Food Inc. most important film I have seen in a while

[gravenewworld]

Definitely a must see. This movie was shocking. Some of the things food companies are getting away with and how they are able to write our laws is incredible. If you care about your health and what you eat, definitely see this film.

 

[junglebeast]

How does it compare to "The Future of Food" which I recently brought up a few days ago here?

Link:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=320401

I agree it is frightening to learn what is going on

 

[CRGreathouse]

Some of the things food companies are getting away with and how they are able to write our laws is incredible.

As opposed to the steel companies, the defense companies, the auto companies, the investment companies, and so forth, which don't get away with anything and have little influence on our laws?

 

[Topher925]

Is the movie any different than Fast Food Nation?

 

[Moonbear]

I don't usually bother watching "shockumentaries" because they are generally entirely biased and mostly just anti-government and anti-big business, and frequently not based in any understanding of science, just fear-mongering.

On more general issues of food and food safety, the FDA and USDA have for a long time been underfunded, and just don't have enough inspectors to go around, and this does contribute to some of the major problems we've seen of recalls due to unsanitary conditions in factories that go uncaught for too long.

And, certainly, there are a lot of foods on the grocery store shelves that are barely food. But, one shouldn't need a degree in nutrition to suspect that macaroni with fluorescent orange powdered cheese might have a lot of additives that could be avoided and that don't provide any nutrition.

 

[gravenewworld]

As opposed to the steel companies, the defense companies, the auto companies, the investment companies, and so forth, which don't get away with anything and have little influence on our laws?

Everyone does it, so it makes it OK I guess right?

I don't usually bother watching "shockumentaries" because they are generally entirely biased and mostly just anti-government and anti-big business, and frequently not based in any understanding of science, just fear-mongering.

On more general issues of food and food safety, the FDA and USDA have for a long time been underfunded, and just don't have enough inspectors to go around, and this does contribute to some of the major problems we've seen of recalls due to unsanitary conditions in factories that go uncaught for too long.

And, certainly, there are a lot of foods on the grocery store shelves that are barely food. But, one shouldn't need a degree in nutrition to suspect that macaroni with fluorescent orange powdered cheese might have a lot of additives that could be avoided and that don't provide any nutrition.

To the film's credit they gave every opportunity for the big businesses to respond against their critics. All of them refused.

This movie wasn't a ridiculous Michael Moore type documentary that tries to get in your face. Much of the story was told by farmers, who above anyone else, I would trust telling the story of how our food is made.

Some of the head honchos of the FDA and USDA were at one point either lobbyists or workers for huge food corporations. Clarence Thomas, who was one of the biggest supporters of allowing patents on genetically modified food was a lawyer for Monsanto.
And it isn't "anti-big business" either. The film spends a good portion on the positive relationship between Stonyfield dairy products and Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart also does not carry milk that comes from growth hormone treated animals because that is what consumers have been demanding.

 

[junglebeast]

As opposed to the steel companies, the defense companies, the auto companies, the investment companies, and so forth, which don't get away with anything and have little influence on our laws?

I think there's a big difference because we don't EAT steel products, guns, or automobiles. If the industry crashes, it doesn't matter that much to the rest of the world. In contrast, if agriculture becomes unsustainable or infiltrated with toxins, that could kill millions of people. It does not sit well with me to learn that we are being fed food products that have potentially dangerous additives that haven't been tested by unbiased parties.

 

[fleem]

...and pharmaceutical companies, of course.

Just follow the money. It moves from the companies, to the lobbyists, to campaign buckets. Nowadays they don't even TRY to keep it under the table. At least the lobbyists know enough to stay away from Ron Paul and a few others.

 

[JaredJames]

I think there's a big difference because we don't EAT steel products, guns, or automobiles. If the industry crashes, it doesn't matter that much to the rest of the world. In contrast, if agriculture becomes unsustainable or infiltrated with toxins, that could kill millions of people. It does not sit well with me to learn that we are being fed food products that have potentially dangerous additives that haven't been tested by unbiased parties.

No, given that steel is used to make critical structures (buildings, bridges etc.) I'd say the regulations should be just as strict. If the steel industry crashes, yes it does matter. Nothing gets built, no new buildings, no new ships, no new bridges, millions out of work etc.
Guns, not exactly sure of your point here, they are DESIGNED TO KILL, personnally, I'll take my chances with eating luminous macoroni as opposed to using my lungs to stop a bullet.
Automobiles, well that industry has crashed and it has had a major effect on the world. Thousands out of jobs.

