Analysis of the Documentary Food, Inc. through the Lens of Ethical Theories and Ideas
Some may wonder whether the food choice is an ethical issue. After all, we make these choices at least three times a day and our individual decisions influence the global industry of food growth, production and processing. As Jones, Cardinal and Hayward remind us, we exist in society and are connected to other people. This is why our choices, in our case, the food choices, affect other people, and their decisions influence us as well (2006, p. 3). Various theories of ethics propose different ways of viewing the problems of food production and consumption and seek solutions in distinct places. However, as Habermas argued, we can employ all the types of ethical reasoning in the debate and exchange arguments in order to reach a compromise regarding what is right in this definite case. In this way, we will see what reasons stand behind the actions of stakeholders in this case, what role rights and duties play in the conflict, and how we may become more virtuous people if we revise and re-examine the food choices we make, sometimes out of habit, sometimes out of unawareness.
As we see in the movie Food, Inc. many stakeholders take part in the formation of the numerous problems associated with food ethics, and all of them are potential participators in creating solutions and mitigating problems that food industry and consumption produce. These agents are corporations, workers of food factories, farmers and growers, consumers, lobbyists, lawyers, state and federal government represented by regulators of the food industry, legislature, judiciary, media, NGOs, research institutions.
All these agents are involved in some kind of behavior. This behavior is constrained by laws and policies of the state, customs and norms of society, as well as technology. For instance, laws may ban production and sales of the meat of cloned animals. The example of custom constraint may be a prohibition to eat pork, spread in Judaism and Islam. The constraint of technology has become weaker and weaker because of the rapid development in this field. Ethical constraints are rights and duties. For instance, consumers have a right to know what they eat and food corporations ought to treat their rights with respect. At the same time, corporations have a duty to unveil the information concerning food processing practices. All the activities of agents (both individuals and organizations) lead to various consequences: some of them positive, others not so. The consequences of activities that take place in the food industry and consumption influence our health, wealth, and well-being. At the same time, the consequences are not limited to human existence. They impact nature and environment, all the creatures that inhabit our planet. What is even more important is the way our actions affect our planet in the long run. We should be aware that our activities undertaken today may have a global impact beyond spatial and temporal limits and predict the life and way of living of generations to come. This is why we need to evaluate and morally assess our conduct and lifestyle, especially but not only in the area of food choice. Thompson (2015, 11) describes ethically significant consequences in two categories: benefits or a positive impact, and costs or harms, as a negative impact.
In this essay, I will discuss the interests and positions, constraints and rights of the stakeholders, listed above and as seen through the prism of the movie Food, Inc. I will describe their conduct and discuss the ethically significant consequences of their actions. Moreover, I will analyze the problems debated in the movie with the help of concepts and ideas of the ethical theories. Such concepts are inalienable rights and freedoms, social and economic justice, animal rights, challenges of bioethics, responsibilities and blame.
Consumers are entitled to have access to information about food production; however, some laws deny them this information. The violation of food safety standards has often caused a food poisoning. The industrial scale of food processing and production worsens the situation, as it becomes more difficult to trace the contaminated food to its origin. It is a common practice to slaughter animals from different farms in one slaughterhouse and process and package their meat in one and the same place. Because of this practice, the health of millions of customers is endangered. The case when food poisoning resulted in the death of a little boy, Kevin, is narrated in the movie by his mother, Barbara Kowalcyk. Certainly, this personal tragedy influenced her decision to become a food safety advocate. Her argument emphasizes the responsibility of government to protect the citizens of the United States that is not fulfilled even “on the most basic level”. This claim that the government has duties to its citizens revives a memory of Locke’s philosophy. Locke argued that natural rights of humans are rights of life, health, liberty, and property. Or put in Locke’s words: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions [Second Treatise of Government, 6].
