Critical Review of "Food Inc."

     The movie Food, Inc. effectively accomplishes its goal of alerting the viewer of the precariousness and unsustainability of the modern food system. Whether its mono-cropping practices, loss of genetic diversity, or bacterial resistance of antibiotics, the producers of Food Inc. make it very clear that maintaining the current system of food production will ultimately lead to ruin. It is abundantly clear that change is necessary. However, the food system does not exist in a vacuum, and how that change is enacted and what tradeoffs are required are integral questions. Several political ideological questions arise in connection with implied solutions to the problems manifested in Food, Inc.

     A frequently recurring idea for reforming the American food system is to cancel or overhaul the subsidies of industries and foods that are detrimental to the health and the ecosystem. However, these systems of subsidies directly affect the bottom line of food producers, and increases in cost will often be transferred to the consumer. Are we willing to accept a significant increase in price in staple foods that have become incredibly cheap relative to income levels? Will any politician or legislative group that passes laws that result in dramatically higher prices in milk, bread, or eggs be excoriated and removed from their positions of influence? It is possible to utilize local farmers and local distribution to offer quality food at cheaper prices, but it would require a major “backward” step in the long, steady migration away from farms among American workers. Are Americans willing to return to an agricultural lifestyle?

     Gary Hirshberg argues that the only way to achieve the desired results of the organic/local/sustainable movement is to work through the current capitalist system. This leads to major food conglomerates, whose goals and motivations appear to be more closely aligned with profits than with the safety and sustainability of the American food system, owning and operating most of the organic brands. Can the ideals of the minority alternative food groups be enacted on a large scale through companies like Wal-Mart or is a rejection of these massive systems necessary?

     Tony Airoso, Chief Dairy Purchaser for Wal-Mart, argues that customer demand dictates Wal-Mart's purchasing and supply process. Can consumer choice bring about the sort of change that is needed? Albert Borgmann, in his book Crossing the Postmodern Divide, argues that consumer choice is a poor political motivator. The decisions made by consumers, from the producer's perspective, are vague. “Does the purchase of an article signal approval, thoughtlessness, or a lack of a better alternative? Does the refusal to buy show dissatisfaction with the style of the article, its safety, durability, or its very existence?” queries Borgmann. Additionally, consumers are at the mercy of marketing and availability of products when they enter a market. Consumers are not, effectively, free to choose whatever they want. They are only free to choose among the alternatives offered them by the company that they are purchasing from. With these considerations in mind, is it prudent to rely on consumer choice to enact change? Certainly over the course of time good things stem from this theory, such as the proliferation of organic products in Wal-Mart, but is it enough?

    Each of these problems is accompanied by a host of complications and ideological difficulties: Conservative vs. Liberal, Libertarian vs. Communitarian, Invisible Hand vs. Controlled Markets... Given the pressing need to address the massive and unrelenting issues in our food system, it seems we would do well to pursue as many avenues as possible that offer a glimpse of helping solve the problem. In addition to good intentions and exuberant effort, however, the situation requires serious discussion about our goals, what we are willing to change to achieve them, designing the framework of our food system, and what sort of systemic changes can be put into place to promote lasting and substantive change.