Sunday, February 14, 2010

Food, Inc and Whatnot

I think the part that struck me was when Barbara, the mother of the infant who died from an outbreak of E. coli, was recounting the story of her son's death. This shows the human side of something that we typically relegate to the radical fringes of animal-lovers like PETA. I mean that, for me, I don't really care how my food was made or what it was, or for that matter how it was treated, before it became my hot dog. However, showing that people do have to deal with disease and death that could have easily be prevented by a few simple laws and regulations is powerful.

The thing I found most persuasive and tear-jerking about that segment was that it was a very toned-down part of the movie. It, purposefully and respectfully, showed Kevin playing in a lake with his parents and sister, while his mother is recounting this truly horrific incident and then showing him in the hospital after the E. coli had broken out in his system. This section of the film starkly contrasted some of the more glitzy parts of the film (i.e. the computer graphic of the cows on conveyor belts being herded into a big, monolithic slaughterhouse) and put forth a simple message that everyone understands universally, "Death is bad. Children dying is worse. And children dying from the food they eat is evil."

Ultimately, this section of the movie, and the film as a whole, has made me become more aware of the problems that are inherent in the agro-industrial complex. To me, if we're going to regulate an industry heavily, we should probably regulate in favor of those who are consuming the product and against who are only making a profit. (Ick, that's a very anti-capitalist statement for me, but c'est vrai as the French say)

The interview with Eric Schlosser in the first chapter of the book works as a great supplement to the film with regards to the more philosophical side of the conversation. After watching the film, Schlosser points in the direction of how to answer the big question on how we came to live this way and what to do from here on in. He and Hirshberg both challenge the idea that unhealthy is more affordable. And like with Lost Mountain, the idea that something is cheaper presently is terribly myopic fallacy. To think of the three-course dollar-menu diet is to short-terms economy, but failing to recognize that this food actually so many more long-term consequences is a failure of our society as a whole. The film shows this, but the interview with Schlosser really brings it home.

3 comments:

  1. I agree with the part of the movie that stood out for you. The story of a dying child always brings remorse. The way they described the quick process of eating a hamburger and not even a few days later being dead was so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great segment. I agree with many of the points you made. It is difficult to conjure up any real emotional responses to the way our food is processed but when you hear of a mother recounting the death of her children due to some regulatory neglecting is heart wrenching.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I too feel for the family of Barbara I think you pointed out a more important issue that I felt was more significant to the entire food industry (and American capitalism as well). This concern is with short-sighted business practices and emphasis on efficiency and quick returns only. As you said, the true price of a fast food hamburger is not felt until years down the road as the environmental and health concerns are finally apparent. The other major issue I found in the movie that concerned me was the exploitation of meatpacking workers and chicken farmers who both get paid menial wages for their hard labor which supports an entire food economy and our country.

    ReplyDelete