In class, we watched the documentary Food Inc. These are my thoughts on three discussion questions.
1. What do you think about Oprah being sued for saying she wasn't sure if she wanted to continue eating hamburgers, as described in the film? What do you think about a law that prevents you from saying something negative about a particular food item?
I think this is a blatant violation of first amendment rights. It's amazing to me that the beef industry has so much political weight that it can squelch free speech. Libel laws once protected newspapers. In the case of The New York Times vs. Sullivan, courts ruled that proof of actual malice must be shown for defamed public figures to collect damages. Even though what the Times printed wasn't entirely true, the courts decided that Sullivan did not receive the same protection as private citizens. This precedent allowed newspapers to be the critical watchdogs necessary in our democracy. Now, it seems like companies are receiving the same protections as private citizens. ("Corporations are people") I think that of all industries, the food industry should be held to the highest standards. Besides, Oprah was describing her feelings, an opinion. There was no call to action. I don't care how many people watch Oprah, how was this even a case?
2. There is plenty of research showing that healthful food makes people feel better, have more energy, and stay well. Do you think if more people knew about this research, they would make different food choices? Why or why not?
Research about the harmful affects of cigarettes has been widely available for over 50 years. Still, millions smoke. While hot dogs and soda might not be as addictive as cigarettes, they are certainly cheaper. I think that by and large, people go for the better deal and are fooled by advertising daily. I used to work at Target, and we put up "As Advertised" signs that showed a price no lower than the regular price; still, people stocked up. Yes, down the road, they will pay for poor choices with medical pills, prescription costs, and even earlier death. But the majority of people seem pretty impulsive and short-sighted. Additionally, at least two generations of cultural tradition may be hard to disrupt with a collection of academic research. After all, what is the Fourth of July with out a hamburger off the grill, right?
3. In the film, author Michael Pollan says, "We've skewed our food system to the bad calories, and it's not an accident." What does he mean by this?
Corn is heavily subsidized. Corn products are in just about every processed food. Pollan discusses this more in-depth in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma. During the Great Depression, a system was established whereby the government would offer loans for farmers who kept their commodity crops off the market when prices were low. Since people always have to eat, fluctuating prices do not affect demand as in other industries. Supply is also different; unpredictable weather events affect crop yields from year to year. For these reasons, he argues that the free market system will never work in agriculture. However, during the Nixon administration, new regulations allowed the government to purchase commodity crops outright and pay farmers the difference between the market price and a "target price." This system only encourages farmers to grow more corn, and sell it at any price, flooding the market and driving down prices. It's no wonder that foods of marginal nutritional value have been developed to utilize as many corn ingredients as possible.
1. What do you think about Oprah being sued for saying she wasn't sure if she wanted to continue eating hamburgers, as described in the film? What do you think about a law that prevents you from saying something negative about a particular food item?
I think this is a blatant violation of first amendment rights. It's amazing to me that the beef industry has so much political weight that it can squelch free speech. Libel laws once protected newspapers. In the case of The New York Times vs. Sullivan, courts ruled that proof of actual malice must be shown for defamed public figures to collect damages. Even though what the Times printed wasn't entirely true, the courts decided that Sullivan did not receive the same protection as private citizens. This precedent allowed newspapers to be the critical watchdogs necessary in our democracy. Now, it seems like companies are receiving the same protections as private citizens. ("Corporations are people") I think that of all industries, the food industry should be held to the highest standards. Besides, Oprah was describing her feelings, an opinion. There was no call to action. I don't care how many people watch Oprah, how was this even a case?
2. There is plenty of research showing that healthful food makes people feel better, have more energy, and stay well. Do you think if more people knew about this research, they would make different food choices? Why or why not?
Research about the harmful affects of cigarettes has been widely available for over 50 years. Still, millions smoke. While hot dogs and soda might not be as addictive as cigarettes, they are certainly cheaper. I think that by and large, people go for the better deal and are fooled by advertising daily. I used to work at Target, and we put up "As Advertised" signs that showed a price no lower than the regular price; still, people stocked up. Yes, down the road, they will pay for poor choices with medical pills, prescription costs, and even earlier death. But the majority of people seem pretty impulsive and short-sighted. Additionally, at least two generations of cultural tradition may be hard to disrupt with a collection of academic research. After all, what is the Fourth of July with out a hamburger off the grill, right?
3. In the film, author Michael Pollan says, "We've skewed our food system to the bad calories, and it's not an accident." What does he mean by this?
Corn is heavily subsidized. Corn products are in just about every processed food. Pollan discusses this more in-depth in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma. During the Great Depression, a system was established whereby the government would offer loans for farmers who kept their commodity crops off the market when prices were low. Since people always have to eat, fluctuating prices do not affect demand as in other industries. Supply is also different; unpredictable weather events affect crop yields from year to year. For these reasons, he argues that the free market system will never work in agriculture. However, during the Nixon administration, new regulations allowed the government to purchase commodity crops outright and pay farmers the difference between the market price and a "target price." This system only encourages farmers to grow more corn, and sell it at any price, flooding the market and driving down prices. It's no wonder that foods of marginal nutritional value have been developed to utilize as many corn ingredients as possible.
RSS Feed