Consumers have a power to vote with their wallet every time they make a decision about what food they buy and eat. In this way, they display their preferences. Corporations have to take into account the preferences of customers, because only acting so they can achieve their goal and maximize their profits. The movie provides a good example: as the market for organics grows rapidly, more and more corporations consider the option of selling organic products in their stores. This is why they acquire local businesses of organics. From Kant’s point of view, their conduct still is immoral, because their motivation is wrong. The corporations do not step into organic production in order to improve options of their customers, and therefore, positively impact their health; their motive for selling organics is economically rational, as they strive to make more money. Thus, the food conglomerate Groupe Danone’s made a decision to acquire Gary Hirshberg’s Stonyfield farm not because of the ethical motive that doing so is morally right, but to achieve its goal and maximize its economic utility. Similarly, the “invisible hand” of market influences the actions of Walmart. As Tony Airoso, Walmart’s chief dairy purchaser explains, “it is an easy decision to support organics because customers want it”. Thus, corporations simply react to demand.
However, from the utilitarian point of view, only consequences matter. If the commitment of corporations to maximize their profits results in better and healthier food choices for consumers, their motivation is not important, as long as “the greatest good” for “the greatest number” is the consequence of their conduct (Mill, as cited in Jones, Cardinal and Hayward, 2006). This standpoint can be contradicted on the grounds of the nebulosity of the terms “the greatest good” and “the greatest number”. What is the greatest good? Who are the parties affected by this good?
Let us imagine that we have conducted the survey of one thousand people on their preferences in food and asked whether they preferred vegetables or hamburgers, and the majority chose hamburgers. Does it mean we ought to produce more hamburgers and fewer vegetables, if doing so brings happiness to the bigger amount of people? On the other hand, may be it is better to promote production and consumption vegetables, because it is a healthier food choice and benefits their health? Which value is more important: to be healthy or to satisfy one’s appetite for unhealthy food? Which one is virtuous? Virtue theory suggests that habits drive our moral behavior. If one develops virtuous habits, such as choosing vegetables over French fries, one’s conduct is morally right. It is argued that parents are responsible for cultivating virtuous character in their children. The concept of personal responsibility has become a buzzword for in the debate around food issues. Libertarians claim that the state should not intervene in these private issues and become a “nanny” state. According to Coca-Cola’s CEO’s point of view, “Americans need to take greater responsibility for their diet” (Kent, 2009). Some argue that such approach to food-related health issues, for example, obesity, omits from the discussion the importance of environmental conditions. These conditions are influenced by the actions of corporations and governments (Brownell, Kersh, Ludwig, Post, Puhl, Schwartz, and Willett, 2010). The subsidizing corn growth and overproduction leads to cheapness of the foods, which are unhealthy if consumed in a big amount. This creates social and economic injustice, as the poor cannot afford to buy healthy foods and have an economic incentive to buy fast food, which ruins their health in the long run, causing obesity and diabetes. As the writer Eric Schlosser argues in the movie, food companies press our evolutionary buds, as fast food is rich in sugar, salt, and fat – nutrients that are rare in nature. This is why people strive for it. The government’s intervention may play a role in the promotion of the virtues, such as a healthy lifestyle and support their citizens to be more virtuous.
Moreover, whom we consider to be an affected party? In the case, discussed in the movie, the government heavily subsidized corn, making it so cheap, that industry uses it and its side products everywhere: from our soda (high-fructose corn syrup) to food for livestock and fish. According to Troy Roush, vice-president of American Corn Growers Association, the United States overproduces corn below the cost of production. It is so cheap that Mexican corn cannot compete with the corn, grown in the United States. As a result, Mexican farmers get out of business and often move to the USA in search of jobs, filling the ranks of undocumented illegal immigrants. Thus, on the one hand, thanks to cheap subsidized corn, Americans are positively affected party, who can enjoy not only cheap soda, but also cheap meat. On the other hand, Mexicans are negatively influenced by the same factor; they lose their jobs because of the cheap corn and often work in the poor conditions at the minimal wage at the food factories that produce the abovementioned cheap meat. By the way, their low wages keep the costs of meat production even lower, and contribute to low prices on meat.
