Essay Sample on Food Inc.: Exploring Big Business' Impact on Our Diet

Introduction

The Food, Inc. film documentation is examining the steps that food passes through before consumption. It starts from the farm, manufacturing companies, selling on shelves, and consumption by Americans. It focuses on manufacturing and consuming trends these large corporates are using to make profits and influence their unsuspecting customers and numerous health issues that arise from some food industries (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs). The film explores food industries across the country in both small big companies, including meat and vegetable stores. The director of the film was Robert Kenner, and its production team included Kenner and Elise Pearlstein. The film was nominated by an American Cinema Editors Award, Oscar, and also nominated in Directors Guild of America Award categorically for the Best Documentary. It won the Best Film Critics Associations Award for the Best Documentary Feature and many other awards indicating that the message was presented well and considered relevant by the viewers. The revelation in the food industry is disturbing as some company owners believe that food is something to be scientifically manufactured and produced. In contrast, others perceive it as a natural product (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs). The film urges its audience throughout the film to check whether the food produced in mass is both socially and environmentally sustainable. With the large crowds of people eating food daily, the hidden cost results in low quality-food supplied in the market.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The role played by the government in America is exposed when they skew prices to lower amounts for unhealthy and processed foods. The subsidies are known to reduce the cost of processed food manufactured with high amounts of fructose syrup and the rest of the corn-based products making the market weak in competition for other foods. The methods used in production are cleverly hidden from consumers by quality packaging and good imagery of Agrarian America with a fantasy of pastoral activities that can convince a typical American that they food they are consuming is naturally grown on their farms by hardworking workers set to the deliver the best to their people (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs). Shoppers are manipulated to believe they are consuming their dream meals from the stores at a very affordable price, while in reality, the dream does not exist. This general lack of knowledge does not come from their ignorance, but because of their positive believe in their products and thinking that they know more about their foods, bringing a sense of safety while consuming.

The companies are winning the consumer's hearts by imageries of wholesomeness of farms; they are growing the corns and healthy cows on their advertisements, making the unsuspecting shoppers believe that they have all the information required on what they are consuming. In reality, the consumer is given very little information about the foodstuff and even moved further from the original food.

The film also exposes the relationship between the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S Department of Agriculture, for instance, the judgment passed by the Supreme Court by an attorney for Monsanto Chemical Company, where the judge wrote her opinion supporting the Monsanto and won the case. It is good to keenly note that the film is overstating on biasness with claims that the idea was presented by Thomas. Yet, Justice Elena Kagan justified it through writing an indication of how the conflict of interest exists undoubtedly in the industry (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs). Robert advises the consumers to pile pressure on companies to include valuable information on their labels.

The Cost of Cheap Food

The film claims that these engineered foods present themselves socially, environmentally, and health-wise. Health-wise, this film brings two scenarios from different families. One being miss Buck's son, who succumbed from consuming an E-coli strain in a hamburger purchased from a food store while in a vocation. She then campaigned for the implementation of Kevin's Law to allow the USDA the authority to shut down the meat processing firms that are producing contaminated meat (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs). Although this law was not passed, some of its parts were included in the FDA Food Modernization Act of 2010, six years later.

The second example of the effects of cheap food is depicted through the low-income family that was not able to afford a healthy diet daily and opt for fast foods daily because it satisfies their wants by spending less while getting more or rather satisfactory. The father has Type 2 diabetes because of the consumption of this food, and in return, the family is now forced to spend approximately $200 per month for his medication (Dargis). Statistically, the film is suggesting that children born in America after 2000 will be affected by early-onset diabetes.

Food, Inc. also displays the effects of cheap food in the social sector where illegal immigrants from Mexico are employed by the meat processing industries in the United States. Due to their sensitive status, they cannot protest against their unworthy working conditions with fears of being deported back to their home country (Dargis). The film confirms that the auto industry is practicing what was used by the meat industries at the start of the century, which has become a common labor practice. Environmentally, this cost is becoming a burden when fertilizers and pesticides made from petroleum are used for farming.

Use of Ethos, Logos, Pathos, and Kairos in Food, Inc.

Ethos is entirely used throughout the film as most of the people they interview were excellent in their areas of specialization in terms of knowledge. It also sticks to ethos when some companies decline to be interviewed like Tyson, assuring us that they are trying to hinder us from knowing something behind the cameras. This increases the belief of the people, and more people can give their support to the documentary (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs). The journalist appearing in the film has explored the food industry and their unhealthy tricks before making ethos to be more appealing.

Logos is depicted in this film when they are continually giving facts of what happens in the food industry, serving as evidence in support of their claims. For instance, when the film was starting, someone was commenting that the food does not come from farms but industries and factories (Dargis). They then had to prove this by giving explanations of how food comes from the assemblies where people are overworked in a repetitive mode, which is unhealthy for food and workers themselves following the sorry states of the working conditions and low wages.

Pathos is also well used in this film; for instance, after watching the documentary, I am no longer interested in consuming meat for sometimes due to unfriendly images displayed when meat companies hurt animals, this brings about the dislike of making the film appeal to pathos. Pathos is also applied when that woman was crying over the death of her son, who was just a baby and died from the consumption of E-coli; we can feel her pain as humans too.

Impacts of the Film

The film was instrumental since it exposed the poor conditions of the meat industry, low quality-control, unfair competition, and health effects on people consuming these foods unsuspectedly. It, therefore, did excellent research in exposing these rotten techniques used by cartels in killing healthy people slowly. Corn subsidies became more affordable than nutritious food, which they exposed and the connections they have from the authorities so that they comfortably sell them at lower prices (Dargis). The movie was also unsatisfying firstly with the decision made by the film-makers not to bring relevant expertise. It also uses people who are knowledgeable in their fields but no particular expertise (Dargis). Food experts could have been interviewed too since the issue of food is critical and complicated; it is also ambiguous how the lady who lost her son was taking legal actions without legal training.

Finally, Food, Inc. is a useful reminder on the quality of consumption, but it does not tell us much what is new and the audience already expects the negatives. They should also have added the technological ways of manufacturing health food (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs). The film has its flaws but worth watching.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the government is covering the cartels in intoxicating the shoppers, which later affects them environmentally, socially, and health-wise. Ethos, pathos, and logos are well displayed in the film in different instances. The film also demonstrated what is practiced in the meat and corn industries and what ordinary people are supposed to know. The film is worth watching and encouraging people to buy natural food directly from the farm since it was safer than processed.

Works Cited

Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. Ethics on Film: Discussion of "Food, Inc." Carnegie Council, 2016. <https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_onfilm/0019>

Dargis, Manohla. Meet Your New Farmer: Hungry Corporate Giant. The New York Times Company, 2009. <https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12food.html>