This sample essay on Food Inc Documentary provides important aspects of the issue and arguments for and against as well as the needed facts. Read on this essay’s introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.
Food Inc Movie Analysis
Write a short paragraph or so about what you know about where your food comes from. I want you to think about where It comes from before It gets to the supermarket or the restaurant. If you feel you’re not really sure where It comes from, write about that. Why aren’t you sure? Wow! That’s a huge question, since there are many types of food. I believe fresh fruits and vegetables are harvested in bulk from farms, orchards, vineyards, etc. , and then go through facilities that handle the cleaning, sorting, packaging (for fresh), and Nanning.
Milk originates at dairy farms and either gets bottled there, or shipped in bulk to facilities that process it into many forms, some of these forms winding up in other processed foods. I’m not sure if butter, cheese, yogurt and the like are done at or outside of the dairy. I know that beef and pork now usually comes from processing “farms” rather than real farms or ranches. It passes through faceless for either minimal processing to pass on fresh to markets and meat stores, or for full processing and packaging. Chicken and eggs come from facilities that are more Like factories than farms.
Summary Of Food Inc Documentary
Bulk grains from farms goes through extensive processing at facilities, winding up in an endless variety of forms and products. I guess just about everything gets some type of processing through factories, plants, and other facilities before it is offered to the consumer. 1. In the beginning of the movie, Eric Closer, who narrates quite a lot of the film, talks about the idea that Americans are misled into believing that the origin of our food is still largely agrarian. What does agrarian mean, and do you agree with Chlorate’s assertion? Be sure to explain either your agreement or disagreement.
I think agrarian describes farms and fields. I think his statement Is Incorrect because the origin is still largely agrarian. If we’re being misled about anything, it’s about the amount and types of processing between the origin and reaching us. 2. What did you learn about chicken farming from this movie? What seemed most important to you about that segment of the film? The conglomerates that finance the farming seem to choose cost efficiencies over all other factors. And they must feel themselves that some of the resulting methods are questionable because they bar the public and the media from viewing them. . What did you learn from this movie about the connection between corn and beef? What are the benefits of the connection and what are the drawbacks? Cattle are natural grass grazers, out are now Dealing raise on corn alone, since It Is subsidized and cheap and fattens them quicker and to a greater degree (the benefit). But they know now that the harmful types of bacteria found in the cows’ digestive tracks grow much more plentifully on the corn diet. 8. In the section titled “The Dollar Menu,” Eric Closer says, “We’ve skewed our food system to the bad calories and it’s not an accident.
The reason those foods are heaper is because those are the one we’re heavily subsidizing. ” This movie talks quite a bit about food commodities and food subsidies. Describe your understanding of those concepts and how they lower the prices of certain foods. The government pays farmers extra money to grow some of the basic general/ multi-use foods and grains such as milk, wheat, and corn, all them to be sold at lower prices. Then various components of these foods (not necessarily the healthy ones) are chosen as ingredients because of their lower cost. 9.
Closer also says, “One of the biggest predictors of obesity is income level,” but e does not talk a lot about why that might be true. What is your understanding of why it might be true? The cheapest foods available (and therefore purchased the most by the poor) are full of the above-mentioned not-so-healthy derivatives of subsidized foods. 10. In the section of the movie titled, “In the Grass,” Joel Gallatin, owner of Populace Farms, says that some people look at his farm and his way of producing food and ask, “Can you really feed the world this way? His reply is, “That’s a specious argument because yes we’re every bit as efficient if you plug in all the inefficiencies of the industrial system. ” First, what does specious mean? Next, consider Gelatin’s reply. Do you think he answers the question about whether you can feed the world using his methods? What inefficiencies of the industrial system is he talking about? Specious means misleading or deceptive. I’m not sure what the inefficiencies refers to other than maybe to utility and fuel costs of running the large processing factories.