Workers are coerced to work in the conditions close to slavery; as they are undocumented illegal immigrants they do not have the same rights that American citizens enjoy. They cannot complain and are dependable on corporations. They cannot form a labor union to protect their rights. Workers are treated as means, exploited at the pathetic wage. Therefore, corporations violate the Kantian “categorical imperative”, his thesis that “you ought to treat people as an end, and never merely as a means to an end” (as cited in Jones, Cardinal and Hayward, 2006). Corporations disrespect the intrinsic value of humans, their dignity. They treat workers as instruments not as ends in themselves. Such a disregard for workers is made evident in the movie. According to Eduardo Peňa, the union organizer, Smithfield slaughterhouse has an agreement with the anti-immigration police. They arrest undocumented immigrants who work at the slaughterhouse, in their houses; they never undertake mass raids on the plants, because it would have disturbed the production process.
Farmers are coerced in changing their farming practices to be compatible with corporations’ demand. As was shown in the movie, chicken growers have enormous debts, as an initial investment is huge and costs to innovate and upgrade are aggravating their financial situation. This is why they comply with corporations’ demands and refuse to talk with the media or to show their chicken houses. They are simply too afraid to lose their contracts with corporations. Such relations with companies abuses farmers’ sense of dignity. They are not treated as autonomous entrepreneurs; they simply are employees of corporations. Kantian imperative of “people as ends in themselves” is violated here nearly in the same manner, as it was in the case of relations of corporations with workers - illegal immigrants. As Perdue grower Carole Morison complains, “Having no say in your business is degrading, [it is] like be a slave to company.”
Another problem that farmers face is a patent on crops. As discussed in the movie, when a corporation genetically modifies seeds of any crop to make it more resistant to pests or to weather, it patents them, making them company’s property. The example of Monsanto patenting Roundup Ready soybeans shows that today this company is an analogue of Microsoft in agriculture, as over 90% of soybeans in the United States contain Monsanto’s patented gene. The consequences for farmers are huge. They cannot store and use for seeding Monsanto seeds from the previous harvest, as it would infringe a patent. Interestingly, the innovation of Monsanto in soybeans was related to its own herbicide. The gene in Monsanto’s soybeans made it resistant to the herbicide they invented. The benefit for farmers was the fact that they could get rid from weed using herbicide and do not affect crops. On the one hand, from the business point of view, this policy makes perfect sense. Monsanto has to protect its property – innovated herbicide-resistant soybeans and prevent free-riders from using it for free. However, the mere consideration that a life-form such as a seed, can be a property of one single corporation, is ethically controversial. If we compare seed modification to, let us say, selective breeding of dogs, we will see that the latter is not a subject to any patent. Even though the life-form created through the selection may demonstrate different characteristics or size, ranging from a Chihuahua to a Newfoundland, they are not patented by selectors. Until 1980, the United States Patent and Trademark Office never granted patents on seeds, as they were considered to be life-forms with too many variables. The situation changed in 1980, when the decision of the US Supreme Court turned seeds into objects for patenting. In this way, companies have got an economic incentive to invest millions in research and development of new varieties of seeds. If earlier, public research institutions, funded by government, invented and produced seeds with new characteristics and distributed them as “public seed”, as is stated in movie, commercialization of the sector resulted in domination of private companies and corporations in the research and development sector of agriculture. According to The Guardian, since 1980s, Monsanto has led the research in genetic engineering of seeds and has won record 674 biotechnology patents, as confirms the USDA data (Harris). Certainly, Monsanto has a right to protect its investment and property. However, for the farmers’ situation is grave. They have to buy seeds every year that imposes a big financial burden on them. Even more important is the fact that sometimes farmers are not aware that they infringe the patent. This is caused by horizontal gene flow, when the fields of those farmers who did not buy the Monsanto seeds are contaminated by these seeds because of wind or birds. Nonetheless, if the Monsanto seed is discovered on their fields, they are sued by the corporation and have to pay a fine. The example, discussed in the movie, involves a seed cleaner Moe Parr, who, using his technology, cleaned seed of debris so they can be stored and replanted in the upcoming season. He was sued by Monsanto for “inducing farmers to break the patent law” through his seed cleaning business. All the deals of Moe Parr were disclosed and his clients occurred on the blacklist of Monsanto, where are listed the farmers who do not have good relations with Monsanto or do not want to buy their seed. Moe Parr could not pay his legal bills and was forced to settle with Monsanto. Therefore, with the progress of biotechnology, intellectual property rights’ domain significantly broadened and now includes and protects ownership of specific genes. In this way, it limits farmers’ rights to save seed and harms them financially. Corporations have gained nearly total control on commodity crops and simply monopolized this vital sector. As stated in The Guardian, 53% of the global commercial seed market is dominated by three companies – Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta (Harris). While armies of lawyers and lobbyists ensure that the property rights of corporations are properly defended by law, farmers remain unprotected against coercion of big companies. The wide spread of transgenic crops in the United States and all over the world has reduced diversity in crops varieties and has created a great dependency of farmers on biotechnology companies. If consumers in America or globally want to purchase soybeans or corn that have not undergone the genetic modification, they will find it nearly impossible, because about 93% of soybeans and 86% of corn in the United States are produced from genetically engineered seeds. In this case, not only farmers suffer because of the overall control of corporations, but consumers as well.
