Food Inc.

I watched the documentary Food Inc. today. I’ve been on a documentary kick lately on Netflix. Food Inc. was quite good, presenting multiple arguments on both sides of the issues discussed. It also stated facts and for the most part stayed away from being overly emotional, contrary to Oil On Ice, which I watched last week. Here are a few opinions and questions that the documentary raised in my mind:

What do we do about the people who are unable to pay their legal bills, in the face of large corporation who have almost unlimited budgets to pay court fees? Often times, the corporations will draw out the proceedings until the plaintiffs are so buried in debt that they give up. Or, the corporations simply settle for small amounts of money outside of court. Legal fees have to exist, as a barrier to entry for petty lawsuits, but shouldn’t impede actual wrongdoing from facing the music.

Subsidies exist everywhere in agribusiness. What are the effects of these subsidies? If removed, could farmers still make money and stay solvent? Or would the prices of basic food staples spike, causing many already pinching pennies to go without food? What was the point originally of the subsidies, and are they still serving their purpose? Who benefits the most-the farmers, food corporations, people in government, or consumers?

I hate it when people latch on to the individuals in documentaries. Sure the stories of the mom whose young son died of E-Coli, and the farmer who lost everything when sued by a major agribusiness are sad and regrettable. Those stories appeal to basic emotions in us. But to base general opinions, conclusions, and legislation on these individual cases is foolhardy. To concentrate on the particulars and fail to see the big picture is failing to do due diligence. Some examples:

• The 55-year-old automobile assembly line worker from eastern Michigan who loses his job because labor is cheaper in China is clearly against the outsourcing of labor. But he cannot see the positive effects in cheaper products for US citizens, and increased purchasing power for China (yes, they buy American goods, and a quite significant amount).
• The single mother who works long hours at Wal-Mart and receives paltry benefits isn’t the biggest fan of Wal-Mart. But what about the thousands upon millions of people and families who rely on Wal-Mart to supply the cheapest products? Without Wal-Mart, they could not survive.
• The 18-year old who was raped and impregnated would sure like the right to choose; her pregnancy is not her fault. That situation does not give us the right to legalize murder.

Finally, every single one of us votes with our wallets every time we buy food. As outraged or appalled people seem to become when they watch documentaries like this one, along with Super Size Me, they continue to consume those types of food. This hypocrisy exists because the majority of us value cheap food over better food. Food Inc. talked about E-Coli outbreaks and legislative apathy; corn fed cattle wading in their own manure; chickens bred to big that they cannot stand up; chickens that never see sunlight; and tomatoes picked while green and ripened in transit with gases. Would you rather have that, or see millions of people go hungry when rules and restrictions placed on the food business drive up prices? It’s a dilemma that most people miss because they are unable to think critically, and one that most people do not want to deal with.

I challenge those people who say they are against sweat shop labor, non-organic food, and environmental pollution to buy nothing made in China, buy only local food grown without pesticides, and reduce their carbon footprint significantly. The sad reality is that most people like to say they are against these practices. But when it comes down to it, they are unwilling to actually change their lifestyles. They enjoy the convenience and cheapness too much. It’s interesting to see where people’s convictions truly lie.