The film then documents the abuse of workers in the food industry. It shows the dangerous life of a workman in the food industry. Despite having to work very hard, such workers are paid a meagre salary. Moreover, poor people from South America illegally immigrate to the United States to work. Food industries accept them but pay them a low salary. However, when these people are caught, food industries are not implicated. In fact, the rate of arresting these illegal immigrants is slow to enable the food industries to have sufficient workers at any one time.
Subsequently, the viewer is introduced to the economics of the food system. Large companies acquire small companies and sell their products. For example, Dannon Yogurts acquired a small organic yogurt company and sold the organic yogurts in Walmart. The film also focuses on food “integrity”, in which industrial food is labelled “dishonest” because it does not bring any health or environmental benefits.
The next chapter of the film talks about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and how multinational corporations own them. The company Monsanto patents soybean seeds, and sues any farmer who uses them without permission. However, this includes accidental pollination, in which genetically modified pollen fertilises a normal plant in a farmer’s field. This is still considered by Monsanto as using GMOs without permission. Moreover, Monsanto sues farmers for saving the seed. These farmers are too poor to afford a lawsuit, and hence are helpless to fight against multinational corporations.
Next, the film discusses the image of products, and the “veil” that separates the world from the food industry. Consumers are ignorant of the food production process. Multinational corporations refuse to label products or provide detailed warnings, claiming that they do not want to “scare” consumers. The film suggests that there are many connections between the food industry and the US Food and Drug Administration, the agency which is supposed to monitor the food industry. This is because many people in the food industry switch jobs and end up holding government positions. It also shows statistics which claim that fewer and fewer checks on food are being done due to this connection.
Finally, at the end of the film, we are told about the detrimental effects of the food system, including world food shortage, wastage of energy and its impact on the health and the environment. An example of environmental damage is the dumping of animal waste pollutes rivers and water.4
The film ends on an urgent and compelling note, telling the audience that the fate of the food system is in their hands, and every meal they eat can change the way the food system functions.
Indeed, this film prompts us to wake up and urges us to look behind the “veil”, referring to the separation between the world and the food industry. At the beginning of the film, the tone seems to be light and tongue-in-cheek, but as the film progresses, we find ourselves propelled into a darker side of reality, with the tone morphing into a more sombre and serious one. The film is also rather critical of the current situation, but supports its criticism with evidence and examples that compel the audience to nod their heads and agree. Indeed, the documentary-style film chooses quality shots and videos of real-life footage that brings out the essence of its point. The use of interviews, such as the one concerning a mother who lost her child due to food poisoning, gives credibility to the stand taken by the film. Haunting images in the film, such as the one at the beginning of this review, cause horror, guilt and tugs at the heartstrings of the viewer.
One key idea that piqued my interest was the issue of labelling food containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and products. There are always two sides to an issue, and it is no different with this one. Should food containing GMOs be labelled or not?
Currently, in the United States of America, the setting of this film, mandatory labelling of food containing GMOs has been proposed, but not enacted. It is purely voluntary to label such food according to guidelines by the Food and Drug Administration. According to the Codex Alimentarius Commission7, which is an international body that issues guidelines assessing the safety of food derived from GMOs, mandatory labelling is not required but voluntary labelling is allowed. However, in 21 other countries including those in the European Union, Australia, China and Japan, it is mandatory to label food containing GMOs.8 In Singapore, according to the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority, it is not compulsory or mandatory to label such food.7
The film argues strongly for labelling food with GMOs. It claims that it is the right of consumers to know what they are eating as well as what their food contains. However, lawyers from multinational corporations such as Monsanto do not want this to happen, arguing that it causes unnecessary fear in customers and deters people from buying their products.
In my opinion, labelling of foods containing GMOs should be mandatory. Consumers have a right to know what is in their food. Knowing what is in their food is vital for them to make decisions. Firstly, they can identify and avoid food products according to labelling. This is especially important if a consumer has a certain allergy towards certain types of food such as nuts or dairy products. Some of these food allergies are life-threatening. Introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause allergic reactions in people who are susceptible. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, a proposal to introduce a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned due to fears it could cause allergic reactions.6 Hence, people with food allergies may want to avoid GM food and labelling would help them do that.