Poor examples there junglebeast. Whether or not we eat it makes no difference to how dangerous it is.

 

[junglebeast]

No, given that steel is used to make critical structures (buildings, bridges etc.) I'd say the regulations should be just as strict. If the steel industry crashes, yes it does matter. Nothing gets built, no new buildings, no new ships, no new bridges, millions out of work etc.
Guns, not exactly sure of your point here, they are DESIGNED TO KILL, personnally, I'll take my chances with eating luminous macoroni as opposed to using my lungs to stop a bullet.
Automobiles, well that industry has crashed and it has had a major effect on the world. Thousands out of jobs.

Poor examples there junglebeast. Whether or not we eat it makes no difference to how dangerous it is.

If a building collapses with a lot of people inside it, that's a problem...but if you're worried about it, you can avoid living in a high rise.

The manufacturing quality of a bullet is really of no consequence to you at all and has nothing to do with you being shot in the throat.

The automobile industry crashing is not a big deal. So a few thousand people lose their jobs...ok, I don't care. They survived. And some stock holders lost some money, but nobody forced them to invest so it was their risk.

With food, it is different. You can try to choose healthy foods, but when genetically mutated foods are not labeled, there's no way for the consumer to make that choice. If you develop cancer at the age of 35 because of the toxic foods you ate in your 20's, that you didn't even know you were eating, you're screwed. If you have a baby and it gets sick and dies due to the food you bought at the grocery store, that sucks.

This point is kind of hit home in another movie, Bitter Harvest, which is based on a true story of a farmer who's cows start dying. The government does not investigate, but the farmer does, and ends up discovering that a toxic chemical was released into the feed supply. This chemical binds to fat meaning it gets transferred into the cows milk and any organism that consumes it. As a result the farmer's baby, who drinks the breast milk from his wife who drank the cows milk, starts developing rashes and getting sick. People start losing their hair. Scientists analyze it, and find that it causes enumerable serious issues like hair loss, cancer, stroke, death, etc. The government refuses to accept this, doesn't notify people that they are being poisoned, and the milk continues being sold. Eventually the farmer makes a martyr of himself by publicly slaughtering all of his cows and a year or so later, the government finally admits. By that time, it was estimated that 3.5 million people have been poisoned. This really happened.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm thinking that this thread probably exceeds forum guidelines.

 

[JaredJames]

If a building collapses with a lot of people inside it, that's a problem...but if you're worried about it, you can avoid living in a high rise.[/i]

Of course it's a problem. People spent enough time debating whether the trade centres should still be standing. But what about working? And driving over/under bridges? Avoiding rail travel? Air travel? NOT REALISTIC. Our modern lives depend on them so to say you can imply avoid them is BS.

The manufacturing quality of a bullet is really of no consequence to you at all and has nothing to do with you being shot in the throat.[/i]

Yeah it does, a badly made bullet could explode in the breach and cause a serious injury to the shooter (think cop/soldier not terrorist). A poorly made bullet may have a bad flight path and as such be subject to poor accuracy endangering others aside from who it was shot at. A badly mad bullet, to a serious enough degree could act as a hollow point. A simple shot to the leg to put someone down could end up as a major leg trauma (not that a bullet wound is minor in any case).

The automobile industry crashing is not a big deal. So a few thousand people lose their jobs...ok, I don't care. They survived. And some stock holders lost some money, but nobody forced them to invest so it was their risk.[/i]

Bet you wouldn't think like that if you were one of those people, if your family now didn't have an income. That is a poor attitude.

With food, it is different. You can try to choose healthy foods, but when genetically mutated foods are not labeled, there's no way for the consumer to make that choice. If you develop cancer at the age of 35 because of the toxic foods you ate in your 20's, that you didn't even know you were eating, you're screwed. If you have a baby and it gets sick and dies due to the food you bought at the grocery store, that sucks.[/i]

Well in which case grow your own. No more problems.

 

[gravenewworld]

I'm thinking that this thread probably exceeds forum guidelines.

I what regards? Is this opinion or fact?


I'm thinking one should probably see this film before actually posting in this thread to be objective as possible. That's my 2 cents.

 

[russ_watters]

Everyone does it, so it makes it OK I guess right?

No, it just makes it uninteresting.

