Food, Inc. Reactions

"Hungry for change?"

 
I found the documentary, "Food, Inc." so horrifying and yet inspiring at the same time. I really liked the cinematography, the shots of Michael Pollan in his kitchen, the pan through the grocery store, with the cart moving seemingly on its own, the farmers in their fields, and so on. I really liked Michael Pollan; his eyes turn up at the corners, giving him a happy-looking face, even though he deals with and is discussing tragic issues. (I thought, too, that it is amazing that the author of Fast Food Nation still enjoys burgers and fries!)

The movie opens as a cart rolls through the grocery store, and the narrator enlightens the viewers on the "illusion of diversity" that the grocery store presents. I knew that corn was in a lot of products, and my section went to the grocery store to investigate this ourselves. I was still shocked, however, when they named some of the things that corn is an ingredient in. I would never have thought (and don't understand why) corn is an ingredient in batteries, charcoal, diapers or motrin. What purpose can it serve in these sorts of items? I also did not realize how many of the "technical" names on the ingredients list were by-products of corn, which is why in section we overlooked so many products, thinking they didn't have corn in them because we didn't know all of its manifestations. 

"Who knows a farmer anymore?"

                           --Michael Pollan

After asking dozens of farmers to view their chicken raising facilities, only one (a woman named Carole) would let the crew inside. I learned that the chickens' feed (which has growth hormones in it) causes the chickens to grow about two-three times faster than they naturally would. This rapid increase in size, however, is not in proportion with the development of their bones and organs. The chickens we saw were stumbling pathetically around. The chicken farmer said that they can only take a few steps before they fall over because they're bodies can't carry the amount of weight that they've put on. 

With this kind of farming system, I have to question who would want to know a farmer? Or rather, who would enjoy visiting a farm? The giant food production companies keep the farmers under their thumb because the farmers are in such serious debt, leaving the individual farmers with no say in their own business. I learned that the typical chicken farmer with 2 chicken houses borrows $500,000 and makes $18,000.


"To have no say in your business, it's degrading," Carole said. "It's like being a slave to the company." 


It's interesting to me that most people's conception of farming is still the classic one of the farmer with their personal land and their animals and working it as best they can. But, it's a wholesome image. The reality of farming today is much worse, however, and yet, the classic view of farming is still considered an undesirable career in our society. I would much rather be one of the traditional farmers than one who is a puppet to a larger agricultural enterprise. 

"We need to be Goliath"

                  --Gary Hirshberg (Stonyfield Farm CEO)

The agricultural industry has gotten huge and small at the same time. The production has increased immensely into this huge network of farmers and factories and large areas of land used for CAFOs, but the actual number of companies (or farms, if you want to call them that, though I would argue that they do not merit the image that that name invokes) has shrunk, they are "Goliath industries." The top four biggest beef production companies control 80% of the beef market, and Tyson is the biggest meatpacking industry in the world. These big companies have big influences; the U.S. government promotes corn production by subsidizing the farmers, and giving them the incentive to overproduce on such a large scale because these financially powerful companies lobby for that. It is a terrifying thought to me that our government is controlled by the industries it is supposed to be keeping an eye on. 

I'm in the process of reading Fast Food Nation and "Food, Inc." references the implementation of the assembly line model of production in the early McDonalds restaurants. This, I think, is where the problem really starts. McDonalds used the assembly line to be more efficient and to produce things in the same way every time. However, in order for them to really be efficient, the products they were using to produce their food had to be the same too. As fast food companies adopted this method, the demand for cookie-cutter ingredients to the food greatly increased. The best way to insure the uniformity of these ingredients was to use the same supplier at every branch of the restaurant. So, from these large companies came the demand for large suppliers.

The assembly line is now used in the slaughter houses and even in the way that the animals and plants are raised. Everything is mechanized and simplified down to an efficient, standardized system.In the movie, they refer to Tyson's production, saying, "all birds that come off farms have be almost exactly the same size...not producing chickens, it's producing food." It is not enough anymore the package the chicken so that when it arrives at the store or the restaurant it is a uniformly sized piece of meat, now we want the living chicken itself to be identical to its neighbor.  

