Welcome to the AP Economics Blog for Students of Boston College High School. It is in this forum that students will discuss issues in AP Economics class.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Food Inc.
Food Inc. This documentary focuses on the food industry. It is an unflattering look inside America’s corporate controlled food industry.
What truly struck me while reading these responses, and watching several of the films, was that such a large percentage of the subjects (antagonists) of these films declined to be interviewed for almost every one of them. When I am a potential guilty party in a minor occurence, I feel obligated to defend myself, even if it is just the slightest thing. If a large occurence resulted in a large company potentially having to either pay a LARGE sum of money, or have the majority of the public at odds with them, that large company would be insane not to defend themselves...unless there is simply no possible way to defend themselves. I believe that many of the subjects of these films know that what they did may have benefitted themselves, but it is simply unexplainable to the public, and therefore do not waste their time. This is absolutely sad.
Never have I looked down at my dinner plate and ponder about the long and complex process which this piece of meat endured in order to be served as a meal. Food Inc. has dramatically altered the way that I view the food industry. A company like Monsanto, is not only, lucrative, but is also deceptive, corrupt, and omnipotent. Interest groups, representing Monsanto, reside in the hub of this nation’s law producing capital and, therefore, hold unprecedented, manipulating means to structure food laws to their benefit. As a result, farmers may neither reveal the truth of what lies beyond Monsanto’s hidden veil nor plant their own source of soy bean seed unless they plan to fight against the company’s legion of top class lawyers. Monsanto also employs a vast network of investigators to monitor and seek out any farmer who defiles their contract. Monsanto appears to be an entity free from the restrictions of laws and may conduct it’s business ventures in anyway that may create the most copious profit margin. While Monsanto may not operate the most saintly business schemes, it certainly does deserve some mention of its more fascinating aspects. From providing chemical weapons during the Vietnam War to genetically engineering soy bean seeds, Monsanto has surely pushed the bounds of chemical science to fabricate unthinkable products. Another infamous product from Monsanto lies in the legal domain, that is to say it’s lawyers. One of the most famous previous employees of Monsanto is Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas, but there are many more that are now employed by the FDA. These positions no doubt were bought and paid for by Monsanto in order to easily influence laws in their favor. Due to all it’s dubious manipulations of governments across the world, Monsanto has placed a target on itself for environmentalists and organic food advocates.
Food Inc. My perception of the food industry will most likely never be the same again. Seeing the “cheating” that mass market food corporations employ makes me question if the chicken I’m eating now may or may not have been made of in a lab. I once thought of food companies to be huge farms in rural areas. Now I see them as huge factories with lawyers and lobbyers. The tactics major corporations use to speed up and cheapen the food producing process have made me sick at times now. The “fake ripening” companies use now on their vegetables makes me understand why my parents insist on growing their own tomatoes now. The manipulation of regulations and the market to make corn the easiest crop to grow also have made me glance at the ingredients in my foods now, wondering how much of the cereal I have for breakfast is made out of corn (if I remember correctly it was around 90% of processed food contain corn in some form). Other things that struck me were the influence McDonalds has on the meat market outside of the restaurants themselves, and the E. Coli situation. The fact that a company can control up to 30 or 40% of a food industry is simply wrong. Even people who try to avoid corporations such as McDonalds do not have much of a choice if the only options at the grocery store are produced from a McDonalds system. Also, the E. Coli suppression tactics seem to just be “sweeping it under the rug” instead of actually taking care of it. The corporate control of the food industry shows that it is not a unique situation with small farmers and plantations, but should be treated just like any other industry with regulations and laws.
In the film Food Inc. many horrors of the food industry are revealed. To me, the most disturbing was the chicken coops. The chickens inside are pressured to harsh conditions, close quarters, and an unsanitary environment. For example, in the film a woman decided to show the camera crews her own coop. The coop was considered to be among the nicer of the possibly environments given that it contained windows. Most chickens however will spend their entire life living in pitch darkness. Also, an average day would see about 10-20 dead chickens, killed for many different causes. These causes span from broken legs making getting food impossible, or a heart attack from overweight. The chickens would grow twice as fast as grow to become twice as big. This no longer was farming....it was animal harvesting.
These horrific techniques are incorporated around the country by companies like Tyson. What these companies also do is require a certain coop to be purchased, which costs nearly $500,000. In saying this, the average annual income of a typical farmer after taxes and expenses is $18,000. If you then add in any upgrades or repairs to the coop your looking at a maximum of maybe $13,000. It would take nearly 38 years to pay off the price of one coop. This alllows to companies to have a vice grip on the farmers, holding them in debt and forcing them to follow their requirements and remain producers of their product.
“Food, Inc.” From this film, I have found a great respect for the small farmers, or seeders that have said no to the corporate conglomerates who have taken control of the food industry. I liked very much when one farmer stated that he would never “sell out” to the major companies because he knows that the overall quality of his product would deteriorate very rapidly. Also, the story of seven year old Kevin really made it obvious that the enormous food companies do not care if a person here or there dies because they sold them meat which was tainted by salmonella or E. coli. Hopefully in the future, Kevin’s Law will be passed so that the USDA will finally have the power to shut down factories which produce very unhealthy products. Eerily similar to “Inside Job” all of the major food companies in question declined to be interviewed in this film, which shows that they do not want to allow a filmmaker to know and share the malicious secrets in which those companies hold. What struck me as very shocking was the scene which showed a group of pigs slaughtered as if they were nothing in this world. That one scene, along with other similar ones, changed the way I look at the food that I eat nearly every day. For some unknown reason, these large food companies decided at some point that it does not matter that “some” of their food “might” have very dangerous viruses or diseases in them, they only care about how much product can be produced, how quickly it is produced, and how much money they can make from it. What really makes me upset about these companies is that they have so much money that they can just put hundreds of other producers out of business, which they had done. These companies have basically immunity to the laws provided by the useless FDA and USDA, due to the fact that some of the head people of the FDA and USDA once worked for those companies, such as Monsanto Company, Tyson, and Perdue. If nothing is changed in the near future, then these conglomerates will just keep producing more and more tainted products which will create an epidemic nationwide.
“Food Inc.” presents an interesting concept of tracing your food to the source but the source they traced consisted of very few companies. Companies like Tyson, Perdue, and Montesano who control large portions of each market in their respective industries, and the guidelines set to regulate those industries. Tyson and Smithfield lobbied congress and pushed farm bills to make corn production policy to overproduce to drive down the price of corn. Once the price was driven down they used it to feed to cows, which cannot be fully broken down by cows, creating new strains of E.coli. Instead of fixing the problem and removing corn as feed and sanitizing concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), which would cost money, they produce ammonia dipped beef filler that kills the E.coli 0157H7. This overproduction of corn pushed by these major corporations resulted in a deadly E.coli strain but instead of a recall they create a quick solution. The company controlled FDA, dropped regulation standard and essentially made the industries self-policed. The Head of the FDA was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association; these government ties allowed these large companies to ignore safety regulations. This power to control the industry has also reduced farmers to indentured servants, paying them only eighteen thousand a year and insisting on constant upgrade. Most farmers have a debt of about half a million and they don’t ever own their chicks, the genetically beefed up chickens are owned by Perdue and Tyson from when they’re born until they are full-grown. Once the chickens are full grown these large companies use illegal immigrants to pick up these animals and then treat them just as well as the animals. The United States Boarder Patrol works with these companies and takes only a small group of these illegal immigrants every month, never persecuting the actual companies that brought them to work. This gives the corporations time to recruit more immigrants that they will give up willingly to continue making food. The main goal of these companies is to create capital, and with little regard for safety and health of their customers in order to increase profit and lower prices.
I found the actions of the food company Monsanto to be very interesting. Though they seem to embody the idea of corporate greed, they have made significant contributions to society as a whole, such as innovating new chemical products due to state of the art chemical engineering. That being said, however, Monsanto bends laws and restrictions, thanks to the support from numerous interest groups throughout Washington, to create the largest profit possible. This profit comes at a cost to the consumer, who may be purchasing food that has not been produced to code. Monsanto has come under fire from several organic food activists for their actions, and deservingly so.
