Weber_Food+Inc.


 * Ashley Weber, Annotation #8, Date: 10/11/10 **
 * Food, Inc. **

The film Food, Inc. was directed by Robert Kenner and released in 2009.
 * Film, Director, Release Year **

This film seeks to draw attention to the fact that we have eaten food all of our lives, but we don’t know where it comes from. A small group of corporations control the whole industrial food corporation that focus primarily on business and keeping cost low and providing cheap food. The evolution of the food industry is negatively affecting our society. There are no longer seasons in the American market because food is being grown half way around the world. Meat being sold no longer has bones. In the poultry industry we are no longer farming, we are mass producing in which animals and works are being abused. The film suggests that consumers are also at fault for keeping this industrial food business going because when we buy food and it is scanned, we are voting organic or non organic.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

There are many sustainability problems that this film suggests in all areas of the food industry.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

In the 1970’s the top 5 meat producers owned 25% of the market. Today, the top 4 producers own more than 80% of the market. This increase can be attributed to the shift towards using “factories” instead of farms to raise chickens in half the time and that are twice as big as they were in the past. As well as the issue with McDonald’s being the largest buyer of ground beef. As a company, they want their hamburgers to taste the same in all stores. As a result, the cows would have to be all the same to get the same taste. We are raising food, not cows anymore. Cows are being forced to eat corn when they don’t eat corn, they eat grass. These animals are being abused to provide consumers with cheaper non diverse food.

The overwhelming control of these companies is also prevalent in their treatment toward farmers. The chicken industry helped a community in the south recover, but the farm owners have no control over their business. One of the farmers changed his mind about showing the film the inside of this coops after a Tyson Rep visited him. Another woman interviewed in the film had her contract terminated when she failed to upgrade to a dark tunnel coop. Farmers either have the choice of making these changes that are inhumane actions or lose their jobs.

We cannot look towards the government to protect us from this control either. Many government officials in control of our health have had previous jobs in the food industrialization business. The head of the FDA was the former head of the Food Processors Association. Food safety checks have gone down since. The industry is being more protected than the people. The film uses Kevin’s Law as an example. Every time a case of tainted beef, or ecoli or other health issues arise revolving around the production of food it peels back over the hidden facts about the food industy.

Another example of how the government is more protective over corporations is with Veggie Libel Laws. The film gives the example of Oprah being sued because she made a comment about meat contamination say that it “stopped her from eating another burger.”

An example given in the film, once again dealt with the government having the meat producers’ backs. The government was cracking down on illegal workers and not the companies who hire these workers. They have special agreements with the companies to only arrest a certain number per day, so it doesn’t affect the production level of the business. Lastly, there is a correlation with location of certain types of business and the actual work being done. The largest slaughter house in the world is located in an economically depressed small town called Tarheel. Workers are being treated like the hogs that kill and get infections from these animals. In the film Erin Brockovich, the location of the ground water contamination case also took place in a small town where the people’s lives that were being put at risk weren’t seen as important as maybe those more educated.

The interviews with the chicken farmers, secret worker webcam inside the hog slaughter house, listening to the mother tell about how her child died from eating food, and the fact that the meat producers were declined to speak in the film made this film very compelling. The broad look at the whole food industry provided great examples as to how this problem is not just being caused by one specific food industry or group of people.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

Although the films provides a numerous possible points of action, I can’t help but come away from the film thinking…so what am I supposed to eat? Yes, organic foods are supposed to be more sustainable, but this option is not the best for all people. Even if one is able to find the product they are looking for as organic in their local supermarket, the cost difference can be very deterring for most people.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

The film best address mostly common everyday people who chose to purchase food ignorant as to where it is coming from. It would provide the most shock for those who do not currently chose to purchase organic. This film is also very fitting for people fresh out of college with their first full time job making a decent wage who are just beginning to live on their own and do grocery shopping. This specific group of people could possibly better afford to make organic and healthier food purchases than people in college or those trying to support a family. Starting off making healthier choices now would be easier than changing older people's lifestyles who have bought specific types of food from general stores their whole lives.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

Although this film attempted to get the meat producers to comment in the film, it would have been very enlightening to hear their side of the story. It is hard to be completely conclusive until both sides are told.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **

This film provided many types of action that consumers can take to overhaul this food crisis. 1. People need to demand good food. The market will deliver what the consumer demands. Walmart realizes that they need to give the consumer what they want. An example of this is Stoneyfield organic yogurt that is now being sold in their stores. 2. The Natural Food Expo serves is event that displaces the possibility of organic businesses could be a solution to the environmental problems and by highly successful. Stoneyfield is currently the number 3 yogurt brand in the country. 3. When we buy products, we are voting to that we want that type of product. So purchasing more organic and less inorganic is one option. So, vote three times a day. 4. Know what you buy. Read labels 5. The average meal travels 1500 miles from the farm to market. Buy foods that are locally grown and shop at farmers’ markets. 6. Cook a meal with your family and eat together 7. Ask school board to provide healthy school lunches. 8. If you have a story…tell it and speak about it. Just like Kevin’s law. 9. We need a change at the policy level in order for carrots to be a better deal than chips. 10. Use the tobacco industry as a model for change.
 * 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. **

After watching this film, I began thinking about if the food in our supermarket is bad, then how much worse is fast food chain’s menu.
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) **

I came across this article on a few days old, where someone reported that Happy Meal from McDonalds resisted decomposition for six months. However, a director at the University of Georgia in the Center for Food Safety declared that no hamburger would look like this unless it was frozen or tampered with. Here is a quote that I found interesting from McDonald’s spokeswoman “ McDonald's hamburger patties in the United States are made with 100% USDA-inspected ground beef," Riley wrote. "Our hamburgers are cooked and prepared with salt, pepper and nothing else -- no preservatives, no fillers. Our hamburger buns are baked locally, are made from North American-grown wheat flour and include common government-approved ingredients designed to assure food quality and safety.” What is interesting is the fact that this woman is probably telling the truth, but after watching this film, one realizes that 100% USDA inspected, no preservatives, and government approved ingredients is not saying a whole lot for it’s favor. []

I also came across an article in the news about Ben & Jerry’s, the ice cream maker. They recently decided to remove the phrase “all natural” from the labels on their ice cream. This was after a request from The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group.

This brings up the issue that the film also addressed with the problem with product labeling. ” The CSPI told the company last month it should not use "all natural" if products contain alkalized cocoa, corn syrup, hydrogenated oil or other ingredients that are not natural. The FDA doesn’t have a formal definition of “natural”. "The Food and Drug Administration could do consumers and food manufacturers a great service by actually defining when the word 'natural' can and cannot be used to characterize a given ingredient," CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson said in a statement.

[]