Would you like a side of guilt with that?
Robert Kenner's Food, Inc. has been getting a lot of attention recently in the blogging world. "Healthy living" bloggers (a subset of food bloggers) have been flocking to movie theaters across the country to see this documentary about the evils of the United States' corporate food industry. Given that central Illinois is in the heart of said industrialized agriculture, I was surprised to see "Food, Inc." on the marquee at Boardman's Art Theater. Though I generally have a policy of only seeing movies that are escapist fantasies, I figured that I should listen to all the blog-o-sphere hype and catch this documentary before it was whisked out of town on Friday.
I left the movie with a broad range of emotions: guilt, anger, frustration, with both the content of the documentary as well as the ways in which the filmmakers tried to get their message across. Having entered the theater knowing very little about the movie, the boyfriend told me afterwards that he would have rather not seen it at all. It has taken me a few days to process the overwhelming amount of information in "Food, Inc." so instead of a full-fledged review, I will provide a "Pros and Cons" list about the movie.
Pro: Food, Inc. is eye opening. (And if you were already aware of the practices of the food industry, it will probably reinforce your beliefs about them.) Rather than simply hitting you over the head with heart-wrenching footage of animals taken slaughter, Food, Inc. delves deeper into the corporate side of the food industry. It explains the clever marketing of our food with traditional agrarian imagery (farmhouses, green pastures, gingham print, etc.). In truth, the majority of our food and food products no longer come from these green pastures and from the sunburned hands of corn-fed farmers. Instead, our food may be manipulated with chemicals, hormones, and other sundry products before being passed down through a mechanized assembly line to be packaged and sent to grocery stores hundreds of miles away. I have not yet fleshed out my actual stance on all of this processing, but I do think that American consumers should be aware of what goes into our food and be allowed to make informed decision about what we put in our mouths.
Pro: The imagery of the meat industry is not too graphic. Everyone has seen the nauseating PETA promotional material, and I was expecting Food, Inc. to use the same tactics to scare people away from meat products. Fortunately, the filmmakers chose to show poignant aspects of the meat industry, which sent a message but didn't turn me away from the movie. We see cramped chicken houses with birds that cannot support the weight of their genetically modified bodies. (The film tells us that chickens have been engineered to grow faster and to have larger breasts to support our consumption habits.) We also see cows and pigs crowded into dirty pens, ankle-deep in their own manure, and hidden footage of the dangerous meatpacking plants. Without a doubt, these images are depressing and compelling, but we are mercifully spared the most gruesome footage. While I may be a coward for avoiding the detestable aspects of the meat industry, I think that the documentary did a good job of exposing many problems, without trying to convince me with revolting images alone.

Con: Food, Inc. tries to take on far too much at one time, to the detriment of its main message. Clearly, there are many issues that need to be discussed in the food industry, and though I appreciate the filmmakers' efforts to expose as many of these as possible in an hour and a half, Food, Inc. began to feel cumbersome and overloaded about halfway through. The film covers a variety of topics, including the history of our current food industry, fast food, government subsidized crops, food-borne illnesses from meat, the predominance of corn, chicken farming, Monsanto's genetically modified soy beans, and childhood obesity. It also features interviews with Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm, as well as several farmers who voice their opinions from inside the food industry. Each section, treating a separate issue, is clearly demarcated with an animated title, and I began to wonder how many more of these silly graphics I would have to endure.
In the end, you feel overwhelmed by seeing feature after feature of depressing imagery and ultimately, the problems with capitalism. Whether "Food, Inc." lacks a central message or simply muddies it by trying to take on too many topics, I feel that the filmmakers definitely failed to follow a cardinal rule: less is more.
Con: The film offers no real solution, and I left feeling dissatisfied and guilty. As a grad student, I am painfully aware that eating well takes money. In fact, it takes a lot of money. Obviously, the film caters to a very specific audience, and more than likely, it preaches to the converted that we should try to eat organic, eat local, and take back our roles as active consumers. However, eating well is inherently a class-based luxury. While Food, Inc. does feature a low-income family whose budget forces them to choose potato chips over fruit, it offers no solution to this issue. Even on a grad student budget, I can afford to eat pretty well, but I still left the film feeling both guilty for not doing more and ultimately helpless. I doubt that anything will change if I stop buying bags of frozen chicken breasts at Meijer. And even if I patronize the Farmer's Market in the summer, how can I eat seasonally in the middle of an Illinois winter? (I'm pretty sure that the only thing that grows in the middle of winter here is depression and heating bills.)
In the end, Food, Inc. exposes several problems, but it offers very few tangible solutions. I am still grappling with my meat consumption and the fact that I buy my groceries from a mega-box store. Certainly, I will continue to go to the Farmer's Market for some of my produce and perhaps in the future, I can give vegetarianism in a try. In the meantime, however, Food, Inc. made me feel ashamed, overwhelmed, and depressed, rather than energized to make changes in my daily life.