As mentioned above, armies of lobbyists defend the interests of corporations in legislative organs of states and Congress of the United States. They ensure that no law will pass in the legislature that harms or restricts the activities of companies or their business. As the movie Food, Inc. demonstrates, even in the cases when state legislative institution in California passed the law for labeling cloned animals’ meat, it was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. It is an example of what attitudes corporations have toward their customers, because they consider that consumers cannot make a right decision about which food products to buy, and being informed that some products contain the meat of cloned animals, the clients will be afraid and repulsed by this fact. As a consequence, they will not buy such products and corporations will lose profits. As we see, corporations demonstrate their priorities that their business interests are more important than interests of American citizens to be informed about the content of their meal.
As public opinion research has shown, the majority of people do not want to consume GM foods, not because doing so harms their health, but because they think that its production harms the ecology (Bauer, Durant, Gaskell, 1998). It does not matter whether it is scientifically proven or not. The ethical problem here is that consumers should not be coerced into eating food that they do not want to eat. This is why it is morally wrong to refuse labeling of genetically engineered foods or cloned animals’ meat. If one finds the idea of consuming these products disgusting, it is a coercion and disrespect to make one eat such food without being informed. The asymmetry of information is the case here. If producers of cloned animals’ meat do not believe that consumers can make a justified decision upon the consumption of such meat, they treat consumers in the paternalistic manner, failing to recognize their autonomy and moral significance (Thompson, 2002, 27-44).
Government regulators, such as USDA and FDA ought to regulate the area of biotechnology and enforce food safety standards. However, the mandate of these public organizations is limited by laws and further restrained by the shortage of financial resources. For instance, they may not have enough funds to undertake frequent revisions in slaughterhouses or farms, to ensure that meat is not contaminated by E.coli bacteria or salmonella. Furthermore, the Kevin’s law that was proposed and advocated by Barbara Kowalcyk, was not adopted by the Congress. This proposed legislation would have given back to the USDA the power to shut down plants, if there regularly produced contaminated meat. At the same time, the farms that continue to raise stock and slaughter animals in traditional ways, are considered to be unsanitary. On family farms that nowadays are rather exception than rule cows feed on grass, in a natural setting; chickens are slaughtered and emboweled in open air, as it has happened for hundreds of years before food production was industrialized. Government regulators suggest that this way of farming is unsanitary and put consumers at risk. What adds insult to injury, is the fact that many officials, managers, lawyers from corporations often switch to jobs in the public sector, in the very regulatory institutions that are supposed to control their activities and enforce food safety standards. The example that proves that this is the case, is shown in the movie Food, Inc. Michael Taylor was a lawyer for Monsanto, who advised the corporation to label GMO. Later, he became a deputy commissioner for policy of FDA which made a decision not to make labeling of GMO mandatory. The next step in his career was the office of vice-president for public policy at Monsanto. This practice creates an ethical dilemma, as people who are supposed to check and regulate conduct of food corporations, are closely related to corporations and probably have a self-interest that does not coincide with the interests and duties of the regulatory organ.
