Extra Credit Portion: Food Inc.

Richard Lobb of the National Chicken Council says in the film, “In a way, we’re not producing chickens, we’re producing food.” What does this statement mean? Do you agree or disagree with it? How might this perspective affect the way that chickens are raised?

This statement means that we are viewing chickens as simply food and are raising them to benefit human consumption even if it hurts them. We only see them as a product instead of something that lives and breathes, even much differently than we did just a few decades ago when we raised chickens instead of manufacturing them to be the same and to be what the manufacturer wants out of them. This affects the way chickens are raised because they are not treated like animals should be, even if they are for eating. The way they are treated during the process is inhumane and is devastating in the effects on the chickens and disease and problems that the production can cause for humans.

In the film, food science professor Larry Johnson says, “If you go and look on the supermarket shelf, I’ll bet you 90 percent of [the products] would contain either a corn or soybean ingredient. And most of the time, it’ll contain both.” Why might it be a problem that the majority of our food is made mostly from just corn and soybeans—so that nearly everything we eat contains them?

When this part came on I thought of Patel’s comment about soy that states, “ you’d have to be diligent to spend a day without coming into contact with it. Yet, with rare exception, it’s not an ingredient that advertises itself. It has come to occupy a key place in the world food system not because of its taste or flavour, but because of its utility to everyone except the consumer. At best, this means surrendering control over something ingested every day. But the darker story, involving environmental destruction, murder and slavery, it this: through the modern food system, through its monoculture and industrial production methods, one of the finest plants on the Earth has come to be a tyranny to those who grow it, and a mystery to those who eat it.” This is similar for corn too. Often it is used to produce items cheaper, quicker, easier, but does not benefit the health of the consumer at all. By taking the various names that corn and soy products do it helps to disguise the reality of the product and the story behind it.

In the film, union organizer Eduardo Peña says, “We want to pay the cheapest price for our food. We don’t understand that it comes at a price.” Do you agree or disagree with him? What evidence do you see in the film that led you to agree or disagree? What evidence do you see in your life that informs your position as well?

I agree 100 percent! The part that stuck out the most for me was how many diseases have evolved to the current methods of production, yet if we did things differently they would never exist. Also, instead of creating better environments for the animals, using better practices, etc. they create resistances to the various bacteria and diseases. In addition, the rates of diabetes and other health problems that people 60 years ago did not have at the rates we do now because of how much the production of food has changed. This made me think of all the people I know with various diseases, especially diabetes and obesity, and how that has been impacted by the food that is sold and “choice.” Another spot that stuck out was when they were mentioning E coli outbreaks. I did all-star cheer with a friend that had E coli when she was about 11 from fast food and ended up getting a large settlement from it as if that was compensation for almost dying and it made me think about how the company it came from probably did not change their practices after that and just paid them off to make it right (after years of court).

As portrayed in the film, cost and efficiency drive our current food system. Should price be the most important force behind our food industry? Why or why not? How might our food system change if it was driven by other values, like health or environmental sustainability?

I think that price should not be the force behind the food industry and instead health, health of humans, health of animals and the “health” of the land (sustainability) should be taken into account and should be the most important value. Without any of those things there won’t be people, animals, plants or sufficient land to use to create food. If price is the driving force it diverts from the point of food, to nourish. If the system were based on health I think that it would look a lot different, though it is hard to say what it would look like since I haven’t ever seen that. I think it could be a lot like how it was 100 years ago but slightly more contemporary, with a lot of food being grown locally, not as much processed food, and food with few ingredients that people can readily identify.

Saving seeds from each year’s crop is a tradition farmers have followed for thousands of years. Think of a tradition that has been in your family for a long time. What if you could no longer have this tradition because someone now legally claims it as theirs?

I would be pissed. For farmers they have been doing that for hundreds of years and if I were them that would make me worried because farming has changed and isn’t wholesome like it once was and the farmers seemed like they wanted it to remain. You can tell just by watching their interviews that they feel helpless and bound by the limitations without having to say it.

In the film, author Michael Pollan says, “I think that one of the most important battles for consumers to fight is the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.” How does his position compare with the California Farm Bureau’s position?

The California Farm Bureau said that they didn’t want to create fear before they were able to educate on the reasons for using the technology that they were employing, to which he replied that they (along with others) don’t want you to know but also make it illegal to criticize their products. How they frame it sounds nice, but it is to benefit them. I definitely haven’t been educated on the technology of using cloned meat.

Do you think the film privileges the experiences and dilemmas facing people in the United States? Why and why not?

I think it does. It should be a global issue, but I think it’s more powerful for Americans to see that it is happening to them than to someone in a developing country just because of the selfishness that Americans possess and that it is normalized that people in developing countries have problems with food. We seem to think we live in this great place that would never do something (all the things discussed in the film) to us, so it holds more weight since we don’t expect it to happen here and be a personal problem instead of someone else’s problem.

Overall reaction to film?

I liked the film. I’ve seen parts of it before but it just reinforces everything we have been talking about in class and has affirmed to me that I need to pay attention to what I eat since it has so many health implications and since I don’t want to support a lot of these products.