Movie Review:
Food, Inc. misses its mark

by Sami Jo Freeman, posted Dec. 3, 2009

I walked into Memorial Union South on a recent evening to watch a free showing of the new film Food, Inc. Walking into that room, I was a little intimidated until I looked around to find a few “agricultural” friends sitting in the back.

I have to admit I was nervous. I grew up in a rural area and showed livestock myself, and I didn’t want anyone in the room to be less confident in the producers I know personally. Despite the fact that I am pursuing an animal science minor in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, I knew that wouldn’t matter. My education, past experience and expertise wouldn’t count in a room full of opinionated students. Even though my group of friends and I love, live and breathe production agriculture, it just wouldn’t matter this time.

In the end, the film didn’t do much for me. It didn’t vilify any farmers, just big companies like Monsanto, Tyson, Smithfield, Cargill and Beef Products Inc. It made farmers out to be victims after jumping from one conspiracy theory to the next. It left small farmers out, but attacked their industry at the same time.

The Beginning
The film started off in a typical grocery store, showing typical people buying typical things. Then it moved quickly into how the agriculture industry has become something that most people are not familiar with. It paints the picture of the big red barn and zooms inside that barn to exaggerate how industrialized modern production is. It accuses the agriculture industry of keeping these things “deliberately hidden.”

The directors then told an emotional story about a child who died from E. coli food poisoning from eating fast food — a sad and unfortunate situation that played on the emotions of those watching the movie. The film then portrayed the USDA as a victim to the fast food industry, as their hands were tied in this situation.

Accusations
After that story, the accusations piled through the roof. The agriculture industry was portrayed as uncaring. It was blamed for making Americans obese, abusing animals, abusing factory employees, taking advantage of large subsidies, leaving manure in meat, feeding cheap grain, bone, manure and dead animals to livestock, and doing all of these things just to make more money.

An important point the movie ignored, however, is that farmers are consumers, too. The majority of agriculturalists put all of their time and effort into making a product that is safe for all consumers. Remember, they eat the same products as those not employed in agriculture. It is also impossible for manure to remain on meat through the detailed standards of slaughter, processing and food preparation, which are set by the USDA.

Food, Inc. puts the blame on the fast food industry for obesity in America and other unfortunate foodborne illnesses. The only thing that the agriculture industry can keep doing is producing the raw products that go into fast food chains. Americans should exercise their ability to make their own diet decisions.

The film also effectively portrayed farming, yet again, as an animal abuse industry. Just like other attacks on the agricultural industry, the film showed emotional footage of animal production practices gone wrong.
Is it just a coincidence that there are direct links from the Food, Inc.. Web site to the Humane Society of the United States, an animal rights activist group? I think not.

In reality, farmers are some of the most compassionate people when it comes to animal production. Producers want nothing more than to walk into their barns and see healthy animals on a daily basis. That doesn’t happen because of regular sicknesses and injuries, just like humans get sick and injure themselves every day. Also, farmers will not feed “manure, bones or dead chickens” to their livestock. Only the highest quality feed possible is fed to livestock.

Over and over Food, Inc.. claims that agriculturists are only in their particular field to make money — and they’re greedy about the pursuit of it. In all reality agriculture is both a business and a way of life for most farmers. There must be enough money made at the end of the day to keep things running smoothly and keep families healthy. However, agriculture does not take on large subsidies or take on unethical practices to gain more cash. If this were the case, then maybe dairy, chicken and hog farms across the country wouldn’t be tanking.

Monsanto saw huge flack in this production. Biotechnology was portrayed as a negative aspect of agriculture. However, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies help farmers raise yields to feed a growing population. The Census Bureau said the population will double by 2050, American agriculture is just making the adjustments to keep feeding the world.

Monsanto doesn’t punish farmers if they do the right things. The men in the film knowingly held seed and tried to clean it for the next year’s planting season. Every farmer knows the rules involved in Monsanto’s seed. The company holds a patent on the seed and planters will not be pursued if they follow the rules and fill out paperwork on time., just like every other process in our government today. Monsanto holds farmers accountable to do the right thing with their seed, simple as that.

Truth
The truth behind this film is simple: agriculture has changed. It’s up to each person to interpret whether or not that’s a good thing. All of these arguments from Food, Inc. fall back on individual farm management and consumer decisions.

Food, Inc. can promote a vegan diet and organic food with gloomy music in the background, and it can prevent the consumers from gaining the truth, but farmers can’t let that happen. The only groups represented were organic, grass-fed and factory farms. The every day, “typical” farmer was left in the dust, but he or she might still see the negative effects of this production.
Needless to say, I walked out of Food, Inc. with three pages of notes and no new information. The ending slide asked if consumers were “hungry for change?” No thanks. I just had another full helping of misrepresentation of agriculture.

{back to homepage}