Food Dilemma

After watching Food, Inc., I felt sort of betrayed by my own food industry as well as government. People tend to believe that their government and industries within his or her country were supposed to protect them, but it seemed as if these industries as well as the government were taking advantage of their own people. This was my third time watching this film and after watching it this time, it made me really view my food industry differently than before. I had to admit that the first two times I saw this movie, I did not fully comprehend the severity of the food issue of the manipulation and power of these food companies and the government. But after watching it a third time, I sort of gained more knowledge on how I should eat, what I should eat, and why I should eat differently. I had to admit again that this movie, when watching it for my first time, scared the hell out of me. The reason why this movie terrified me was because if everything in the movie was true, then how could I trust my own government in protecting my health? But more importantly, what was in my food that I just ate? These two questions were still left unanswered after watching the movie.

Several food issues that stood out to me the most after watching Food, Inc. were the issues on the poor, the control over farmers, and the government's relationship within the food industry. In the first food issue, poor families or individuals have the worst results when purchasing food products. In the film, a Hispanic family was interviewed and stated how it was cheaper to purchase fast food products than to purchase healthy food products. For example, buying three cheese hamburgers and a side of french fries could equal to a pound of broccoli. From this, one could assume that the portion of the foods were significantly different, since the fast food products could had fed the family instead of the pound of broccoli. In the second food issue, many food companies were controlling those that produce the food, the farmers. Many of these food companies demanded newer equipements and technologies for producing the products, which costed heavily since these farmers do not necessarily make that much. In addition, many of these food companies do not want their farmers revealing information to others. For example, based on the seed farmers, farmers were not allowed to talk to one another because of the fear of being fired, sued, or hunted down by private investigators from those companies. In order for farmers to attempt to make a living off of what they do, they have to abide by the food companies' rules, or face their consequences. In the last food issue, the government's relationship in the food industry was terrifying. Many former chief executives and presidents of food companies were introduced into government jobs, such as being head of the FDA or Supreme Court justices. How could I trust in my government now if the government and food industry were working together against their own people? It was daunting.

I enjoyed watching Food, Inc., even if this was my third time watching the film. It really portrayed a daunting yet truthful segment into the food industry and their cynical ways. This film was basically an educational film on how we should eat and what we should eat. In addition, this film revealed the curtain of what was in our food and how these food companies were controlling everyone.

According to Mary Maxfield, "Trust yourself. Trust your body. Meet your needs." According to Michael Pollan, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." These two food advocates have their own food formulas that they abide by. Their food formulas could and could not be necessarily followed, but were presented for people to try to follow in order to live healthy lives. My own food formula would be, "Avoid fast food. Consume a reasonable amount. Drink water." The purpose of my first rule "Avoid fast food" was simple, do not eat fast food. Fast food was just an illusion of quality food, since it was just the most processed of foods out there. Fast food was high in calories and since it was cheap, many could consume these products nonstop. The purpose of my second rule "Consume a reasonable amount" was to explain how eating a good amount of food was healthy. Eating too little and eating too much was detrimental to one's health. But consuming a reasonable amount, based on that person's health and weight, could be healthy. It was up to that person to think what was considered a reasonable amount to eat. The purpose of my third rule "Drink water" was interesting and unique. The reason why some individuals were hungry or were craving some sort of food was not because he or she was hungry, but because he or she was thirsty. For example, the next time you are hungry, try drinking a glass of water or two. This way your body does not have to consume healthy and/or unhealthy food products. By drinking water instead of eating, one was able to lose weight. Now this could be for those trying to lose weight or trying to maintain their current weight. This third rule should not be followed by those that are eating too little as they are already.

What We Eat

In "What We Eat", Eric Schlosser's argument was that the fast food industry was dominating smaller food businesses, the consumer's health, and the way society eats and acts. These fast food chains, especially McDonald's, have become powerful enough to the point where nothing seemed to stop them. McDonald's was considered a powerful icon of American economy, where it was the nation's largest purchaser of beef, pork, and potatoes. In addition, McDonald's is the largest owner of retail property and was even more invested in advertising and marketing than any other franchise (Schlosser 668-669). Basically, the fast food industry has had an effect on our lives, whether we liked it or not.

Schlosser's main concept was that fast food chains, much like McDonald's, has become an issue for the way people live. We could not escape what was inevitable, which was the fact that fast food restaurants were controlling how we ate, acted, and lived. "Fast food and its consequences have become inescapable, regardless of whether you eat it twice a day, try to avoid it, or have never taken a single bite" (Schlosser 668). We could fight back by ignoring fast food all together, or even by encouraging others to look away from fast food. On the other hand, we could stop resisting and join the conformity with society. Either way, the fast food industry would impact us somehow.

In "What We Eat", Eric Schlosser used several methods in explaining his argument on fast food's dominance over society. Schlosser used cause/effect and compare/contrast to prove his point. In relation to the method of cause/effect, Schlosser gave my interesting examples of cause/effect throughout his article. The main cause could be the foundation of McDonald's and its ways. Various effects could be that Americans were becoming more obese, smaller businesses were collapsing, etc. However, McDonald's "...basic thinking behind fast food has become the operating system of today's retail company, wiping out small businesses, obliterating regional differences, and spreading identical stores throughout the country..." (Schlosser 669-670).
McDonald's had become powerful enough to control everything in its path. Not only was this company spreading its ideology to other franchises, McDonald's controlled the workers as well. Besides the low wages for workers, "Farmers and cattle ranchers are losing their independence, essentially becoming hired hands for the agribusiness giants or being forced off the land (Schlosser 672). McDonald's could make millions every week through its sales, but would not even raise their workers' salaries so the head people could make an extra dollar. Is this the new definition of greed?

In addition to cause/effect, the method of compare/contrast was used to enhance the intensity of the issue on fast food. Schlosser compared American McDonald's workers to migrant farm workers (670). This was to show how both classes were roughly making the same amount of money while doing practically the same amount of work. Well, not the "same amount of work", but the stress behind the work was basically the same for both fast food employees and migrant workers.

The benefit of combining these two methods was that it enhance the intensity of the issue. Personally, I felt more interested in reading about this article because of all the information, examples, and analysis Schlosser presented. Combining two methods into one article definitely helped me in understanding the issue of fast food's dominance. Schlosser's writing style was also unique in the sense that it was very educational and impressive. At times, Schlosser would be serious by proposing facts and examples on certain topics he brought up. Then every once in awhile in the article, Schlosser would make his reading interesting by presenting something good. For example, Schlosser stated, "The early Roman Republic was fed by its citizen-farmers; the Roman Empire, by its slaves. A nation's diet can be more revealing than its art or literature" (668). In addition, he stated, "The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross" (669). These statements ever so often were sort of funny and interesting to me. I would not expect him to state these things, but then again, Schlosser was a true nonconformist in revealing the truth in society.