After working on my father’s vegetable gardens since the age of eight, it comes as no surprise to me to read about methods such as “fake ripening” within the agriculture industry. Someone who has put the time, energy, and money into growing a similar product can truly tell the difference between a genuine product and one that, although it looks the same, is a mere imitation of the desired perfect form, produced for the ignorant masses who do not know any better for maximum profit. This anecdote can be seen as a parable for the plight of small business owners who, while maintaining a proper moral code, are ultimately no match for the immoral corporations who can play dirty and cheat customers for greater profit.
From reading multiple posts Food Inc. seems to be fighting for the little man, the small farmer. These small farmers put in hard work to put together a quality product but, most of the time are eliminated by larger corrupt corporations. Each and every consumer is not getting the quality product they could be getting from a small farmer because these large corporations are immorally not abiding by regulations and restrictions. Many of these posts have me asking if Jim Perdue is lying to me when he tells me his product is "all natural and non-artificial". These corporations using their large names and greed are putting the genuine everyday farmer out of money. I believe these corporations can be compared to some of the investment banks I watched in the Inside Job because they have two major things in common: Greed and a Lack of Morality. The system we have now has allowed these companies to climb to the top when quite frankly it is not deserved. By bending regulations and not putting out a natural product, is it just that these companies are being rewarded in society?
Food Inc Response. Food Inc seems to address how big food producing companies are enhancing their food to make it the fastest possible way in order for the companies to acquire wealth as soon as possible. However, the theory is flawed because it only allows for big food companies to succeed in the economy while privately owned business who grow and produce food naturally get overrun by the major companies. This way of life could pose problems for our economy because we have no small business owners in the food industry only large companies.
Food Inc. was a documentary about the development of the food economy over the last fifty years. The main focus is that food is now being processed in large farm industries that charge what they believe is fair, rather than local foods grown and charged at an actual fair price. Food Inc targets the main food corporations such as Monsanto Company, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, and Perdue Farms, that purchase animals such as chicken, cows and even plants such as corn and grain and they mass produce them in chemically enhanced environments to produce the speed that product is produced and so that every animal or plant is the same. The corporations are ruining the quality of the food by using chemicals to make every food the same and even salvaging meat that has gone bad, this has been the cause of many outbreaks of E. coli. I am absolutely against this because it is not supporting your local economy, everyone is getting poor quality of food and the spread of disease is very easy. The major corporations have designed their food to fit the model of a fast food restaurant where the food can be made and sold cheaply but in very large amounts. As a result of this all food is produced like this because these major corporations control over 80% of Americas food and meat production. The way that the United States has to go is to locally grown and produced meat and vegetables so that the larger corporations regulate the quality of the food they produce.
RESPONSE: I have read Fast Food Nation, a book by Eric Schlosser (a while ago), a book that I believe to consider similar issues as the ones that Food Inc describes. (from what I can gather) Monsanto seems to be a corparation of vast power and resources, just like how McDonalds was described in Fast Food Nation. Schlosser described employees of meat packing plants who requested better conditions in their dangerous job and were ignored. Just like how Monsanto manipulates its soybean growers. I am also quite fascinated at the way Monsanto diversified its business into many areas such as chemical weapons and genetic engineering. In the grand scheme of things, I think that the adage “You have to squeeze lemons to make lemonade” is true, no matter how morally dubious.
From what I have read from others posts who have seen food inc. the food industry is huge and its interest groups have major holds in government, both national and local. It seems that the companies follow the rules, but that those rules have been twisted in their favor after years of working with and nearby the health departments. This is just another nail in the coffin that large national corporations own this country, and when they need something the government is there to help.
The most obvious business practice and undoubtebly the most revolting is how there are only three to four companies that own all of the meat in America. This leads to these companies taking advantage of the small farmer. The meat companies hire individual farmers to raise their produce allowing the large corporations to control everything and anything the farmers do, and if the farmer(s) goes against anything their contract will be terminated. Another occurence that astounded me was the amount of government officials that were previous or future heads of certain divisions of the food companies. Am I mistaken or is business and government policy supposed to be seperate?!There were plenty of bad practices that were demonstrated in this video, but there were a few glimpses of hope every once in a while. For example, the farmer who works for himself and raises all of his produce himself. People might say, "well he won't do very well", but the farmers who are working for the big corporations are only making $18,000/year so it's not like you could do much worse. Also, the organic market is growing rapidly. I believe a big step to solving our countries food choices is to educate them on what is healthy food and what is not. If the people buying the "bad/unhelthy" products stopped buying those products then the companies would have no choice but to change to popular demand. However, with those unhealthy foods being so cheap it will be difficult to do so.
Having not seen this film and only read the responses of my fellow classmates, I can only imagine the monstrosities that foods have to endure to eventually get to my dinner plate. Also the fact that McDonald's controls a large amount of the meat industry is just simply disgusting, because who would want to eat a simple piece of steak or hamburger every day from the supermarket if they knew that McDonald's had a hand in producing it?
After reading the responses to this movie, I do not know if I can look at a juicy burger the same. It seems unbelievable that such huge names in the food industry such as McDonalds and Tyson can not only control much of the food industry, but the influence that they control as well. To me, if there is a problem, you fix it. Bottom line. You do not simply hide it so that it goes unnoticed. Therefore, I cannot help but wonder if a steak is actually E. Coli infested. This seems like a movie that although it may be interesting, it is probably for the best that I did not watch it.
Food Inc. outlines the very real treacheries of agri-business. Focusing on one of the most egregious offenders of the rights of American public and the food industry, Purdue abused animals, the industry, its employees, and its customers. "Manipulative" insufficiently describes the manner in which employees, American farmers, viewed their employer. Under the threat of contract termination, farmers were forced to repeatedly upgrade equipment, increase the size of their farms, modify chicken coops, and alter the methods of their operation. The evil lies in that Purdue present the farmers with two options: take out new loans to fulfill their demands, or forfeit their income in the form of a contract termination. Most farmers, however, were already dangerously in debt and earning mediocre salaries. In addition to contract blackmailing for output, farmers were also restricted from speaking out about their situation or the conditions and methods used to raise chickens. As for the treatment of the animals, Purdue essentially created a genetic mutant prime for the American supermarket. The animals were designed to be so large that their bodies could not support the weight and the rate at which they bred, lived, and died was unnatural and harmful. Limited light, confined space, handling abuse, overcrowding, and poor sanitation simply begin to describe the conditions in which the chickens were raised, transported, and slaughtered. This not only lead to discomfort and cruelty for the animals, but also dangerous working conditions as well as food which in the end was of a lower quality, though in greater quantity. Purdue made farmer independence, consumer choice, food quality, and the possibility for competition nearly impossible, essentially monopolizing the market and manipulating the industry and all that came in contact with it. The results of industrialized agri-business were not pretty.
The documentary Food Inc illustrates the business side of the food that we consume daily. The film makes clear that companies are mistreating animals and using Washington lobbyists to prevent laws from passing. In the middle of the documentary, a woman, Barbara Kowalcyk, speaks about the death of her two year old son, Kevin. While on vacation, the family eats hamburgers and the meat in Kevin’s was contaminated with Ecoli. I really liked many of Mrs. Kowalcyk’s actions throughout the short portion of the film she was in.
After Mrs. Kowalcyk’s son died of an ecoli infection, she spent the next six years (and counting) fighting to change the current system, which I like a lot. She was very proactive, and sought to create a law, Kevin’s Law. The aforementioned law would let the USDA shut down plants if they found necessary, which they cannot currently do. Mrs. Kowalcyk has been working on this law for six years, but it still has not passed because of the lobbyist groups in Washington. I like that after six years, she is still striving to change the system and make this country a better, safer place by giving the USDA more power in a health crisis. Even though her son tragically died, she seems strong and is trying the tragic death of her son into a positive for our country by improving the current system, which gives us many reasons to admire her.
While she does have many positive, likeable traits, Mrs. Kowalcyk says one thing that I dislike. She states that “We are not being protected at the most basic level [by the government].” While the government has definitely failed to protect us (especially in the ecoli outbreak) we are still being protected at basic levels through police, firemen, ambulances, and healthcare. I dislike this statement that she made, but she has a right to be angry after the death of her son.
Mrs. Kowalcyk makes many likeable and unlikeable decisions throughout the short part of the documentary that focuses on her, but overall her actions are very likeable.
