KimFilmAnnotation10

Timothy Kim Annotation #10 12/11/2011 STS Film Series: //What’s on Your Plate// //Word Count: 1267 //

//What’s on Your Plate// was directed by Catherine Gund and released in 2009.

Through voices and viewpoints of kids, the director argues that kids need to know the full benefits of local food. By visiting local farmers, the kids learn that benefits include more energy-efficient production, more prosperous farmers, healthier communities, longer lasting, and better tasting fruits and veggies. The director also argues that kids must understand that their food doesn’t only come from the supermarket or the factory, but from nearby farms, trees and the ground. By allowing kids to formulate sophisticated and compassionate opinions about urban sustainability, the film also tries to inspire hope and active engagement in others.1
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film is a provocative documentary about kids and food politics. The film follows two eleven-year-old multi-racial city kids opening their lunch boxes and digging in, families unpacking groceries bought at the supermarket and at the co-op, and adults who are learning with children how to take care of their food, their bodies and the environment all at the same time. While they explore their place in the food chain and investigate the food systems in New York City, a handful of scientific information is provided. The girls talk to each other, food activists, farmers, new friends, storekeepers, their families, and the viewer, in their quest to understand what’s on all of our plates. Especially, the interview with Ana Lappe, an activist, author, and co-founder of Small Planet Institute, provides interesting scientific studies and data. In a free-market system in the richest and most culturally diverse country in the world, America has one of the most complex systems of food production, distribution, cost, and quality. So asking how kids feel about food as an element of their daily lives takes some emotional appeal. Especially, when they interview families suffering from childhood obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, the film has strong emotional appeal.2
 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

Longer transportation and shipping of the imported fruits cause the smog and contribute to the global warming. Although the food company is providing a low-calorie product, the reality is that those foods are empty calories that are unhealthy to the human body. Complicated food supply systems for public schools make implication of changes harder. More people are drawn to fast food because of its convenience and good taste. Today, more people are suffering from diabetes because of bad diet habits and chemicals in the processed food. The film also examines differences between farmer’s market of Union Sq. and Harlem neighborhoods. Because of demographic differences, the local users in Harlem are encouraged to use coupon while the wealthy Union Sq. use cash to purchase the products.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

Overall, the steps the kids took in order to understand the food system of public school lunch was most compelling. They visited restaurants supplied with locally grown food and compared the New York City Department of Education school lunch program. After interviewing representatives from the department, they understood the complexity of the problem. Once they saw the problem, they sought for an alternative solution. By visiting an upstate New York carrot farmer hoping to sell his local harvest to public school lunch program, the kids understand the problems that local farmers are facing. I was persuaded by the kids’ journey of understanding the complex matrix of the problems since it reminded me of the basic approaches to environmental sustainability problems.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not compelled by the community supported agriculture (CSA). I agree that local farms, greenmarkets, and CSA programs are the key to the sustainability. The film, however, was not objective. Two months ago, I interviewed farmers at Union Square, New York City. Surprisingly, I found out that most farmers make tons of profit and no farmers are willing to share their incomes. The reality is that organic and fresh local foods are expensive and not affordable for low-income families. I would like to suggest the film to present more details and support their argument that “CSA program can help struggling farmers to survive on the one hand and provide affordable, locally-grown food to communities on the consumer end, especially to lower-income urban families.”3
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

People who live in New York City may find this film informative and easy to relate to. The setting of the film allows the audiences to understand the matrix of the problem clearly. In addition, the film also addresses to kids very well since the film is narrated by the kids as well. The parents, who are interested in educating their children the value of food, can also find this film very useful.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film is actually an excellent environmental educational tool that promotes kids and adults to question the origin of their food, how it’s cultivated, how many miles it travels from the harvest to their plate, how it’s prepared, who prepares it, and what is done afterwards with the packaging and leftovers. In the film, the kids visit the usual supermarkets, fast food chains, and school lunchrooms to answer these questions. In addition, the kids check into innovative sustainable food system practices by going to farms, greenmarkets, and community supported agriculture programs. Although any addition is not necessary, a procedure of starting a local garden in public spaces in New York City could enhance its environmental educational value.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film tries to educate, enlighten, and inspire our community. The film also addresses health concerns, issues of class and race as they relate to food availability, questionable food production and consumption practices, and general food consciousness in terms of cultivating a taste for local food within a community. The film suggests people to join community supported agriculture and shop at farmers markets. By understanding the relationships between food, its origins and our quality of life, more people will understand that CSA is better for land, better for farmers, and better for everybody.
 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective actions, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

I research more about CSA and understand the concept of “Shared Risk” from Local Harvest’s website. When CSA programs started, they were very different from what they are now. The CSA programs become just one of ways the farmers produce is marketed. Originally, the concept “Shared Risk” played important role creating a sense of community among members, and between members and the farmers. Therefore, most CSA farmers feel a great sense of responsibility to their members, and when certain crops are scarce, they make sure the CSA members get served first since members pooled their money to support the farmers when they started the CSA programs. The idea of “Shared Risk” must be supported by the members and farmers to strengthen the CSA programs and promote their growth.4
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?**

2. What’s on Your Plate. "Synopsis." 2009. < [] > 3. What’s on Your Plate. "Synopsis." 2009. < [] > 4. “Community Supported Agriculture”. LocalHarvest: real food, real farmers, real community. 2011 
 * Reference **1. Gund, Catherine. What’s on Your Plate. “Director’s Statement.” 2009. < [] >