Responses to Food, Inc.

In support of Food, Inc: 
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938322?refcatid=31


The magazine Variety reviewed the documentary with much support and praise for uncovering the truth of food production. John Anderson, the reviewer, uses precise word choice in order to get his opinion across. He describes corn as a villain, the agricultural business as cut-throat, the meat as corporatized, and states that there is a "greedy manipulation of both genetics and the law." Anderson also praises the filmmakers' clever use of graphics, color, and music to "always subtly [emphasize] the artificiality of the food." He highlights all the problems of food production and agrees with what the filmmakers are trying to show to the public. At the end, Anderson finishes his supportive review of Food, Inc. by claiming that people can make a difference and change the way that food is produced.

Most critical of Food, Inc:
http://www.safefoodinc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=11

This article is from SafeFoodInc.org, which is made up of those who represent the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. The website claims that these associations produce more than ninety percent of U.S. meat, including chicken, beef, pork, and many others. The article states that it separates myth from fact when it comes to food production. A lot of the accusations that the producers of Food, Inc. claimed are listed as myths in this document. The authors of this article state that "'Food, Inc.' contains an astonishing number of half-truths, errors, and omissions." In addition, they wrote rebuttals to all the claims of Food, Inc. and provided evidence to back up their argument. The entire web page is filled with questions about issues that were brought up in the documentary. The authors of this article answer each question, trying to show the public that the process of food production is quite safe and humane.


Most even-handed:
http://www.moviezeal.com/food-inc/

This article is from a movie review website in which the author of the article, Luke Harrington, tells both sides of the story. He states that he understands the producers' intention of educating the public about the truth of food production and describes many of the arguments they have against the food system. However, he also states that the movie can be "a bit emotionally manipulative" and one-sided. The story of Kevin, a two-year-old who died from E.coli, especially appealed to the emotions of the movie watchers. Harrington also gives plenty of counterexamples to why we should not use organic farming. He states that runoff from organic crops is just as bad as others, many people would starve if we switched to organic crops, and that there is no evidence that organic food is more nutritious. Yet, Harrington goes on to describe that he has felt the same way as the producers, trying to find an ultimate solution to the food problem. He agrees that the documentary was an excellent way to inform the public of the situation. This is a very unbiased review of Food, Inc. in that Harrington describes both sides of the situation and lets people decide for themselves.