7 comments
I can’t wait to see this without using any payday loan. I think the biggest revelation will be that the engineering of plants and animals on an industrial scale is the cause behind most modern day illnesses (autism, obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure). When you screw around with a plant’s genes, raise animals in an inhumane way, pump them full of hormones to produce and grow more and then expect the food you get from that to be healthy, then you are doing nothing more than conducting the world’s largest experiment - The subjects being any one of us who’s eaten a McDonald’s burger containing meat from 75 different cows.
The problems of agriculture are overwhelming and entrenched. Fixing them on a systemic basis would take nothing short of a miracle. But that isn’t to say that drawing a line in the sand and making a commitment to do what you can in your own backyard doesn’t make a difference. This is what programs like CSA are all about. Clearly paying locals to grow your food instead of migrants on the Coast is more expensive in the short run. So maybe you ditch your cable and resolve to watch Mad Men on DVD to end some of the madness with your food?
Timbo
ShelbyH- Your comment that all this mucking around with plant and animal genes is “the cause behind most modern day illnesses” (other than obesity and the problems that derive from it) is beyond foolish.
There is no proof whatsoever (nor has any scientific, peer-reviewd study ever withstood scrutiny) that autism, or any other “modern illnesses” (like the dreaded C word) are caused by any GMO. Ever. I know that new is scary, and when people use science-sounding words and speak as if they know what they are talking about it is confusing, but ask for their evidence. It has never been proven that any GMO that people eat causes any problem at all in people.
No, I am not a corporate shill or an astroturfer, just a fan of scientic reasoning and reasoned thought. Don’t let the scare-mongers sell you on buying their more-expensive, and eventually less sustainable (whatever that means these days) products. GMO is good for all, especially the poor people who will eventually starve if we dont continuously improve our agricultural technology.
Timbo: GMO is good for all, especially the poor people who will eventually starve if we don’t continuously improve our agricultural technology????
Who got sucked into propaganda here? We have grown more than enough food to feed the world for several years running. It is not a problem of growing enough, it is a problem of people being able to get it financially and logistically. Global hunger is extremely complex because you can’t just dump food aid on people or you risk destroying farmers’ incomes and markets in areas of hunger, which destroys these area’s long-term ability to feed themselves.
There are problems with herbicide resistant weeds with GMOs. Additionally, lab colonies of resistant insects existed before GMO corn ever hit commercial fields and they were green lighted anyway. The promise of GMOs has been squandered in the quest to further pesticide sales, which isn’t surprising since most seed companies are owned by ag chemical companies. This is technology in a very narrow band that is on borrowed time at best.
There are plenty of studies to show that cancer is caused by the herbicides used to grow GMO crops and conventional crops, and that farmers tend to have more of some types of cancer than the general population. I think this is a heavy price for the people who grow our food to pay. My father being among them.
While genetic engineering may not be to blame for health problems Shelby is correct in asserting that industrialized production does not produce high quality food. There are studies to show that confinement pork is less nutritious than pastured pork. Additionally, chickens and cows that have access to pasture produce eggs and milk respectively also are higher in Omega 3. Beef raised on grass instead of grain actually lowers your bad cholesterol. And, organic tomato products actually contain more of the antioxidant lycopene than nonorganic.
Finally genetic modification was approved in this country on assumption of substantial equivalence which is a faulty assumption. Clearly we do not really know what we characteristics we are turning on and off when we insert dna. And if scientists can’t get it right with making exact copies with cloning - Dolly the sheep had to be put down because her telomeres were fraying at such a rate that she was suffering from degenerative disease - how can we presume to get it right inserting dna from one being/plant into another?
Tom A
Making developing countries dependent upon GMO monocrop seeds produced and patented in the USA, whose plants’ terminator seeds are sterile and unable to reproduce, is not a sustainable solution. It will only line the pockets of American corporations and put the world’s poor under their thumbs. Empowering local communities, home and abroad, to develop sustainable agriculture according to the local conditions, culture, and needs would be a better solution.
Timbo
Anna- I agree with just about every point you make, and I think that if you look at them critically, you will agree that your arguments regarding herbicide and pesticide support sound GMO policies. Through GMO we have, and will continue to, develop crops that can produce higher yields (all over the world, not just here) using less herbicide, pesticide, water, and causing less degradation of topsoil. Further, many of these crops can be more nutritious than the ones originally grown. The classic example is one of the (if not the) very first GMO crops: Golden Rice.
I dispute your allegation that “substantial equivalence ... is a faulty assumption.” If a substance has the same chemical makeup, it is the same. Diferences in the sequence of DNA cannot reasonably be stretched to support the inference that the seed or fruit injested is substantially different. It is the traits reflected in the crops that is different, not the substance consumed.
Please understand that those that put forth the GMO = Evil argument are the ones who must move the hypothesis from the null hypothesis. There is no reliable scientific evidence to do so yet. If some comes to the fore, I will reevaluate my position.
