Food Inc.

After receiving a couple of enthusiastic recommendations for the film, Food Inc., I had to see it. I heartily recommend it myself, and I think it illustrates several points I have been trying to make regarding the inherent nature of capitalism:

Overproduction
The result of production directed toward profit rather than actual human need.   Food Inc. details how government subsidies of corn and soy have yielded a surfeit of these crops, which are not necessarily the most nutritious sources of calories.  Rather than shifting production toward other, more nutrient dense crops, we instead devise ways to manipulate the chemical components of corn and soy and recombine them so that they serve as the basis of most of our food products.

Monopolies
The hallmark of capitalism.   Limitations to compeititon are necessary for accumulation of wealth. Capitalism takes these limits to a new level.  Over the past decades, fewer and fewer corporations have gained control over an ever expanding share of the world market.  Food Inc. reveals how a handful of corporations have come to control the food industry, despite the increasing variety in actual food products.   For example, a single corporation is aiming to control 100% of meat production in the U.S., and they are not too far off.

Related to monopolies is the concept of intellectual property, a topic which I will revisit in much greater detail sometime later.   For now, I will simply point out that the purpose of "intellectual property" is not to protect or encourage innovation; it has always been a means of creating monopolies.  Food Inc. demonstrates this to great effect with the example of the patenting of genetic material in seeds.

Progress?
Food Inc. provides a good counterpoint to the hegemonic image of "progress." As I have argued before, technological innovation and industrial efficiency are a double-edged sword. In the case of agriculture and food, Food Inc. reveals how mechanization and industrialization are responsible for deteroriating diets, contaminated food, exposure to new pathogens, antibiotic resistance, and environmental degredation.

Conquering disease?
I argued in my first (yes, there will be another) series on health that the perception that we are conquering death and disease is patently false.  Food Inc. shows how epidemics, diseases, and other health threats have been created by the forces of modernity.

Curtailment of Liberties
I have also argued that there is no such thing as a "free" society. At least, not among the modern system of nation-states and colonies. Capitalist interests not only limit the freedom of the market, but other freedoms as well. That is why "democracy" is an illusion. Two cases in point, as shown by Food Inc.

Number one, Food Inc. provides an example within the area of agriculture and food safety of the way in which the governmental functions of the state and supposedly "private" capitalist interests are actually intertwined. The idea that there is a separation between "business" and "government" is pure ideology.

Number two, Food Inc., with its discussion of "veggie libel" and lawsuits pursued by the meat industry, also shows how the protection of personal liberties is constrained by capitalist interests. We have freedom of speech... unless it threatens corporations.

My one critique of the film is that the producers are quick to jump on the "organic" bandwagon, giving such enterprises very one-sided support and abandoning the critical lens employed throughout the rest of the film.  If the organic enterprises are owned by the same corporations responsible for all the horrors described in the rest of the film, then why would their profit-driven practices not affect the organic industry as well?

All in all, though, very worthwhile and eye-opening.

Health Myth #1: You Are What You Eat

This particular myth is emblematic of the captialist-driven desire to find simple causes for complex conditions.

The human body is constantly converting one type of substance into another, and the foods that you eat by no means escape this process.

Yet, for a long time it was a medical truism that excess fat on the body was caused by a diet with a high composition of fat. If you have too much fat inside of you, you must have put that fat there, directly, via fat consumption. Nevermind that carbohydrates can easily be converted into fat...

A more reasonable, and thus still widely accepted, logic is premised on a simple calculus of "calories in, calories out." Thus, you gain weight when you eat more calories than you burn, and lose weight when you eat less. Anyone who has had some fluctuation in their weight, diet, and exercise regimen can tell you that, unfortunately, it does not work like that. It is a lot easier to put weight on than it is to get it off, and these changes never follow the expectations derived from calorie counting. This suggests the ability of the body to actively respond to changing conditions and adapt its internal processes to conserve energy reserves.

Another still widespread example of "you are what you eat" logic is the recommendation that high cholesterol be treated by reducing cholesterol in the diet. However, a vast majority of cholesterol is produced by the body itself, and will thus remain unaffected by diet.

What this simple logic ultimately amounts to is an attempt to attribute undesirable conditions to "bad" inputs - and, thus, personal responsibility. Let us not forget, as well, that with food as the fulcrum of many public health endeavors, it is possible for regulatory organizations to use this concern as leverage to subsidize and promote particular agricultural industries. For example, the low-fat craze and the food pyramid built thereupon were a major boon for corn, soy, and grain industries, which have been heavily subsidized both in the U.S. and abroad. This demonstrates, once again, the way in which the trope of personal responsibility and governmental power work in tandem.