To the film's credit they gave every opportunity for the big businesses to respond against their critics. All of them refused.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean - yah, of course they refused! Why wouldn't they? It's a trap!

 

[gravenewworld]

No, it just makes it uninteresting. ?

Then don't see it if you automatically are assuming you won't find it interesting (I guarantee you will find some points interesting though).

I'm not sure what that is supposed to say - yah, of course they refused! Why wouldn't they?

An unflattering portrait of a company? No response? You would have thought they would have at least tried somewhat to clean up their public image.

 

[JaredJames]

An unflattering portrait of a company? No response? You would have thought they would have at least tried somewhat to clean up their public image.

If they responded to every claim made against them, they would have no time to do anything else. This isn't their 'public image' it is simply how a few people view them and felt the need to make a film about. Look at NASA and the moon hoax, they just gave up and decided not to refute the claims as they didn't want to waste the money doing it when they are so absurd and have been disproven before.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm thinking one should probably see this film before actually posting in this thread to be objective as possible. That's my 2 cents.

If one wishes to promote discussion about a topic they might oblige themselves to make talking points rather than saying everyone should spend an hour and a half of their time watching a movie instead. Certainly recommend the movie but building your own argument based on what you learned would be preferable.

I watched half of that other movie The Future of Food and decided it was a waste of my time.

My 2¢.

 

[russ_watters]

An unflattering portrait of a company? No response? You would have thought they would have at least tried somewhat to clean up their public image.

Not on a forum controlled by the maker of the shockumentary. Since showing their response in an even-handed way would go against the purpose of the shockumentary, they can reasonably assume that they stand to gain nothing and stand to lose a lot by responding directly. That's how propaganda works!

Note that some did respond with their own statements and websites. Forums/messages they control.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm thinking one should probably see this film before actually posting in this thread to be objective as possible. That's my 2 cents.

Then don't see it if you automatically are assuming you won't find it interesting (I guarantee you will find some points interesting though).

What is the point of this thread? You started it, saying the film is "important". I would think that the point should therefore be to tell us why it is important and why we should see it too.

 

[gravenewworld]

Not on a forum controlled by the maker of the shockumentary. Since showing their response in an even-handed way would go against the purpose of the shockumentary, they can reasonably assume that they stand to gain nothing and stand to lose a lot by responding directly. That's how propaganda works!

Note that some did respond with their own statements and websites. Forums/messages they control.

That's a cop out IMO. It's like all the corporations that refuse to comment on investigative stories on programs like 60 minutes. True, it makes much more sense for them to comment/reply via channels they control. The Monsanto response to Food, Inc. on their website is quite laughable. Their intimidation tactics have been well documented and have been reported by other media sources. CA legislature had to actually pass a bill in order to protect farmers from Monsanto harassment.

What is the point of this thread? You started it, saying the film is "important". I would think that the point should therefore be to tell us why it is important and why we should see it too.

Well, I was going to tell people why it was important, that is until the thread got completely bombarded by people who haven't even seen the movie and automatically assumed it would be a waste of their time. It's extremely hard to try to sell something to people who already have a preconceived notion that they will be disappointed.

Why do I think it is important? Because it sheds light on the real costs of cheap food. People don't care where their food comes from, they just want food available at low cost. Do they care that 70% of all antibiotics used in the US are for cattle and years feeding antibiotics have led to problems with bacteria resistance? Do they care that the E. Coli strain that infects and kills thousands of people per year most likely evolved simply because of the way cows are fed? Cows evolved to eat grass, not corn (which most cows are fed today in large part because of government subsidies to vastly overproduce corn). Why does our nation have such a problem with obesity? I mean a steak from a corn fed cow contains roughly 9 grams of saturated fat. Compare that to a steak that comes from a grass fed cow which only contains 1.5 grams of saturated fat. Personal responsibility definitely plays a role in our obesity epidemic, but how much of a role does the quality of our food supply play? 80% of all beef comes from 4 producers and comes from massive feedlots of corn fed cattle. How many options does the consumer really have then if they want to eat healthily if pretty much most of the meat on the market comes from the same sources and is raised using conditions that will produce products with high saturated fat content? Is the way we make our food even sustainable? 1 cattle feedlot produces as much waste as a city of 1.4 million people. Is the federal government really doing enough to protect the consumer against food contamination when you have/had Justice Clarence Thomas, the head of the FDA, and the Chief of Staff of the USDA all former workers or lobbyists for huge food companies like Monsanto? People don't realize the power that these food companies have. Google food or veggie libel laws. It's ridiculous. Oprah spent millions of dollars and years of her time defending herself against lawsuits that used food libel laws. Should the consumer have the right to speak their voice negatively about an agricultural product? Industry doesn't think so. Clearly there is an attempt by industry to hide at least some facts from the consumer about how their food is made and where it comes from. A consumer SHOULD have the right to know if their food is genetically modified in any way. A consumer SHOULD have the right to know if the milk they are drinking comes from cows that are given growth hormone. Industry has fought hard and lobbied against being required by law for such labeling on food products. Why is this movie important? Because it is pro-consumer. It fights for the rights of consumers and the right to knowledge. An informed consumer is a powerful consumer.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's a cop out IMO.