Umm, yuck? The scenes in Food Inc. were gruesome and certainly were not with those with a weak stomach. One striking business policy that stood out was monopolization. As the beginning of the movie depicts beef companies have monopolized the industry. Certainly it is not a true monopoly as there is more than one company that manufactures beef, however, it is certainly a skew towards a few companies. This practice allows companies to bypass health regulation because of their sheer size and invest in efficient methods of production that depreciate the nutrition in the product. My opinion on monopolies is thus that they are terrible and allow corruption, but onto my next point:
“We are all into the how, not the why!” says a farmer providing consumers with meat the “right” way! Allow me to elaborate: cows are often fed corn rather than grass due to its efficiency. Grass, however, is the more natural substance for consumption for cows and livestock. The farmer I refer to feeds his livestock grass and hails its advantages over corn. This practice, one that focuses on traditional methods that are time-prove to work, is one that I like.
A final practice that frustrates me to no end is the treatment of undocumented immigrants in industrial conditions. Some may have seen that the Tyson chicken company carted undocumented immigrants from the border to their factory and in turn exploited them without pay. Weeks later, once their work was complete, the immigrants were escorted back to the border without pay. Two things happen here: immigrants are exploited without pay, and companies benefit without any deprivation of earnings. This is an unethical and immoral practice that I despise.
In a quick summary, it seems that the “locavore” movement described in the English AP Language and Composition exam provides far more benefits that I had anticipated. The locavore movement simply means that citizens only purchase their food within a twenty-mile radius of their home. This prevents long journeys that cause unnatural ripening and a healthier product. Maybe we should give it a shot…
“Food Inc.” After watching “Food Inc.” I would like to explore the business practices of large companies, such as Monsanto. Monsanto seems to operate above the law in a sense, because it finds a way to make sure its interests are upheld. Monsanto is not unique in its practices, many other large businesses have strong assets which can ensure that their goals are met, no matter what impede them. I would like to shed light on the lucrative law practices that these huge companies employ. It seems almost sick to see how much destruction these lawyers can cause. They hold so much power and seem to almost bend the laws to their liking. The legal teams that represent these companies, or investigate in favor of these companies hold substantial amounts of power. Through shady practices, threats, and coercion, these unstoppable law teams can hold down the ‘little guy’ and harm honest individuals or practices. I believe that wielding such legal strength in a dangerous way is detrimental to our society as a whole. The small businesses and people who make up this country are being held down, and threatened, and this practice does seem legal or correct in any way. Unfortunately our legal system has loops that allow terrible practices to slip through with powerful attorneys in control.
I was curious how someone could have died from contaminated food yet the company who distributed that food not receive any penalties, which I believe you are trying to say happened. While I certainly do not agree with mistreatment of animals, I can more thoroughly understand how that could be overlooked by the government if major profits were involved. I cannot say that it is right, simply that it could be more expected. However, I'm not sure how someone could have died at the clear fault of someone or something, whether it be the company or the government, and there not be clear repercussions dealt and compensations given to the victims.
A prominent aspect of Food, Inc. is the federal government's role in the food industry, in particular farm subsidies and strict FDA guidelines. It is my sincere belief, and a subtle theme throughout the documentary, that there must be a serious revision of the American corporatism that our government endorses.
Let's start with the farmer Joel Salatin. He is featured, and rightly so, as one of the last “real” farmers. He is a farmer that treats his animals with respect, avoiding harmful chemicals and selling directly to consumers. But this will not do for the FDA, an agency that has produced strict sanitary guidelines that affect his farming style. Guidelines such as “No cleaning of animals in the open air.” Farm subsidies that favor larger farming corporations also put him at a disadvantage: his more sanitary crops are at market price while the large brands are artificially low.
How sanitary is the food that the larger businesses sell? Not very. Food documents how animals are artificially raised so as to produce more meat, and less muscle. Contrary to their diet, cows are fed corn, and chickens grow to a size so large their legs can not support their weight. Their meat is compounded and sold in bulk across the country, often traveling thousands of miles to the supermarket. Chemicals help prevent the meat's decay, yet also affects the taste and quality of the food. By the time the chicken leaves the farm to the moment it arrives on your dinner plate, such a plethora of chemicals, additives, and preservatives have been added that the phrase “meat” is a dubious term.
The result of our government subsidies is a readily available supply of unsanitary, unhealthy food en masse while strictly limiting the quantity of affordable, healthy, locally grown food. The system is corrupt; besides the obvious aforementioned detriments, it is also important to consider that the workers at the farms often live in unsanitary conditions, the environmental impact of the unnecessary shipping, the obesity and diabetes rise in America. All of these factors prohibit both the quality of our food and the nature of our country. Our very own government subsidies and strict FDA rulings are proving detrimental to our nation. Our tax dollars are being used against us.
The reviews on “Food Inc” made me realize what has happened to our food industry in recent years. It is kind of crazy to think that our entire food industry has been centered around the quantity, not quality of the food that is being produced. To me, this is just the food companies way of trying to maximize their profits. It really seems that it is much easier for them to sell larger quantities of lesser quality food because they are able to chemically alter their animals and plants to yield more product than they are actually paying for. I personally think that this is disgusting, but at the same time, there are food companies only serve organic food, food with integrity to their consumers. The only problem is that this food is often very expensive.
In Food Inc., the legal actions of the big meat companies disgust me. Most disturbing are the reactions Barb Kowalcyk has received from a meat company...one that killed her son with their food. She describes the disproportion of the law saying, “Sometimes it does feel like industry was more protected than my son.” Even though her two-and-a-half-year-old son Kevin was hit with E. coli 0157:h she never received an apology. He went from being a perfectly healthy little boy to dead, in twelve days, all from eating a hamburger. His kidneys failed, he received dialysis, and he could only drink water with little sponges dipped into a cup of water; he begged for water. It took Kowalcyk's family almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that they matched a meat recall. While her son was sick in the hospital on August 1st, the meat was not recalled until August 27th, an outrageous sixteen days after he died. You think the USDA could help the spread of meat containing E. coli, right? Actually, that is is pretty wrong. In 1998 the USDA began microbial testing for salmonella an E. coli 0157:h7, in hopes of shutting down facilities who repeatedly had been contaminated. However, meat and poultry associations got wind of this. After they took the USDA to court, the ruling basically told the USDA they did not have the authority to shut down these plants. Kowalcyk says, “What it meant was that you could have a pound of meat or poultry products that is a petri dish of salmonella and the USDA really can't do anything about it.” Think about that. These companies could be infecting and killing thousands and there is not much our government could do about it. After over six years of work, reform through legislation has yet to happen. The meat companies have “legions of lawyers” and will sue you even if they think they will lose, just to make you pay sky high legal fees to drain you to the point of no hope. They have special laws against defamation and pay lobbyists millions to have these privileges. Former industry heads take on administrative roles in the government; they are in charge of the safety from their friends in the industry.
Food Inc. from your summary reminds me of a few stories were people started out as one of the 'crew', but then grow so bug that they forget the little details that matter and end up messing up big time. From the sound of it, it seems money grabbers have come into leadership of thte companies and istead of caring for farming, they care about squeezing every last enny out of the companies. the company my Dad used to work for did the same thing tryin g to maximize profit but instead ran the company to the ground. It really is a self destrroying practice and quite foolish ans short sighted.
Student Response: From reading a few posts about this film I am not completely shocked in the ways many animals are treated in these “farms.” I become aware of the cruelty the animals face every day. But what I was not aware of was the fact that the larger corporations have such a great amount of power over the smaller farms. It does make me respect local small farms still making decent money. I will probably not be so shy to buy from a local farm stand anymore, and it will even change my views every time I sit down to eat.
Food Inc. is a documentary about the American food industry and the main companies that run it. The documentary exposes how few companies really run the food industry in America and the drastic ways they are trying to save money and cut corners. These companies also take advantage of the “little guy”, the farmers and other people who produce the ram materials for their products. The first part of the documentary examines the meat production industry. The main argument is that the food companies are making cuts in order to save money that are hurting customers, the farmers, and the animals. One of the major cuts was feeding the cows corn instead of grass, a cows stomach is not designed to digest corn as well as it does grass, this makes the cow sick and can contaminate the beef the cow is used for. However corn is cheaper than constantly regrowing the grass so the food companies are willing to make that cut. They have also forced farmers to genetically change their chickens to produce more meat and have forced the farmers to buy expensive new coops that limit the light the chickens receive. This costs a small fortune on the part of the farmer while the company pays them barely anything. Having these few companies be so big, the individual consumer gets forgotten and one case or a few cases of sickness do not effect or worry the company. The American economy is based on a few of these massive companies with hundreds of thousands or even millions of employees and the bigger these companies get the smaller the individual becomes. When companies make uninformed decisions because they do no know about the subtleties of the job they are impacting and they do not know how their changes will harm others ten steps down the line.
