Food, Inc. could have delivered a reach-for-the-Maalox montage of cows mired in manure, pig carcasses whacked about on conveyor belts and immobilized chickens locked in dark crowded coops to make its point about how mass food production has become such an unhealthy affair.

The film does dish up selected grotesque shots of slabs of beef, downer cows, dead hens and grimy CAFOs. There are a few gasp-aloud moments, such as when chickens are beheaded (inexplicably, the scene is chosen from footage of a sustainable farm operation — to show humane life and death?). But that aside, the beauty of this excellent documentary lies in its restraint. Rather than beating up corporate culprits Smithfield, Cargill and others with the big stick of blood and guts, Food Inc. confidently and methodically peels back the labels on our packaged food wonderland, telling an even-handed tale of relentless corruption and greed.

We begin in la-la land — a chilly grocery aisle where cheap subsidized corn infiltrates everything from mayonnaise to pancake syrup and the eerily perfect vegetables come engineered to survive shipping. The camera flows Lynch-like over beautifully arrayed aisles teeming with seeming variety, except that its an illusion. This bonanza of pre-fab food is composed mainly of subsidized commodities — corn and soybeans — and doused in cheap sweeteners like the high fructose corn syrup. A formula for poor nutrition, and diabetes.

Food, Inc. covers a lot of turf. It shows how we got here (agriculture that once nobly tried to pump up yields turned aggressive and restaurants adopted assembly line production — shout out to Mickey Ds!); how bad it is (cows fattened and sickened on grain that build up E. coli in their guts); how big it is (32,000 hogs killed every day at the world’s largest slaughterhouse in North Carolina), how warped (chickens bred to produce more breast meat pitch forward and can’t walk) and how negligent (as the system has grown, food inspectors have declined five-fold since 1970).

Pathogens, food poisoning victims, ineffective regulators, corrupt Washington influences. It’s all here, a feast of good intentions run amok and bad intentions covered up.

The film is relentless, and fascinating, as long as you’re not planning on dinner afterward. Reviewers have called it “riveting” and “horrifying”, (though I bet after a hiatus they’re still eating hamburger). To those familiar with the issues, it won’t be horrifying so much as a call to action. (You can answer that call on the website.)

Director Robert Kenner spent six years on this film, and it shows. Food, Inc. races back and forth between the producers and the consumers, but remains coherent. We get intimate glimpses of a financially strapped family shopping for groceries only to find that the hamburger is more affordable than the broccoli. There’s a classroom where the majority of kids raise their hands when asked if they have a family member with diabetes. A chicken producer reveals how the animals fare in a typical poultry house, risking her corporate contract (which she later loses). Diana De Gette remembers her toddler son, Kevin, poisoned by a hamburger infected with the E. coli bacteria.

The narrators, journalist and co-producer Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) and author Michael Pollan, (Omnivore’s Dilemma), walk us through the complexities but don’t get in the way.

As toxicologists see it, our chemical world is neither as dangerous as portrayed by the mainstream media and environmental groups, nor as safe as the American Chemistry Council and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) would have us believe.

That’s according to a survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology in early 2009. The survey, released Thursday, was administered by Harris Interactive and conducted by the nonprofit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University.

“This survey suggests that the public doesn’t get a full and balanced picture of chemical risk,” said Dr. Robert Lichter, the survey director.

While the toxicologists surveyed believed that certain chemicals portrayed as dangerous in media stories actually pose little risk — such as those used in Teflon and the Bisphenol A used in plastic – more than half of them said they believed that pesticides pose a “significant health risk” and that chemicals cause hormonal disruptions in humans.

Distortions occur when the media pay too much attention to individual cases and also to the agenda set by environmental groups, according to the survey findings. More than 90 percent said they felt media coverage of chemical-related issues lacked balance and failed to distinguish good studies from bad studies and also to explain that “the dose makes the poison” (that chemicals that are dangerous in high doses can be safe in small doses).

They also said that WebMD and Wikipedia offered more balanced coverage than more established media outlets.