People selling their own perspective on an issue often have a tendency to quote people out of context and edit their interviews to align as much as possible with their own agenda. You will likely find complaints of this sort of tactic being used in just about every documentary like this. Not giving someone who thinks you are a terrible person who is destroying the world the opportunity to make you look like a fool and an idiot is only common sense, its no cop out.

Well, I was going to tell people why it was important, that is until the thread got completely bombarded by people who haven't even seen the movie and automatically assumed it would be a waste of their time.

The vast majority of movies like this are rather light on actual information and most of what is presented is out of context so that even if it is faithfully presented you may not understand quite what the information points to. These movies are targeted towards the common person who has little interest in real science, politics, or economics and has a short attention span. So they tend to be full of rhetoric and bias. Even the few documentaries like this that I have somewhat enjoyed I was still disappointed in and was left feeling like I didn't really know much more than I had before.

Why do I think it is important?...

These are the things that you ought have brought up in your first post. Perhaps a bit more organized though.

Cows have a rather complex digestive system that allows them to eat and live off of all sorts of vegitation. I see no reason why corn should be a problem. Kobe apparently feed their cows beer even.

I don't have much time right at this moment so I may come back to this later.

 

[gravenewworld]

People selling their own perspective on an issue often have a tendency to quote people out of context and edit their interviews to align as much as possible with their own agenda. You will likely find complaints of this sort of tactic being used in just about every documentary like this. Not giving someone who thinks you are a terrible person who is destroying the world the opportunity to make you look like a fool and an idiot is only common sense, its no cop out.

I'm probaby sure this is the same thing the meat packers said about Upton Sinclair's work. Investigative journalism is important. It's up to the view/reader to decide if the work has value. IMO this film is important.

The vast majority of movies like this are rather light on actual information and most of what is presented is out of context so that even if it is faithfully presented you may not understand quite what the information points to. These movies are targeted towards the common person who has little interest in real science, politics, or economics and has a short attention span. So they tend to be full of rhetoric and bias. Even the few documentaries like this that I have somewhat enjoyed I was still disappointed in and was left feeling like I didn't really know much more than I had before.

You don't have to take my word for it, but I'm not the only one who liked it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/food_inc/


96% on RT is pretty good...

 

[JaredJames]

I'm probaby sure this is the same thing the meat packers said about Upton Sinclair's work. Investigative journalism is important. It's up to the view/reader to decide if the work has value. IMO this film is important.

Investigative journalism is important. But, if someone sets out with a particular agenda (taking down food companies) then that will be their aim and they will have a bias towards it regardless of what facts they find. So they will also be prone to altering things and misquoting to suit their cause. Note, I AM NOT discrediting this movie as I haven't seen all of it (got bored half way in), I am just pointing out a fact about investigative journalism.

You don't have to take my word for it, but I'm not the only one who liked it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/food_inc/


96% on RT is pretty good...

Or it could just mean the only people who voted are those who liked it. And those who didn't couldn't be bothered to give the time. I rarely vote when disappointed.

 

[gravenewworld]

Investigative journalism is important. But, if someone sets out with a particular agenda (taking down food companies) then that will be their aim and they will have a bias towards it regardless of what facts they find. So they will also be prone to altering things and misquoting to suit their cause. Note, I AM NOT discrediting this movie as I haven't seen all of it (got bored half way in), I am just pointing out a fact about investigative journalism.

What investigative journalist doesn't have an agenda?

Or it could just mean the only people who voted are those who liked it. And those who didn't couldn't be bothered to give the time. I rarely vote when disappointed.

