I recently caught a showing of the fascinating documentary Food Inc. There’s been enough pre- (and post-) release buzz generated for it already, so there’s little need to summarize its contents. While hardly novel in its scathing indictment of the way food is produced in America (and increasingly, across the world), what is truly significant about the movie is that it incorporates, virtually wholesale, all the different sorts of charges which are leveled against agribusiness and industrial food production. In its brief 90 minutes running time, the movie highlights the cultural critique of Western food production (think Michael Pollan in In Defense of Food), the consumerist critique (Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation), makes an effort to outline the disastrous environmental effects of meat production and over-dependence on corn (King Corn), the industrial roots of the obesity epidemic (Pollan, Omnivore’s Dilemma; The Future of Food), and the unhealthy influence which food producers (and retailers) wield over regulatory authorities in federal government, and in many of the states (The World According to Monsanto). Towards the end, it even manages to touch upon the impact American food manufacture has upon global food shortages.
Additionally, unlike the documentaries produced by militant environmentalist/animal rights groups, Food Inc. isn’t concerned solely with providing the viewer with a series of graphic images aimed at bludgeoning her into shocked revulsion. Its makers are far smarter than that, while there is plenty of animal cruelty on display in the movie (a healthy proportion of its footage is taken in slaughterhouses and chicken coops), the blood and guts are interspersed with plenty of reasoned discussion by production reform proponents (Pollan and Schlosser are given the most screen time), sustainable agriculturalists, organic food producers, animal husbandry lobbyists (though they are under-represented, most of the corporations whose activities are exposed in the movie were reluctant to be interviewed), and in what must be a notable coup, Walmart management. Through the sheer diversity of critical viewpoints presented, therefore, the filmmakers manage to provide something relevant for people of different ethical, political and gustatory persuasions.
Probably as a result of this overpacking of information, however, the movie comes across as somewhat rushed, and occasionally incoherent. Having a glancing awareness of some of the practices being criticized by the producers, I was able to appreciate where the movie was going. It is not clear, though, that viewers completely unexposed to the problems which result from contemporary food production patterns are likely to follow the argument in its entirety. Food Inc packs in arguments for food labeling, against closed chicken coops, against corn growers, in favour of seed-saving (and, as a corollary, against Monsanto and its strong arm IP protection strategies), against revolving door hiring practices in government, for stronger civic involvement in food consumption strategies, against the current structure of employment, against fast food production techniques, in support of stronger legislative protection for the food inspection regime, and much, much more. It is not clear exactly how all of these points are linked to each other in a coherent analytic manner, and what the central theme of the film is beyond a simplistic assertion of the ‘consolidation is bad’ line.The lack of a focused central narrative structure is an important flaw. Furthermore, the argument seemed somewhat forced at many points (in particular, the section on the likelihood that all of America’s consumption needs could be met by sustainable farming without an emphasis on the need to consume less than we presently do), whereas in other parts the trajectory of a particular line of thinking was left unmapped (the documentary is silent on what the increasing presence of big brand corporate food producers like Kelloggs, Pepsi and General Mills in the organic food sector means for the practice of conscientious consumption. At one point, Stonyfield Farm’s Gary Hirshberg informs us that ‘the jury is out’ on this question, but the movie makes no effort to flesh out why exactly that is). The producers could have done well to concentrate less on trying to capture all that is wrong in the way we make food and eat it, and more on developing their criticisms of particular egregious practices in a convincing manner.