And I don’t think comparing efficiency really address the question asked. Gallatin says people look at his organically grown eggs for $3. 00 a dozen and 11. Hey think it’s far too much to pay. Then Gallatin points out they’re holding a 75-cent can of soda. Why do you think we’re so willing to pay 75 cents for a beverage that gives us no nutritional value but we hesitate to pay $3. 00 for a dozen eggs grown in an ethical, healthy way and that could feed a whole family breakfast?
I don’t fall for this trap (l seldom ever drink soda), but most consumers seem willing to pay a higher price for something that is ready to consume immediately and satisfies the sugar/salt/fat craving, rather than something you have to prepare and add taste to. In ten chicken-Tarring segment AT ten movie, we see now ten chickens In a major farming operation are treated, and in the section on Gelatin’s farm we see how chickens are slaughtered and cleaned. Write about your impressions of these two segments, especially when considered alongside one another.
The chickens in the major operation tumble through chutes and conveyor belts while they are still alive, like they are some non-biological material. Gelatin’s chickens are processed by hand and are slaughtered by bleeding them out, which Eve heard before is the least traumatic way to die from an external physical force. 5. Gary Heisenberg of Stonewalled farms describes Walter as one of the most vilified corporations in America. He goes on to say that “a sale off million dollars to Walter [of organic products] helps to save the world. First, what does vilified mean and why do you think Walter is vilified? Second, why is a huge sale of organic products to Walter one way to help save the world? Vilify means to portray as “the bad guy’ or villain. Many people think Walter is harmful to communities by taking sales away from local small business. But a healthy, organically produced product on Walter’s shelves can reach a lot more nonusers due to their large customer base. 16. What do you understand from the movie about why Monsanto is able to sue farmers for something as basic as saving their own seeds?
What is your response to this kind of corporate prosecution of farmers? Because Monsanto patented the their gene modification, they legally own all rights to any seed containing even a trace of this gene. It seems like their aim through the legal action is control the entire market, not Just their “brand” of seed. 17. Near the end of the movie, Closer makes the claim, “We eat a lot of oil without knowing it. ” What does he mean? Running the vast amount of processing machinery and equipment requires fuel, and fuel comes from oil. 19.
Closer makes the argument that the battle against tobacco is a perfect model for how an industry irresponsible behavior can be changed, implying that it’s possible to change the behavior of the food industry. Do you agree? Be sure to explain your response. I believe any industry behavior is driven by profit and market. Because it’s extremely difficult to effectively reduce the demand for a popular heavily-marketed, profitable but questionably produced product, the only alternative is legal action, which has its own challenges to being successful.
Ill A DSSSL premise AT tens movie Is at TN tenure Is a “veil” Detente consumers Ana t food sources. The argument is that consumers are “deliberately being kept in the dark about what they’re eating, where it’s coming from, and what it’s doing to their bodies. ” For this question, I’d like you to consider two things: a. Before you watched the movie, I asked you to write what you know about where your food comes from. Now write another short paragraph about what you knew before the movie vs. what you know now. Do you feel that you know more? How do you feel about what you learned?
Do you question any of what you learned or feel it might be one-sided? If you don’t feel you know more after the movie, why not? I feel like I did learn a little. I realized beforehand that some of the processing practices are not pretty, but the film highlighted some that are downright ugly! I did get a strong sense that the presentation was one-sided, and that the film was made to try to prove their views rather than to be an unbiased investigation. So they probably played up the very worst aspects of the issue. B. Do you agree with the premise that there is a deliberate veil between consumers and their food sources?
If you do agree, do you think that “lifting the veil” will help change behaviors and choices about food in this country? Why or why not? If you don’t agree that there’s a deliberate veil, why not? I do believe that people are largely unaware of all the intermediate processing, but I’m not convinced it’s because of a corporate conspiracy to hide it. The true test would be to say, “look, as our children grow up they to learn know how all of life works, including the food chain. So at some point in secondary school we’ll educate them about how food is processed. ” How the food industry reacts to that will tell the true tale.