That's not how RT works. It is a collection of movie reviews from critics from almost every source imaginable. It isn't like IMDB. Users can vote on it, but that isn't the main score that is shown. The main score comes from the critics.

 

[JaredJames]

What investigative journalist doesn't have an agenda?

None, but some people are willing to go further than others, to much more extremes, to get their point across. Even if it means bedning facts to suit their cause.

That's not how RT works. It is a collection of movie reviews from critics from almost every source imaginable. It isn't like IMDB. Users can vote on it, but that isn't the main score that is shown. The main score comes from the critics.

Again, what if the critics are for the cause or (seeing as all they do is 'judge' films, and 9/10 times I will disagree with their review) they are simply in the bunch that are easily swayed? It all comes down to bias. A review means nothing to me, from critic or simply viewer. Some movies are hyped up and all the critics claim it to be the best thing since sliced bread, yet I watch it and find it a complete disappointment. You have to make your own mind up.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a cop out IMO.

It isn't a cop out because:

It's like all the corporations that refuse to comment on investigative stories on programs like 60 minutes.

Investigative journalism is important.

This, I think, is the principle problem with such documentaries that makes people think they are more important than they really are. Documentaries are *NOT* journalism, they are movies. And independent ones at that. 60 Minutes is a news magazine, associated with a real news organization. It has fact checkers to make sure the stories they run are truthful, editors to look out for the reputation of the organization by not reporting garbage, and most importantly, a journalistic code of ethics that they typically make an effort to follow.

An independent documentary, on the other hand, is entirely the brain child of one person (actually, in this case, two), who may or may not care at all about such things as journalistic ethics, fairness, and accuracy. And unlike a 60 minutes reporter who does a different story every week, that s/he probably didn't even pick himself (and so has no personal interest in the story), a documentary filmmaker often spends years on a topic they are passionate about, a sure-fire recipie for bias, even if he intends to be fair.

It is a huge mistake to approach a documentary like this believing you are just watching an extended episode of 60 Minutes.

I watched a clip from it (perhaps a trailer, perhaps the intro) on Youtube and was quite undewhealmed by the mixture of shock tactics (wait, the Perdue company really kills chickens??) and anti-corporate propaganda. It has the feel of a generic hippie rant*, not a 60 Minutes piece. The commenters on YouTube knew the score, though: every one on the first two pages had a favorable opinion of it, but even they understood that the only people who bother with such things are those who are already passionate advocates of the cause(s) the filmmaker is promoting.

*And your mega paragraph follows the mold, mixing large helpings of anti-corporatism, animal rights activism, anti-governmentism, extremist environmentalism, and Americans-are-fat -ism with its points about food quality. But even if those food quality points are legitimate (and maybe only 20% of the points in that paragraph were on that point - all the rest were unrelated rants), all of the other ranting just turns people who aren't already advocates off to the topic.

 

[JaredJames]

I made the 'Investigative Journalism is Important comment.

And yes, it is. There are a lot of things that wouldn't have come to light without it. Look at the current expenses scandal in the UK. As I went on to say, it is the programmes such as the one used here that have an agenda extremely biased to what they are trying to portray, so-much-so that they will use anything that supports their agenda. I was trying to distinguish between proper shows (60 minutes) and properganda videos, I believe I was unsuccessful at it.

 

[russ_watters]

I made the 'Investigative Journalism is Important comment.

Oops - fixed citation.

I was trying to distinguish between proper shows (60 minutes) and properganda videos, I believe I was unsuccessful at it.

No, sorry, I just scrolled too fast looking for the quote, not remembering who it came from. Gravenewworld made the first reference to 60 Minutes and said "investigative stories", you just used the more proper term "investigative journalism". Your point was fine.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Um guys...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2247725&postcount=22
It was Gravenewworld that made that comment.

 

[gravenewworld]

It isn't a cop out because:
This, I think, is the principle problem with such documentaries that makes people think they are more important than they really are. Documentaries are *NOT* journalism, they are movies. And independent ones at that. 60 Minutes is a news magazine, associated with a real news organization. It has fact checkers to make sure the stories they run are truthful, editors to look out for the reputation of the organization by not reporting garbage, and most importantly, a journalistic code of ethics that they typically make an effort to follow.

