This food inc propaganda

cloptrop wrote: »

I just sat down and watched the best part of food inc before I lost interest. I know its old and it won oscars but does anyone else think its just propaganda to get you to buy organic foods to "stick it to the man" and make organic people rich. Organic labelling is big business now too .
The format was pretty much its terrible they kill all their animals in one place as oposed to all over the country, folowed by a kid died from food poisening , followed by animals being killed , followed by them trying to sue Oprah followed by an advertisement for organic food labels.

The film is about the fact that we have changed from farms producing food to industrial processes producing food-like consumer products, which are often dangerous, terrible for you or simply lacking real nutrition. It wants to highlight the fact that there are many negative consequences to this transition, and that maybe we should have stopped to think whether the changes we were making were a good idea. Animals suffers and die on a scale never seen before, small farmers are driven out of business and the population is becoming obese at a terrifying rate.

Documentaries are one-sided because they are made to convince people of something. It is also because the "other side" of the argument will often have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Even if McDonalds wanted to have a representative interviewed, do you really think you'd get anything other than polished and dishonest PR spin? Do you think they will admit that they are selling health-ruining, sugar-packed, salt-drenched, fat-filled products masquerading as food that will completely wreck your body if eaten regularly? That they are contributing to the destruction of the rainforest at a horrifying scale to make room for their cattle herds? If you got a representative of the meat industry, do you think they would honestly discuss the fact that their entire modus operandi is to extract as much profit from as many animals packed into as little land as possible while pushing the law to its absolute limits? Or that they spend fortunes every year lobbying government to reduce or remove those laws?

You hear the "other-side" of these documentaries almost every day through their advertising and PR campaigns.

cloptrop wrote: »

Im all for being nice to animals but it wasnt showing organic chickens being killed, why are all documentaries one sided .

There is literally a scene in the film specifically for the purpose of showing organic chickens killed on a small farm.

cloptrop wrote: »

Interesting you say this and not, that they are adjusting our grass to tree ratio in order to feed us the beef we want. If there was a documentary saying this , would you repeat it like you do this other "fact"?

If you found me draining the blood from a child would you phrase it as "adjusting the blood to body ratio"? You can phrase anything however you like, but the rainforest is very important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and sheltering the majority of the bio-diversity on the planet. I think destroying the rainforest so that multinational corporations can increase the already staggering scale of their intensive farming operations is a bad idea, and if you understood the pace at which the environment was being consumed by industry, I think you'd agree with me. I'm not a hippy, I'm not a vegan, hell, I'm not even a vegetarian - I just think there are some very good points raised by the film. I wouldn't dismiss it as propaganda. We, and moreso the Americans, live in a society where there are large, powerful groups of people eagerly trying to destroy irreplaceable things on this earth for the sake of short term profit, and they spend hundreds of millions every year to convince you otherwise. This is true of many industries, not just food.

cloptrop wrote: »

Its fact its not pr work . PR work is making a film about how important it is to buy expensive organic food then convincing the masses by use of celebrity endorsements among other things to pay more money for food .
Another thing that annoys me why do people listen to Gwenyth Paltrows views on food eating etiquette just because she was in a few films.

If Food Inc was funded by organic food companies then we would have more reason to be suspicious, but I think they genuinely believe in their message.

Also bear in mind that the entire thing, and everything I've said, is from a US perspective. Here in Ireland we're extraordinarily lucky that a huge amount of our food is quite naturally produced - all of our cattle are grass fed, for example, whereas US cattle are almost exclusively fed on corn, which is much worse. At lot of our food could probably be marketed as 'organic' over there, or at least have many of the beneficial traits of it. When your shelves are divided into "sugar-filled artificial crap" and "real food (aka 'organic')", the topic becomes a lot more relevant.

I suppose I was naive to think that being reasonable in After Hours wouldn't end poorly.

Food Inc. was pretty good, but it's the same companies who would end up producing the organic products if it really did achieve the majority share of the market, since they already have a monopoly over the growing and research facilities.

cloptrop wrote: »

No Id trust a corporation to make my food before Id trust some pikey farmer with 2 cows and a chicken. Just like Id trust mcdonalds food before Id trust some hot dog stand.



I dont believe anything multi nationals tell me , how many nations they operate in doesnt interest me , I listen to both sides and make my judgement, you listen to everything a documentary tells you and then side against multi nationals because they are bad for some reason that the documentary said.

LOL, but you'd trust Tesco or Walmart over the local butcher!

Check out a documentary called Forks Over Knives. You should enjoy it