Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I enjoyed Eric Schlosser's book FAST FOOD NATION, so I thought I would enjoy this. Wrong. That book was coherent, entertaining, and reasonably well-argued. This one jumps from point to point without giving time to contradictory viewpoints, or even acknowledging they exist. I couldn't even get through the title sequence without yelling at the screen. These are not in any particular order: First of all, showing animals slaughtered is not an argument. It never seems to occur to the filmmakers that many people are already aware that the animals they eat live short, awful lives in dark, cramped quarters -- and yet have no problem with it. It was as though the mere sight of animals being butchered was going to be enough to put one off one's meat, but this is not the case for many people. Second: the filmmakers look at data points only, not broad society-wide statistics. The tale of the young boy dying from a freak outbreak of E. Coli was just that: freak. The movie made it seem like thousands and thousands are dying. You're telling me that a billion-dollar industry needs to be shut down because of freak outbreaks now and then? Third: never seems to occur to the filmmakers that the USDA might have some reasons for some of its requirements. Take the prohibition against preparing meat in the open air. It seems to me that one possible reason for this stricture might be, uh, flies and the effects of sunlight on raw meat. But oh no! The USDA is presented as a evil troll who hates sunlight and open air merely because it hates all joy and life. Fourth: There was a boatload of irrelevant arguments thrown into this movie. Am I supposed to feel guilty eating a cheeseburger because workers are forced to "do the same task again and again"? Sheesh. Welcome to the modern world! That's how things are on my job, which has nothing to do with food. And what about this: the way the food is manufactured, we are told, has implications for "how corporations see other cultures." How is this relevant? I don't care! Corporations have always seen other cultures as resources to be exploited: that's just in the nature of a corporation. Even Apple, the darling company of liberals everywhere (bafflingly, to me), has no problem setting up grim factories in China, then selling the wares in shops in Riyadh. Fifth: Does it ever occur to the filmmakers that if they got everything on their wish list, the population of the earth would have to decrease by a few billion? Sixth: According to the filmmakers, if you are fat, that's not because you have no self-control: it's because these evil conglomerates cleverly design food intended "to press our evolutionary buttons." Thus, we're helpless! Okay, let's take this reasoning over the area of women dressing. Nearly every day I see women walking down the street in mini-skirts and high heels and think, boy, I'd like to hit that. Why, the way she's dressing is pressing my "evolutionary buttons." So does the responsibility lie with me to control my urges, or her . . . to veil? Seventh: This film was the first I had ever heard of "food libel laws." I did some looking into them, as the way the film characterized them struck me as fishy. You can't criticize a cheeseburger in Colorado? That didn't sound right. No, what it turns out to be is you can't make unsubstantiated claims about food being harmful and cause food industries and workers millions of dollars unless you can substantiate your claims. If you can, though, it sure as shootin' is legal. What you can't do is simply fire off wacky, unprovable accusations and send everybody into a panic. In this way, the food libel laws, where they exist, are similar to libel laws against humans: you ARE CERTAINLY ALLOWED TO SAY NEGATIVE THINGS in a public forum as long as they are a matter of public record or can be backed up. The filmmakers absurdly moaning that "you can't criticize food" is misleading: they are deliberately conflating the idea of CRITICISM with UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS. Many, since the establishment of food libel laws, have since pointed out all sorts of stuff about what's in the food we eat without getting into hot water BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS. That lady interviewed on screen obviously couldn't, so, without knowing much more about her situation, I can only assume it was a good thing that she was gagged. There's more, though: the "food libel laws," whether just or injust, must be a good deal weaker than the filmmakers characterization of them. After all, this very film was replete with unsubstantiated accusations and yet I actually bought this DVD in Colorado. Having said all this, I do agree with some of the some of the movie's points: agricultural subsidies are a cancer on the economy and yes, our food is too cheap and its price needs to rise so that the full social cost of living as we do can be clearly apprehended. But when it comes to those points, I came to be convinced of them from reading other sources, not from seeing the arguments in this film. Wouldn't it be great if the DVD makers were forced to release this film with a commentary track with a couple of tech guys from the USDA responding to what you're seeing on the screen?