Food Inc. (2008), Research Paper Example

Why did I select this film?

I selected this film because I’m curious to know what I’m eating when I buy food at the supermarket. I wanted to know the story behind the food; how it gets to the market, what happens to it at the farm, how farmers treat it. I had a lot of friends recommend watching this film because they said it would change the way I eat and approach food in America.

Had I seen this film before?

I had not seen this movie before but had heard about Eric Schlosser’s book “Fast Food Nation” and understood that the two works of art were compatible.

What was the film’s purpose or thesis?

After watching the film I understood that the purpose of the documentary was to inform the audience as to how companies dictate what consumers are eating. Then, a second purpose of the film was to try to get viewers to stop the cycle of corporations dictating how food comes to be at the table and instead demand organic or better treated food.

Was it clear or did you have to infer it?

The documentary was very clear in their purpose of getting people to stop eating GMOs, clone food, and to help the viewer understand more about agriculture and its cultural context so the viewer understood how we became who were are as consumers and how companies became who they are through cutting costs.

Who was the primary audience for this film?

The primary audience for this film would be people who don’t already eat organic or who think that their food is healthy. In other words, people who are not conscientious shoppers (who don’t read labels, buy organic, understanding chemical components in food, etc) would be the target audience for this film because it’s educational and honest.

Was the format strictly documentary or were there some dramatic reactions?

The format wasn’t strictly documentary because there was a lot of editing in the film and a lot of non-diegetic sound (in moments of high drama the music echoed darkness or a sad mood – for instance when it was revealed that the chickens never saw sunlight at one of the chicken farms the music score came up and the audience heard sad music, or doom-filled music). The film didn’t use dramatic recreations – they stuck with true to life footage found from families (the woman whose two-year old son died of E. coli, meat packers through the different decades, roller girls at drive-in restaurants in the 1930’s, interviews, etc.). There was no need for dramatization as the footage was found; and in the cases where dramatization would have come in handy because some companies refused to be interviewed (Monsanto, Purdue, etc.) it was more impactful to have the screen show text that read that the company refused to be interviewed. Thus, the companies were guilty because they refused to speak to the documentarians. Such a tactic made the companies look like they had something to hide.

How does this film relate to what you are learning in the SS1A course lectures or readings?

Since a lot of our courses are focusing on being sociologically mindful, curious, or conscious of the world and how it truly works I would say that this film is relevant in each of these capacities. The film starts out by saying that there is no season anymore in the grocery store. Thanks to GMO foods we can have vegetables and fruits all year round without thought to the growth calendar. This is thanks to premature ripening of the produce thanks to ethylene. The documentary states that food companies do not like people knowing what goes in to the food because they’re afraid of their profits plummeting. This was highlighted with Oprah’s civil case in which she said on her talk show that she would never eat another hamburger and then was sued by the meat packing company for loss of profits since Oprah is such an influential person. Oprah won the case but it makes someone think about the reason the meat packing industry would go through all of the trouble. The documentary says that in Colorado it’s illegal to talk against the meat packing industry because of that loss of profit. This relates back to the course in that being a conscientious member of society, as our readings have suggested and fostered us to be, then knowing the reason behind these laws, or why it took so long for fast food industries to show the calories for any of their food, etc. then we come to a discussion and decision about what it good for us as consumers. Thinking about the reasons behind the meat industry’s actions creates an accountability chart: both for consumers and industry mogols.

Which specific social science concepts, from this class or your readings, are helpful for understanding the film?

George Ritzer’s theory of McDonaldization is a prime example of a social science concept that is relevant to the class and the film. This is true because Ritzer’s theory states that the fast food company creates a product with the lowest output of money. The documentary re-emphasizes this point by stating that McDonald’s has turned the restaurant business into a factory in which the worker is taught one specialized job and therefore the company can pay them a lower wage. Ritzer’s theory and the film are well juxtaposed in fact as Ritzer’s four rationalizing dimensions are well represented in the film from efficiency (fast food restaurant as a factory line), calculability (McDonald’s has a lot of food for lower cost but that cost comes at a price as emphasized by the documentary in replacing grass with corn to feed to cows which in turn makes the cows susceptible to bacterial infections and E. coli), predictability (McDonald’s customers know what to expect at every restaurant), to control (having workers do the same job over and over-everything is pre-made and as the documentary says, food has been revolutionized to compensate for being in the refrigerator and being able to be packaged-as the documentary says, it’s not really a tomato, its just a representation of a tomato).