I never really cared about where my food came from. I was kinda surpirsed to read other people's comments about the food process. Corporate america has change the way the country works. The old process of food making did take a while to process but we must realize with the new innovation in the world more food allows people to have food.
Food Inc. This documentary addresses problems with the food industry in America. In today’s commercialized society we are now able to purchase meat and produce year-round. However, up until recently, no one has asked “Where do these lumps of protein that we call fresh meat come from?” This documentary unmasks those companies that violate our moral, ethical, and religious standards. Mega companies like Tyson and Cargill care more about profit margins than they do about the means they employ to put food on our table. The poultry industry in recent years has changed from normal chicken farming to highly enhanced genetically modified super chicken farms. Not only are these chickens larger than ever they are weaker than ever. Because of the genetic alterations these super chickens are no longer able to walk more than 2 steps at a time. These chickens are also subject to horrible living conditions. The chicken farmers are now becoming slaves to these mega companies. These same problems are arising in the pork and cattle industry as well. The USDA and FDA need to protect the people it serves not just the companies that produce these products but the actual consumers who fall victim to the mistakes of the FDA and USDA. In conclusion I think that it is not only the governments’ job but also the consumer to demand better treatment of livestock and pesticide free produce. We are able to do this by refusing to buy those products that violate these demands and then supporting those that follow them.
Your insight gleaned from the movie Food Inc. is extremely interesting. Honestly, I had never expected such a large company like Purdue to be involved in such scandalous and despicable business practices; frankly, I believe it is from watching all those commercials that I have become so ignorant of that fact. It’s absolutely appalling that Purdue would treat its employees so unfairly. Not only by overworking them but actually forcing them to spend money on the company. Then afterwards, they strictly suppress any dissent. And beyond that, I was shocked that they do not raise their chickens in a natural manner but rather breed them so they grow too large. The film seems extremely eye-opening and I hope to watch it soon.
Food Inc. Food Inc. is a very compelling look into the inner workings of the world's food industry. The things they do to those "animals" can be described as disgusting at best. Among other issues touched upon in the film is the monopoly that the major corporations have in the food industry, and the loops that the government is willing to jump through in order to a. keep these companies happy, and b. provide cheap food for the world.
The major problem with this film, at least in my eyes, is that it did not go far enough into detail explaining how government subsidizing of food from the United States and the deregulation of international trade has killed the international food economy. Corn, for example, is one of the biggest crops grown in the United States of America and has been for a long time. Recently, the federal government passed legislation that allowed the farmers of the U.S. to take their crops down to Mexico, a place where the government cannot afford to subsidize the price of farming for corn. This, in turn, has put the Mexican farming system completely out of relevance. This has led to high unemployment rates, a rise in crime, and a general downfall of their society. Another place where something similar happened is Haiti. The film was informative, however, I feel as if it could have examined the impact on the global food industry a little more than it did. These corporations and our government have gotten into bed together, and it is time they took responsibility for their blatant wrongdoings.
In the film Food Inc., the negative aspects of the American food industry are exposed in a very cruel and vulgar manner. Food Inc. provides an in-depth analysis of America’s culinary world that informs the public about where most of the food they eat regularly comes from. It also shows how the animals, which Americans eat, are treated before they are processed and sold by the various massive food distributing companies of our country. Although the United States is very fortunate, compared to other countries, to have plentiful food supplies and effective methods for distributing food, it is disgusting to actually see how the animals we eat are slaughtered and mistreated before we purchase them. Employees of major food companies are very careless in the way in which they treat animals, and the federal government is virtually doing nothing to insure that the animals being slaughtered are treated justly. In addition, many American farmers are adding chemicals to our food to assure that it is “fresh” upon eating, which may in fact be contributing to the many health hazards thousands of Americans are faced with. Ultimately, there needs to be a change in the way the food industry operates in this country. Obesity and other health problems still continue to plague our country, proving that the methods of the food industry are unrewarding.
George, In response to Food Inc. that was a ver informative summary. These companies are so large they treat food production as business and not as a nutritional supply. The treatment of the animals on farms should not be what is most cost effecive but what is natural and best for the consumer. Such greed is found in every business but you would think people would take more caution in what they will be digesting. Also, the fact that these companies are so large makes it that much more difficult for people to speak out and change thier process.
If one wants to never eat a Big Mac again watch “Food Inc”. This documentary is about how the food we eat is grown and processed. It portrays how large companies such as Tyson and Monsanto have monopolies on industries such as meat and soybeans. This movie is not all negative it shows how people can overcome the great difficulty of feeding the world. However, many of the ways food companies achieve this feat is disgusting and inhumane. The ways that chicken producers such as Tyson are making more food and money is by making a faster growing and bigger chicken. They do this by changing the growth of chickens by making them grow to full size in 49 days rather than three months and by making the chicken have larger breasts. This leads to a chicken that provides much more white meat and that is grown in almost half the time of a normal chicken. Although this “new” chicken is a better selling chicken, this chicken due to its disproportionately large breasts could not walk. Also, these chickens will live their entire lives in a dark cramped room with thousands of other chickens. This is a terrible way for any animal to live it’s life. Cows also live in terrible conditions because they live off corn which is not healthy for them and they are always ankle deep in manure. This leads to the cows being unhealthy for if one cow gets E-coli every cow will become infected. Although meat companies can produce more food at a lower price they should improve the conditions of the livestock for the health of the animals and buyers. The film also gave an example of a food monopoly on soy beans called Monsanto. This company developed a new type of soy bean that was resistant to a pesticide that would kill all the weeds surrounding the soy beans. In order to protect their product they made it illegal for other soy bean growers to save their seeds. They enforced this rule through force and put many independent farmers out of business. This was an unethical action because destroyed the lives of many people for the sake of Monsanto making more money. This film also showed how corn is essential to our food market for several reasons. First, corn is the food for livestock because it is cheap and it fattens up the animals. Secondly, scientists are able to use corn to create many different types of food. This is why 80% of the food at supermarkets contains corn. This is a problem because if corn is to fail the world would be in a food crisis due to our reliance on corn. In conclusion I believe that the ends justify the means in that although there is cruelty within food production enough food is produced to feed most of the world.
Food Inc. is quite simply an attack on agribusiness. The documentary goes behind the curtain and reveals how food is grown and processed in the United States. The claim ultimately made is that the conditions in which food products are grown and processed is unhealthy and abusive to animals. The movie is very convincing. Video footage of cows covered in their own excrement being rolled in to slaughter, over-crowded mutant-chicken coops, and filthy slaughterhouses are some of the images used to incur a rather convincing nausea. The movie suggests an answer to the factory farms; to go back in time. The film suggests that farming in the old fashioned way, on local farms, is the best way. While locally grown food may seem preferable, it also seems impossible. A website, safefoodinc.com, made by the major meat companies (Smithfield, Tyson, etc.) counters claims made by the movie. The site counters that it is impossible to grow enough food on small local farms to meet the current demand. I personally believe that this is an accurate assertion. The methods that have developed over time of growing food at hyper speed and in hyper large quantities have allowed for the world population to grow. If food were grown locally on small farms, then a large portion of the world’s population would starve as a result of highs prices and limited supply.
These are very important points about the food industry. The food industry is a business, however, many people are treating it too much like a business, they are not realizing that the food industry is helping people. They need to try to look at the industry from the point of view of the consumer. Food is a necessity in their life, so the food industry needs to be reasonable in supplying people with food. The people running the food industry can not be so concentrated on making money because that leads to higher prices and people not being able to buy food. This greed also leads to taking shortcuts which can get people sick and even kill people, for example in this situation.
Response to Classmates' Responses:
ReplyDeleteWhat truly struck me while reading these responses, and watching several of the films, was that such a large percentage of the subjects (antagonists) of these films declined to be interviewed for almost every one of them. When I am a potential guilty party in a minor occurence, I feel obligated to defend myself, even if it is just the slightest thing. If a large occurence resulted in a large company potentially having to either pay a LARGE sum of money, or have the majority of the public at odds with them, that large company would be insane not to defend themselves...unless there is simply no possible way to defend themselves. I believe that many of the subjects of these films know that what they did may have benefitted themselves, but it is simply unexplainable to the public, and therefore do not waste their time. This is absolutely sad.