This goal of efficiency is a terrible one for everyone affected by the process. As already mentioned, the animals suffer (like the deformed chickens) from inhumane conditions in their CAFOs. (People criticize farmers, true farmers, for being heartless when they kill their animals, but at least those animals have had decent, healthy lives in the outdoors with clean living conditions and good feed and so on...). The consumers suffer too. A large part of the movie was about a woman who is fighting for "Kevin's Law," named after her son who died from contracting ecoli from a contaminated piece of meat when he was a toddler. (This part of the movie actually made me cry). More recently there was a recall of peanut butter for being contaminated with salmonella. The assembly line system is set up so that it produces as much as possible in as little time. But, in order to do this, unclean facilities are used (like the CAFOs) and so purity of the product is sacrificed for the rapidity of its production. 

The workers in these assembly lines are also damaged by the process. They are not mentally stimulated. They are not engaged in their work.They are doing the same job over and over again every day, so they do not need to focus on what they are doing. In this way, contaminated products might escape their notice. The repetitive motions also can lead to carpel tunnel or other health problems. Doing the same thing becomes habit and no longer requires any focus, but in the meat packing industry, where the workers are yielding knives and saws, this can lead to serious injury. 

In addition to all of these concerns, the workers themselves are treated terrible. Many of them are immigrants who cannot get better jobs or demand better conditions. Many of these big companies treat their workers the same as the animals: lives to use at their disposal. When one batch of workers is not satisfactory they are easily gotten rid of because there are more desperate for a job. The movie showed a raid of immigration authorities on some of the workers from a Smithfield plant. The raid did not occur at the plant, however, but at the homes of the workers. We were told that Smithfield has an agreement with the immigration authorities: they turn over 15 names a day so that the immigration authorities look like they are doing their job well, in exchange for not interfering in the Smithfield plants, which would disrupt the assembly line. Another example of what money can buy.

Finally, though, this focus on efficiency sucks the joy out of the process. When we are so wrapped up in the end product there is no enjoyment in the creation of the product itself. It is Marx's "The Alienation of Labor" to a tee: workers are so focused on the material gains from production that they are alienated from the process of production. The things that we do, however, shape us, and so in being alienated from our actions we alienate ourselves from ourselves. We also become alienated from our fellow workers because we have no interest in what we share, and we are alienated by the dependence we have on our employers. Though I am not sure communism is the answer, I think Marx got this much right.

Gary Hirshberg's quote, however, is a hopeful one. Despite the daunting power of these industries, there is still hope. Hirshberg's argument is that aligning with other "Goliath" companies (like Walmart, in his case) can help make "Goliaths" out of the companies, like Stonyfield, that are attempting to remedy the way things are done now. He also points out that the tobacco industry was once this powerful, controlling government policy and having similarly devastating effects on everyone touched by their reach. But, that is no longer the case, and this fact demonstrates that irresponsible industrial behavior can be changed. He also mentions that the organic industry has been growing 20% annually, making it one of the fastest growing industries in the food system. 

The agricultural system is also extremely reliant on fossil fuels for its production of cheap food. As the fuel prices rise, the price of production for these companies will also rise. They have no other means of production, and are so mechanized that any chink in their machinery might disrupt the whole system. In the discovery of alternate sources of energy, which would require a revamping of the agricultural industry's production system, there is hope for change as well.  

"When we run an item past the supermarket scanner, we are voting!"

The average consumer may not feel very powerful. I certainly don't when I hear about these super-giant companies and their leverage in Congress and their extensive empire of food production. But, in assuming that we have no power and no influence, and thus not changing our own life styles we are "outsourcing responsibility" (as farmer Joel Salatin said). The consumer does have power. If more people choose to buy their food from local or organic farmers that use humane, sustainable methods it will make a difference. If more people choose to grow their own food, it will make a difference. It will also reconnect people with the joy of production: it is extremely satisfying to cultivate something and then serve it to your friends at dinner and say, these are tomatoes from my garden. (I always loved planting carrots as a kid, because I loved feeling them POP from their nest of dirt as i pulled them out of the ground).

I'll admit that after watching "Food Inc." I felt like I would never want to eat food again. (This lasted about two hours). Instead, I am inspired to be more aware of where my food is coming from and how it is being produced.

"You can change the world with every bite"