A majority of toxicologists felt that most government agencies do a better job than the media, environmental groups or trade associations of accurately portraying chemical risks, though they rated the Environmental Protection Agency (40 % ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (47%) lower.

The findings:

When asked to agree or disagree with statements about chemical safety and regulation:

• 26% believe cosmetics pose a significant health risk
• 33% believe food additives pose a significant health risk
• 55% believe pesticides pose a significant health risk
• 53% believe chemicals cause endocrine disruption
• Only 10% believe organic or “natural” products are inherently safer
• Only 6% believe that any exposure to a harmful chemical is unacceptable
• 69% say chemicals do not need to be regulated according to the precautionary principle
• Only 23% say the U.S. regulatory system is inferior to Europe’s
• 54% say U.S. regulators are not doing a good job explaining chemical risks

Despite recent controversies in the news over the safety of commonly used chemicals, few toxicologists believe they pose a high health risk:

• 3% see Teflon as having a high degree of risk
• 3% see genetically modified organisms as high risk
• 9% see Bisphenol A, a component of many plastics, as high risk
• 11% see phthalates, which make vinyl flexible, as high risk
• 12% see high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks, as high risk

The toxicologists overwhelmingly say that environmental activist groups overstate the health risks of chemicals. But they also say industry groups underplay the risks:

• 96% say Greenpeace overstates the health risks of chemicals
• 80% say the Environmental Defense Fund overstates chemical risks
• 79% say the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Center for Science in the Public Interest overstate the risks
• 57% say the American Chemistry Council understates chemical risks
• 60% say the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) understates chemical risks
• In contrast, majorities say that most U.S. governmental agencies accurately portray risk, with only the EPA (40%) and the CPSC (47%) falling below a majority

The study has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, according to Harris Interactive, a survey research firm.

Apparently conventional farming techniques aren’t too grape for vineyard keepers in the Midwest. Their tender fruit withers when it comes into contact with a commonly used herbicide, called 2, 4-D, that is spread on corn and other field crops to control broadleaf weeds.

So researchers at the University of Illinois have developed a new grape that can stand up to 2, 4-D (or R2D2 if you’re playing Star Wars).

This new improved grape – imperially named “Improved Chancellor” — does not die when confronted with 2, 4-D (the D stands for Dichlorophenoxyacetic) because it has been genetically altered with an added bacterium that breaks down the herbicide, according to an Environmental News Service release.

So happily, nearby crop farmers will be able to continue to use the weed killer, which was introduced in 1946 and is by some accounts the most common herbicide in the world. And grape farmers can co-exist nearby because they can grow a grape that’s genetically engineered to resist the chemical poison.

This development has the potential to “salvage the wine and grape industry in the Midwest,” says one of the plant biologists, Robert Skirvin, who helped develop the new uber grape.

Currently, the regular grapes just can’t survive the pesticide blow-by; it takes just 1/100th of the amount of 2, 4-D typically sprayed on corn to kill those existing Midwestern grapes, Skirvin told the ENS.

He hopes that the new grape will be test grown in about five years, but first, the researchers will need permission to grow it outside because it is genetically modified.

Of course, this whole problem has another potential solution: U.S. farmers could grow their corn and other field crops organically, without pesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that organic farming is growing, but it remains less than 1 percent of U.S. cropland according to the USDA’s up-to-the-minute 2005 numbers.

Some of the forces driving increased production of organic row crops include dairy farmers’ need to feed organic grain to their dairy cows to retain organic certification for their milk, and consumer demand for organic bread, pasta and other grain-based foods.

Consumer demand has been higher, however, for organically grown produce, where much more of the agricultural land is being devoted to organic practices, according to the USDA.

(Dichlorophenoxycetic acid, by the way, is commonly found in many lawn weed killers. Moral: Picnic before treating the grass.)

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Photo: Brenton Johnson

philosophy is to live in harmony with the land and bring back the sustainable ways. Naturally (no pun intended), he advocates buying local food.