Never have I looked down at my dinner plate and ponder about the long and complex process which this piece of meat endured in order to be served as a meal. Food Inc. has dramatically altered the way that I view the food industry. A company like Monsanto, is not only, lucrative, but is also deceptive, corrupt, and omnipotent. Interest groups, representing Monsanto, reside in the hub of this nation’s law producing capital and, therefore, hold unprecedented, manipulating means to structure food laws to their benefit. As a result, farmers may neither reveal the truth of what lies beyond Monsanto’s hidden veil nor plant their own source of soy bean seed unless they plan to fight against the company’s legion of top class lawyers. Monsanto also employs a vast network of investigators to monitor and seek out any farmer who defiles their contract. Monsanto appears to be an entity free from the restrictions of laws and may conduct it’s business ventures in anyway that may create the most copious profit margin.
ReplyDeleteWhile Monsanto may not operate the most saintly business schemes, it certainly does deserve some mention of its more fascinating aspects. From providing chemical weapons during the Vietnam War to genetically engineering soy bean seeds, Monsanto has surely pushed the bounds of chemical science to fabricate unthinkable products. Another infamous product from Monsanto lies in the legal domain, that is to say it’s lawyers. One of the most famous previous employees of Monsanto is Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas, but there are many more that are now employed by the FDA. These positions no doubt were bought and paid for by Monsanto in order to easily influence laws in their favor. Due to all it’s dubious manipulations of governments across the world, Monsanto has placed a target on itself for environmentalists and organic food advocates.
Food Inc.
ReplyDeleteMy perception of the food industry will most likely never be the same again. Seeing the “cheating” that mass market food corporations employ makes me question if the chicken I’m eating now may or may not have been made of in a lab. I once thought of food companies to be huge farms in rural areas. Now I see them as huge factories with lawyers and lobbyers.
The tactics major corporations use to speed up and cheapen the food producing process have made me sick at times now. The “fake ripening” companies use now on their vegetables makes me understand why my parents insist on growing their own tomatoes now. The manipulation of regulations and the market to make corn the easiest crop to grow also have made me glance at the ingredients in my foods now, wondering how much of the cereal I have for breakfast is made out of corn (if I remember correctly it was around 90% of processed food contain corn in some form).
Other things that struck me were the influence McDonalds has on the meat market outside of the restaurants themselves, and the E. Coli situation. The fact that a company can control up to 30 or 40% of a food industry is simply wrong. Even people who try to avoid corporations such as McDonalds do not have much of a choice if the only options at the grocery store are produced from a McDonalds system. Also, the E. Coli suppression tactics seem to just be “sweeping it under the rug” instead of actually taking care of it. The corporate control of the food industry shows that it is not a unique situation with small farmers and plantations, but should be treated just like any other industry with regulations and laws.
In the film Food Inc. many horrors of the food industry are revealed. To me, the most disturbing was the chicken coops. The chickens inside are pressured to harsh conditions, close quarters, and an unsanitary environment. For example, in the film a woman decided to show the camera crews her own coop. The coop was considered to be among the nicer of the possibly environments given that it contained windows. Most chickens however will spend their entire life living in pitch darkness. Also, an average day would see about 10-20 dead chickens, killed for many different causes. These causes span from broken legs making getting food impossible, or a heart attack from overweight. The chickens would grow twice as fast as grow to become twice as big. This no longer was farming....it was animal harvesting.
ReplyDeleteThese horrific techniques are incorporated around the country by companies like Tyson. What these companies also do is require a certain coop to be purchased, which costs nearly $500,000. In saying this, the average annual income of a typical farmer after taxes and expenses is $18,000. If you then add in any upgrades or repairs to the coop your looking at a maximum of maybe $13,000. It would take nearly 38 years to pay off the price of one coop. This alllows to companies to have a vice grip on the farmers, holding them in debt and forcing them to follow their requirements and remain producers of their product.
“Food, Inc.”
ReplyDeleteFrom this film, I have found a great respect for the small farmers, or seeders that have said no to the corporate conglomerates who have taken control of the food industry. I liked very much when one farmer stated that he would never “sell out” to the major companies because he knows that the overall quality of his product would deteriorate very rapidly. Also, the story of seven year old Kevin really made it obvious that the enormous food companies do not care if a person here or there dies because they sold them meat which was tainted by salmonella or E. coli. Hopefully in the future, Kevin’s Law will be passed so that the USDA will finally have the power to shut down factories which produce very unhealthy products. Eerily similar to “Inside Job” all of the major food companies in question declined to be interviewed in this film, which shows that they do not want to allow a filmmaker to know and share the malicious secrets in which those companies hold. What struck me as very shocking was the scene which showed a group of pigs slaughtered as if they were nothing in this world. That one scene, along with other similar ones, changed the way I look at the food that I eat nearly every day. For some unknown reason, these large food companies decided at some point that it does not matter that “some” of their food “might” have very dangerous viruses or diseases in them, they only care about how much product can be produced, how quickly it is produced, and how much money they can make from it. What really makes me upset about these companies is that they have so much money that they can just put hundreds of other producers out of business, which they had done. These companies have basically immunity to the laws provided by the useless FDA and USDA, due to the fact that some of the head people of the FDA and USDA once worked for those companies, such as Monsanto Company, Tyson, and Perdue. If nothing is changed in the near future, then these conglomerates will just keep producing more and more tainted products which will create an epidemic nationwide.
“Food Inc.” presents an interesting concept of tracing your food to the source but the source they traced consisted of very few companies. Companies like Tyson, Perdue, and Montesano who control large portions of each market in their respective industries, and the guidelines set to regulate those industries. Tyson and Smithfield lobbied congress and pushed farm bills to make corn production policy to overproduce to drive down the price of corn. Once the price was driven down they used it to feed to cows, which cannot be fully broken down by cows, creating new strains of E.coli. Instead of fixing the problem and removing corn as feed and sanitizing concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), which would cost money, they produce ammonia dipped beef filler that kills the E.coli 0157H7. This overproduction of corn pushed by these major corporations resulted in a deadly E.coli strain but instead of a recall they create a quick solution. The company controlled FDA, dropped regulation standard and essentially made the industries self-policed. The Head of the FDA was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association; these government ties allowed these large companies to ignore safety regulations.
ReplyDeleteThis power to control the industry has also reduced farmers to indentured servants, paying them only eighteen thousand a year and insisting on constant upgrade. Most farmers have a debt of about half a million and they don’t ever own their chicks, the genetically beefed up chickens are owned by Perdue and Tyson from when they’re born until they are full-grown. Once the chickens are full grown these large companies use illegal immigrants to pick up these animals and then treat them just as well as the animals. The United States Boarder Patrol works with these companies and takes only a small group of these illegal immigrants every month, never persecuting the actual companies that brought them to work. This gives the corporations time to recruit more immigrants that they will give up willingly to continue making food. The main goal of these companies is to create capital, and with little regard for safety and health of their customers in order to increase profit and lower prices.
Student Response
ReplyDeleteI found the actions of the food company Monsanto to be very interesting. Though they seem to embody the idea of corporate greed, they have made significant contributions to society as a whole, such as innovating new chemical products due to state of the art chemical engineering. That being said, however, Monsanto bends laws and restrictions, thanks to the support from numerous interest groups throughout Washington, to create the largest profit possible. This profit comes at a cost to the consumer, who may be purchasing food that has not been produced to code. Monsanto has come under fire from several organic food activists for their actions, and deservingly so.
Response to Student Responses:
ReplyDeleteAfter working on my father’s vegetable gardens since the age of eight, it comes as no surprise to me to read about methods such as “fake ripening” within the agriculture industry. Someone who has put the time, energy, and money into growing a similar product can truly tell the difference between a genuine product and one that, although it looks the same, is a mere imitation of the desired perfect form, produced for the ignorant masses who do not know any better for maximum profit. This anecdote can be seen as a parable for the plight of small business owners who, while maintaining a proper moral code, are ultimately no match for the immoral corporations who can play dirty and cheat customers for greater profit.
