FOOD INC: Do You Know Where Your Food Comes From?

g under p

Why can you get a double cheeseburger for 99 cents, when a simple head of broccoli costs so much more?
After seeing this movie you may think twice about what you eat and HOW it's produced. Has anybody seen this film? I want to build and create my OWN garden...food is becoming far too expensive.

A trailer to the movie...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0



http://www.foodincmovie.com/reading-list.php

Facts from Food, Inc.
 In the 1970s, the top five beef
packers controlled about 25% of the
market. Today, the top four control
more than 80% of the market.

 In the 1970s, there were thousands
of slaughterhouses producing the
majority of beef sold. Today, we
have only 13.

 In 1998, the USDA implemented
microbial testing for salmonella and
E. coli 0157h7 so that if a plant
repeatedly failed these tests, the
USDA could shut down the plant.
After being taken to court by the
meat and poultry associations, the
USDA no longer has that power.

 In 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the
FDA conducted only 9,164.

 During the Bush administration, the head of the FDA was the former
executive VP of the National Food Processors Association.

 During the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the
former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington.

 Prior to renaming itself an agribusiness company, Monsanto was a chemical
company that produced, among other things, DDT and Agent Orange.

 In 1996 when it introduced Round-Up Ready Soybeans, Monsanto controlled
only 2% of the U.S. soybean market. Now, over 90% of soybeans in the
U.S. contain Monsanto’s patented gene.

 Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney at Monsanto from
1976 to 1979. After his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas
wrote the majority opinion in a case that helped Monsanto enforce its seed
patents.

 The average chicken farmer invests over $500,000 and makes only $18,000
a year.

 32,000 hogs a day are killed in Smithfield Hog Processing Plant in Tar Heel,
N.C, which is the largest slaughterhouse in the world.

 The average American eats over 200 lbs. of meat a year

 30% of the land in the U.S. is used for planting corn.

 The modern supermarket now has, on average, 47,000 products, the
majority of which is being produced by only a handful of food companies.

 70% of processed foods have some genetically modified ingredient.

 SB63 Consumer Right to Know measure requiring all food derived from
cloned animals to be labeled as such passed the California state legislature
before being vetoed in 2007 by Governor Schwarzenegger, who said that he
couldn’t sign a bill that pre-empted federal law.

 Corn products include: ketchup, cheese, Twinkies, batteries, peanut-butter,
Cheez-Its, salad dressings, Coke, jelly, Sweet & Low, syrup, juice, Kool-Aid,
charcoal, diapers, Motrin, meat and fast food.

 Corn, which is the main ingredient in animal feed, is also used as a food
additive. Those products commonly include: Cellulose, Xylitol,
Maltodextrin, Ethylene, Gluten, Fibersol-2, Citrus Cloud Emulsion, Inosital,
Fructose, Calcium Stearate, Saccharin, Sucrose, Sorbital, High Fructose Corn
Syrup, Citric Acid, Di-glycerides, Semolina, Sorbic Acid, Alpha Tocopherol,
Ethyl Lactate, Polydextrose, Xantham Gum, White Vinegar, Ethel Acetate,
Fumaric Acid, Ascorbic Acid, Baking Powder, Zein, Vanilla Extract, Margarine,
and Starch.

 1 in 3 Americans born after 2000 will contract early onset diabetes; Among
minorities, the rate will be 1 in 2.

 E. coli and Salmonella outbreaks have become more frequent in America,
whether it be from spinach or jalapenos. In 2007, there were 73,000 people
sickened from the E. coli virus.

 Organics is the fastest growing food segment, increasing 20% annually.
Learn More>> Official Food, Inc. Movie Site - Hungry For Change?

http://www.foodincmovie.com/index.php

A review of the movie...http://www.buffalonews.com/entertainment/article968.ece



Top five most shocking food facts from Food, Inc

Peace

gfnk001

I have seen it, and warned my wife to never watch it. It did disgust me to no end, but I still eat meat. I try as much as possible to avoid mass produced meat when possible and buy local. But it is very difficult. I do have a community garden I am part of, so lots of fresh veggies in the summertime and freezer and canning at harvest time. But still Food Inc. is a great flick with some staggering stats that everyone (less my wife) should watch.

themessenger

gfnk001 wrote:

I have seen it, and warned my wife to never watch it. It did disgust me to no end, but I still eat meat. I try as much as possible to avoid mass produced meat when possible and buy local. But it is very difficult. I do have a community garden I am part of, so lots of fresh veggies in the summertime and freezer and canning at harvest time. But still Food Inc. is a great flick with some staggering stats that everyone (less my wife) should watch.

