Sammy Student
Senior English
Mr. Landefeld
8 December 2014
Where’s the Beef?
An Evaluation of Food, Inc. as a Credible Source on the Issue of Food Production
When people order burgers at a fast food restaurant, they take a risk of eating a product that is processed from an amalgamation of ingredients that may have more in common with a science experiment than nature, at least that’s what the documentary, Food, Inc. argues. A plentiful supply of nutritious food is critical to a modern society, and it is clear from the documentary Food, Inc. thatAmerican food production has generally become less about nutrition and more about quickly meeting demand while maximizing convenience and profit. However, after reviewing sources that may have differing opinions on the topic, one can see that, while Food, Inc. effectively illustrates some of the major problems inherent with large scale food production as a whole, it may fall short regarding certain aspects of the issue because it uses overly emotional examples to distract from the facts, and it does not offer a complete perspective of certain examples.
In terms of overusing emotion, in one scene, a researcher reaches into the gut of a cow to pull out partially digested food while talking about how corn diets cause E. coli. The film then cuts to a story about a mother who lost her son to E. coli-infected meat, thus forcing the audience to leap illogically to the conclusion that corn diets in cattle led to a boy’s death. Instead, the pamphlet “Myths and Facts about Meat Production” asserts the idea that “human disease associated with E. coli can be attributed to feeding cattle corn instead of hay … is not supported by existing scientific literature” (3). In fact, a recent study by the Center for Disease Control estimates that E. coli cases have decreased 45% from 2000 to 2008 (7). These statements indicate that the E. coli issue is not as severe as it is portrayed to be in the film.
Monsanto, a multi-national chemical corporation responsible for developing a genetically modified soybean, is depicted with ominous music, scenes shot in darkness, garbled voices, and a man talking from shadows to intensify the impression that Monsanto is evil as it sues helpless farmers who Monsanto believes have violated its patents. The truth may be a bit less dramatic. In his article “Monsanto: More Saint than Sinner,” Ross Pomeroy notes that Monsanto has only sued 145 farmers for patent violation in the past 20 years and has never lost a claim (1), thus illustrating that the film might have exaggerated Monsanto’s efforts to root out and punish farmers. What’s more, Reuters has recently reported that Monsanto won a court case brought by farmers who were worried about being sued over accidental contamination because Monsanto states on its website that it will not sue farmers who have trace amounts of its product on their land (Gillam 1). Perhaps Monsanto really is only pursuing farmers who blatantly use its product illegally. The film adds text that says “Monsanto declined to be interviewed for this film,” but one must wonder, did the director offer for the company to have a statement published in the film, or did he only offer an on-camera interview?
While overusing emotion can distract an audience, not representing a full perspective on the topic may also cast doubt on the documentary’s credibility. The American Meat Institute takes issue with one of the main points the film tries to make: that organic farming is the solution to the factory food system. In its pamphlet, the AMI acknowledges that organic farming is positive, but contends that it is not significantly healthier and simply cannot feed the world’s population. In other words, when there are 7 billion people on the planet, there’s going to have to be some kind of production system in place to accelerate and streamline the process of getting food to people (5). Furthermore, Food, Inc. fails to fully represent how Monsanto does produce products that help people. Real Clear Politics points out that Monsanto has helped increase corn yields dramatically – almost 50 bushels per acre on average – and has also developed golden rice which “provides a significant amount of Vitamin A per serving” for those who are deficient (Pomeroy 2). It is difficult to settle for calling a company evil when it is shown in a wider lens.
In conclusion, while the documentary Food, Inc. strives to, and succeeds in, raising awareness about where our food comes from and forces the audience to reconsider how other sources and approaches should be integrated into people’s diets so they are less reliant on factory foods, it also tends to use emotion as a tool to cover for some missing perspectives on the issue. Food is vital; people must pay attention to how it is produced, managed, and distributed so that they know what they’re consuming. If the film was trying to make the point that people have let large business take over too much of what they consume, it was a success. Perhaps it could be revised, though, to more fully represent the issue and use less drama to make its point. The complete truth is often scary enough.