I had first heard of Food, Inc. from my previous employer, a vegan, Israeli acupuncturist who shared similar life choices as myself. She explained to me that the movie was very similar to what I was interested in pursuing for my Master’s Thesis. After a quick Google search of the film, I immediately bought tickets to see it at my local independent theater. However, for several reasons, I chose to skip the filming. I will discuss the reasons for why I initially hesitated to watch the film, as well as include why my assumptions were revealed false after viewing the film for our Anthropology of Food lecture.
First, already a vegetarian, I find it hard to witness the savages that the animals, specifically pigs, in factory farming are put through. Often, I find that these exploitative films, specifically in the name of “animal rights” merely display a montage of horrifying footage for the sake of scaring the watcher out of eating meat. These methods do not work. Personally, I have never met a person who gave-up eating meat due to these scare tactics. Rather, I have met some young adults who prove their bravery through their endorsement of cruelty; I like to call it the “brutal” factor, whoever can be most unsympathetic to animal and human rights, wins. However, while there were several scenes in which we view animals being abused, the intent, I believe, wasn't to bombard the viewer with endless gruesome images, akin to a horror film testing our bravery, but rather informative. Yes, we pity the animals, but as we see with the recalled meat, we pity the waste of their lives, the turning of life into mere commodity without any regard for its intrinsic value. When I witnessed the small-scale farmer, with his antiquated use of “cone technology”, I wasn’t horrified or enraged (perhaps slightly saddened) because the life of the animal was respected. By presenting the facts, the movie did not need the traditional gimmicks of having Joaquin Phoenix or Pamela Anderson crying over a pile of slaughtered animals.
Another reason I was weary to watch the film was because many environmental or animal rights documentaries are presented in terms of the extreme political left. I will not discuss my own political views beyond saying that I do not place my trust into any extreme thought, including both the far left and the far right spectrum of our political system. That being said, the director did not merely present the film only to one, liberal, demographic, but rather allowed the viewer to see how both political parties are either adding to the current food crisis or working to improve it. Also, as we see with the sympathetic women who lost her son to E-coli poisoning, the ailments these foods cause do not only affect the rich, poor, right, left, white, black, or Lation, they affect everyone. I hate to use such a redundant buzzword, but lets say, food, and the lack of integrity within our system, are bipartisan, and leave it at that.
My favorite role within this film is the Stonyfield owner with his “if you can’t beat them, join them attitude”. I would like to do some research on the company to learn about their practices and how they have changed since Stonyfield’s original creation in 1983. If Stonyfield’s practices are still reputable, they would be an incredible example of what people can do, within the actual capitalistic framework, and not the fictional utopia of what could-be.
One of the most effective aspects of Food, Inc. was that the film presented a solution to the problem. There are too many times where I read an article, watch a film, or listen to an activist talk about how capitalism and the corporate world are the cause of the disgrace of our food industry. Whether it is the case or not, it is here to stay, and unfortunately cannot be unclaimed. Many Americans will not cut down on their meat consumption, will not travel long distances to purchase their foods, and will especially not work 2 jobs, attend night classes, and then go home to tend to their rooftop gardens (aside from some Hunter graduate students). Consumers need a realistic option. Kenner not only presents the “vote with your fork” option; he shows how large corporations, such as Walmart, are persuaded to stock their shelves with organic and antibiotic free products because their buyers made it clear this is “what they wanted”. Kenner also acknowledges that “vote with your fork” is not always a viable option. Many people do not have the time or money to purchase organic or locally grown foods. This is where Kenner claims that we need to push at a policy level to have the creation and manipulation of our food available to us. [On a side note, I would like to say that Kenner’s choice for ‘the sympathetic working class family’ did not incite much sympathy for me. Rather than spend your money on Burger King, you can easily buy vegetables and pasta (like my own family during hard times) instead of the four burgers and Dr. Pepper soda. As the small farmer explains, ‘if you are going to complain about $3 eggs, don’t do it while holding a 75C soda’.
Food, Inc. specifically took a look at the American food system and corporations that control it. While this topic is personally of great interest of mine, I feel the film would have had more depth if the director included a global edge to the film. For instance, it would have been fulfilling to add the fact that the European Union is adopting many of the issues that we are concerned about within our own country, including the of labeling cloned and genetically modified meats. Knowing that other countries are championing our own initiatives would have been an uplifting, and informative touch to the film.
Also, it would have been beneficial if the director included a deeper look into the role of the immigrant factory worker. Specifically, how these corporations exploit the workers through their illegal status. I assume that the director only glossed over these subjects and did not include any notable court cases concerning these very exploitations, because the cases were dismissed.
In total, while there were obvious flaws to the film, including the glossing over of important topics, and the portrayal of a limited group of people, it did however provide one of the more realistic approaches to battling the American food industry. It would have also been persuasive to have heard these companies responses to the film, however the lack of this is not the fault of Kenner. He tried to include the statements of companies such as Purdue, Tyson, and Monsanto, they simply refused.