Student Response:
ReplyDeleteFrom reading multiple posts Food Inc. seems to be fighting for the little man, the small farmer. These small farmers put in hard work to put together a quality product but, most of the time are eliminated by larger corrupt corporations. Each and every consumer is not getting the quality product they could be getting from a small farmer because these large corporations are immorally not abiding by regulations and restrictions. Many of these posts have me asking if Jim Perdue is lying to me when he tells me his product is "all natural and non-artificial".
These corporations using their large names and greed are putting the genuine everyday farmer out of money. I believe these corporations can be compared to some of the investment banks I watched in the Inside Job because they have two major things in common: Greed and a Lack of Morality. The system we have now has allowed these companies to climb to the top when quite frankly it is not deserved. By bending regulations and not putting out a natural product, is it just that these companies are being rewarded in society?
Food Inc Response.
ReplyDeleteFood Inc seems to address how big food producing companies are enhancing their food to make it the fastest possible way in order for the companies to acquire wealth as soon as possible. However, the theory is flawed because it only allows for big food companies to succeed in the economy while privately owned business who grow and produce food naturally get overrun by the major companies. This way of life could pose problems for our economy because we have no small business owners in the food industry only large companies.
Food Inc. was a documentary about the development of the food economy over the last fifty years. The main focus is that food is now being processed in large farm industries that charge what they believe is fair, rather than local foods grown and charged at an actual fair price. Food Inc targets the main food corporations such as Monsanto Company, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, and Perdue Farms, that purchase animals such as chicken, cows and even plants such as corn and grain and they mass produce them in chemically enhanced environments to produce the speed that product is produced and so that every animal or plant is the same. The corporations are ruining the quality of the food by using chemicals to make every food the same and even salvaging meat that has gone bad, this has been the cause of many outbreaks of E. coli. I am absolutely against this because it is not supporting your local economy, everyone is getting poor quality of food and the spread of disease is very easy. The major corporations have designed their food to fit the model of a fast food restaurant where the food can be made and sold cheaply but in very large amounts. As a result of this all food is produced like this because these major corporations control over 80% of Americas food and meat production. The way that the United States has to go is to locally grown and produced meat and vegetables so that the larger corporations regulate the quality of the food they produce.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE:
ReplyDeleteI have read Fast Food Nation, a book by Eric Schlosser (a while ago), a book that I believe to consider similar issues as the ones that Food Inc describes. (from what I can gather) Monsanto seems to be a corparation of vast power and resources, just like how McDonalds was described in Fast Food Nation. Schlosser described employees of meat packing plants who requested better conditions in their dangerous job and were ignored. Just like how Monsanto manipulates its soybean growers. I am also quite fascinated at the way Monsanto diversified its business into many areas such as chemical weapons and genetic engineering. In the grand scheme of things, I think that the adage “You have to squeeze lemons to make lemonade” is true, no matter how morally dubious.
From what I have read from others posts who have seen food inc. the food industry is huge and its interest groups have major holds in government, both national and local. It seems that the companies follow the rules, but that those rules have been twisted in their favor after years of working with and nearby the health departments. This is just another nail in the coffin that large national corporations own this country, and when they need something the government is there to help.
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious business practice and undoubtebly the most revolting is how there are only three to four companies that own all of the meat in America. This leads to these companies taking advantage of the small farmer. The meat companies hire individual farmers to raise their produce allowing the large corporations to control everything and anything the farmers do, and if the farmer(s) goes against anything their contract will be terminated.
ReplyDeleteAnother occurence that astounded me was the amount of government officials that were previous or future heads of certain divisions of the food companies. Am I mistaken or is business and government policy supposed to be seperate?!There were plenty of bad practices that were demonstrated in this video, but there were a few glimpses of hope every once in a while. For example, the farmer who works for himself and raises all of his produce himself. People might say, "well he won't do very well", but the farmers who are working for the big corporations are only making $18,000/year so it's not like you could do much worse. Also, the organic market is growing rapidly. I believe a big step to solving our countries food choices is to educate them on what is healthy food and what is not. If the people buying the "bad/unhelthy" products stopped buying those products then the companies would have no choice but to change to popular demand. However, with those unhealthy foods being so cheap it will be difficult to do so.
Having not seen this film and only read the responses of my fellow classmates, I can only imagine the monstrosities that foods have to endure to eventually get to my dinner plate. Also the fact that McDonald's controls a large amount of the meat industry is just simply disgusting, because who would want to eat a simple piece of steak or hamburger every day from the supermarket if they knew that McDonald's had a hand in producing it?
ReplyDeleteResponse to Others:
ReplyDeleteFoodland Inc.
After reading the responses to this movie, I do not know if I can look at a juicy burger the same. It seems unbelievable that such huge names in the food industry such as McDonalds and Tyson can not only control much of the food industry, but the influence that they control as well. To me, if there is a problem, you fix it. Bottom line. You do not simply hide it so that it goes unnoticed. Therefore, I cannot help but wonder if a steak is actually E. Coli infested. This seems like a movie that although it may be interesting, it is probably for the best that I did not watch it.
Food Inc. outlines the very real treacheries of agri-business. Focusing on one of the most egregious offenders of the rights of American public and the food industry, Purdue abused animals, the industry, its employees, and its customers. "Manipulative" insufficiently describes the manner in which employees, American farmers, viewed their employer. Under the threat of contract termination, farmers were forced to repeatedly upgrade equipment, increase the size of their farms, modify chicken coops, and alter the methods of their operation. The evil lies in that Purdue present the farmers with two options: take out new loans to fulfill their demands, or forfeit their income in the form of a contract termination. Most farmers, however, were already dangerously in debt and earning mediocre salaries. In addition to contract blackmailing for output, farmers were also restricted from speaking out about their situation or the conditions and methods used to raise chickens.
ReplyDeleteAs for the treatment of the animals, Purdue essentially created a genetic mutant prime for the American supermarket. The animals were designed to be so large that their bodies could not support the weight and the rate at which they bred, lived, and died was unnatural and harmful. Limited light, confined space, handling abuse, overcrowding, and poor sanitation simply begin to describe the conditions in which the chickens were raised, transported, and slaughtered. This not only lead to discomfort and cruelty for the animals, but also dangerous working conditions as well as food which in the end was of a lower quality, though in greater quantity.
Purdue made farmer independence, consumer choice, food quality, and the possibility for competition nearly impossible, essentially monopolizing the market and manipulating the industry and all that came in contact with it. The results of industrialized agri-business were not pretty.
The documentary Food Inc illustrates the business side of the food that we consume daily. The film makes clear that companies are mistreating animals and using Washington lobbyists to prevent laws from passing. In the middle of the documentary, a woman, Barbara Kowalcyk, speaks about the death of her two year old son, Kevin. While on vacation, the family eats hamburgers and the meat in Kevin’s was contaminated with Ecoli. I really liked many of Mrs. Kowalcyk’s actions throughout the short portion of the film she was in.
ReplyDeleteAfter Mrs. Kowalcyk’s son died of an ecoli infection, she spent the next six years (and counting) fighting to change the current system, which I like a lot. She was very proactive, and sought to create a law, Kevin’s Law. The aforementioned law would let the USDA shut down plants if they found necessary, which they cannot currently do. Mrs. Kowalcyk has been working on this law for six years, but it still has not passed because of the lobbyist groups in Washington. I like that after six years, she is still striving to change the system and make this country a better, safer place by giving the USDA more power in a health crisis. Even though her son tragically died, she seems strong and is trying the tragic death of her son into a positive for our country by improving the current system, which gives us many reasons to admire her.
While she does have many positive, likeable traits, Mrs. Kowalcyk says one thing that I dislike. She states that “We are not being protected at the most basic level [by the government].” While the government has definitely failed to protect us (especially in the ecoli outbreak) we are still being protected at basic levels through police, firemen, ambulances, and healthcare. I dislike this statement that she made, but she has a right to be angry after the death of her son.
Mrs. Kowalcyk makes many likeable and unlikeable decisions throughout the short part of the documentary that focuses on her, but overall her actions are very likeable.
