11.+Dominguez+-+Food,+Inc.

__FILM ANNOTATION: FOOD, INC.__

- Food, Inc., Robert Kenner, 2008
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

- This film addresses a narrative that often goes unmentioned and that is the right for consumers to know what there is food of, where it comes from, and how it was made. Food, Inc. does an excellent job of addressing issues that many of us don’t even know are issues, because consumers are very much kept in the dark about the food we eat. This film not only acknowledges that we have the right to know but also points out that government has blatantly disregarded this right by protecting the corporations of the food industry in almost every initiative they have made.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

- One of the largest sustainability problems discussed in this film is the lack of regulation of industry on the part of government, which is in turn a political issue. There is too much bias in our government system and thus industry gets away with murder, quite literally. People fall ill due to the contaminated food that went untested before reaching the market and no one is ever held accountable. Therefore, since they are not reprimanded for harming the general public they serve, the food industry has no incentive to change their ways. - Another problem that this film draws out is our government’s ability to keep society in the dark, thus producing an oblivious culture. It is astonishing to see just how much consumers do not know about the industries they depend on. This oblivious culture keeps consumers from asking questions that they have full right to ask, like ‘where did this food come from?’ In a sense, this gives consumers the notion that they are powerless and do not have the right to inquire about things that are important to their consumer decisions. - Of course, dealing with farming and livestock, this film draws out the environmental implications of our current food industry. For example, they touch on the differences in environmental impact when comparing corn and grass as feed for cattle. Since corn production is subsidized by our government, it is a cheap commodity, monetarily speaking. However, in order to feed cattle corn it must be planted, harvested, and transported to the feedlot (never mind the need to transport the subsequent manure). On the other hand, grass is naturally growing, harvested by the cattle that eats it, and the subsequent manure is conducive to the grass re-growing. - Although not necessarily a sustainability problem in other contexts, our advanced technology in the food industry has become a problem to making sustainable change. For example, technological innovations have overcomplicated what used to be simple farming processes (fattening cattle faster, engineering seeds to be pesticide resistant, etc). Furthermore, there is now a notion that we no longer need to prevent disease since we can simply treat it. These innovations have skewed our perspectives and values to fit into the business strategies of corporations who purchase from these farmers.
 * 3.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

- The use of statistics in this film was conducive to portraying just how substantial these problems are. For example, the statistic on chicken farmers: A typical grower with 2 chicken houses has borrowed over $500,000 and earns about $18,000 per year. This statistic shows how difficult it is for farmers to make a living today and just how exploited farmers really are. Also, these statistics are accompanied by interviews with farmers, experts, union organizers, and reform lobbyists, which only enhance the impact of these statistics. - Another portion of the film that I found very compelling was the indirect comparison of how the small farmer operates and how the industrial farmer operates. Essentially, the small farmer makes an effort to maintain the land and treat the animals as humanely as possible. The farmer even mentioned that his goal is not to expand but to continue to produce quality products. He went on to say about increased demand, “I want to meet the need without compromising the integrity.” This way of thinking is no longer mainstream in the farming way of life because they are bullied by large corporations that buy from them and threaten to cause the farmer to shutdown if they change suppliers. It is vital that we re-instill this attitude and keep corporations from bullying farmers. - Overall, the most compelling part of this film was the portrayal of the utter lack of policy and legislation passed to help the farmers, as well as the corruption of government in that those who used to be the heads of industry now control government action. These people are entrusted with the health and safety of our nation, but they also have this bias to help the industries they are protecting us from. This film does a great job of opening audiences’ eyes as to just how much power industry really has in our government, which in turn speaks to the lack of sustainable change made in our nation.
 * 4.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

- Sadly, I was not convinced by the film’s effort to show that farmers can fight back for justice. As much as I would like to see farmers win in this fight of unfairness, the fact of the matter is that the corporations have too much say in it all and they have the money to get the important players on their side. Basically, it comes down to policy change, which can only happen if and when the government is cleansed of this industrial bias that is currently within it. Until then, there is not much that farmers can do to get the respect they deserve; after all, they are the ones that ensure that our nation has food. A strike on their part would be detrimental to say the least, but would definitely get the point across.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

- I am compelled to seek out more information on just how our subsidization system functions. It seems to make sense to regulators; however, how could it possibly be good for a nation when burgers are more affordable than broccoli? The example of the family that could not afford to buy basic vegetables and was better off feeding their diabetic family fast food on a daily basis. This, I’m sure, is the life story of many families in America and it is sad to think that we are inadvertently subsidizing the fast food industry.
 * 6.** **What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

- This film legitimately gave me goosebumps. I would recommend this film to everyone. It may be complicated for younger audiences to understand, but the images are so shocking that it would surely induce curiosity and spark intrigue on their part. Everyone eats food, and no one really knows what’s in it; therefore, this film is important for everyone to see. People may not even know that they have a right to know about their food, and their purchasing power speaks volumes for American values. This film would probably get consumers to seek out organic food, since it has shown to change how some stores operate (including Wal-Mart).
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

- The conclusion of this film was very inspirational. It gave various, realistic courses of action that consumers could take. Simple things like read labels and buy locally grown food were among this list. I was very happy to see that this film encourages consumers to use their buying power to force a change through the very economic system that controls these corporations. If there is no demand for the quality of the food they produce, maybe they will actually change the way they make it. - It is also implied throughout the film that the government needs to step in and hold corporations accountable for the negative impacts they have on society and the environment alike. As said by a farmer who went to court with Monsanto, our justice system is no longer about fairness; it’s about who can afford to put more money on their side of the scales. The first person to run out of money loses big, quite literally.
 * 8.** **What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

- This film didn’t go into too much detail about the negative impacts that CAFOs have on our land, or herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics in meat, feeding cattle corn instead of grass, etc. Although these environmental implications are implied throughout the film (it is assumed that the audience knows the effects of antibiotics on cattle, etc), they are not explicitly discussed, thus some viewers may not fully understand the matrix of problems that surround the food industry. Nonetheless, the film does a good job of incorporating the policy issues with the environmental issues without going into too much detail on either side. Such detail could be overwhelming for viewers.
 * 9.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

[posted May 2, 2010]