In between tending his turnips and perusing the potatoes, Brenton penned this wise, authoritative list, which he agreed to share with us. (We couldn’t write it any better.)

This isn’t just about helping the local farmer, it’s about preserving our planet (and eatin’ better, too!).

Why Buy Local?

1. Locally grown food tastes better. Food grown in your own community is usually picked within the past day or two. It’s crisp, sweet, and loaded with flavor. Produce flown or trucked in from Florida, Chile, Mexico, or Holland is, quite understandably, much older. Several studies have shown that the average distance food travels from farm to plate is 1,500 miles. In a weeklong delay from harvest to dinner plate, sugars turn to starches, plant cells shrink, and produce loses its vitality
2. Local produce is better for you. Studies showed that fresh produce loses nutrients quickly. Locally grown food, purchased soon after harvest, retains its nutrients.
3. Local food preserves genetic diversity. In the modern industrial agricultural system, varieties are chosen for their ability to ripen simultaneously and withstand harvesting equipment; for a tough skin that can survive packing and shipping; and for an ability to have a long shelf life in the store. Only a handful of hybrid varieties of each fruit and vegetable meet those rigorous demands, so there is little genetic diversity in the plants grown. Local farms, in contrast, grow a huge number of varieties to provide a long season of harvest, an array of eye-catching colors, and the best flavors. Many varieties are heirlooms, passed down from generation to generation, because they taste good.These old varieties contain genetic material from hundreds or even thousands of years of human selection; they may someday provide the genes needed to create varieties that will thrive in a changing climate. Local food preserves genetic diversity.
4. Local food is GMO-free. Although biotechnology companies have been trying to commercialize genetically modified fruits and vegetables, they are currently licensing them only to large factory-style farms. Local farmers don’t have access to genetically modified seed, and most of them wouldn’t use it even if they could. A June 2001 survey by ABC News showed that 93% of Americans want labels on genetically modified food – most so that they can avoid it. If you are opposed to eating bio-engineered food, you can rest assured that locally grown produce was bred the old-fashioned way, as nature intended.
5. Local food supports local farm families. With fewer than 1 million Americans now listing farming as their primary occupation, farmers are a vanishing breed. Local farmers who sell direct to consumers cut out the middle man and get full retail price for their crops – which means farm families can afford to stay on the farm, doing what they love.
6. Local food builds a stronger community. When you buy direct from the farmer, you are re-establishing a time-honored connection between the eater and the grower. Knowing the farmers gives you insight into the seasons, the weather, and the miracle of raising food. In many cases, it gives you access to a farm where your children and grandchildren can go to learn about nature and agriculture. Relationships built on understanding and trust can thrive.
7. Local food preserves open space. As the value of direct-marketed fruits and vegetables increases, selling farmland for development becomes less likely. You have probably enjoyed driving out into the country and appreciated the lush fields of crops, the meadows full of wildflowers, the picturesque red barns. That landscape will survive only as long as farms are financially viable. When you buy locally grown food, you are doing something proactive about preserving the agricultural landscape.
8. Local food helps to keep your taxes in check. Farms contribute more in taxes than they require in services, whereas suburban development costs more than it generates in taxes, according to several studies.
9. Local food supports a clean environment and benefits wildlife. A well-managed family farm is a place where the resources of fertile soil and clean water are valued. Good stewards of the land grow cover crops to prevent erosion and replace nutrients used by their crops. Cover crops also capture carbon emissions and help combat global warming. According to some estimates, farmers who practice conservation tillage could sequester 12-14% of the carbon emitted by vehicles and industry. In addition, the habitat of a farm – the patchwork of fields, meadows, woods, ponds, and buildings – is the perfect environment for the many species of wildlife including owls, hawks, blue herons, bats, and rabbits, and foxes.
10. Local food is about the future. By supporting local farmers today, you can help ensure that there will be farms in your community tomorrow so that future generations will have access to nourishing, flavorful, and abundant food.