Umm, yuck? The scenes in Food Inc. were gruesome and certainly were not with those with a weak stomach. One striking business policy that stood out was monopolization. As the beginning of the movie depicts beef companies have monopolized the industry. Certainly it is not a true monopoly as there is more than one company that manufactures beef, however, it is certainly a skew towards a few companies. This practice allows companies to bypass health regulation because of their sheer size and invest in efficient methods of production that depreciate the nutrition in the product. My opinion on monopolies is thus that they are terrible and allow corruption, but onto my next point:
ReplyDelete“We are all into the how, not the why!” says a farmer providing consumers with meat the “right” way! Allow me to elaborate: cows are often fed corn rather than grass due to its efficiency. Grass, however, is the more natural substance for consumption for cows and livestock. The farmer I refer to feeds his livestock grass and hails its advantages over corn. This practice, one that focuses on traditional methods that are time-prove to work, is one that I like.
A final practice that frustrates me to no end is the treatment of undocumented immigrants in industrial conditions. Some may have seen that the Tyson chicken company carted undocumented immigrants from the border to their factory and in turn exploited them without pay. Weeks later, once their work was complete, the immigrants were escorted back to the border without pay. Two things happen here: immigrants are exploited without pay, and companies benefit without any deprivation of earnings. This is an unethical and immoral practice that I despise.
In a quick summary, it seems that the “locavore” movement described in the English AP Language and Composition exam provides far more benefits that I had anticipated. The locavore movement simply means that citizens only purchase their food within a twenty-mile radius of their home. This prevents long journeys that cause unnatural ripening and a healthier product. Maybe we should give it a shot…
“Food Inc.”
ReplyDeleteAfter watching “Food Inc.” I would like to explore the business practices of large companies, such as Monsanto. Monsanto seems to operate above the law in a sense, because it finds a way to make sure its interests are upheld. Monsanto is not unique in its practices, many other large businesses have strong assets which can ensure that their goals are met, no matter what impede them.
I would like to shed light on the lucrative law practices that these huge companies employ. It seems almost sick to see how much destruction these lawyers can cause. They hold so much power and seem to almost bend the laws to their liking. The legal teams that represent these companies, or investigate in favor of these companies hold substantial amounts of power. Through shady practices, threats, and coercion, these unstoppable law teams can hold down the ‘little guy’ and harm honest individuals or practices. I believe that wielding such legal strength in a dangerous way is detrimental to our society as a whole. The small businesses and people who make up this country are being held down, and threatened, and this practice does seem legal or correct in any way. Unfortunately our legal system has loops that allow terrible practices to slip through with powerful attorneys in control.
In response to Dylan Newman on Food Inc.,
ReplyDeleteI was curious how someone could have died from contaminated food yet the company who distributed that food not receive any penalties, which I believe you are trying to say happened. While I certainly do not agree with mistreatment of animals, I can more thoroughly understand how that could be overlooked by the government if major profits were involved. I cannot say that it is right, simply that it could be more expected. However, I'm not sure how someone could have died at the clear fault of someone or something, whether it be the company or the government, and there not be clear repercussions dealt and compensations given to the victims.
A prominent aspect of Food, Inc. is the federal government's role in the food industry, in particular farm subsidies and strict FDA guidelines. It is my sincere belief, and a subtle theme throughout the documentary, that there must be a serious revision of the American corporatism that our government endorses.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with the farmer Joel Salatin. He is featured, and rightly so, as one of the last “real” farmers. He is a farmer that treats his animals with respect, avoiding harmful chemicals and selling directly to consumers. But this will not do for the FDA, an agency that has produced strict sanitary guidelines that affect his farming style. Guidelines such as “No cleaning of animals in the open air.” Farm subsidies that favor larger farming corporations also put him at a disadvantage: his more sanitary crops are at market price while the large brands are artificially low.
How sanitary is the food that the larger businesses sell? Not very. Food documents how animals are artificially raised so as to produce more meat, and less muscle. Contrary to their diet, cows are fed corn, and chickens grow to a size so large their legs can not support their weight. Their meat is compounded and sold in bulk across the country, often traveling thousands of miles to the supermarket. Chemicals help prevent the meat's decay, yet also affects the taste and quality of the food. By the time the chicken leaves the farm to the moment it arrives on your dinner plate, such a plethora of chemicals, additives, and preservatives have been added that the phrase “meat” is a dubious term.
The result of our government subsidies is a readily available supply of unsanitary, unhealthy food en masse while strictly limiting the quantity of affordable, healthy, locally grown food. The system is corrupt; besides the obvious aforementioned detriments, it is also important to consider that the workers at the farms often live in unsanitary conditions, the environmental impact of the unnecessary shipping, the obesity and diabetes rise in America. All of these factors prohibit both the quality of our food and the nature of our country. Our very own government subsidies and strict FDA rulings are proving detrimental to our nation. Our tax dollars are being used against us.
response to students responses:
ReplyDeleteThe reviews on “Food Inc” made me realize what has happened to our food industry in recent years. It is kind of crazy to think that our entire food industry has been centered around the quantity, not quality of the food that is being produced. To me, this is just the food companies way of trying to maximize their profits. It really seems that it is much easier for them to sell larger quantities of lesser quality food because they are able to chemically alter their animals and plants to yield more product than they are actually paying for. I personally think that this is disgusting, but at the same time, there are food companies only serve organic food, food with integrity to their consumers. The only problem is that this food is often very expensive.
In Food Inc., the legal actions of the big meat companies disgust me. Most disturbing are the reactions Barb Kowalcyk has received from a meat company...one that killed her son with their food. She describes the disproportion of the law saying, “Sometimes it does feel like industry was more protected than my son.” Even though her two-and-a-half-year-old son Kevin was hit with E. coli 0157:h she never received an apology. He went from being a perfectly healthy little boy to dead, in twelve days, all from eating a hamburger. His kidneys failed, he received dialysis, and he could only drink water with little sponges dipped into a cup of water; he begged for water.
ReplyDeleteIt took Kowalcyk's family almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that they matched a meat recall. While her son was sick in the hospital on August 1st, the meat was not recalled until August 27th, an outrageous sixteen days after he died.
You think the USDA could help the spread of meat containing E. coli, right? Actually, that is is pretty wrong. In 1998 the USDA began microbial testing for salmonella an E. coli 0157:h7, in hopes of shutting down facilities who repeatedly had been contaminated. However, meat and poultry associations got wind of this. After they took the USDA to court, the ruling basically told the USDA they did not have the authority to shut down these plants.
Kowalcyk says, “What it meant was that you could have a pound of meat or poultry products that is a petri dish of salmonella and the USDA really can't do anything about it.” Think about that. These companies could be infecting and killing thousands and there is not much our government could do about it. After over six years of work, reform through legislation has yet to happen.
The meat companies have “legions of lawyers” and will sue you even if they think they will lose, just to make you pay sky high legal fees to drain you to the point of no hope. They have special laws against defamation and pay lobbyists millions to have these privileges. Former industry heads take on administrative roles in the government; they are in charge of the safety from their friends in the industry.
Food Inc. from your summary reminds me of a few stories were people started out as one of the 'crew', but then grow so bug that they forget the little details that matter and end up messing up big time. From the sound of it, it seems money grabbers have come into leadership of thte companies and istead of caring for farming, they care about squeezing every last enny out of the companies. the company my Dad used to work for did the same thing tryin g to maximize profit but instead ran the company to the ground. It really is a self destrroying practice and quite foolish ans short sighted.
ReplyDeleteStudent Response:
ReplyDeleteFrom reading a few posts about this film I am not completely shocked in the ways many animals are treated in these “farms.” I become aware of the cruelty the animals face every day. But what I was not aware of was the fact that the larger corporations have such a great amount of power over the smaller farms. It does make me respect local small farms still making decent money. I will probably not be so shy to buy from a local farm stand anymore, and it will even change my views every time I sit down to eat.
Food Inc. is a documentary about the American food industry and the main companies that run it. The documentary exposes how few companies really run the food industry in America and the drastic ways they are trying to save money and cut corners. These companies also take advantage of the “little guy”, the farmers and other people who produce the ram materials for their products.
ReplyDeleteThe first part of the documentary examines the meat production industry. The main argument is that the food companies are making cuts in order to save money that are hurting customers, the farmers, and the animals. One of the major cuts was feeding the cows corn instead of grass, a cows stomach is not designed to digest corn as well as it does grass, this makes the cow sick and can contaminate the beef the cow is used for. However corn is cheaper than constantly regrowing the grass so the food companies are willing to make that cut. They have also forced farmers to genetically change their chickens to produce more meat and have forced the farmers to buy expensive new coops that limit the light the chickens receive. This costs a small fortune on the part of the farmer while the company pays them barely anything.
