Food+Inc.+-+JPH

**Directors:** Kenner, Robert **Year:** 2008
 * Film:** Food Inc.

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?** The central argument of the film is that the food production system in America has been high-jacked by a few multinational corporations. The current methods have taken the farm and turned it into a corporate factory which is leading to a public health crisis and brings about issues of animal cruelty, illegal immigration, and the suppression of information. The Agribusiness and Livestock business is growing in power and influence and is forcing good farmers to conform to their unsanitary, unhealthy, and unsustainable methods of farming. They are also using their influence to control government regulations and subsidies.

**What sustainability problems does the film draw out?** //Censorship of Information// Large corporations attempt to keep their practices a secret at all times and at almost any cost. This keeps the public unaware of how they are mistreating their animals and workers as well as the amount of processing that their food goes through before it gets to the supermarket. One tactic that agribusiness uses to suppress information is to keep farmers in debt and under contract that way they can intimidate them and prevent them from leaking information about their practices to the public. They also file lawsuits against individuals that speak out about the practices in the industry. Veggie libel laws are not nearly as strong as Anti-SLAPP laws. This gives corporations greater power in targeting whistle blowers, critics, and even investigative reporters. Corporations fight tooth and nail against labeling of their products through lobbying in Congress. All of these practices are used to keep the general public in the dark about how their food is really produced.

//Genetically Modified Organisms// Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) are a significant sustainability issue because of their proprietary nature under the U.S. legal system and because they allow farmers to use extremely poisonous chemical on their crops. Under the U.S. patent and legal system patents can be filed for living organisms which in this case refer to GMO crops. This legal protection allows corporations to control the sale, the use, and the spread of the crop. Corporations force farmers to destroy any seed that they generate from their crops so that they can’t plant using any seed that they generate. They can also file suit against farmers whose non-GMO crops have reproduced with the neighboring farms GMO crops. This is significant issue because it gives corporations so much control over the food production system. Certain GMO’s such as soybeans have been bread to be immune from weed killers such as round up. Thousands of gallons of weed killer are dumped on soybean crops each year. This poses human health risks at the store and contaminates the water and soil.

//Government Subsidies of Corn// Government subsidies of corn allow farmers to sell their corn at less than the cost that it takes for them to produce the corn. The cheap and overproduced corn is converted into the majority of processed foods that we find at the store. This is the reason why junk foods, snack foods, and fast foods are cheaper than fruits and vegetables. The government’s subsidies of corn have created a human health epidemic of obesity and diabetes. The government needs to subsidize the crops that are sold as vegetables at the store rather than the corn that is turning America fat.

**What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?** The most persuasive part of the film was the expose on the meat production system and the amount of animal and human cruelty that is involved. Watching the fear on the farmer’s faces when they considered allowing the video cameras to go into their chicken houses was very striking. It was terrible to see chickens that couldn’t walk because of their weight as well as the number of dead chickens that were removed by the farmers on a daily basis. You had no idea why the chickens died either. It could very easily have been due to a disease that was spreading through all of the chickens. This showed just how dirty and disgusting the system was and the potential for disease. Watching as the owner of one of the largest distributors of beef talked about how revolutionary his company was for washing all of its meat with ammonia was scary and disturbing. It the majority of our food is being processed this way then it would probably be terrifying to know how much of those chemicals are being passed on to us as we eat.

**What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?** I was not convinced that all of the “good” companies were as good as they claimed. Most of the organic or natural companies had been bought out by large multinational corporations. The fact that the “good guys” were owned by the “bad guys” made me very skeptical of the healthy or organic food as well. The large multinationals don’t care about being organic they care about making money and meeting the demands of the market. They will cut corners in any way to save money as long as they won’t lose their organic certification. I question the certification system and what it really means because I do not trust that big business really has sustainability or going organic as a priority.

**What audiences does the film best address? Why?** I think that this movie addresses a very broad audience. There is a message in this film for anyone who has ever wondered where their food came from, if their food is healthy, or why the healthy alternatives aren’t as prevalent. There has been a huge cover up to disguise how food is actually produced and I think that this film will appeal to most people of almost any age because so many people can connect with the message. Most people have experience fast food and/or have people in their families that have diabetes or are obese. This movie helps to alleviate the burden that we are the cause of our ailments and shows that agribusiness, multinational corporations, and the government share in that responsibility as much as the individuals.

**What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?** I was very curious as the why the cow had a hole in its stomach. It was never made clear is the cow was being used by science or if that cow was supposed to be slaughters and would end up on my kitchen table. I also think that there should have been more systematic solutions presented such as ways to fix the regulators inability to enforce the laws or ways to fix the way in which farm subsidies are distributed.

**What kinds of actions 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 the consumers use their buying power to create demand for foods that are healthy, safe, and in the case of animals, treated humanely. There are many examples of this being effective such as with Stonybrook Yogurts. They also lightly suggested that individuals reach out to their politicians to make corrections to the regulation system. I think that consumers should be more proactive in their approach to creating change by boycotting certain brands of products or certain types of foods in general. There also need to more systematic changes that will weed out the worst offenses to food production. We need to create laws that don’t allow agribusiness board members to sit on regulatory committees.

**What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?** This film encouraged me to explore polyface farms and learn about their practices and how to run their business. I believe that they are a great alternative to modern farming practices. []

I also looked for similar farms in the New York area that practice pasture-based farming and found Awesome Farm in Tivoli, NY. []