What If Food Inc. Takes Home An Oscar?
03/02/2010 02:02PM
CattleNetwork.com
You may not care much about the Academy Awards, but this Sunday (Mar. 7) may be worth a bit of your time; at least pay attention to the “Best Documentary “ category.
Nominated for an Oscar is Food Inc.-- The film that “lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies USDA and FDA.” That’s a promotional line from the film that appeared in theaters for most of last summer.
While you’re not fooled by Food Inc. carrying the label “documentary”, most of the viewing public takes it more literally. The common logic is-- in order for a film to be set apart as a documentary, it has to be truthful—Food Inc. is a documentary, therefore Food Inc. must be truthful.
Between the theater release and DVDs, millions of people have already seen this movie. Too often they walk away believing American farmers are greedy, reckless with food safety and the environment and are forcing unhealthy products upon the public—and U.S. regulators are supporting all of it.
The film is filled with mistruths and misrepresentations. “Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, and the safety of workers and our environment.” Organic is the only sure choice, is one of the messages drilled home. Another tells consumers that they are the only hope to drive change, because the regulators and corporations are in control and don’t care. Read More
It’s troubling that we have so many high-profile people in the many different types of media that are more concerned about personal wealth through activism rather than journalism. Real journalists provide all of the information and allow people to form their own opinions. Wealthy activists like Pollan provide only what he wants his audience to know about and then tells them what to do with it. If Food Inc wins an award this weekend, we will need to view this as an opportunity and motivation to do a better job of sharing the real story of production agriculture.
Showing posts with label Robert Kenner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Kenner. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Kenner Comments on Food Inc
The Food Industry Helped Me Make 'Food, Inc.'
By Robert Kenner
Published: January 17, 2010
"Food, Inc." became a different film than the one I intended to make.
I thought it would be fascinating to look at how our food gets to the table -- from different points of view. On the one hand, we spend less on food today than at any other time in history. We can eat what we want, when we want it, regardless of seasons. On the other hand, this food has hidden costs that we’re all going to pay for down the line.
Industrial food production pollutes the water, robs nutrients from the soil, exploits the workers who grow and process the food, exploits the animals, and ultimately, it makes people sick. Seemed like fertile ground for a film.
As I started filming, I was not prepared for the stonewalling I’d get from the food industry. I wanted them to argue the benefits of the industrial system. I wanted to understand their point of view, but for the most part, the industry said no. In doing so, the film started to move in a different direction.
I became intrigued by why the industry would not speak to me about something as seemingly innocuous as food. What I discovered is that a handful of companies essentially control the food supply. They exert tremendous power over what we eat and how much – or how little -- we know about it.
I was stunned by the lack of transparency, the intimidation of critics, the influence over government. It felt like we were onto something bigger than food.
But would anyone care?
Apparently, yes. "Food, Inc." hit at just the right moment when people were interested and ready to listen. It benefitted from the groundbreaking work of authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, and from food activists who have worked for years to raise awareness. And the press took great interest in the film, which helped spread the word. Read More
When I was in Seattle last week, our group visited the Space Needle. While waiting to catch a ride on the elevator to the bottom, a conversation started with a young couple that lived in Seattle. They had seen the movie Food Inc. and when they found out we were all farmers and ranchers, they started asking questions. The biggest issue they were concerned with was why we were being forced to plant Monsanto seed. I’m sure we all gave them a funny look when they asked it. After asking why they thought that, they said that’s what they had learned from watching Food Inc. At the end of the conversation, they realized they’d been duped by this movie.
I think it’s almost comical to read Kenner’s version on how this movie started out so innocent. Do you really think a Hollywood movie, trying to disguise itself as a documentary, is going to do anything other than try to scare people? In order for these types of movies to stand a chance of making money they have to sensationalize and paint an unrealistic picture in the minds of the viewers.
Kenner might think we are fighting against him, but actually we are just fighting for the truth to be told about agriculture. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be something him or Michael Pollan are very worried about. If you want an great example of where the bottom line is the most important thing, don’t look at farmers and ranchers, just look at these two characters. Pollan won’t go speak unless he gets his $40,000-$50,000 fee. Just imagine what would happen if farmers didn’t plant a crop unless they were guaranteed daily salaries like this.
By Robert Kenner
Published: January 17, 2010
"Food, Inc." became a different film than the one I intended to make.
I thought it would be fascinating to look at how our food gets to the table -- from different points of view. On the one hand, we spend less on food today than at any other time in history. We can eat what we want, when we want it, regardless of seasons. On the other hand, this food has hidden costs that we’re all going to pay for down the line.
Industrial food production pollutes the water, robs nutrients from the soil, exploits the workers who grow and process the food, exploits the animals, and ultimately, it makes people sick. Seemed like fertile ground for a film.
As I started filming, I was not prepared for the stonewalling I’d get from the food industry. I wanted them to argue the benefits of the industrial system. I wanted to understand their point of view, but for the most part, the industry said no. In doing so, the film started to move in a different direction.
I became intrigued by why the industry would not speak to me about something as seemingly innocuous as food. What I discovered is that a handful of companies essentially control the food supply. They exert tremendous power over what we eat and how much – or how little -- we know about it.
I was stunned by the lack of transparency, the intimidation of critics, the influence over government. It felt like we were onto something bigger than food.
But would anyone care?