Agree with this. It's a great watch but rather disturbing. I've changed some of my shopping and eating habits but it's hard to do that completely. It's a pretty eye opening film!

Flutter Girl

I haven't been able to see it, but I've been worried about the chemicals they put on, and in, food for a long time..We grow our own veggies, fruit, and herbs (and flowers too LoL..good for making tea), and what we don't grow, I buy organic. And I make a lot of the food we eat, anything from cheese to candy..It's worth the time to find a local certified-kosher farm that sells to individuals (or maybe one you can buy from online?). If an animal is tortured in any way, or given any chemically altered feed, or injections of chemicals or antibiotics, it is not kosher.

phunkymunky

this movie was quite an eye opener about the US food industry...it made me glad that i live in one of the strictest in the world for food health and safety.

one of the major problems US consumers face is the lobby groups and the power they wield over how they can grow and what they can add to the foods you guys get served.

g under p wrote:

 In 1998, the USDA implementedmicrobial testing for salmonella andE. coli 0157h7 so that if a plant repeatedly failed these tests, the USDA could shut down the plant.After being taken to court by the meat and poultry associations, the USDA no longer has that power.
 In 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164.
 During the Bush administration, the head of the FDA was the form erexecutive VP of the National Food Processors Association.
 During the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington.

those few points alone are scary even without seeing the movie! the fact that they can sue a government department because it got in the way of their business even though it potentially puts peoples lives at risks is insane.

zarocat

The system is absolutely pathetic.
There is the documentary EARTHLINGS also.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 130308142#
(5 ways on how animals have come to serve man)

Shawshank

It's really not that difficult or time consuming to grow quite a bit of the food you need. It's really a lot of fun, and it's so interesting. There's something about putting that little seed in the dirt, and then a few weeks later your hauling in the food it produced. You don't need acres of land, just the desire to learn as much as you can about growing crops, being smart about how you grow them, and then making the decision to do it. 5 years ago, I would have never dreamed I'd be raising most of the food my family eats. I even *gasp* illegally harvest seeds my own seeds....shhhh don't tell anyone. :roll: We raise egg laying chickens so we never buy eggs, and our chicks are completely free range. They can go inside and outside for as long as they want, nibbling grass, eating bugs, and doing what chickens do. We bake fresh homemade bread a couple times a month and throw it in the freezer until we need it. We raise a lot of our own meat as well, especially chicken since that's what we love the most. We were pasturing the broiler chicks in mobile pens, but I've decided this year to just fence off a huge area to let them roam free. Joel Salatin doesn't recommend doing this, because it makes the meat a little tougher, but I don't care. We try our best to let them live the best life possible while they are here.

g under p

zarocat wrote:

The system is absolutely pathetic.
There is the documentary EARTHLINGS also.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 130308142#
(5 ways on how animals have come to serve man)

Hey thank you for posting this. I've seen many docs on animal treatment BUT this was far beyond ANY I've seen. Unreal, this makes what Michael Vick did look miniscule. PAIN is PAIN and just because these animals are of a lower intelligence they feel that pain we deliver for our own consumption. I ate a piece of meat last weak BEFORE seeing Food Inc I got sick, I doubt I'll try that again.

I love the way they broke down the treatment of the various animals and what is done to them before it reaches our dinner tables, one of the better documentries I've seen. I am glad though I didn't eat much this morning, this was hard to watch. :(

Peace

zarocat

g under p wrote:

zarocat wrote:

The system is absolutely pathetic.
There is the documentary EARTHLINGS also.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 130308142#
(5 ways on how animals have come to serve man)

Hey thank you for posting this. I've seen many docs on animal treatment BUT this was far beyond ANY I've seen. Unreal, this makes what Michael Vick did look miniscule. PAIN is PAIN and just because these animals are of a lower intelligence they feel that pain we deliver for our own consumption. I ate a piece of meat last weak BEFORE seeing Food Inc I got sick, I doubt I'll try that again.

I love the way they broke down the treatment of the various animals and what is done to them before it reaches our dinner tables, one of the better documentries I've seen. I am glad though I didn't eat much this morning, this was hard to watch. :(

Peace

You're welcome. It is brutal. I began watching it again today and just had to fast forward some parts.

g under p

zarocat wrote:

g under p wrote:

zarocat wrote:

The system is absolutely pathetic.
There is the documentary EARTHLINGS also.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 130308142#
(5 ways on how animals have come to serve man)

Hey thank you for posting this. I've seen many docs on animal treatment BUT this was far beyond ANY I've seen. Unreal, this makes what Michael Vick did look miniscule. PAIN is PAIN and just because these animals are of a lower intelligence they feel that pain we deliver for our own consumption. I ate a piece of meat last weak BEFORE seeing Food Inc I got sick, I doubt I'll try that again.