I have a deeper problem with the nature of solutions the movie offers up for the crisis in our food system. While there are a plethora of options the producers provide us, both during the course of the film and in a convenient, eye-catching forest of bullet points prior to the closing credits, consumer activism is by far their most-preferred solution. In this regard, Food Inc shares the world view of both Schlosser and Pollan, who espouse civic action as the best way to bring about a change in the way we get our daily sustenance. This is, of course, not surprising given that they share producer credit for the movie. It is not entirely clear, however, that increased consumer awareness is ever likely to arise in the numbers sufficient to influence a systemic change on the scale necessary for a wholesome food utopia to come back into existence. Part of this, of course, comes from circumstances the movie itself highlights: food companies fight tooth-and-nail to maintain the system as it is, and will try to viciously stymie every attempt to provide greater information about their practices. These companies are also likely to provide information distortion (or, from their perspective, rectification) measures. Already, Monsanto has a site up seeking to rebut the claims made in the movie; this seems to be part of a broader internet-based backlash against Food Inc. The Pollans, Schlossers, and vocal WholeFoodistas of the world will continue to attempt to influence the public’s attitude towards healthy consumption, but they have a huge fight ahead on their hands, one which it seems extremely unlikely they are going to win on their own initiative. Consider for example the microscopic attention dedicated to President Obama’s diet. From the arugula controversy during the primaries, to the snide tittering about his consumption of a single French fry on his date night with the First Lady, his dietary preferences seem to provide an endless source of amusement (or vitriol, depending on who you listen to) for the country at large. Instead of sparking a greater debate about the benefits of healthy eating, or the fact that only those in the same economic category as the Obamas can take advantage of it, enlightened consumption patterns seem to signal a sort of snobbishness; something which is deserving of gentle mockery, if not open derision. In such an ideological climate, it is hard to imagine civic activism on a large scale taking off, far less bringing about a sea change in our current patterns of food production as part of a popular revolution against agribusiness.
What the makers of Food Inc fail to do adequately is to highlight the importance of governmental intervention (and not just regulation) into food production. While there is considerable criticism of the failures of the FDA and the USDA to enforce standards in an effective manner, the reluctance of Congress and State legislatures to strengthen their enforcement capabilities and toughen the applicable standards, and an entertaining and damning sequence listing the effects a revolving door policy have had in screwing farmers and consumers across the country, there is little discussion of the possibility that government could lead a greater cultural change in the way in which we eat. This is quite surprising, given that the documentary is quite clear to lay blame at the government’s door for its role in bringing us here in the first place. The makers note that seed production, for example, is now almost entirely privatized, and those who use publicly developed seeds are being squeezed into line, or out of work, by big agribusiness through the deployment of litigation threats and intellectual property protections. The State is responsible for this at two levels: firstly, by stepping out of the seed development process, thereby leaving farmers at the mercy of companies like Monsanto, and secondly, by taking the side of big agribusiness in its campaign against unencumbered farmers. Take another example: Pollan, in In Defense of Food, is quite clear to note that the calorific obsession plaguing our nation (and fuelled by food producers and packers) arose from a calculated decision by the Nixon administration to promote the production of cheap food. Like all forms of influential government regulation, consistent food policy privileged certain forms of interests over others, thereby leading eventually to a particular system of food production characterized by entrenched players with well-defined interests (a notable parallel: energy policy). Given the importance of governmental policy in getting us to here from grandma’s home cooked meals in less than 50 years, surely there is no reason to believe that government can’t be involved in moving us towards a better, more sustainable eating culture than the one we have now. More than just regulating the production and display of food, government has the power to use its institutions to enable a broader socio-economic shift in methods and patterns of consumption and production through the wise use of tax policy, grants for research and development, and the provision of greater access to knowledge through official information sources. This is not to argue, of course, that only the government can bring about this sort of change. Certainly not, civic activism has to be an integral part of the process as well. However, without significant governmental intervention and active policy encouragement, it is quite unlikely that any healthy eating initiative will have long-lasting (and widespread) effect.
Indeed, while it is beneficial for the government to intervene in influencing the prevailing attitudes towards food consumption and production, it is also probably essential for the state to step in if the wholesome food utopia is to be realized. This is because of the problem highlighted above: no entities other than the governments of the United States have the resources requisite to take the fight to food producers and agribusiness. Even concerted associational activity on the part of food defense activists is unlikely to be sufficient to counter the financial might and strategic cunning of these companies. For, as Hirshberg argues in the course of the movie, sensible eating campaigns cannot flourish only as Davids in a battle against Goliaths. As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in a recent New Yorker essay, while Davids have often prevailed against Goliaths in the history of conflict and innovation, this is hardly a dependable strategy for bringing about sustained change. What David needs, then, is a little help from a friendly giant: the State. One only wishes that the makers of Food Inc had taken this into consideration while presenting their argument to the public at large. The need of the day is not just to convince consumers to vote with their credit cards for better food, it is also to lobby government to help in the struggle for the consumers’ hearts, stomachs, and minds.