Media’s role in covering the issues of food industry and bringing its problems to the front cannot be overestimated. With their work, journalists help to increase the awareness of the public about the issues of food safety standards, animal abuse and immigrants’ exploitation by corporation. One of the most famous historical cases of journalist undercover investigation of food processing practices is book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair where the author relates about animal abuse and food producing practices in his modern time slaughterhouses in the beginning of the 20th century. Thanks to Sinclair’s investigation, this case was studied by Theodor Roosevelt’s administration that introduced food safety standards and, thus, changed food processing practices.
As shown in the movie, nowadays, media’s coverage of problems and violations of food industry corporations often encounter resistance and legal actions on the side of companies. The laws that undermine their work on this flank are ag-gag laws. Ag-gag laws face an ethical problem regarding two issues. Proponents suggest that laws that prohibit the undercover investigation of food facilities protect an individual’s right for property and for privacy. However, if we compare property such as one’s own abode and property such as a farm or meat-processing factory, we will see a striking difference. While the former is protected by the Fourth Amendment on the grounds of proverbial “each man’s home is his castle”, the claim that the latter presents the same time of property is not justified or reasonable as it concerns all those who are customers of the abovementioned farm or factory. Consumers also have the right to know what they eat and how their food was processed. As writer Micheal Pollan argues in the Food, Inc., “We are entitled to know about food”. Ag-gag laws violate this right of citizens. According to contractualism, the rights of citizens are determined by the social contract, which we, as a society, agree upon. The Constitution is written evidence of this contract that we, the citizens of the United States, all obey.
This is why the ag-gag laws are often contradicted on the ground of their unconstitutionality as they violate the First Amendment of the American Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. One may contradict that under the cover of the First Amendment some may produce and distribute libel or slander. As shown in the movie Food, Inc. this claim was put to test when stock farmers from Texas sued Oprah Winfrey for “false disparagement of perishable food products” and loss of profit in 1996. Even though Oprah won in this case, the problem of ag-gag laws remains in many states.
While ag-gag laws protect rights of food producers to make a business behind the veil, the consumers remain “behind the veil of ignorance” (not in the context, employed by Rowls), and are deceived by marketing tricks. As mentioned in the very beginning of the movie, marketing feeds to consumers the image of “agrarian America”, “pastoral fantasy”, while in reality food production more and more resembles to the factory’s assembly line in Henry Ford’s time or today’s McDonald’s efficient and automatized service chain. As Henry Ford’s innovation in automobiles production made a car an affordable cheap means of transportation, so the introduction of the assembly line allowed food producers to reduce costs and make food cheaper.
One more ethical issue touched by ag-gag laws is animal abuse and animal rights. As mentioned before, consumers have a right to be completely aware of what they put on the table, because their health is at stake. However, stakes become even higher, when one considers the impact that contemporary food processing practices have on livestock and poultry. Industrial food production objectifies animals, while packaging makes sure to erase associations between a live creature and food product, it destroys the link between animal and boneless meat.
As the undercover investigations demonstrated, there are numerous cases when animals kept into CAFOs – concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, were abused. As film frames from Food, Inc. revealed, in the existing industrialized food production system, livestock and poultry live in conditions that implies unnecessary suffering and pain. First, in most chicken houses, poultry does not see daylight during their whole short life. These chickens are confined in dark and narrow barns, where they are fed with corn in such amounts, that they cannot walk. They put on so much weight in such a little time in order to make food production more efficient and, therefore, more profitable. When these chicken houses are upgraded, considerations of animal rights are not considered at all. The only reason for upgrading is to increase efficiency, which means to produce more meat in less time.
In the case of CAFOs, we witness the complete change in the animal food from traditional grass to cheap corn, so abundant and heavily subsidized by US government. As a consequence, cows develop diseases that never have occurred in the natural setting. E.coli bacteria evolve in cows’ organisms and get into meat, causing food poisoning. Sometimes cows become so sick that they cannot take a step and are dragged to the kill floor. The E.coli bacteria can be easily killed if cows return to their natural food – grass. However, instead of feeding cows with grass, corporations invent new treatments to destroy E.coli bacteria. For instance, they cleanse beef meat with ammonia. The question is, whether it is morally justified to treat animals in this way and further, sell and buy the meat that was processed with chemicals.
