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

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 1 of this post appeared yesterday.  Part 3 will appear tomorrow.

Continuing in the GMO=bad vein, a good portion of the corn that is produced (mass-produced, thanks to corn subsidies from the federal government) goes to CAFOs, the feedlots where cows are fattened up and oftentimes become so ill.  Corn (GMO or otherwise) was not designed to be a cattle feed, and in it lies the root of e coli 0157:H7, the deadly bacterium that has sickened hundreds and killed many.  E Coli is a naturally-occurring bacterium in our gut; the mutation of 0157:H7 came from feeding corn to cattle and ending up with infections that would not (did not) occur in nature when they were grass-fed.  When you combine the feeding of corn and the existence of CAFOs, it’s not really surprising that E Coli 0157:H7 has shown up in so much meat in the last ten years.

“Food, Inc.” goes on in the movie to discuss the problem of plentiful dollar menus at fast-food restaurants and how it’s brought down the diet of the average American.  They then allow us to meet this “average family,” but one thing becomes clear very quickly:  this is not the “average American family.”  This family spends nearly all of its grocery money on fast food.  The husband has diabetes which is controlled with medication, the girls and mother are aware of nutritional information, but profess to “lack time.”  This lack of time in turn leads them to choose the “cheaper” soda over fruit, neglecting what they know is better and healthier.  The movie makers attempt to make the connection and say that if fast food was more expensive, this family’s health would be better.  I think that’s a bogus connection; people make time for the things they value.  Being “busy” doesn’t preclude the use of slow cookers or pressure cookers to prepare food, and traditional food (dried beans, whole grains, etc.) can easily be FAR cheaper than soda and be cooked with these appliances, even while the family relaxes or sleeps.  The mother in the family says that the husband’s medications take up a great amount of their income, but if it’s a high percentage, there are social safety nets in place to get assistance for the medication costs.  If the cost of medication was alleviated in part for them, it suggests that healthier food could be purchased – but what’s ignored is the total spent on fast food DAILY which could otherwise be converted in to traditional, healthy foods that would improve the family’s overall health, even without inexpensive access to fresh fruits & vegetables.  If a family is spending $36 per DAY on fast food (what could be extrapolated from what they spend on one meal), that’s $252 per WEEK.  I don’t know about you, but I can do a LOT with that sort of grocery budget on a weekly basis – I don’t spend even a fraction of that and am able to feed my family well and still be nutritionally sound.

Another part of the movie where I believe the filmmakers tried to do too much with too little is the question of illegal immigration.  They indicate that Smithfield (pork processing) in Tar Heel, NC, is a haven for illegal immigrants and that Smithfield has a “deal” with the INS to turn over 15 illegal immigrant employees per day (purportedly with no penalties to Smithfield).  I’m not saying there isn’t a deal, but there is no concrete evidence of this “deal,” just the words of a labour activist in the area.  Additionally, none of the employees they show Smithfield trucking in to work in Tar Heel are Latino – at all.  I simply cannot comprehend that there would be a ‘deal’ like this and a) it wouldn’t be picked up by the national media (remember, this movie was made during the Bush administration) and b) the government would let Smithfield off scot-free, especially in a time of economic downturn, when the government is printing money because it’s run out and has runaway spenders in charge.  They easily could have left this section out and strengthened the other sections of the movie and done well.

Several things I think the filmmakers did right include spending a great deal of time with Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms, in Shenandoah, VA.  Salatin is an old-fashioned farmer with good business savvy.  He’s got a sustainable farm and is cashing in on the awareness of those who are interested in buying sustainably-grown food.  He’s also become a bit of a spokesman for sustainable agriculture and although he doesn’t elaborate greatly in the movie, he does support my earlier thought that the argument about “feeding the world” through industrial ag is specious.  What I find even more interesting is that friends of mine have actually worked with Salatin on his farm. Salatin and Polyface are part of something called WWOoF, which stands for World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms.  WWOoF is a group of volunteer laborers who travel from organic farm to organic farm (within the network), offering work in exchange for a place to stay and chance to learn organic farming practices.

Another part of the movie that I thought was particularly well-done was the interview with Gary Hirshberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Farms, the organic yogurt maker.  Hirshberg talks at length about how big businesses are buying up small, “natural” or “organic” businesses, most of the time without the public’s awareness.  For example, Kashi is owned by Kellogg; Stacy’s Pita Chips is owned by Kraft; Tom’s Toothpaste is now owned by Colgate.  And for the sake of transparency, Stonyfield Farms is owned by Dannon.  But Hirshberg remains in charge of Stonyfield and found a business model that works, which I applaud.  As opposed to vilifying WalMart and other big retail outlets, he embraces them – and recognizes that for every order of yogurt from WalMart, he is not putting tons of pesticides in the soil, pollutants in the air, etc. – that it’s a win-win for the people who shop at WalMart out of economic necessity and for those who champion organic and green causes.  Too many environmentalists throw out the baby with the bathwater and eschew all forms of retail business with large companies that they hold with disdain.  It’s truly unfortunate, but I think Hirshberg has a great model and it was worth a segment of the movie’s time.

Part three (the final installment) in this series will run tomorrow.

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.