Topics and Issues in The Documentary Film 'Food, Inc'

Introduction

Food Inc. is a documentary film by Robert Kenner. The production of the film involved many but the most notable is Michael Pollan, the author of the Omnivore’s dilemma. He acts as a consultant although the film features him. Produced by the Participant media, it took three years to make it with a budget of about $1 million. Kenner says he used additional funds to address lawsuits by subjects of the documentary such as the players in the food industry. On the Box Office, the film earned $4.6 million after its release in 2008, and runs 94 minutes. It largely received a positive response and was nominated for several awards that include the Academy Award and the Independent Spirit Awards in 2009.

Film analysis

The film examines industrial food production. In the last few centuries, the growth in population and advancement in technology had changed food production. It requires technology and changes in food production techniques to feed an increasing number of people. However, industrial food production also comes with certain downsides and the film examines a few of those. The downsides directly affect the consumers and yet food companies keep such salient information hidden. Consequently, customers make misleading decisions on their consumption. The objective of the film is to fill that information gap by giving customers more information about the food they consume.

The four main issues that the supermarket tackles are the quality of supermarket food and corn, beef, chicken and industrial chicken farms, pork processing, and the failures in government role. Finally, it examines the practical steps that consumers or ordinary people can take to change things. For instance, the firm notes that supermarkets buy green tomatoes and ripen them using ethylene gas and customers are not aware of that fact. Moreover, scientists do not know the impact of such gas on human health and yet it is widely used in the food industry. The film also reports that the food industry does not want customers to know the truth.

Another finding of the film is that food companies create an illusion of giving customers a choice but in reality, most food is derived from a few crops mainly corn. The oversize role of corn is due to government subsidies that effectively pay farmers to produce corn. The overreliance of corn is the driving force behind obesity as consumers take too much corn and its calories even without realizing.

The same problem is present in the beef production where industrial production of beef has handed the top companies monopoly on food production. However, industrial food production makes food susceptible to infection by e-coli, which is a powerful and potentially dangerous pathogen. To deal with the problem, farmers and industrial food producers have to use more antibiotics and that is responsible for antibacterial resistance. Therefore, the activities of industrial food producers are directly responsible for some of the emerging health issues.

Finally, the government has failed its role in protecting the health of citizens. Big food companies sell GMO food as ordinary food because the companies have won the legal fight against the government. The companies have won additional protection but the ordinary person takes specific steps such as consuming organic food to protect their health.

The film addresses an important topic regarding the health and quality of food consumed. Big businesses are used to getting their own way and a review of their business practices is welcome. What is apparent is that the film uses objective sources and information from insiders to explore food production and marketing. Given the massive amount of resources at the hand of the food companies, it is apparent that efforts to get objective information on these companies are impossible (Paoletti et al. 20).

When faced with negative information about their operations food companies even invest in diversionary research to muddy the process of consensus building that would lead to positive action. Moreover, the film features reputable people like Michael Pollan who has published widely on industrial food production and its negative impact on human health and the environment.

On the other hand, the film raises important questions. One of the issues that emerge prominently is what options that people have considering the unethical and unsafe food practices by the food industry. The film suggests that people should start consuming organic food but that solution is not viable. Organic food production relies on the old practices of using manure and biological pest control (Rotz and Fraser 460). While the approach is healthy and has little or no impact on the quality of food, it cannot produce enough food to sustain the world population. Industrial food production is cheap and it delivers quality food to customers at an affordable price.

Another problem with alternatives to industrial food is the cost of such food. Currently, the poor people rely on the so-called junk food because it is affordable. Whole grains and vegetables, including organic food is not affordable to the majority except the ultra-wealthy (Nuijten 6). The film does not explore in detail that dilemma in food production. The issue is that consumers have to rely on cheaper GMO, not afford food, or not get any if at all. The choices are clear. Apparently, the government is aware of the tough choices and that explains is passive support for industrial food producers.

A balanced review should have considered the underlying story about the rise and the popularity of industrial food production. A few centuries ago, scientists did not believe that the resources available could support the growing population that that fear proved false because food production deploys inorganic fertilizers, chemical control of pests, and GMO food (Stuart and Worosz 250). Without those technological innovations, there is no way the world can support a population of billions of persons and growing.

Works Cited

1. Pearce, Richard, director. Food, Inc.
2. Nuijten, Monique. “Editorial.” Focaal, vol. 2006, no. 48, 2006, pp. v-vii., doi:10.3167/092012906780646370.
3. Paoletti, Claudia, et al. “GMO Risk Assessment around the World: Some Examples.” Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 19, 2008, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.07.007.
4. Rotz, Sarah, and Evan D. G. Fraser. “Resilience and the Industrial Food System: Analyzing the Impacts of Agricultural Industrialization on Food System Vulnerability.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5, no. 3, 2015, pp. 459–473., doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0277-1.
5. Stuart, Diana, and Michelle R. Worosz. “Erratum to: The Myth of Efficiency: Technology and Ethics in Industrial Food Production.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 26, no. 1, 2012, pp. 257–257., doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9431-x.