Your analogy to the cloned sheep is a red herring. Cloning of animal (vs plant) life is a brand new, and yes, very much “evolving” technology with serious moral/ethical dimensions that are largely unresolved. GMO has been around for 50 years in various forms, and you the basis for selective breeding of crops (GMO lite) has been around for millenia. Plants have been cloned this long, and indeed, many clone themselves in nature.
Tom A: Your point is well taken. You wont find me defending these business practices o. There are rationales advanced for terminator genes, but I think that reasoning is ill-founded and profit-motivated, not caution-motivated, as they argue.
There is a big difference between the selective breeding for desired traits that has been going on for thousands of years and taking a chunk of DNA that we really don’t understand from one plant and then sticking it into an entirely different plant. I think science is awesome, but there is a lot of guess work in it. While there have been rigorous scientific tests to prove that these crops won’t kill you right away, we can’t know the truly long term effects until a generation of people have been exposed to these things. I don’t blame people for not being comfortable being the test population. And always remember that these companies are never asking themselves moral or ethical questions, rather their goal is to create the best “product” i.e. what will make them the most profit.
Most Recent Culture Comments
@Jason: You’re right about that. I get groceries at Schnucks (they carry what I buy, which I can’t say of any other single grocery store in town), and if they have a beer I’m in the market for it’s usually a quarter or two cheaper per 6-…
Best Neighborhood Bar (& Grill) : Urbana - My ‘hood- the ‘Boom! http://www.boomerangbarandgrill.com Go on a Wing Wednesday or Fish Friday, or see a band play some night. Local blue-collar Urbana terroir galore. My only beer snobbish gripe is lack of a pale hopped ale, but you…
The one thing that’s bothered me for a while about the Friar is that, for most commonly purchased adult beverages, you can actually walk down the strip mall to Schnucks and get them cheaper. It makes no sense, but there it is. I suspect it’s because Schnucks…
Maybe I complained enough in person. One time I even explained to the (wholly uninterested) clerk how to navigate the Illinois Statutes web page, and Savoy’s Municipal Code database I wouldn’t know because I only go there when I want to pay 30% more for anything, which is never.
@Rob: You seem to have the weirdest experiences. I’m in Friar Tuck every other week (don’t tell my mom that I’m a lush). They never fail to ask for my birth date but never my age, they never card afterwards, and they often allow me to use…
This column affords me a long-awaited opportunity. I’ve wanted to write my own column called Fuck You Friar Tuck Liquors. but I always thought it’d be too pithy. Here, I can say Fuck You Friar Tuck Liquors and not feel bothered to stretch it out to 750…
Most Recent Comments
The Alan Partridge lookalike on the right in the first small photo has nothing to condescend to anyone about. AH HA!
Snell and the little Hitlers of the neighborhood association need to chill out. Legitimate businesses should have the freedom to exist without having to endure the slings and arrows of ignorant and misguided opposition.
Yeah, I’d agree that Transporter Room 3 is the worst house venue I’ve ever seen.
Food trucks are the start-up, small businesses of the future for those unable to afford real estate. No surprise, that merchants who pay rent, utilities, and maintenance on a property would despise the traveling competition. Or developers who build more empty retail spaces would want to close…
Not so much far-right Tea Party as a balanced, moderate viewpoint between letting businesses succeed and protecting society with reasonable regulations. In spite of what the city reps are saying, the interpretation of policy on this issue certainly has changed. Letting a business start up under one…
I think it’s neat that SP has turned rightward, now espousing a Tea Party-style frustration with government regulations & taxes.
This makes me so sad. (Happy to live in Urbana, though!) Crave Truck has been a GREAT addition to the food choices in C-U, and it’d be a travesty to chase them away. This town should be supporting small businesses. I’m glad to hear that they’ll still…
*slow. clap.* Still offering no threat of intelligence…. I know I said I thought you should just write this whole column yourself next year, Isaac, but now that you’ve gone and taken a “part deux” run at it, I’d like to modify my request: Best Music 2013,…
Actually, it’s kind of nice, the quiet. John Heoffleur’s engaging commentary/dialogue is sorely missed, however. In lieu of someone intelligent saying something, I’ve compiled a list of Honourable Mentions: BEST ROCK BAND: Take Care ::these gentlemen have four completely different sets at their disposal right now (which…
This weekend will mark the first appearance of Kayla Brown’s Fire Doll Candle booth at the Market. Check it: http://www.facebook.com/firedollcandles
And without bloodshed. Sounds like the Savoy trustees aren’t as narrow-minded as some of their whiny pants constituents. Do you think quack Snell is already planning an asinine counterattack or is he still laying low after those “threats” against his person?
Okay, almost 24 hours later and I finally got Issac’s Summer joke. I’m an idiot.
Swap the dog for a fire pit and it sounds like you’re writing about my back yard. Very nice.
@Dan - Wow. Unfortunately, I have to refrain from further comment due to a previous employment relationship. But with that brief context you might be able to imagine possible comments or responses I could have.

Facebook
Twitter
Full Site
The Alan Partridge lookalike on the right in the first small photo has nothing to condescend to anyone about. AH HA!