I love the way they broke down the treatment of the various animals and what is done to them before it reaches our dinner tables, one of the better documentries I've seen. I am glad though I didn't eat much this morning, this was hard to watch. :(

Peace

You're welcome. It is brutal. I began watching it again today and just had to fast forward some parts.

I told the family and children about this movie and NOW they want to see this one. The children were the one's who told me about this movie Food Inc. in fact it was shown to them in one of their pre-med classes in the 9th grade. There's going to be a whole lot of changes around herea.

In the United States, vegetarianism is usually synonymous with lacto-ovo-vegetarianism. However, vegetarians are sometimes wrongly assumed to be pescetarians or pollotarians who tolerate the flesh of fish or poultry, respectively. 2.8% of adult Americans are vegetarian, with another 6 to 10% stating that they are "almost vegetarian"[citation needed]. U.S. vegetarian food sales have doubled since 1998, reaching $1.6 billion in 2003. The vegetarian and vegan population is expected to continue its increase steadily.[43] In addition, vegetarianism in the United States generally reflects regional cultural differences. It is generally easier to find vegetarian options in urban restaurants than in rural ones. A similar comparison exists between West Coast and Midwestern city restaurants.[citation needed] Restaurants that cater specifically to vegans are rare outside places like New York City, parts of the Northeast, and the West Coast; however, this seems to be slowly changing as vegetarian market innovations (such as veggie burgers) attain wider acceptance, demand, and distribution.

Vegetarian and vegan foods have become increasingly available in most grocery stores. By US law all ingredients must be listed on the label.[44]

About 1 in 200 children and teenagers in the United States are vegetarians.[45]

A 2002 poll of American adults[46] found the following reasons for choosing a vegetarian lifestyle:

Most important reason for becoming a vegetarian

Health 32%
Because of chemicals and hormones in meat products 15%
Don't like the taste of meat 13%
Love of animals 11%
Animal rights 10%
Religious reasons 6%
Concern for the planet 4%
To lose weight 3%
To reduce hunger and famine worldwide 1%

A 2008 Harris Interactive study of 5,050 respondents found that "approximately 0.5%, or 1 million [Americans] are vegans, who consume no animal products at all," while a significantly higher number, 3.2% of U.S. adults (7.3 million people) "follow a vegetarian-based diet" and 10% of U.S., adults, or 22.8 million people, "say they largely follow a vegetarian-inclined diet." [47]

Peace

Black73

g under p wrote:

 In 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the
FDA conducted only 9,164.

 1 in 3 Americans born after 2000 will contract early onset diabetes; Among
minorities, the rate will be 1 in 2.

 E. coli and Salmonella outbreaks have become more frequent in America,
whether it be from spinach or jalapenos. In 2007, there were 73,000 people
sickened from the E. coli virus.

 Organics is the fastest growing food segment, increasing 20% annually.
Learn More>> Official Food, Inc. Movie Site - Hungry For Change?
[/b][/color]

I have mixed emotions. Having worked for a food company in a previous life, we were under 24-hour inspection by the USDA. So the dropoff in FDA inspections stat is a tad misleading - FDA is more heavily invloved in drug and med device manufacture, and USDA is more of the regulating body for food production. The acronyms actually muddy the waters.

Sad stat about diabetes, but equally concerning to me are all the growth hormones being pumped into food. Family friend mentioned to us that her 10 year-old daughther (and several of her classmates) reached puberty far earlier than their parents expected. What else are these hormones doing to our bodies?

Also, I'm curious to learn why childhood allergies are at staggering levels. Having a son born with severe food allergies (and luckily outgrowing all but an egg allergy), it's even scarier than my avatar photo!

Going back to my food plant days, the E.coli outbreaks can be avoided with proper food handling procedures. I count myself very lucky to have worked for an extremely ethical, environmentally-responsible company, and I got to see firsthand how the minority operates in this space.

And sadly, organics can be subject to some pretty harmful stuff to our bodies if the product is handled improperly. Clean hands and good manufacturing practices do go a long way - but clearly, not the save-all.

Flutter Girl

The best part about growing your own is you don't have waste. Pick only what you need with no worry of the rest going bad..

Now that the study 'proving' innoculations are to blame for autism has been shown to be falsified, I wonder if they will now finally start to look at the chemicals put in, and on, our food as a source. I mean, look at the successful treatment for autism- a pesticide-free diet. It just seems to me if the cure is clean food, then perhaps the cause is chemical-laden food..

unlost dogs

I'd like to see Food, Inc. but I know I will be deeply disturbed by the one about animals.

