Bensley+Annotations+3

David Bensley Annotation #3 // Food, Inc. // Words: 1,097

// Food, Inc. // is a 2008 film directed by Robert Kenner.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **

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

The main argument of the film is that the current food system is unsustainable and the food industry’s lobbying has corrupted regulatory agencies and Congress to the point that the food industry is essentially in charge of itself and does not really answer to any other organization.

**3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The argument is very organized and well-articulated. It begins with the idea that the industrial food system is deliberately hiding itself from the public, maintaining an old-style image while turning all food production systems into factory-like arrangements.

It moves on to discussions of the horrifying truths of the meat industry and unbelievable power of the corn industry over regulatory agencies. These are discussed on high levels and supplemented with specific cases, such as the woman whose son was killed by contaminated meat, and the Hispanic family whose only legitimate food option is fast food, which leads to heart disease and diabetes.

**4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The film touches upon all of these issues, and more. The political, legal, and organizational aspects involved in the oversight/regulation (or lack thereof) of the farming industry are expressed very clearly.

One of many economic issues is the domination of meat industries by a handful of mega-corporations, where companies like Tyson and McDonald’s are controlling the “production” of meat animals. The technological issues involved, such as the genetic alteration of species, are framed in terms of legal and ethical issues. The main informational and educational issue is that the general public is simply not aware of the conditions under which animals and crops are farmed.

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

The parts of the film that focused on how repulsive the meat industry is are particularly compelling. Every time I eat processed meat, I now think about pink slime and bacteria-infested cows. I particularly think about the segment on cramped chicken houses, where the only farmer to use houses that were not dark and tunnel-ventilated had her contract terminated, and the debt that these farmers are in.

The importance of corn in our food supply is also a very memorable point. I had never realized how important corn was in what we eat, and how much influence companies like Cargill and Monsanto have in our food policymaking processes. I had not realized that corn was being fed to our meat animals, from fish to chickens to cows.

The impotence of regulatory agencies with regard to improving and sustaining the quality of food is incredible. It is shameful that it would take 26 days from the date of a positive //E. coli// test to when a recall is actually issued. It is also absurd that the USDA does not have the authority to shut down plants that are not complying with health standards.

The example of the farmer who raises grass-fed cattle and hand-trims chickens outdoors was particularly memorable. The fact that a store-bought, ammonia-soaked chicken had 20 times as many contaminants as a chicken that was grown, killed, and trimmed outdoors raises many questions about our current food processing. The farmer also made a comparison of our separation and disdain from our food supply to our lack of compassion for people in other nations, which I thought was very poignant. Finally, his statement about the true cost of foods—environmental, health, subsidies—really makes one think about whether a one-dollar cheeseburger is really as cheap as it sounds.

I also appreciate that the film creators gave representatives of the food industry and regulatory agencies the opportunity to comment. This makes their argument stronger by showing that these entities’ arguments are so vacuous that they are mostly unwilling to even participate in the making of a documentary such as this.

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

I was not particularly convinced by the segment on “organic” foods, involving Stonyfield Farms’ yogurt and WalMart. It is difficult to see success in WalMart’s decision to order organic foods. This is partly because of how loosely-defined the word “organic” is, and also because it implies that WalMart will be free to return to non-organic foods if it will help their profit margins.

**7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film is best fit for audiences in the “developed” world, from all walks of life. People of all ages and education levels, as long as they live on a diet typical to the “First World,” will find this to be an eye-opening film.

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

To enhance its environmental educational value, the film could have shifted its focus more from human costs/consequences to ecological impacts of our food system. However, I think the approach that the director took made it very effective at conveying its intended messages.

**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 film suggests a mostly grassroots-type movement, recommending that people make informed choices about where they buy food from. It also encourages people to actively take part in the political process, writing and visiting with legislators.

**10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)** As the film suggested, I visited [|www.takepart.com/foodinc] to see what actions the filmmakers are recommending the public take, and found a list of “10 simple things you can do to change our food system.” Among the most interesting are: eat at home instead of eating out, go without meat one day a week (“Meatless Mondays”), and demanding job protections for farm workers. []

I also found an interesting article on the Discovery channel’s [|www.planetgreen.com], entitled “Pink Slime and Ammonia: Two Main Ingredients in Some Ground Beef.” This gives further details on the “pink slime” discussed in the movie. The low-grade trimmings and scrap that used to be processed for pet food is now commonly being re-processed into our meat supply as filler. Additionally, the slime usually contains significantly higher levels of bacteria such as //E. coli//. []