/> a mother's heart » Blog Archive » thoughts on “Food, Inc.” part one

Continuing in the theme of “knowing your food” this week, I’ve been considering and pondering the movie “Food, Inc.” for several months.  What follows is both praise and a deconstruction of the ideas presented in the movie.  Part 2 of this post will appear tomorrow.

“Food, Inc.” is an independent movie that is based in part on the book An Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.  Pollan and Eric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation) narrate the movie, as well.

The movie is eye-opening and consciousness-raising, and has honestly changed the way we approach our family’s nutrition.  Mark & I watched this while in the midst of a “back to basics”-change in which I ceased buying canned beans and boxes of pasta and began buying bulk, dried goods, building a food storage at the same time.  But for as many excellent points as the movie makes, there are flaws as well.

The movie is broken down in to 4 segments (purportedly three, but there are four main topics covered):  1)  the industrial production of meat; 2) the industrial production of grains and vegetables; 3) the legal and economic power of the companies who control our food production; and 4) how these companies control and affect labour practices (legal and illegal).  The fourth category is one that I find peppered throughout the movie and one that I believe becomes problematic as the movie goes on, but more on that later.

I’ve written a bit about CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) and how I believe they are an unhealthy means to produce food, specifically beef.  “Food, Inc.” goes further and examines the raising of beef, pork, and chicken in an industrial setting.  They accuse McDonald’s of being the chief troublemaker in this scenario, saying that McDonald’s is the largest purchaser of meat today and that the farming practices that produce a certain “taste” in the finished product is why CAFOs are needed.  I do find it a bit odd that McDonald’s is always sourced as The Problem in movies like this (think of “SuperSize Me,” as well).  McDonald’s is big and they ARE a major consumer of beef, chicken, and pork.  But McDonald’s just didn’t go to the farms and say, “We want the meat to taste THIS way and THAT is how you must produce it”; the meat began to change in taste with the introduction of grain-feeding (and corn-feeding), and the McDonald’s burgers began to take on that taste.  McDonald’s didn’t force anyone to begin grain-feeding their cattle; if the production levels had stayed lower (as is the case with grass-fed beef), chances are good the price of the menu at fast food places would have increased and sales would not have been as brisk as they are now (it’s called supply and demand economics for a reason!).  So to blame McDonald’s for everything is neither fair nor honest.  At some point, the chicken had to exist before the egg did….

Another issue I take with the movie is the demonization of McDonald’s in introducing the assembly line in to fast food stores.  The McDonald brothers didn’t invent the assembly line – they merely introduced it to their operation.  Henry Ford invented the assembly line between 1908 and 1915.  It far predates McDonald’s use of the efficiency-model, and while it did change the face of labour in our society, efficiency isn’t a bad thing.  Efficiency in this model allows many more young people to cut their teeth on being part of a team, earning money in a summer (or school-year) job, all while allowing a store to operate smoothly and produce a profit.

One area which I thought the movie hit hard and well on was the production of industrial grains, specifically GMO.  If you’re unsure what GMO is or haven’t done much research on your own, here it is in a nutshell:  when companies take the DNA of a food product, such as corn, cottonseed, soybean, or sugar beets and modify the DNA, you end up with something that nature never intended.  The DNA of any given thing on earth is set and passed down from generation to generation, be it humans, corn plants, baby seals, or flowers.  It’s the reason why an infant human in utero will never become a fetal pig – the DNA is that of a human.  It’s the reason you can save seeds to plant pansies year after year – and pansies come up, not daisies.  The DNA is set in the seed.  So when science begins mucking with the DNA in seeds to create something different than what nature intended, it’s very serious business, indeed.

GMO corn is one of the many reasons high-fructose corn syrup is so dangerous – beyond the chemical nature of the sweetener, the fact that tumors grow like crazy in a medium of HFCS, and beyond the mercury found in products sweetened with it:  its DNA has been changed to withstand the application of Roundup, a broad-spectrum weed killer.   So now farms don’t have to be careful to just spray weeds, they can broadcast Roundup all over and not have the corn plant affected by it.  Sounds efficient, doesn’t it?  But what happens when your body is sensitive and doesn’t know what to do with the changed DNA of the corn?  Allergies happen – and sometimes they are life-threatening.  As a real-life example, I recently met a woman whose infant daughter was so desperately allergic to milk that not even removing all dairy from the mom’s diet was enough to soothe this tiny one’s tummy issues.  The doctors prescribed acid-reflux medication and the parents tried every formula under the sun, including soy.  The baby threw each of them up and tested positive for a soy allergy as well as a cow’s milk allergy.  In desperation, the mom researched and read about goat’s milk – the milk proteins in goat’s milk are the closest to human milk and tend to be very hypoallergenic.  She cautiously tried some goat’s milk and for the first time EVER, her baby didn’t burp, throw up, scream, have acid burning her tiny esophagus, etc.  It was a miraculous turn-around!  But as we discussed it, the mom revealed that her husband had a milk allergy as an infant (and outgrew it) – so his parents gave him soy formula.  He is fine, had no soy allergies, etc., and she was puzzled.  The key, I believe, is the GMO nature of soy – the soy her husband consumed in the 70s was not GMO; the soy her daughter consumed in 2010 is GMO.  Her daughter’s body, having half of the DNA of her papa, was most likely able to receive a non-GMO soy and be fine – but didn’t know what to do with the modified DNA in the GMO soy, hence her allergic reaction.

continued in tomorrow’s post, “Thoughts on “Food, Inc.,” part 2″

Related Posts with Thumbnails
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.