shut down farms and factories involved in food production. A law called “Kevin’s Law” (named after the young boy) has been created to give the USDA jurisdiction to do so, but it still had not passed at the time the film was made. Dramatic but persuasive touches were made at relevant intervals throughout the film by saying that various corporations had declined to be interviewed for the film. Not only did these explain to any skeptics why the views presented were so one-sided, but they also strengthened the film’s argument that there is a lack of communication and visibility in the food system: “Perdue declined to be interviewed in the movie.” Many statistics and scientific examples were provided in //Food, Inc.// Chickens, for example, have been bred to grow to be twice as large in half the time as it took one hundred years ago. Tyson Foods has even developed a system where the farmers do not even own the chickens, but are instead paid to raise them. Written into the farmers’ contracts with Tyson is the agreement that they will house and feed the chickens using whatever methods Tyson wants, or they will lose their contract. One woman interviewed for the film explained how difficult and heart aching her job was, since so many chickens would die all the time and they were clearly not happy. When she refused to change the chicken shelter to one without any sort of windows, she is fired.
 * 3.** **How is the argument made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film draws out many different sustainability problems, although most of them are not explicitly stated in terms of affecting the environment. Political and legal problems include subsidies that make crops that may not be the best for either human or environmental health cheaper. Many Americans either need to or feel like they need to save money. As a result, many people will buy the cheaper foods. Processed foods, like chips or fast food, are often cheaper and quicker than healthier, fresh foods. Another legal problem is “veggie libel laws”, which prohibit people from criticizing food products. Many farmers who have been sued because their fields were contaminated by GMOs were not allowed to speak publicly about their case. //Food, Inc.// interviewed one farmer who was not allowed to talk about his case; the film did not show any identifying features of this person. Even seed-saving is under attack by Monsanto. An issue spanning several categories is that of multinational corporations. These corporations have huge power, since they own so much and provide jobs to so many people. They often abuse this power and make it hard for people to stand up to them. These corporations run everything like a factory and treat their workers poorly. They spend billions of dollars in advertisements to convince people to buy products from them. Many of the food products are both unhealthy for humans and unhealthy for the environment.
 * 4.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The part of the film that I found most compelling was when a poor family explained that they could not buy healthy food since they had to buy diabetes medicine for the father. It really struck me as to how messed up our whole food system is. Unhealthy foods are subsidized so that they are cheaper than healthy foods. It really frustrates me that people in the government and in corporations refuse to understand that their policies are causing more disease. Maybe it makes America’s GNP seem higher if people have to pay more for health care, but I truly believe that this is a really messed up way of thinking as well as running our economy. Also, minorities are more likely to be affected by Type II diabetes, in part because they are more likely to live in poverty and in part because of slight differences between people from different areas of the world.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

While I agree with Joel Salatin’s argument that smaller, ecologically conscious, local farms are the solution, I do not agree with all of his viewpoints. These were not really discussed in the film; I read //Omnivore’s Dilemma// in high school and am able to remember enough of the book as well as my impressions of it to not be quite as in awe of Salatin’s views on politics as Pollan appears to be in his book. I think that the political situation in this country is in dire need of being fixed; however, I feel like Salatin takes this too far. He seems to subscribe to conspiracy theories and the like, while I believe that the government and organizations such as the WTO are made up of people and do not really have a hidden agenda; they do make choices that are not good for the people and the environment, but most of them are probably doing what they honestly think is best. I guess I was glad that //Food, Inc.// did not go into these political views too much, because they would have taken away from the film’s message, but I felt like the film sugarcoated the whole issue a little.
 * 6.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I think that this film addresses a wide audience. It was not too graphic or depressing for a younger audience, nor too boring or simple for an older audience. I felt like it was very broad and convincing in its coverage of issues, which would appeal to people who know very little about our food system and people who know a lot as well as everyone in between.
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

This film could have connected the issues discussed to environmental problems more. Other than that, it was a good film, jam-packed with information. It is hard to explain everything in great detail in an hour and a half; the filmmakers had to pick and choose what to focus on.
 * 8.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film provided many possible solutions, including some already in place. One important point that //Food, Inc.// made is that consumers do indeed have a lot of power since they are the ones who buy products. For example, Walmart is phasing out milk with rBGH to comply with consumer demand. Pollan, however, argued that we “need changes at the policy level” so that healthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food. Subsidies could favor fruits and vegetables over corn (which is often turned into meat, soda, and so many other foods, most of them very unhealthy). Another change that desperately needs to be made is to eliminate the “veggie libel laws” that prevent people from saying anything bad about food products. The mother of the child who died from food poisoning declined to tell the filmmakers how her family eats now since she did not want to be sued.
 * 9.** **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 story behind “Kevin’s Law” was both saddening and interesting for me. I felt compelled to find out the current state of that law. I found out that a bill, [|H.R. 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009], was proposed to Congress but never passed. In 2011, however, another [|bill] was passed that contained elements of Kevin’s Law. (Barbara Kowalcyk was the woman featured in the film whose son had died of food poisoning.)
 * 10.** **What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

[] []
 * References:**