Food Inc.
Food is something that is prevalent in our lives every day, no matter who you are. Many people don’t think twice of where their food comes from or what happens to their food before they eat it. However, the award winning documentary “Food, Inc.” Directed by Robert Kenner released in 2008 takes a deep dive into the negative side of mass food production and all of the slimy tactics big corporations take to maximize their profits.
In documentaries, especially award winning documentaries, the elements and techniques used by the filmmakers can separate the film from others. In the case of “Food, Inc.”, there were several filmmaking techniques that were unique.
Research, while not always realized by the viewer watching the film on just the surface level, was crucial to the success of “Food, Inc.” Research can be the most important component of an investigative film like this one. The digging by both Eric Schlosser, the author of the book, “Fast Food Nation,” and Michael Pollan, another investigative journalist in the food niche, ended up being the bulk of information in the film. Because of this great research, “Food, Inc.” had deep information about the food industry that wasn’t widely known by the public and brought new things to light for many.
Another element of the documentary that was critical to the success of the film was the interviews that both did and did not take place. Some of the interviews that did take place included some from two different chicken farmers, a seed farmer, an ethical farmer, and more. By interviewing many different people with different perspectives throughout the film, it gave many different opinions of what is wrong about the food industry to back up the research already done by Schlosser and Pollan. Anecdotal stories can be very significant in forcing the viewer to put a face to the problem and remember the emotions/experiences of that particular person instead of just hearing statistics that do not feel as personal. Also what Kenner did to enhance the power of the interviews is have most of them be location interviews. These location interviews further the thought of putting a face to the problem by also putting a location the the problem. For example, when there was an interview with a chicken farmer outside of the unethical chicken coop with no room for the chickens to move, it showed the viewer how unsanitary and immoral that type of chicken farming is.
Undercover footage had a large impact on what made this film different from others of similar ideas. The undercover footage obtained in the documentary gave a type of shock factor that is not always seen in film, even though it is a reality of what truly happens, because it is explicit and NSFW. Some of the situations shown in “Food, Inc.” included the unsanitary chicken coop previously mentioned, the conditions inside a Smithfield factory farm that had pigs kept in an extremely confined area, Smithfield workers mentioning the low wages and job insecurity they face, and cows being slaughtered. Obviously most sane people would not want to see these things happen, but by showing these vulgar scenes the problem at hand sticks in the film viewers head even more. Seeing traumatizing scenes can be the main takeaway from a film and cause the viewer to want to make a change.
The three tactics listed above were the most effective tactics in creating a never before seen documentary, but they weren’t the only ones that helped. There were other tactics used that had an impact as well. Some of the music used did a nice job in setting the mood of the scenes. An example of when the music had success setting a mood of a scene was the scene about Kevin, the kid who died prematurely due to E. Coli, the music playing was very eerie and melancholy. Another smaller tactic that was effective in having the viewer understand the outrageousness of the food industry was some of the animations used throughout the film. One specific animation used that did a wonderful job of portraying the issue at hand was an animation of the width of a chicken breast over time and how it’s increased with steroids, changes in diet, and genetic mutation. The massive increase over time is shocking.
The techniques and tactics used by the filmmakers were unbelievable and making, “Food Inc.” a memorable film, but also the content was very insightful of what the food industry is like. In the class discussion, we dug further into some of the deeper issues brought to light by the documentary.
In the film, it is mentioned how fast food is less expensive than fresh food. That issue is a massive issue in society. By promoting eating highly processed, unhealthy food for cheaper it causes less fortunate people with less money an incentive to eat fast food. In turn, this food is fueling the obesity and diabetes epidemics in America and slowly killing people. It seems unfair to less fortunate people who do not have a choice but to rely on cheaper food. This spans more than just going to fast food restaurants, but has moved its way into grocery stores as well. In grocery stores now, processed foods are still significantly cheaper than natural foods. Natural foods have made their way into being known as “high class” food only being bought consistently by the upper middle class and above. For example, Whole Foods is known as a place with a plethora of all-natural foods and not by coincidence, the target demographic of the corporation is white, upper class families. If America wants to fix this massive issue with obesity and heart related diseases and deaths, something has to be solved in the case of the average American diet and the elimination of highly processed foods.
Spanning from the encouragement of eating highly processed foods that are the cause of diseases and obesity also comes the dependence on medications and drugs in America. Many people depend on medications in their daily life, taking several pills a day just to function healthily. I see it in my daily life, with my mom having to take fiber pills and vitamin D pills daily. What is so messed up about the reliance on pills and supplements, is if the food available in day-to-day circumstances was all-natural and not beefed up with processing, many of those problems would deal with themselves. Professor Geilser mentioned in class a similar experience he’s faced. It occurred when his doctor recommended he took potassium supplements, but he did not want to. He instead decided to increase his intake of bananas to raise his potassium levels through the food he consumes. I think there is something going on with big medicine and big food companies recommending pills instead of changing diets to benefit the pharmaceutical corporations.
How conscious are you about what you eat and where it comes from? When it comes to where my food comes from, it varies for me. I am aware of fast food and foods made from restaurants in general usually have many additives that I am unaware of what could be in them. I am also aware that when there is an ingredient listed in a food that I cannot pronounce or dyes such as Red 40 or Yellow 5, that is not a good thing and I should try to avoid that. However, on the other hand it is a very large challenge trying to avoid all of those foods. Sometimes I don’t have a choice but to get fast food or get something from the market that contains one of those unsafe chemicals. It is especially very hard as a college student who just tries to eat the cheapest, least time consuming food available to them in order to fuel themselves for the day. I believe there is a systemic issue in America where all of these additives and chemicals in common foods are accepted without concern or revolt and I hope to one day have enough time and money to avoid all of that. Another issue is how there are cancer causing dyes in foods like how Red 40 can be in foods such as BBQ sauce, ice cream, soda, doritos and many other nationally enjoyed foods. Lastly, a large issue I think which can cause me to not know where my food comes from is the laws pertaining to what makes a food considered all-natural, natural, organic, non-GMO, free reign, grass-fed, etc. All of these terms make a consumer think that the food is made ethically without chemicals, additives, and steroids. However, each of these terms have specific regulations on how a food is considered that term and some of them are not very strict. Many food processors will follow the regulations to the minimum to still consider their food organic, or all natural just to trick consumers into thinking that they are buying food that is healthy, when in reality that is not necessarily the case. Since this type of advertising foods is so common in the USA, it is hard to understand where and how your food comes from.