Food, Inc., a Review
Last week I saw an early screening movie Food, Inc. Despite the movie’s call for an open dialog about food, eating, and the industrial food system, the movie will be nothing more than another in a string of “liberal documentaries” that do more to polarize a population than to create an open dialog.
My overall impression of the movie is mixed. For those who have read Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, there will be nothing new gained. In fact, Mr. Pollan is both a consultant for and featured in the movie. For those looking for a more rational discussion of food and the food industry, I would highly recommend Mr. Pollan’s well-written, albeit idyllic, text.
For me, the most striking segment of the film revolved around the patent infringement litigation from Monsanto. This is not so much an issue of food production or consumption but of the broken patent system in the United States. The abuses of the patent system are not unique to Monsanto or to agriculture, of course, and the cases cited in this film highlight the need for a wholesale reform of our patent laws.
The visuals in the movie did little more than to inflame or disgust the audience. Also serving as a disservice were the constant notes of “[this corporation] refused to be interviewed for this film.” When the major premise of the movie is “the major agricultural companies represent all that is evil and soulless in the world,” it comes as no surprise that they would not want to be interviewed. The Al Gore An Inconvenient Truth style ending credits were not only a blatant rip-off of the Vice President’s Oscar-winning film’s “call to action” but also contained a number of political non sequiturs.
In attendance at the screening was Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm, who was invited to answer questions about the organic farming movement. I do appreciate Mr. Hirshberg’s approach to organic farming; rather than putting idealism before all else, his pragmatic approach to sales and marketing represents the most likely standard for success in reforming our food production system. For example, Mr. Hirshberg rejected the notion that eating “local food” was always best for the environment, citing to cases from his own business to the contrary; he did not suggest that you should never eat from local farms, only that the presumption that food grown within 100 miles of the dinner table always have the lowest environmental impact.
As is typical of these events, the majority of the questions directed at Mr. Hirshberg reflected the personal politics of the crowd. The questions asked largely served to reinforce the already-held views of the questioners that they were being good people. This sanctimonious attitude is perhaps the single greatest impediment to the opening of a serious discussion on how we eat.
There is no question that there is a need for reform and an honest discussion of how we eat. Nevertheless, this film will not inspire any such dialog. The film style is far too similar to that of the incendiary Michael Moore for a mainstream audience, and the only major appeal will be to those who are already convinced of the film’s underlying premises.