If we take the idea that animals, like humans, also possess natural rights, seriously, then we should consider the present-day methods of industrial farming ethically unacceptable. Having suggested that CAFOs are morally unjustifiable, we have to find a way to change them. Either we return to traditional ways of farming, when hens could walk outside and be fed in measurable amounts, and cows were able to graze on pastures, or we are morally obliged to improve the life of animals in these facilities. As Thompson (2015) argues, people who think that industrial food production is morally wrong, either become vegetarians, or seek alternative sources of meat, such as farmer markets. But we can also think of ways to modify CAFOs and improve animals’ life there. Animals should be kept under conditions that do not violate their negative freedoms. What I mean are freedoms from pain or disease, fear and stress. According to Thompson, these freedoms may not be achieved in the absolute terms. However, the degree of suffering can be decreased. For instance, proper veterinary care can reduce the pain and disease, that animals otherwise would have experienced.
Non-governmental organizations are involved in the issues put forward by industrialized food productions. International non-profit organizations, such as Greenpeace in environmental area, Save Our Seeds (SOS) in the GM related issues, Mercy For Animals (MFA) in the field of animal rights and many others, are active participants in the debates, concerning environment pollution, drawback of genetically engineered food and animal rights.
Three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judiciary, play a significant role in addressing the problems evolved that with industrial food production. Legislative branch – the state legislature and US Congress – make important ethical decisions, when they define which practices are acceptable in the food industry and which should be banned. These decisions turned into laws, are implemented by the executive branch, among them regulatory institutions. This is why it is vitally important for these institutions stay objective and hold corporations accountable for their activities. Judiciary is involved in interpreting the laws, made by the legislature. In this sense, they are the last authority that checks laws and has a last say. This is why they have a duty to decide in the manner that will defend the rights of citizens in the best way.
In conclusion, the movie Food, Inc. provided a great material to discuss and reflect on numerous significant moral issues. These issues included animal abuse and rights, rights of consumers, duties of the three branches of government, rights of workers on industrialized food farms and plants, and more broadly, rights of undocumented illegal immigrants – the majority of workers on the assembly line of food processing factories. The movie discussed the legal issues of patenting life-forms, such as seeds and demonstrated the power and control that food corporations have seized. The analysis of the movie displayed a wide array of problems that are associated with food industry and they can be discussed in terms of the ethical theory: rights and duties, rules and norms, responsibilities of various actors and powers that they hold. The ethical theories, employed in this analysis, such as Locke’s social contract theory, Kantian deontological moral philosophy, utilitarianism of Mill, as well as Thompson’s food ethics, helped to see these controversial issues in a completely new light. Food choice is one of those topics that can and should be discussed in the discourse of morality of laws and policies, but at the same time it “goes beyond the particular legal systems of a country, to ecological questions which affect all of us, and our descendants, as human beings” (Jones, Cardinal and Hayward, 2006, p.4).
Works cited:
Bauer, Martin W., Durant, John and Gaskell, George, eds., Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook (London: NMSI Trading Ltd, 1998). Print.
Brownell, Kelly D., Kersh, Rogan, Ludwig, David S., Post, Robert C., Puhl, Rebecca M., Schwartz, Marlene B., and Willett, Walter C. “Personal Responsibility and Obesity: A constructive Approach to a Controversial Issue”. Health Affairs 29:3 (2010): 379-387. Web. 21 May 2016
Harris, Paul. Monsanto sued small farmers to protect seed patents, report says. The Guardian. 21 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 May 2016.
Jones, Gerald, Cardinal, Daniel and Hayward, Jeremy. Moral Philosophy: A Guide to Ethical Theory (London: Hodder Education, 2006). Print.
Kent M. Coke didn’t make America fat: Americans need more exercise, not another tax. Wall Street Journal. 2009 Oct 7. Web. 21 May 2016.
Thompson, Paul B. “Why Food Biotechnology Needs an Opt Out,” in Engineering the Farm: Ethical and Social Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology, ed. B. Bailey and M. Lappй (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002), 27–44. Print.
Thompson, Paul B. From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone. New York: Oxford University Press. 2015. Print.
