Food,+Inc.

Katelyn Kelly

Annotation #4, Food Production

10/3/12

Word Count: 1212


 * Title:** Food, Inc.


 * Director:** Robert Kenner

The central argument of this film was the commercialization of the food industry in America; the process behind meat packaging, the increasing use of genetically modified foods, and the main manufacturers behind the commercialization and how they are running farmers out of business. The argument is made by breaking the film up into chapters, the main chapters being meat packaging, America’s reliance on corn as source of all major foods and feeds, the power of companies that produce crops such as soy to run farmers and smaller businesses out of business, and in general the American demand for cheap food and how that drives the food production companies. There is not so much scientific information to be portrayed in this film as there is just general observational knowledge. In other words, the trends of our society in relation to food production is easily identified through large companies such as Perdue and their buying out of farmers to raise chickens according to company policy, and how Americans vote for cheap and processed food by purchasing those foods at markets, rather than demanding wholesome foods and crops. The film has emotional appeal in that the most affordable food to Americans is the unhealthiest of choices and that we as a culture are demanding cheap and processed food by continuing to pay for and complain about cheap food rather than demand a healthier alternative. This film draws out economic, technological, and behavioral and cultural sustainability problems. Economically the demand for food has led to the commercialization of the food industry. This is reflected as well in our cultural and behavioral tendencies to buy the cheapest product for which we will receive the most gain. In other words, the largest and cheapest quantity available is what consumers will want to purchase, and thus the companies respond by producing as much of that product as they can for the lowest production cost. This had led to the technological “advancement” of factory farming, which allows for the food industry to raise livestock produce meats at unnatural rates and the use of an assembly-line type system in order to achieve the demand of cheap foods. The parts of this film that I found most compelling were the commercialization of agricultural processes and the complete dominance of large companies throughout the food industry that led to the factory-style manufacturing and commercialization of the food industry. These are compelling because as a society we want the largest amount of food for the lowest cost. What we don’t realize, however is that these demands are being taken into consideration in the unhealthiest of ways; factory farming is unsanitary and has led to numerous disease outbreaks, the most serious being E. Coli and mad cow disease. The film also showed how meat packing has become dangerous to workers in the bacteria that they are exposed to. The film was also compelling in the light that it gave numerous examples of farms being bought out by larger companies, or being sued for mediocre things and then being run out of court financially because the larger company was able to pay for more experts. I was not compelled by corn argument; corn is an extremely important crop in the United States, however it is not the main component in all foods. Granted, it can be modified to corn starch and corn syrup, etc., however, this does not mean that it is the main component in each food on a shelf. There may be traces of corn in each product, but that is no means to stretch the truth. Furthermore, the argument that was made by the family interviewed that they did not have the time or money to pay for vegetables over fast food seemed far-fetched. If a family is going to eat healthy, they have to break the current cultural mold and take the time to prepare a well-balanced meal. In the long run, the number of vegetables will outweigh the cost of chips or candy with their benefits and nutrients. This film best addresses the average American parent concerned with feeding their family and children. The film’s main arguments are geared toward the parent that wants to make healthy decisions for their family. The film shows the consumer parent what is really behind the labels of the foods in the markets and gives them the opportunity to buy their food from an alternative source, like an organic company. It goes into further solutions by saying that we as consumers vote on what we want as a society by choosing what we purchase. Therefore if we collectively start paying and demanding more vegetables rather than fast food, than much like the tobacco industry, the larger companies that instill factory farming will be run out of business simply by lack of profit and support. The main example in this film was Stonyfield yogurt, which became so popular as an organic company, that it became commercialized on the shelves, but kept its farms operating the same way as when it started, simply on a larger scale. The film could have enhanced its environmental educational value by focusing more on the organic companies and how they are impacting the food industry. Stonyfield was a good example, but it is one of the most successful if not the most successful large organic company and has therefore become rather commercialized itself. Therefore the film could focus on farmers markets or local gardens and the organic and local products they produce. Farmers markets are becoming more and more popular within large communities and the demand is increasing, also reflected in growing organic sections of markets. The main kind of action suggested by this film is the consumer voting for the type of food they want by purchasing that, and as the film suggests, the demand and production of that product or crop will follow. It relates this idea to the downfall of the tobacco industry in after the reveal of tobacco being related to cancer and other diseases, the demand for tobacco products decreased greatly until the tobacco industry went all but out of business. In order to back up the competitiveness of growing farmers markets, I decided to look into the farmers markets themselves and their cited competiveness: 1) [] 2) []
 * Release Year:** 2008
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**
 * 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.**
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**