Among the need of humans beings, food comes as one of the most essential. With regards to how food is important to the human body, together with shelter and clothing, it has been qualified as a basic need. Mostly, it is impossible to survive without food. It is, however, important to understand that merely having food is not essential. Instead, humans should have food that is balanced and contains all forms of minerals in order to be healthy. Again, simply having minerals present in food is not enough. People should always ensure the intake of quality food that is grown and processed under healthy environments. With this knowledge, the film ‘Food, Inc.’ focuses on enlightening people regarding the foods that are produced under an environment that make them unsafe for human and the economy. Accordingly, the paper expresses the information provided in the film, the challenges experienced in producing and the feedback that it has received.
The movie, ‘Food, Inc.’ was produced in the year 2008. The production of the American documentary is attributed to filmmaker Robert Kenner. The documentary focuses on farming that is intended for business in the United States. The conclusion drawn by the documentary is that the production of unhealthy agribusiness is environmentally harmful and abusive to both animals’ lives and the development of plants. The narration of the film is done by Michael Polan and Eric Schlosser. The documentary was positively adopted by the target audience. As a result, it proposed for a large number of awards. The awards included the academy award and the independent spirit award in 2009. The awards were in regards to best documentary features. The film is divided into three segments. The initial stages deal with the issue of industrial meat products. With regards to the film, these products are referred to as inhumane. Further, the documentary argues that they cannot be sustained by the environment. The other segment in the movie explores the factor industrial production of grains and vegetables. The focus is placed on soybean and corn. The film again labels the corn and soybean as uneconomical in addition to being environmentally unsustainable. The film’s third sector is concerned with factors of economic and legal powers, including the factor of odd labeling, pricing regulations of major food companies, the profits gained in relations to the supplying of cheap contaminated food, the adverse use of chemicals manufactured with the use of Petroleum products, including pesticides and insecticides. It also focuses on the support of intake of unhealthy foods by the population that lives in America. Moreover, it places its focus on the current move that different countries are urgently making towards the shift to the use of organic foods rather than processed foods.
The key individuals in the production of the film include Michael pollen, who was a consultant, in addition to also appearing in the movie and Eric Schlosser, who was a co-producer of the movie, even appeared in it. The production company that produced the video was participant media. The film that was made within a time frame of three years faced a significant amount of challenges in the course of its production. For instance, there was the fear that its crew and actors would get charged for defaming some food processing companies. As a result, the directors and managers spent large amounts of money on budgeting and paying legal charges in the bid of protecting themselves against legal charges from producers of manufactured foods. Additionally, the film was criticized by manufacturers of pesticide and fertilizer, alongside others who based their businesses on chemicals.
There were extensive and detailed enlightenment and campaign that was aimed to provide information and sensitize customers. A book was launched in 2009 with the intention of creating awareness regarding the movie and having people buy it. With this regards, the book was published with a similar name. Among the support that the film received include the fact that some companies including Stoney field firm, which is an organic yogurt producer found in New Hampshire, offered support to the film by printing information relating to it. the information was then published on their yogurt foil lids.
The producers initiated an on-screen address from Monsanto Company. Additionally, other companies who were affected were also invited. However, due to the nature of the issue, all the companies refused to honor the invitation, and none of them showed up. An association of companies dealing with the issue of food production that was led by the America meat institute resorted to the reaction of a website referred to as SafeFoodInc.org. The site was meant to respond to the allegations that were aired in the documentary. Additionally, Monsanto also created its website to individually react to the documentary’s allegations regarding its company’s products and actions. The group acknowledged varying opinions regarding the manner through which global agriculture can use alternative efficient ways to offer its products while reducing negative effects on the environment and making sure that food safety is observed. Additionally, they were tasked with ensuring that food was accessible and establishing reasonable work in communities that depend on agriculture. The enterprise however disputed the generalized manner by which the film sought to address the factor affecting a vast amount of population.
Robert Kenner, the director of the film, did not accept the allegations regarding attacking the existing food production system. He confirmed that the film concerned merely with transparency regarding the manner of the handling of the food items. The film has received mix reactions. There are organizations and corporations that have congratulated the film and its cast and directors for doing excellent work in exposing the real issues that affect the food sectors. There are the corporations that believe that things are not right regarding the manner in which the food sector is being handled, and feel the desire for change in the way in which factors relating to food are treated. Such organizations are the organizations that even go ahead and support the initiatives of the film by helping with its advertisement and making people aware of it in addition to encouraging people to watch it.
There is, however, the other group of people who feel that the film is negatively targeting them, this is the group of people who relate to the food industries that the film is highlighting negatively. If large sections of the population get to watch the movie and believe its contents, then this group of people and companies who are against it risk losing in business and end up with losses instead of profits. To protect their interests, and those of their companies, these are the people who have come out strongly to defend the nature of their business. In some adverse instances, these people have even gone to courts with the intention and hope of trying to seek legal assistance to illegalize the film.
The film ‘Food, Inc.’ is a three segmented documentary film produced with the intention of providing sensitization regarding food items in the market. It is involved with cereals such as soybean and corn, meat products and processed foods. In essence, the challenges experienced in the production of the film can easily be attributed to the sensitive natures of the subjects that it handles. The different type of feedback that is received about the film is classical because the film is viewed by different groups of people with different vested interests.