Having these few companies be so big, the individual consumer gets forgotten and one case or a few cases of sickness do not effect or worry the company. The American economy is based on a few of these massive companies with hundreds of thousands or even millions of employees and the bigger these companies get the smaller the individual becomes.
When companies make uninformed decisions because they do no know about the subtleties of the job they are impacting and they do not know how their changes will harm others ten steps down the line.
I never really cared about where my food came from. I was kinda surpirsed to read other people's comments about the food process. Corporate america has change the way the country works. The old process of food making did take a while to process but we must realize with the new innovation in the world more food allows people to have food.
ReplyDeleteFood Inc.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary addresses problems with the food industry in America. In today’s commercialized society we are now able to purchase meat and produce year-round. However, up until recently, no one has asked “Where do these lumps of protein that we call fresh meat come from?” This documentary unmasks those companies that violate our moral, ethical, and religious standards. Mega companies like Tyson and Cargill care more about profit margins than they do about the means they employ to put food on our table. The poultry industry in recent years has changed from normal chicken farming to highly enhanced genetically modified super chicken farms. Not only are these chickens larger than ever they are weaker than ever. Because of the genetic alterations these super chickens are no longer able to walk more than 2 steps at a time. These chickens are also subject to horrible living conditions. The chicken farmers are now becoming slaves to these mega companies. These same problems are arising in the pork and cattle industry as well. The USDA and FDA need to protect the people it serves not just the companies that produce these products but the actual consumers who fall victim to the mistakes of the FDA and USDA. In conclusion I think that it is not only the governments’ job but also the consumer to demand better treatment of livestock and pesticide free produce. We are able to do this by refusing to buy those products that violate these demands and then supporting those that follow them.
Frankie Davis,
ReplyDeleteYour insight gleaned from the movie Food Inc. is extremely interesting. Honestly, I had never expected such a large company like Purdue to be involved in such scandalous and despicable business practices; frankly, I believe it is from watching all those commercials that I have become so ignorant of that fact. It’s absolutely appalling that Purdue would treat its employees so unfairly. Not only by overworking them but actually forcing them to spend money on the company. Then afterwards, they strictly suppress any dissent. And beyond that, I was shocked that they do not raise their chickens in a natural manner but rather breed them so they grow too large. The film seems extremely eye-opening and I hope to watch it soon.
Food Inc.
ReplyDeleteFood Inc. is a very compelling look into the inner workings of the world's food industry. The things they do to those "animals" can be described as disgusting at best. Among other issues touched upon in the film is the monopoly that the major corporations have in the food industry, and the loops that the government is willing to jump through in order to a. keep these companies happy, and b. provide cheap food for the world.
The major problem with this film, at least in my eyes, is that it did not go far enough into detail explaining how government subsidizing of food from the United States and the deregulation of international trade has killed the international food economy. Corn, for example, is one of the biggest crops grown in the United States of America and has been for a long time. Recently, the federal government passed legislation that allowed the farmers of the U.S. to take their crops down to Mexico, a place where the government cannot afford to subsidize the price of farming for corn. This, in turn, has put the Mexican farming system completely out of relevance. This has led to high unemployment rates, a rise in crime, and a general downfall of their society. Another place where something similar happened is Haiti. The film was informative, however, I feel as if it could have examined the impact on the global food industry a little more than it did. These corporations and our government have gotten into bed together, and it is time they took responsibility for their blatant wrongdoings.
In the film Food Inc., the negative aspects of the American food industry are exposed in a very cruel and vulgar manner. Food Inc. provides an in-depth analysis of America’s culinary world that informs the public about where most of the food they eat regularly comes from. It also shows how the animals, which Americans eat, are treated before they are processed and sold by the various massive food distributing companies of our country.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the United States is very fortunate, compared to other countries, to have plentiful food supplies and effective methods for distributing food, it is disgusting to actually see how the animals we eat are slaughtered and mistreated before we purchase them. Employees of major food companies are very careless in the way in which they treat animals, and the federal government is virtually doing nothing to insure that the animals being slaughtered are treated justly. In addition, many American farmers are adding chemicals to our food to assure that it is “fresh” upon eating, which may in fact be contributing to the many health hazards thousands of Americans are faced with.
Ultimately, there needs to be a change in the way the food industry operates in this country. Obesity and other health problems still continue to plague our country, proving that the methods of the food industry are unrewarding.
George,
ReplyDeleteIn response to Food Inc. that was a ver informative summary. These companies are so large they treat food production as business and not as a nutritional supply. The treatment of the animals on farms should not be what is most cost effecive but what is natural and best for the consumer. Such greed is found in every business but you would think people would take more caution in what they will be digesting. Also, the fact that these companies are so large makes it that much more difficult for people to speak out and change thier process.
If one wants to never eat a Big Mac again watch “Food Inc”. This documentary is about how the food we eat is grown and processed. It portrays how large companies such as Tyson and Monsanto have monopolies on industries such as meat and soybeans. This movie is not all negative it shows how people can overcome the great difficulty of feeding the world. However, many of the ways food companies achieve this feat is disgusting and inhumane.
ReplyDeleteThe ways that chicken producers such as Tyson are making more food and money is by making a faster growing and bigger chicken. They do this by changing the growth of chickens by making them grow to full size in 49 days rather than three months and by making the chicken have larger breasts. This leads to a chicken that provides much more white meat and that is grown in almost half the time of a normal chicken. Although this “new” chicken is a better selling chicken, this chicken due to its disproportionately large breasts could not walk. Also, these chickens will live their entire lives in a dark cramped room with thousands of other chickens. This is a terrible way for any animal to live it’s life. Cows also live in terrible conditions because they live off corn which is not healthy for them and they are always ankle deep in manure. This leads to the cows being unhealthy for if one cow gets E-coli every cow will become infected. Although meat companies can produce more food at a lower price they should improve the conditions of the livestock for the health of the animals and buyers.
The film also gave an example of a food monopoly on soy beans called Monsanto. This company developed a new type of soy bean that was resistant to a pesticide that would kill all the weeds surrounding the soy beans. In order to protect their product they made it illegal for other soy bean growers to save their seeds. They enforced this rule through force and put many independent farmers out of business. This was an unethical action because destroyed the lives of many people for the sake of Monsanto making more money. This film also showed how corn is essential to our food market for several reasons. First, corn is the food for livestock because it is cheap and it fattens up the animals. Secondly, scientists are able to use corn to create many different types of food. This is why 80% of the food at supermarkets contains corn. This is a problem because if corn is to fail the world would be in a food crisis due to our reliance on corn. In conclusion I believe that the ends justify the means in that although there is cruelty within food production enough food is produced to feed most of the world.
Food Inc. is quite simply an attack on agribusiness. The documentary goes behind the curtain and reveals how food is grown and processed in the United States. The claim ultimately made is that the conditions in which food products are grown and processed is unhealthy and abusive to animals.
ReplyDeleteThe movie is very convincing. Video footage of cows covered in their own excrement being rolled in to slaughter, over-crowded mutant-chicken coops, and filthy slaughterhouses are some of the images used to incur a rather convincing nausea. The movie suggests an answer to the factory farms; to go back in time. The film suggests that farming in the old fashioned way, on local farms, is the best way.
While locally grown food may seem preferable, it also seems impossible. A website, safefoodinc.com, made by the major meat companies (Smithfield, Tyson, etc.) counters claims made by the movie. The site counters that it is impossible to grow enough food on small local farms to meet the current demand. I personally believe that this is an accurate assertion. The methods that have developed over time of growing food at hyper speed and in hyper large quantities have allowed for the world population to grow. If food were grown locally on small farms, then a large portion of the world’s population would starve as a result of highs prices and limited supply.
Response to Dylan Newman
ReplyDeleteThese are very important points about the food industry. The food industry is a business, however, many people are treating it too much like a business, they are not realizing that the food industry is helping people. They need to try to look at the industry from the point of view of the consumer. Food is a necessity in their life, so the food industry needs to be reasonable in supplying people with food. The people running the food industry can not be so concentrated on making money because that leads to higher prices and people not being able to buy food. This greed also leads to taking shortcuts which can get people sick and even kill people, for example in this situation.