Additionally, unlike the documentaries produced by militant environmentalist/animal rights groups, Food Inc. isn’t concerned solely with providing the viewer with a series of graphic images aimed at bludgeoning her into shocked revulsion. Its makers are far smarter than that, while there is plenty of animal cruelty on display in the movie (a healthy proportion of its footage is taken in slaughterhouses and chicken coops), the blood and guts are interspersed with plenty of reasoned discussion by production reform proponents (Pollan and Schlosser are given the most screen time), sustainable agriculturalists, organic food producers, animal husbandry lobbyists (though they are under-represented, most of the corporations whose activities are exposed in the movie were reluctant to be interviewed), and in what must be a notable coup, Walmart management. Through the sheer diversity of critical viewpoints presented, therefore, the filmmakers manage to provide something relevant for people of different ethical, political and gustatory persuasions.
Probably as a result of this overpacking of information, however, the movie comes across as somewhat rushed, and occasionally incoherent. Having a glancing awareness of some of the practices being criticized by the producers, I was able to appreciate where the movie was going. It is not clear, though, that viewers completely unexposed to the problems which result from contemporary food production patterns are likely to follow the argument in its entirety. Food Inc packs in arguments for food labeling, against closed chicken coops, against corn growers, in favour of seed-saving (and, as a corollary, against Monsanto and its strong arm IP protection strategies), against revolving door hiring practices in government, for stronger civic involvement in food consumption strategies, against the current structure of employment, against fast food production techniques, in support of stronger legislative protection for the food inspection regime, and much, much more. It is not clear exactly how all of these points are linked to each other in a coherent analytic manner, and what the central theme of the film is beyond a simplistic assertion of the ‘consolidation is bad’ line.The lack of a focused central narrative structure is an important flaw. Furthermore, the argument seemed somewhat forced at many points (in particular, the section on the likelihood that all of America’s consumption needs could be met by sustainable farming without an emphasis on the need to consume less than we presently do), whereas in other parts the trajectory of a particular line of thinking was left unmapped (the documentary is silent on what the increasing presence of big brand corporate food producers like Kelloggs, Pepsi and General Mills in the organic food sector means for the practice of conscientious consumption. At one point, Stonyfield Farm’s Gary Hirshberg informs us that ‘the jury is out’ on this question, but the movie makes no effort to flesh out why exactly that is). The producers could have done well to concentrate less on trying to capture all that is wrong in the way we make food and eat it, and more on developing their criticisms of particular egregious practices in a convincing manner.
I have a deeper problem with the nature of solutions the movie offers up for the crisis in our food system. While there are a plethora of options the producers provide us, both during the course of the film and in a convenient, eye-catching forest of bullet points prior to the closing credits, consumer activism is by far their most-preferred solution. In this regard, Food Inc shares the world view of both Schlosser and Pollan, who espouse civic action as the best way to bring about a change in the way we get our daily sustenance. This is, of course, not surprising given that they share producer credit for the movie. It is not entirely clear, however, that increased consumer awareness is ever likely to arise in the numbers sufficient to influence a systemic change on the scale necessary for a wholesome food utopia to come back into existence. Part of this, of course, comes from circumstances the movie itself highlights: food companies fight tooth-and-nail to maintain the system as it is, and will try to viciously stymie every attempt to provide greater information about their practices. These companies are also likely to provide information distortion (or, from their perspective, rectification) measures. Already, Monsanto has a site up seeking to rebut the claims made in the movie; this seems to be part of a broader internet-based backlash against Food Inc. The Pollans, Schlossers, and vocal WholeFoodistas of the world will continue to attempt to influence the public’s attitude towards healthy consumption, but they have a huge fight ahead on their hands, one which it seems extremely unlikely they are going to win on their own initiative. Consider for example the microscopic attention dedicated to President Obama’s diet. From the arugula controversy during the primaries, to the snide tittering about his consumption of a single French fry on his date night with the First Lady, his dietary preferences seem to provide an endless source of amusement (or vitriol, depending on who you listen to) for the country at large. Instead of sparking a greater debate about the benefits of healthy eating, or the fact that only those in the same economic category as the Obamas can take advantage of it, enlightened consumption patterns seem to signal a sort of snobbishness; something which is deserving of gentle mockery, if not open derision. In such an ideological climate, it is hard to imagine civic activism on a large scale taking off, far less bringing about a sea change in our current patterns of food production as part of a popular revolution against agribusiness.