What was your reaction to this film

My reaction to the film was the same reaction I have whenever I witness or am a part of social injustice. I felt a visceral reaction, as if someone had ripped me or had lied to me. Essentially, it’s both. As a consumer in America we’re being ripped off (especially from the farmer’s point of view), and lied to (4 companies control the food market and that makes up 80 percent of our food and those companies are using corn to feed cow, having the cow wallow in their own feces so that meat gets contaminated at a slaughter house (13 in America) that kills 400 cows an hour). I felt like I would change the way I eat and purchase food for the rest of my life. I had a very personal response to this film. I think the filmmakers knew what they were doing and they did it very well.

As a social scientist I felt that the film did a great job in portraying the cause and effect on a historical and cultural background of how food is processed, and sold in America. I felt great sympathy for the farmers who suffered through the Monsanto law suits because they were being sued for accidently having a seed that the wind blew into their field; or for the seed cleaner Mr. Parr who was just trying to run a business and was attacked in the court room by Monsanto lawyers and then lost his business. As a social scientist I liked what New Alchemy did with Stonyfield and making such a product available to the masses through a Walmart contract despite what the owner’s “radical friends” might say to him.

1. McDonald’s changed the course of food by firing their carhops, and offering a drive-thru service. The drive thru service in turn paved the way for making meals faster which in turn required the meat packing industry to change the way they sold meat, and fed meat. They changed the cows’ diet from grass to corn. McDonald’s also changed the restaurant into a factory line having workers know one specialized skill and then paying that worker less.
2. The four companies are the meat packers (Tyson, Swift, Cargill, and National Beef) control over 80 percent of the beef supply in the U.S.
3. Farmers aren’t allowed to talk about how chickens are raised in the US because the poultry industry would say that it’s in violation of the farmer’s contract to do so. In fact, after she agreed to be interviewed for the film she lost her contract.
4. Farmers are over $500,000 in debt (despite making $18,000 a year) in order to build the proper chicken houses as mandated by company contract (the houses must be in the dark). The farmers then must ask the company for the money and then pay them back. The companies then in turn make the farmers have upgrades to their houses which perpetuates the debt.
5. Kevin’s Law gives the right and power back to the USDA to shut down a plant that produces contaminated meat.
6. Foods that are the cheapest are the ones that have corn in them (peanut butter, ketchup, coke) or ones that have been genetically modified, because these are the ones that cost the less to make.
7. Obesity, diabetes and poverty are linked because in order to buy organic a person has to have a certain income in order to afford the more expensive food (which organic is); if a person is unable to buy organic food, then that means they don’t make enough money to purchase it, or are poor. Poor people, because they can’t buy organic then are forced to eat a diet based on fat, salt, and sugar (cheaper foods and foods that are offered by fast food restaurants). This type of diet is fodder for diabetes.
8. The film states that 1 out of 3 children born after 2000 will have adult onset diabetes (1 out of 2 for minority children).
9. Roundup is a herbicide that is supposed to get rid of weeds and grass.
10. Farmers who try to save their seeds at the end of the season face litigation and security from Monsanto coming to their door because the say the farmer is attempting to steal Monsanto property (because the wind carries seeds from Monsanto farms onto the farmers’ fields). Essentially, Monsanto says the farmers are stealing from them.
11. Yes, Monsanto does have a legal claim because they patented the pollen that pollinates a non-GMO field. In some instances the company comes to the farmer’s farm and burns it down because they consider it stolen property.
12. There has been little debate over the idea of patenting and controlling specific strains of food crops because members in Congress has prevented farmers from doing certain things like laying claim to their own seed (this is thanks to Clarence Thomas, Wendell Murphy, Margaret millet, Linda Fisher and Michael Taylor).
13. Consumers have the power to buy what is healthy and if through market research companies can learn what consumers are buying and then change the process by which they make food.