Secondly, some studies have shown that food derived from GMOs could be harmful to humans.9 Studies have shown that GM plants could produce excessive toxins and be less nutritious than non-GM plants. Also the use of antibiotic resistance genes in GM food could bring about infections which are more difficult to treat with antibiotics.
Most plants consumed by humans produce substances which are toxic to humans. However, these toxins are produced at low enough levels so that they do not affect our health adversely. However, when a foreign gene is inserted into a plant, the plant may produce toxins at higher levels which are harmful to humans. Although these effects have not been observed in genetically modified (GM) plants, they have been observed in conventional breeding methods and hence create a concern for GM plants. For example, potatoes bred for increased disease resistance have produced higher levels of toxins.
GM plants could also have lower nutritional value than non-genetically modified plants. A study has shown that a strain of genetically modified soybean produced lower levels of chemicals which protect against heart disease and cancer when compared to traditional soybeans.
In addition, there may be increased resistance to antibiotics due to the use of antibiotic resistant genes in the production of GM foods. According to the GMO Compass10, these genes could be taken up by the bacteria in the digestive system of humans. Infections caused by such bacteria would then be resistant to antibiotics and be very difficult to treat.
A third reason for labelling GMO food is that people such as vegetarians may want to avoid eating animal products for religious or ethical reasons. Animal products include animal DNA which is used in GM foods. Labelling would enable them to identify such foods on the supermarket shelves and avoid buying them.
Lastly, according to the Organic Consumers website11, surveys have shown that 80% to 90% of Americans support mandatory labelling on GM foods. As mentioned above, labelling of GM foods is already mandatory in 21 other countries.
Opponents to the mandatory labelling of GM foods state that there are no significant differences between food containing GMOs and those which do not.5 They claim that no approved GM food has been shown to contain allergens or be less nutritious than non-GM food. However, as GM foods have been consumed only in the last 2 decades, their ill effects may not have surfaced yet. Also, the studies which point to the possibility of GM food being harmful to humans should not be ignored.
Another oft-quoted reason is that mandatory labelling of GM food will be costly and increase the food bill of consumers. This is because testing and recording has to be carried out at every step of the food supply chain. However, Professor Chris Viljoen from the GMO Testing Laboratory at the University of the Free State in South Africa has countered these claims, citing a comprehensive study from the European Union which found that food costs in Europe increased by a mere 0.17% instead of 20% claimed by opponents to the mandatory labelling of GM foods. This is because there is currently testing, labelling and recording done for other substances such as contaminants and additives.12
In addition, opponents feel that labels on GM food discourage, or “scare”, people from buying them. They argue that people may assume that such labels are warnings and will avoid buying such food. However, labels simply state the presence of GMOs or substances derived from GMOs in the food, and do not warn against anything. It is completely up to the consumer’s discretion if he wishes to buy the product. Other labels such as those stating the presence of allergens do not deter any consumer except those allergic to those substances. It is the same case with labelling of GM food.
All in all, I highly recommend FOOD, Inc. It certainly is not a movie that makes an audience feel well and happy, but it brings the stark reality of the food industry to them. This film truly accomplishes what it claims it will: removing the veil between the world and the horrors of food production. Food production companies are deliberately covering up the process of food production, and abusing their power to ensure that no one exposes this. FOOD, Inc takes a noble stand against this, and forces us to realise that this is directly related to our lives, not just a faraway conflict. Through real footage and interviews, we are introduced to many problems that affect us: health problems such as diabetes, and environmental problems such as water pollution.
Moreover, FOOD, Inc also brings to us another form of reality: the world of corporate business. We are introduced to the situations of lawsuits and worker abuse, making FOOD, Inc a movie not just about animals, but about humans and their rights too. Besides the main theme of food, we begin to realise how interconnected many other themes are, such as the abuse of power.
FOOD, Inc does not simply give us facts and figures and paint a bleak picture of society, but also has the potential to change our daily lives. In the last section of the movie, we are urged to help in the fight against the food industry, and the film tells us that we can make a change in every meal we eat as a consumer. This film is not just a film of entertainment and general knowledge, but is a film that convinces the audience that they should be doing something to revolutionise the food industry.
Indeed, FOOD, Inc is not a movie just about food, but also people, rights, freedom and life itself.
Bibliography:
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Word Count: 2,452 words