Apparently, yes. "Food, Inc." hit at just the right moment when people were interested and ready to listen. It benefitted from the groundbreaking work of authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, and from food activists who have worked for years to raise awareness. And the press took great interest in the film, which helped spread the word. Read More
When I was in Seattle last week, our group visited the Space Needle. While waiting to catch a ride on the elevator to the bottom, a conversation started with a young couple that lived in Seattle. They had seen the movie Food Inc. and when they found out we were all farmers and ranchers, they started asking questions. The biggest issue they were concerned with was why we were being forced to plant Monsanto seed. I’m sure we all gave them a funny look when they asked it. After asking why they thought that, they said that’s what they had learned from watching Food Inc. At the end of the conversation, they realized they’d been duped by this movie.
I think it’s almost comical to read Kenner’s version on how this movie started out so innocent. Do you really think a Hollywood movie, trying to disguise itself as a documentary, is going to do anything other than try to scare people? In order for these types of movies to stand a chance of making money they have to sensationalize and paint an unrealistic picture in the minds of the viewers.
Kenner might think we are fighting against him, but actually we are just fighting for the truth to be told about agriculture. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be something him or Michael Pollan are very worried about. If you want an great example of where the bottom line is the most important thing, don’t look at farmers and ranchers, just look at these two characters. Pollan won’t go speak unless he gets his $40,000-$50,000 fee. Just imagine what would happen if farmers didn’t plant a crop unless they were guaranteed daily salaries like this.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Bad Food Inc. Numbers??
June 20, 2009, 10:04 pm
Eating Up “Food, Inc.”
By Nicholas Kristof
My Sunday column was inspired by “Food, Inc.,” the new documentary playing in theaters nationwide. I argue that at the same time we examine our health care system, we should also take a look at our agribusiness system, which — I argue — tends to promote an unhealthy diet.
One window into journalism: A good chunk of Friday afternoon was spent chasing one elusive fact. Food, Inc. reported that the number of FDA food safety inspections had fallen from 50,000 in 1972 to 9,164 in 2006. I thought that was a telling statistic and included it in my draft, but I also asked my assistant, Natasha Yefimov, to double-check the figures with the FDA.
The FDA said the figures were wrong — both of them. The FDA acknowledged that the number of inspections had dropped, but said the 1972 figure was 10,610, while the fiscal year 2006 figure was 7,498 domestically and 125 abroad. The FDA said it had no idea where the other numbers could have come from. Read More
I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised by the fact that Kristof is the first to question any numbers given in the Food Inc. movie. However, maybe he’s disappointed that he wasn’t involved in this latest attack on American agriculture and family farmers. I have never made a movie, and chances are I never will. But if I did, and I was interested in having my film be as accurate as possible, I would double check any numbers being used. Apparently, the makers of this film weren’t interested in doing that. Simple things like this should make people wonder what else isn’t accurate in this movie.
Eating Up “Food, Inc.”
By Nicholas Kristof
My Sunday column was inspired by “Food, Inc.,” the new documentary playing in theaters nationwide. I argue that at the same time we examine our health care system, we should also take a look at our agribusiness system, which — I argue — tends to promote an unhealthy diet.
One window into journalism: A good chunk of Friday afternoon was spent chasing one elusive fact. Food, Inc. reported that the number of FDA food safety inspections had fallen from 50,000 in 1972 to 9,164 in 2006. I thought that was a telling statistic and included it in my draft, but I also asked my assistant, Natasha Yefimov, to double-check the figures with the FDA.
The FDA said the figures were wrong — both of them. The FDA acknowledged that the number of inspections had dropped, but said the 1972 figure was 10,610, while the fiscal year 2006 figure was 7,498 domestically and 125 abroad. The FDA said it had no idea where the other numbers could have come from. Read More
I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised by the fact that Kristof is the first to question any numbers given in the Food Inc. movie. However, maybe he’s disappointed that he wasn’t involved in this latest attack on American agriculture and family farmers. I have never made a movie, and chances are I never will. But if I did, and I was interested in having my film be as accurate as possible, I would double check any numbers being used. Apparently, the makers of this film weren’t interested in doing that. Simple things like this should make people wonder what else isn’t accurate in this movie.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Twitter Chat with Food Inc. Director
Live Twitter Chat with Food Inc. Director Today!
Join us for a live twitter chat with Food, Inc. director, Robert Kenner!
It is simple to participate:
1) At 10am PST on Friday 6/19 login to twitter
2) Put #foodinc in the search bar and hit enter. You are now following the conversation.
3) Type your question in your update box and add the #foodinc tag. This way the question will stay on this thread.
We expect a large turnout so please be patient while we try to answer as many questions as possible. We appreciate your support in getting our vital message out to the public. Link
If you want to chat with the director of Food Inc., you can do so today on Twitter. Just follow the directions. It will be interesting to see what type of questions he will respond to and if he will be willing to hear any criticism of this agenda-based attack on American family farmers. it's important for agriculture to have a presence, so jump on and fire off some questions. In short, the only ag that he supports is if it looks like the American Gothic painting. If that's not you, then he assumes you are abusing your livestock and polluting the environment.
Join us for a live twitter chat with Food, Inc. director, Robert Kenner!
It is simple to participate:
1) At 10am PST on Friday 6/19 login to twitter
2) Put #foodinc in the search bar and hit enter. You are now following the conversation.
3) Type your question in your update box and add the #foodinc tag. This way the question will stay on this thread.
We expect a large turnout so please be patient while we try to answer as many questions as possible. We appreciate your support in getting our vital message out to the public. Link
If you want to chat with the director of Food Inc., you can do so today on Twitter. Just follow the directions. It will be interesting to see what type of questions he will respond to and if he will be willing to hear any criticism of this agenda-based attack on American family farmers. it's important for agriculture to have a presence, so jump on and fire off some questions. In short, the only ag that he supports is if it looks like the American Gothic painting. If that's not you, then he assumes you are abusing your livestock and polluting the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)