Food Inc Documentary Analysis

• Those who work for a Smithfield hog processing plant say the company has the same mentality towards workers as they do the hogs

Kenner uses the rhetorical strategy ethos by introducing important people of the food industry to the people of America. Kenner introduces us to Joel Salatin. He runs the farm called “Polyface farms”. He compares amd explains in the movie/documentary how his farm is ran and how the animals are fed and treated compared to corporations like Smithfield and Tyson. Kenner features the “Polyface Farm” from anywhere to what the animals eats to where the animals live. Salatin acknowledges that his animals do not eat corn or any product with corn involved. Salatin guides us through the process of killing chickens and how they are handled and packaged. Kenner also compared this process with with huge corporations like Tyson and how their chickens are killed. Tyson has their chicken coops packed with so many that the chickens are unable to move around so when chicken farmers feed the Tyson chickens they all keep gaining weight since they are big that they can con carry their own weight anymore. The chicken farmers emphasize that Tyson tries to make every chicken look alike so that when that chickens are packaged there will not be a huge size discrepancy. Another man interviewed in the movie/documentary is Moe Parr. Parr was a seed cleaner for local farmers around their town. Parr addressed that Monacello (seed company) was sueing him for cleaning seeds. Monasello’s argument was that they have a contract with every farmer who buys seeds from them; that when they save their seeds that they are expected to send those seeds back to the

In the documentary, Food Inc., Joel Salatin stated that ¨if we put glass walls on all the

Everyone has the right to know what's in the food that they are eating. It's upsetting how these massive corporations dominate American citizens. If everyone knew how much brutality was required to meet the demands of the fast food industry, I like to think the public would simply not tolerate it and demand that animals stop being designated property in law. I find it impossible to believe that if people knew the reality that they would not want animals to have recourse to legal protections from enduring lifetimes of nothing but abuse.

The documentary, Food Inc., was very eye-opening as to how the food we eat is produced. I was particularly shocked at how inhumane the production of meat is. Also, this production showed to be environmentally harmful. The other surprising part was how much of our food is reliant on corn and soybeans. The similarity in taste in many different foods is probably due to the small number of crops that go into food production. I absolutely do not agree with the way our food is produced. Primarily because it shouldn't be such a small number of corporations or such a small number of crops that go into the production of our food. Also, these corporations seem adamant about ensuring that the public is unaware of this fact. People still eat the food knowing

Looking from the conflict perspective the, amount of control the government has in terms of regulating what kinds of food are “safe” to eat is appalling. Seventy Five percent of all non-organic processed foods in grocery stores today contain genetically engineered ingredients and over 90% of Americans don 't know that there food contains GMO’s (Cambell, 2003). Genetically modifying foods (GMFs) are

One issue the documentary highlights is the abuse of animals and workers by the food companies, in order to reveal how the companies hide

I have lived in Small-town, USA my entire life. I have lived on a farm, been around farms and know several farmers. To me, the farming life is a normal way of life. I am one of those people mentioned in the movie, Food Inc., that believes, or shall I say, believed, that our food comes from the “perfect farm”. It was not until watching this movie and then discussing what I learned with others that farming is really a factory.

Food, Inc. is a 2008 documentary directed by Robert Kenner. The film has faced criticism from multiple food producers, including Tyson Foods and the Monsanto Company, who fear the film is attacking their practices and will result in them losing business. The documentary examines the practices of these companies, most of whom hold a monopoly over the industry, and argues that the food produced is unhealthy for the environment, employees, and consumers. The film combines narrative techniques and imagery to present this central argument and present a call to action.

The film is among the most perspective-altering documentaries ever produced. It exposes how agricultural production has been revolutionized from small family farms to big agribusinesses with dire consequences to consumers. I learned many valuable lessons from the film. The most important and shocking lesson I learned from the film is that food is a political issue in our country. Policy makers and those who are meant to protect us do not protect us. Instead, they work in collusion with the owners of the agribusinesses. I have also learned that all is not lost. We can correct our mistake my boycotting unhealthy products and promoting those produced naturally.

In recent years, scientists are playing a larger role in the food industry by creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Much is still unknown about the effects of such changes and these questions cause many debates about what is true. The benefits of modifying our food consists of more resilient crops, better looking products, and larger crop yields. The video attempts to influence a younger audience by depicting a cartoon and advertising a mobile video game at the end. The author claims that their company represents the scarecrow who uses unmodified foods rather than the competitor's GMOs. Chipotle, the creator of the video, successfully uses, symbolism, personification, and tone to take a stance on modified food.

My second source was a documentary that my nutrition teacher from high school showed the class at the end of the school year. I usually hate documentaries because of their tendency to drag on but even though this one was more than seventy minutes, I was able to stay hooked. It was about a couple who tried living off discarded food for six months. I couldn’t remember the title of the film but a simple googling of “couple live off discarded food film” was able to do the trick. The film was named “Just Eat It.”

Thank you, for the post and I also thought this reading this week where really informative as well as eye-opening for me. You raised some very good questions in about foods in America verses foods in other countries. I too have also wondered why foods last so long. It also made me think about food waste in this country. From the video this week I was really surprised that we as a country waste so much food, and yet there is starvation in the world. When it comes to whether GM foods are good for us and if there are health issues that come with eating those foods. In a research article I found about GM foods “We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified food is safe and nutritionally

This paper will discuss two arguments presented in the documentary: GMOs should be labeled, and GMOs are bad for the human body, and the environment.

The first GMO foods were introduced to the market in 1994. It was the Flavr Savr tomato, developed and engineered by Calgene so foods had a longer shelf life by modifying their genetic code. Companies have fought on the other side of the battlefield, and falsely advertised that their products. A study published in Scientific Reports announced that products which contain GMO ingredients have lesser amount of nutrients than non-GMO products. In the las two decades organizations have fought to eradicate GMO products. Organizations such as GMO INSIDE are putting in their best efforts to make people aware of the dangers. One way they help open people’s eyes is by publish advertisements with strong visual images and emotional appeals. GMO INSIDE’s advertisement “Who’s making your baby a lab rat?” insinuates that parents should pay more attention to the ingredients in the food they buy for their babies. Through a cheerless image, and the rhetorical appeals of ethos and pathos, it points out that GMO ingredients are harmful for babies, for they do not provide enough nutrients.