Bensley+Annotations+9

David Bensley Annotation #9 15 Nov 2011 //What’s on Your Plate? // Word Count: 859

//What’s on Your Plate? // is a 2009 film directed by Catherine Grund.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **

The film advocates local and organic farming, arguing that it is unhealthy and unnecessary—as well as worse-tasting—to source food from overseas. It makes the claim that public school food, in particular, is of a low quality because it is primarily processed foods and foods that are not fresh.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

The film follows two girls, Safiyah and Sadie, who are exploring where their food comes from and how nutritional it really is (or, as it turns out, is not). They begin by mapping out the source of their foods on a world map and wondering why such a system is necessary. Then, they discuss school food with a few knowledgeable people, including administrators. The girls then meet a family to discuss the idea of urban farming and how it can be done. They then turn to fast food and the health impacts of eating “bad” food, in particular diabetes, and comparing it to local, organic markets.
 * 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 film has some emotional appeal, as it appears to be derived from a genuine youthful interest, but does not pull at the audience’s heartstrings, so to speak. There is almost no scientific information, except for a brief discussion of diabetes resulting from obesity and poor nutrition.

 **4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**  //What’s on Your Plate? //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> discusses economic, educational, and public health-related sustainability problems. The economic problems are drawn out in the discussion of public school food, and where society is willing to spend its money. Feeding children healthier food would decrease health care costs, so skimping on school food costs ends up costing society more in the long run.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I was most impacted by the part of the film discussing the content of public school lunches. It seems sad to me that we did not begin to offer sufficient nutrition to students in this country until it became a military necessity, and that we do not prioritize our children’s health enough to spend more on their food. It is pathetic that a New York City public school cannot afford a stove to cook meals on, rather than purchasing pre-cooked frozen meals to be heated up in an oven.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

One aspect of the film that did not help to convince me was how scripted much of the dialogue, particularly that of Sadie and Safiyah, seemed. The scripting made them seem less personally interested, and therefore made the film itself less engrossing.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I was also not convinced that the lifestyle of the Angel family was the solution to the problems that the film brought up. It is telling that the family needs volunteers to help them farm, and would probably not make a profit on their farming if they had to pay employees. They also have to take their children away from home and schoolwork every weekend, which seems like it could detract from their ability to perform in school.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film targets a younger audience, specifically school children. It is narrated by two of their peers and uses child-appropriate language, explaining things at very basic levels. It also talks about issues that are relevant to children, such as public school lunches.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film occasionally mentioned environmental issues such as the smog created by shipping food and the plastic containers associated with our food. However, it did not discuss the magnitude of the problem in any scientific sense.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **

The film seems to suggest that educating children about the issues of nutrition and food sustainability is important. There also is a lot of room for changes in improving how we think about food and what it means to society in terms of health costs. Finally, the film emphasizes the idea of local markets and farming for cities, including Community Supported Agriculture organizations, or CSAs.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">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. **

Based on this film, I was interested in finding out whether or not poverty and childhood obesity tend to go hand in hand. I found two maps—one of poverty rates by county and one of childhood obesity by state ([]). They seem to indicate some correlation, but not definitively. I also found a scholarly article that explored the recent global phenomenon of obesity in impoverished children ([|http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xb9x54z#page-1]).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) **