Food Inc.

Food Inc. (The Movie, approx. 1.5hrs)

Warning: A real eye-opener, but definitely not for the faint-hearted.

Essentially, this movie encapsulates what sociologists would call the "McDonaldization" of food. There is a moral price to pay for "consumer choice" and efficiency on numerous levels from basic food and health to corporate monopolization and global poverty and hunger. What people need to know is not simply where and how their food comes about, but that their demands for "choice" and "variety" have negative resonating impacts on areas as far as the other side of the globe.


The irony of consumer capitalism is that while some people in the world can choose to eat whatever they want to eat, there are others who are unable to have a decent meal, much less ponder between choices. Peaks and troughs in food prices are caused by fluctuating demands in the taste of consumers from the former group, but this has the consequence of affecting imports and exports from the latter countries. The difference of a few cents in the price of 1 kilogram of tomatoes can lead to the loss of livelihood for thousands of farmers, and if severe enough, political and social unrest that only gets 30 seconds of airtime on the 6pm news broadcast.


Although many activists (at least those deemed to be in the right-state of mind) are working very hard to promote organic food or "food with a conscience" in an effort to redeploy consumer choice as a weapon against multinational food corporations, one must understand that unless such efforts are also aimed at narrowing the inequality gap, these movements only have the effect of reproducing and enlarging a cultural divide based on food choices. After all, the consumers purchasing genetically-enhance produce are not from the upper-class who have the additional purchase-power to buy their "integrity" or "moral conscience". It is the lower classes who, in an attempt to save money for other basic necessities, are forced to prioritize cost savings and pick the unhealthier but cheaper alternatives for their family members. If it is truly like they say, that our choices are like votes, then this is little difference from countries like Rwanda and Congo where AK-47s are used at the election polls.


Going to Congress is unlikely to bring about big changes, given that both Republican and Democratic parties and senators are largely funded by these corporations. To be fair, they are indeed facing more short-term pressing issues at home such as high retrenchment rates and revamping their collapsing health-care system. No president can afford to stay in office very long if they are unable to project a positive future for the very citizens who have voted them into office.


With such a background in mind, is there really no hope for the fight against world poverty and hunger? Would it be possible to avert such crises with the establishment of a global food coordinating center with the information and political leverage to dictate production and supply based on knowledge of geographical seasons, transport capacity and unique cultural circumstances? Social scientists and historians may be quick to point to the collapse of Communist Russia and China as evidence that central coordination cannot supersede the power of capitalist markets. But lest we discard the idea too quickly, let us not forget if we continue to ignore this impending disaster, the rise of the proletariat might come bearing national flags.