What the makers of Food Inc fail to do adequately is to highlight the importance of governmental intervention (and not just regulation) into food production. While there is considerable criticism of the failures of the FDA and the USDA to enforce standards in an effective manner, the reluctance of Congress and State legislatures to strengthen their enforcement capabilities and toughen the applicable standards, and an entertaining and damning sequence listing the effects a revolving door policy have had in screwing farmers and consumers across the country, there is little discussion of the possibility that government could lead a greater cultural change in the way in which we eat. This is quite surprising, given that the documentary is quite clear to lay blame at the government’s door for its role in bringing us here in the first place. The makers note that seed production, for example, is now almost entirely privatized, and those who use publicly developed seeds are being squeezed into line, or out of work, by big agribusiness through the deployment of litigation threats and intellectual property protections. The State is responsible for this at two levels: firstly, by stepping out of the seed development process, thereby leaving farmers at the mercy of companies like Monsanto, and secondly, by taking the side of big agribusiness in its campaign against unencumbered farmers. Take another example: Pollan, in In Defense of Food, is quite clear to note that the calorific obsession plaguing our nation (and fuelled by food producers and packers) arose from a calculated decision by the Nixon administration to promote the production of cheap food. Like all forms of influential government regulation, consistent food policy privileged certain forms of interests over others, thereby leading eventually to a particular system of food production characterized by entrenched players with well-defined interests (a notable parallel: energy policy). Given the importance of governmental policy in getting us to here from grandma’s home cooked meals in less than 50 years, surely there is no reason to believe that government can’t be involved in moving us towards a better, more sustainable eating culture than the one we have now. More than just regulating the production and display of food, government has the power to use its institutions to enable a broader socio-economic shift in methods and patterns of consumption and production through the wise use of tax policy, grants for research and development, and the provision of greater access to knowledge through official information sources. This is not to argue, of course, that only the government can bring about this sort of change. Certainly not, civic activism has to be an integral part of the process as well. However, without significant governmental intervention and active policy encouragement, it is quite unlikely that any healthy eating initiative will have long-lasting (and widespread) effect.
Indeed, while it is beneficial for the government to intervene in influencing the prevailing attitudes towards food consumption and production, it is also probably essential for the state to step in if the wholesome food utopia is to be realized. This is because of the problem highlighted above: no entities other than the governments of the United States have the resources requisite to take the fight to food producers and agribusiness. Even concerted associational activity on the part of food defense activists is unlikely to be sufficient to counter the financial might and strategic cunning of these companies. For, as Hirshberg argues in the course of the movie, sensible eating campaigns cannot flourish only as Davids in a battle against Goliaths. As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in a recent New Yorker essay, while Davids have often prevailed against Goliaths in the history of conflict and innovation, this is hardly a dependable strategy for bringing about sustained change. What David needs, then, is a little help from a friendly giant: the State. One only wishes that the makers of Food Inc had taken this into consideration while presenting their argument to the public at large. The need of the day is not just to convince consumers to vote with their credit cards for better food, it is also to lobby government to help in the struggle for the consumers’ hearts, stomachs, and minds.
Posts