I stopped eating mammal meat about three years ago, haven't missed it at all. I do eat chicken, turkey and fish and I am really having thoughts about cutting those out. I do feel bad for the birds and the fish... I think it may be time to let that go, but for me that's a much bigger step than cutting out mammal meat.

This past week I was at a conference and one of the people in my group was vegan. She sighed every day about the difficulty she had finding food to eat at the conference. Said all she's ever offered is pasta and fruit.

g under p

unlost dogs wrote:

I'd like to see Food, Inc. but I know I will be deeply disturbed by the one about animals.

I stopped eating mammal meat about three years ago, haven't missed it at all. I do eat chicken, turkey and fish and I am really having thoughts about cutting those out. I do feel bad for the birds and the fish... I think it may be time to let that go, but for me that's a much bigger step than cutting out mammal meat.

This past week I was at a conference and one of the people in my group was vegan. She sighed every day about the difficulty she had finding food to eat at the conference. Said all she's ever offered is pasta and fruit.

The Earthlings movie was tough, very tough to watch but we as a family will watch it. I gave up meat and chicken 5 years ago for 3 years with one year eating fish. I went back to eating meat mainly with the difficulty with everyone else then still eating meat. I've once again given up meat this time though I know now most everyone in our family is either cutting back or given up eating meat. It's difficult for the children to give it up but they have certainly given up the fast food meat eating binges they once had.

I learned a lot about being a vegetarian and understanding veganism from my musician friend Michael Franti. Who has become a leader and symbol on becoming and living a life as a vegan. Before him I had never even heard of the word vegan but I've since loved the way he cares about what goes into his body and putting the life of an animal first.

I'm starting to like the quote I came up with yesterday, it goes something like this...

I would like to see the animals of the world, RULED this world unlike how we humans now rule it.

Does any of that make any sense?

Peace

unlost dogs

It does make sense. It's an enormous commitment to a belief system that goes beyond healthy eating. It seems that for vegetarianism or veganism (is that a word?) to work, you have to fully embrace the spiritual part of the lifestyle.

I can't believe I'm so weak that the thought of no more chicken Pad Thai stops me cold. :(

But, it all starts with a small step, right? Maybe the thing to do is wean slowly, then give up the birds.

I do feel bad for the birds...

maj4e

I watched this and read "Eating Animals" about the same time. I've been a vegetarian since then. That was end of Sept last year. I really haven't had any issues with it either. It was just a combination of morality, health and environmentalism combined. I don't see me going back, it's been effortless thus far.

Heineken Helen

unlost dogs wrote:

It does make sense. It's an enormous commitment to a belief system that goes beyond healthy eating. It seems that for vegetarianism or veganism (is that a word?) to work, you have to fully embrace the spiritual part of the lifestyle.

I can't believe I'm so weak that the thought of no more chicken Pad Thai stops me cold. :(

But, it all starts with a small step, right? Maybe the thing to do is wean slowly, then give up the birds.

I do feel bad for the birds...

Nah just go cold turkey I guess it's tough to do unless you're ready... how about you eat SO much chicken, you never wanna see another bird again? The birds were the easiest for me as I was already fed up of it but I still miss steak

redrock

unlost dogs wrote:

... It's an enormous commitment to a belief system that goes beyond healthy eating. It seems that for vegetarianism or veganism (is that a word?) to work, you have to fully embrace the spiritual part of the lifestyle..

I agree.... for me being a vegetarian or vegan goes way beyond not eating meat. Many vegetarians don't eat meat, but wear leather, have leather sofas, etc. Or simply won't eat meat, but will eat other foods that incorporate animal 'products' (and are not fussed by it).

Maybe make a difference between a person who has a diet which excludes meat and 'proper' vegetarianism?

g under p

redrock wrote:

unlost dogs wrote:

... It's an enormous commitment to a belief system that goes beyond healthy eating. It seems that for vegetarianism or veganism (is that a word?) to work, you have to fully embrace the spiritual part of the lifestyle..

I agree.... for me being a vegetarian or vegan goes way beyond not eating meat. Many vegetarians don't eat meat, but wear leather, have leather sofas, etc. Or simply won't eat meat, but will eat other foods that incorporate animal 'products' (and are not fussed by it).

Maybe make a difference between a person who has a diet which excludes meat and 'proper' vegetarianism?

