|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
Nov. 18, 2010 By Roger Reierson, CEO of AdFarm I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Robert Kenner (Robby). He is the producer/director of Food, Inc. For those of you unfamiliar the film and filmmaker, (as written in the credits) Food, Inc, "lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA." Food, Inc. has been viewed by millions and was nominated for an Academy Award. Kenner's last film, Two Days in October, won an Emmy and a Peabody. Having watched the film, I expected an argumentative conversation. As our conversation got underway, it was both open and thoughtful - focusing on the state of our nations food supply and the issues facing the industry. As Robby pointed out, we have two conflicting issues. The first, is the need to feed an ever-growing world population. But that production must be tempered by a consideration for how to make the system of food production sustainable. Robby made an interesting observation that resonated with me, "Things have consequences that the original developers can't realize." He then pointed out that Henry Ford didn't have any idea that car emissions would hurt the environment. Many of the products and processes introduced to food production years ago have unforeseen impact today. He asks the question, "Has the drive for the low cost of food had residual costs in other areas, such as water, soil and air?" He believes meat production will continue to get more intense, because the rest of the world is starting to eat like Americans and meat is a large part of our diet. But what impact will that have on animal welfare and environmental issues? Agriculture said " no". During production of the film, most of those in the ag industry who were asked for input refused to be interviewed. The more they told Robby "no", the more he questioned, "why?" I believe this is a lesson to be learned for us all. WalMart was an interesting exception. Near the end of production they agreed to be interviewed. You can draw your own conclusion on the comments about Wal Mart... Reflecting poorly on our industry. Although the film did not direct its observations at farmers, it reflects poorly on our industry. Food, Inc was filmed with only a few corporate farmers participating. One farmer commented at the end of the film, "if you demand it, I will grow it". He grows what he gets paid to grow. One communications professional I know said about "Food Inc" - "farmers have been attached to it (the film) because they are part of the industry." I wondered: have farmers been put in a hard spot? Have options been taken from them? My friend in ag communications commented that in a number of areas the film "sensationalized" certain points, leaving some overstated negative impressions of agriculture. However, certainly we all agree that more and more consumers are beginning to show interest in food production and are engaging in the conversation about it. Films, like "Food, Inc" will encourage more and more questioning. Everyone agrees that "Food, Inc." is a wake-up call for agriculture. As an industry, we need to jump into the conversation and represent the industry. But we must find credible and believable voices. That credible voice is the farmer. Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
