Think back through the movie Food, Inc. What did you find most compelling, either in a good way or in a bad way? Use that as a jumping off point to respond to the film.
As an example, to me, all of the sad animal pictures only go so far in persuading me. I'm not an animal person, so that strategy has limited impact on me. (Just to be clear, it's not like I cheer to watch the poor chickens keeling over in the windowless pit of ammonia. But it's not necessarily enough to completely persuade me). What really did piss me off though, was the injustice these companies were perpetrating against "regular people". The old man who was being sued by Monsanto for engaging in completely legal business made me so sad that I was ready to write him a check for his legal bills by the end.
So: what particular aspects of the film were really persuasive to you (or really unpersuasive)?
due October 13 as a comment to this post
What persuaded me the most about Food Inc. was the story about the mother's struggle for legislation to be passed about the meat industry due to her young son's death from an E-coli outbreak. I found it very saddening that the way meat is processed is not only unsanitary for the livestock, but that despite their multiple chemical baths,meat can still contain diseases that can kill people in less than two weeks after consumption. For the fact that her struggle is so great, I thought it was disgusting that our government is so selfish in that it treats the food industry the same as any other capitalistic opportunity. They don't open their eyes to see that the jobs they perform can cost people's lives. The point made in the film about how these major meat companies only try to fix their existing problems with more processed advanced technology versus reverting to the common sense answer (corn v. grass fed to cows) was eye opening to me. It was one of several points the documentary made that convinced me that the American food industry is severely corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Olivia -- the scene involving the mother had me tearing up. It's horrible how heartless the companies seem to be toward her situation, and even the part where she had to pass on admitting to whether or not she ate any differently now had me pretty captivated.
ReplyDeleteI think that story interested/compelled me the most because it was something I hadn't heard so much about before. The sad animal images definitely made me uncomfortable, but I'm used to that sort of propaganda when people are talking about how awful the food industry is.
Sad animals, gross statistics about all the chemicals we put in our foods, old farmers being put out of work ... that all seemed pretty run-of-the-mill to me. But hearing about a two-year-old dying from e.coli and then his mother's unrewarded fight against the food industry seemed like something more novel.
I also liked the part about Stonyfield-- it was interesting to see environmentalists work with "the man" toward a common goal: make organics more available to customers.
My thoughts on Food Inc:
ReplyDeleteFamilies on a budget can’t afford to buy nutritious foods because the most affordable foods in the supermarket are the over-processed and clearly over-subsidized ones. When a little girl asks her family to buy a vegetable and is told it’s too expensive I have to think something in this country has gone horribly wrong.
We’ve gotten to the point where it’s cheaper to buy a small greasy hamburger than fresh produce?
The government continues to subsidize processed foods like soft drinks instead of vegetables. Like Pollan said in his book, farmers are operating at a loss so in order to make profits they have to grow more, effectively diminishing prices and putting famers out of business. This cycle puts the food industry in the hands of corporate giants instead of the people capable of producing sanitary and natural foods.
Towards the end of Food Inc. there’s a farmer who remains in the chicken industry despite being dwarfed financially by his competition. His chicken was found to have significantly less toxins and bacteria than factory produced chicken. The farmer doesn’t want to see his product in a Wal-Mart because he would have to change how his chickens are produced and compromise his integrity. This farmer is an example of the meat producers the government should be subsidizing instead of backing corporations who continue to put questionable groceries in our shopping carts.
The one thing that really bothered me was what they have done to food and the conditions they keep it in. You can go from genetically modified vegetables to mutant chickens with abnormally large breasts and legs. It is crazy to think that only 50 years ago or less there was a fraction of amount of chemicals in foods compared to now. We pack preservatives and substitutes into everything now. It is getting the point where everyone has to search and scour the super market isles for 100% organic/natural foods. Most of us do not even eat organic because we can not afford a 100% organic diet. It is getting to the point where we have to take multivitamins and other drugs in order to stay healthy from the nutrients that should be in our food.
ReplyDeleteIt is terrible that families in the lower tax bracket get served nothing but insufficient food because of the price. This is a sacrifice that a lot of people don't even realize. In stead of sacrificing money, people have to sacrifice their diet and health in order to help their families get by.
The thing that struck me most was the tension it built before revealing the inside of a chicken coop. I can remember the scene perfectly. It was right after they asked to see the first chicken farmer's buildings. It had the camera slowly panning into a dark abyss while text appeared on the screen. To heighten the tension, unsettling music was loudly playing in the background. It felt very akin to the infamous shower scene in horror movies.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that persuaded me the most was the horrors that genetic modification had brought to chickens. I couldn't help but grimace when it showed the close up of a poor chicken's legs giving out from the weight. That really showed me how miserable life was for those animals.
I found the most unpersuasive part of Food inc to be the very end of the movie. I am talking about when text flashes on the screen explaining how you can change the system. I found it to be very underwhelming. The whole movie seemed to build up to this moment. The erratic appearance of the text also made the sentences a little hard to take in and process.
I was quite moved by some of the content of Food Inc.--so moved, in fact, that I was lead to actively recognize that I was being swayed by melodrama and emotional appeals. I found the use of a bereaved mother's story as the emotional core of the film moving, but also considered using the tragedy of one woman to push the film's agenda somewhat opportunistic.
ReplyDeleteI also found some of the subjects of interviews--specifically the lovable farmer/stooge of Tyson's factory farm system and his tired, defiant female counterpart--somewhat caricature-like. The first farmer, in passing, mentioned the positive economic effects of Tyson's involvement with the community, yet the input of any other locals is noticeably absent--the film, of course, cleverly hides its refusal to film opposing points of view with inter-titles informing as that "Such and such company declined our request for an interview."
I viewed the film's "sad animal pictures" as somewhat of an attempt to garner sympathy for the--now genetically disadvantaged--animals, but also as a method of revealing the thoughtless, potentially hazardous industrial process in which the highest number of product is created by the lowest-paid, most easily replaced unskilled hands possible.
That said, I was probably most compelled by the revelation of Smithfield's hiring and subsequent abuse of illegal immigrant workers, as well as the other illegitimate business practices displayed in the film. I found that the film's inward focus succeeded most in the segment on the single farmer's struggle against the bullish, monopolistic actions of Monsanto.