It's funny when you speak of leather which I saw and learned a lot on how leather products are made in that Earthlings movie. Just last night I was sitting on my daughter's leather couch in her room and I wondered what had to be done to make this large couch and the same with my truck seats. How do we or can we rid one's self from these products when it's ALL around us. It's a slow and long process to unwind ourselves from these products when and if we are ready to do so. Are these leather products one of status/style or our inner ethics? Either way it will take time for me to make these changes.

I gather that's one of the reasons my vegan musician friend Michael Franti goes barefooted (he doesn't wear shoes) every where he goes in this world.

Peace

polaris_x

article on organic vs. non-organic farming ...

*******************
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-25 ... t-building

Organic agriculture is a fine luxury for the rich, but it could never feed the world as global population moves to 9 billion.

That's what a lot of powerful people -- including the editors of The Economist -- insist. But the truth could well be the opposite: It might be chemical-intensive agriculture that's the frivolous luxury, and organic that offers us the right technologies in a resource-constrained, ever-warmer near future.

That's the conclusion I draw from the latest data of the Pennsylvania-based Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial (FST), which Rodale calls "America's longest running, side-by-side comparison of conventional and organic agriculture." Now, Rodale promotes organic ag, so industrial-minded critics will be tempted to dismiss its data. But that would be wrong -- its test plots have an excellent reputation in the ag research community, and the Institute often collaborates with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.

Housed on Rodale's 330 acre farm, the FST compares three systems for growing corn and soy, the first two organic and the third conventional: 1) one based on rotating feed crops with perennial forage crops for cows, and fertilizing with manure; 2) another based on rotating grains with cover crops, with fertility coming from nitrogen-fixing legumes; and 3) a system reliant on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

Rodale's researchers have been comparing crop yields and taking soil samples on these test plots for 27 years. Their latest findings? The three systems have produced equivalent corn yields over the years, while "soybean yields were the same for the manure and conventional system and only slightly lower for the legume system."

So the old canard about how organic ag produces dramatically less food than chemical ag has been debunked, yet again.


Corn in the organic-legume (left) and conventional (right) system during the dry summer of 1995. Both were planted on the same day, with the same variety but only the conventional corn is showing signs of water stress. Organic corn yields that year were 29 percent higher than those of the conventional corn.
Photo and caption: Rodale InstituteBut it gets more interesting. As the globe warms up, increased droughts are likely to reduce global crop yields. The ag-biotech industry is scrambling to come out with "drought-resistant" GMO crops. But organic ag might already have that covered: "In 4 out of 5 years of moderate drought, the organic systems had significantly higher corn yields (31 percent higher) than the conventional system."

Moreover, while conventional ag struggles with the "superweed" problem, brought on by Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant GMO crops, organic ag is showing it can coexist with weed pressure without sacrificing yield: "Corn and soybean crops in the organic systems tolerated much higher levels of weed competition than their conventional counterparts, while producing equivalent yields." Meanwhile, herbicide use in the conventionally managed plot fouled groundwater:

Herbicides were only detected in water samples collected from the conventional system. In years when the conventional rotation had corn following corn, during which atrazine was applied two years in a row, atrazine levels in the leachate sometimes exceeded 3 ppb, the maximum contaminant level set by EPA for drinking water. Atrazine concentrations in all conventional samples exceeded 0.1 ppb, a concentration that has been shown to produce deformities in frogs.
In terms of building robust ag systems in an era of climate change, the results related to soil are probably the most interesting. It turns out, the organic outperformed conventional in both building organic matter and retaining soil nitrogen. In the past 15 years of the study, the organic systems have continued building soil carbon, while the conventional system actually lost carbon. (For more on the question of soil carbon and soil, see my piece from last year's special series on nitrogen.)

The soil-carbon factor probably explains why organic outperforms conventional in drought years: carbon-rich soil tends to retain water better. And indeed, the results bear that out:

Water volumes percolating through each system were 15-20% higher in the organic systems than the conventional system, indicating increased groundwater recharge and reduced runoff under organic management.
Inevitably in the comments section below, someone will ask about the manure. How much land does it take to support sufficient cows to produce enough manure to replenish organic fields? But the Rodale results show that nitrogen-fixing legume crops can greatly reduce the contribution needed from livestock.

And anyway, let me turn that question around. Where do industrial agriculturalists intend on getting the synthetic nitrogen for their system -- from what energy source? The main feedstock is natural gas; but the easy natural gas has been tapped in the United States. That leaves us reliant on geopolitically unstable foreign suppliers -- or on domestic shale gas, which relies on the water-fouling process of hydrofracturing. And where do they plan on getting phosphorous?

In the end, organic ag looks like the robust and wise approach to responding to population growth and climate change, and chemical ag looks like the gambler's approach -- a luxury for the well-heeled folks who own shares in the agribiz industry.