An independent documentary, on the other hand, is entirely the brain child of one person (actually, in this case, two), who may or may not care at all about such things as journalistic ethics, fairness, and accuracy. And unlike a 60 minutes reporter who does a different story every week, that s/he probably didn't even pick himself (and so has no personal interest in the story), a documentary filmmaker often spends years on a topic they are passionate about, a sure-fire recipie for bias, even if he intends to be fair.

It is a huge mistake to approach a documentary like this believing you are just watching an extended episode of 60 Minutes.

.

Documentaries not journalism? Since when? Since when do documentary filmmakers like to make things up? It is illegal to muckrake someone with claims that aren't true. People who film documentaries are certainly journalists who use a different form of media than newspapers or magazines. Journalism schools have programs for documentary students:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/prospectivestudents/coursesofstudy/broadcast/
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/program/documentary/ Do names like Upton Sinclair, Ralph Nader, or Jeremy Scahill ring a bell? Their works were "the brain child of one person only" with no news organization to "fact check" yet are the reason why the FDA, mandatory seat belts in cars, and knowledge of Black Water exist today. So were their works biased too? Independent investigative journalism is VERY important. BTW, Food Inc. is based off of the works Fast Food Nation and the Omnivore's Dilemma, which were both written by authors who contribute/edit for Rolling Stone, Harper's, and New York Times. Elements of Fast Food nation first appeared in Rolling Stone. It is a HUGE mistake to automatically dismiss the work of an independent investigator such as a documentary journalist because you assume they have a bias that invalidates their work. History has already shown independent investigation is important.

I watched a clip from it (perhaps a trailer, perhaps the intro) on Youtube and was quite undewhealmed by the mixture of shock tactics (wait, the Perdue company really kills chickens??) and anti-corporate propaganda. It has the feel of a generic hippie rant*, not a 60 Minutes piece. The commenters on YouTube knew the score, though: every one on the first two pages had a favorable opinion of it, but even they understood that the only people who bother with such things are those who are already passionate advocates of the cause(s) the filmmaker is promoting.

The trailer does it a disservice. The movie doesn't try to shock the viewer through 'secret videos of slaughterhouses' or 'shocking videos of animals being beheaded'. Food Inc. does NOT go the PETA route.

*And your mega paragraph follows the mold, mixing large helpings of anti-corporatism, animal rights activism, anti-governmentism, extremist environmentalism, and Americans-are-fat -ism with its points about food quality. But even if those food quality points are legitimate (and maybe only 20% of the points in that paragraph were on that point - all the rest were unrelated rants), all of the other ranting just turns people who aren't already advocates off to the topic.

Anti this, anti that, yet you forgot the single most important thing I was trying to get across. The film is PRO-CONSUMER. I don't know how anyone could argue against having more rights for the consumer. Big business already has massive amounts of money at their disposal to get their story across through things like press releases, Businessweek, the Wall Street Journal, and advertising. Small documentaries like this tell the other side of the story, the story of the farmer.

 

[Cyrus]

It isn't a cop out because:
This, I think, is the principle problem with such documentaries that makes people think they are more important than they really are. Documentaries are *NOT* journalism, they are movies. And independent ones at that. 60 Minutes is a news magazine, associated with a real news organization. It has fact checkers to make sure the stories they run are truthful, editors to look out for the reputation of the organization by not reporting garbage, and most importantly, a journalistic code of ethics that they typically make an effort to follow.

An independent documentary, on the other hand, is entirely the brain child of one person (actually, in this case, two), who may or may not care at all about such things as journalistic ethics, fairness, and accuracy. And unlike a 60 minutes reporter who does a different story every week, that s/he probably didn't even pick himself (and so has no personal interest in the story), a documentary filmmaker often spends years on a topic they are passionate about, a sure-fire recipie for bias, even if he intends to be fair.

It is a huge mistake to approach a documentary like this believing you are just watching an extended episode of 60 Minutes.

I watched a clip from it (perhaps a trailer, perhaps the intro) on Youtube and was quite undewhealmed by the mixture of shock tactics (wait, the Perdue company really kills chickens??) and anti-corporate propaganda. It has the feel of a generic hippie rant*, not a 60 Minutes piece. The commenters on YouTube knew the score, though: every one on the first two pages had a favorable opinion of it, but even they understood that the only people who bother with such things are those who are already passionate advocates of the cause(s) the filmmaker is promoting.

*And your mega paragraph follows the mold, mixing large helpings of anti-corporatism, animal rights activism, anti-governmentism, extremist environmentalism, and Americans-are-fat -ism with its points about food quality. But even if those food quality points are legitimate (and maybe only 20% of the points in that paragraph were on that point - all the rest were unrelated rants), all of the other ranting just turns people who aren't already advocates off to the topic.

Actually, Americans are fat. I was at a talk by a lady from the CDC who said just that. She even had a chart showing obesity rates over the last ten years.

 

[JaredJames]

Um guys...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2247725&postcount=22
It was Gravenewworld that made that comment.

Right, when I said 'I made that comment...' I didn't mean you had made a mistake and I wanted it corrected. I simply meant, "I said this and this is why", I gave a reason why I said it as I thought you didn't realize the full point of my post, which was in response to gravenewworlds post where he states it.

In response to gravennewworlds post, how can a viewer decide if the material is worth anything? If the video looks factual and professional, appears to be done with a 'fair' viewpoint, the less informed viewer will take it as fact or may even be coerced into believing it as so. These 'documentaries' are not always regulated for accuracy and if the viewer doesn't realize this they are likely to believe whatever is said in it.

We don't just dismiss the work, but pieces which are strongly 'anti' or 'pro' something are generally extremely biased in what they show and without good representation from the people they are attacking it is dificult to form an unbiased view based solely on the evidence in the video.

 

[gravenewworld]

In response to gravennewworlds post, how can a viewer decide if the material is worth anything? If the video looks factual and professional, appears to be done with a 'fair' viewpoint, the less informed viewer will take it as fact or may even be coerced into believing it as so. These 'documentaries' are not always regulated for accuracy and if the viewer doesn't realize this they are likely to believe whatever is said in it.

Once again, it is illegal to make claims against an organization such as a business or a person that aren't true. You can't make a film making wild accusations that aren't true and wide release it to the public.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel

And did you completely ignore the whole bit where I pointed out which novels this film was based upon, the people who wrote them, and the magazine the information appeared in?

I mean an Emmy award winning director, who also contributes to The Atlantic Monthly , clearly knows nothing about film making or investigative journalism right?

Tell me exactly how a film maker is supposed to make a two sided story if the other side completely refuses to participate? In fact, the film comes off as much more balanced when you go to the websites of the responses of the companies who are criticized in the film. Food companies so far have also neglected to address the issue of using illegal immigrant workers, which was a major part in the film, in their responses.

Tell me how an uniformed consumer is supposed to separate fact from fiction from a piece of propaganda like this:

http://www.monsanto.com/foodinc/

How can a viewer decide if a documentary is worth anything? Objectivity. The film at least tries to achieve objectivity---which proved to be an impossible task given the fact that one side refused to participate. Here's an idea. If you think the film is so biased, why don't you actually sit through the whole thing and then point out which claims the film makes aren't true or have been distorted instead of making more assumptions?

We don't just dismiss the work, but pieces which are strongly 'anti' or 'pro' something are generally extremely biased in what they show and without good representation from the people they are attacking it is dificult to form an unbiased view based solely on the evidence in the video.

I'm sure these works came off as strongly 'anti' or 'pro' something too:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0743487621/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1561290505/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Are their works to be dismissed?So just because they use a different form of media besides film somehow makes their work better or more reliable?

 

[Averagesupernova]

Wal-Mart also does not carry milk that comes from growth hormone treated animals because that is what consumers have been demanding.

Are you telling me that ALL Wal-Marts in the US do not carry milk that comes from hormone treated animals? I'm pretty sure that Wal-Mart at least in parts of IL uses the same milk everyone else uses. I have a brother-in-law that is a manager at a milk processing plant and Wal-Mart is a significant customer of theirs. I'll see what he says, but I think I already know.

 

[gravenewworld]

Are you telling me that ALL Wal-Marts in the US do not carry milk that comes from hormone treated animals? I'm pretty sure that Wal-Mart at least in parts of IL uses the same milk everyone else uses. I have a brother-in-law that is a manager at a milk processing plant and Wal-Mart is a significant customer of theirs. I'll see what he says, but I think I already know.

You're right I should clarify. Wal-mart's private brand of milk, Great Value, will be hormone free.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/03/21/afx4802050.html

Sam's Club only offers milk from suppliers who are hormone-free. In fact, Kroger grocery stores as well as Costco also carry milk that contains no rBST.