Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Corn Farmers Say Food Inc. Shouldn't Win Oscar
WASHINGTON - The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win.
The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win. (photo by flickr user iowa_spirit_walker) "Food Inc.," which was nominated for best documentary, has captured audiences with its behind-the-scenes look at the food industry, bringing cameras into feedlots, slaughterhouses and chicken farms used by corporate agriculture, describing stomach-turning practices in an effort to encourage consumers to buy locally grown and organic foods that aren't mass produced.
The corn industry, one of several food industries attacked in the film, is fighting back. Though the official voting for Sunday's Academy Awards is over, the National Corn Growers Association, the industry's largest trade group, is encouraging corn farmers to get the word out in the media and on social networking sites like Facebook to rebut the documentary in the final days before the Oscars.
"If we don't shoot down their arguments with credible and truthful information, our reputation as America's farmers will suffer significantly," reads an alert sent to member farmers this week.
The movie taps into a growing social movement critical of the nation's industrial food system. The film features Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," and Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation." Both books are credited with galvanizing opposition to industrial agriculture.
Darrin Ihnen, a corn grower from Hurley, S.D., and president of the corn group, says the movie makes him mad because it ignores many of the good things about America's larger farms, including the environmentally friendly practices some use, as well as efforts to feed the world's hungry.
"Because we have an abundant supply, America has the world's most affordable food, and that's due in large part to the practices attacked in this film," he said.
The documentary looks at the chemicals used to fatten up chickens and cattle, criticizes genetically engineered crops and links practices at livestock operations to deaths from E. coli poisoning. The widespread use of corn also is blamed for the country's obesity epidemic and high rates of diabetes.
But the movie isn't all negative, chronicling the increase in production of organic foods and the willingness of companies such as Wal-Mart to sell them.
The film's producer and director, Robert Kenner, says he tried to get the farming industry involved when he was making the film, but most declined to talk. He says he has been surprised at the response to it and the debate it has created - he says said the food industry at first ignored the film, but companies have protested more loudly as the film has gained attention.
"They are realizing their consumers are concerned," he said. "These are complicated issues and we don't mean to offer the solutions to these problems, totally, but we do mean to create a conversation about them."
James McWilliams, a professor at Texas State University and author of "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly," says he thinks the film is justified in attacking the corn industry and highlighting the overabundance of corn-based products in the American diet. Nevertheless, he says it may not give farmers a fair shake.
"Millions of conventional farmers who care about the environment and work to lessen their carbon footprint have good reason to feel threatened by the film's aggressive message that all industrial agriculture is inherently evil," he said.
Dan Glickman, former secretary of agriculture under President Bill Clinton and current chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, says the film is a welcome addition to the debate over so-called production agriculture, but called it "a piece of advocacy work" that is not always objective.
"I think production agriculture, the corn growers, have a good story to tell, and a lot of times I don't think they have engaged in the debate," he said. "The more they protest, the more people will want to go see the movie."
- Posted in

17 Comments so far
Show AllAnother "Inconvenient Truth" being attacked by the people it exposes. How amazing. I am particularly intrigued by the "environmentally friendly" practices of Industrial Agriculture. Wonder what those would be? The statement that conventional farmers feel threatened by exposing industrial farming's evils is also quite puzzling.
"Because we have an abundant supply, America has the world's most affordable food..."
*The world's most affordable calories* would be more accurate.
Exactly. And if that food is poisoning us, what difference does it make that it is the most affordable?
Furthermore, the major subsidies that make that food so affordable hides the REAL cost of the food and allows the huge American agribusiness goliaths to undercut local farming in other countries and subvert the economies . . . as happened to Haiti in the years prior to the earthquake.
Corn is one of the 4 "commodity" crops that is highly SUBSIDISED. Why?
"Cheap food" ? My ass. Children, can we say SUBSIDISED.
Why don't Organic Broccoli farmers get a subsidy? Who the F#$%k makes these determinations? We are so screwed up.
What are the other 3 subsidized 'crops'? Can any out there tell me?
Cotton is one. Anybody ever try eating Cotton?
2004 U.S. Crop Subsidies[12]
Commodity Millions of US$ Share
Feed grains, mostly corn 2,841 35.4%
Upland cotton and ELS cotton 1,420 17.7%
Wheat 1,173 14.6%
Rice 1,130 14.1%
Soybeans and products 610 7.6%
Dairy 295 3.7%
Peanuts 259 3.2%
Sugar 61 0.8%
Minor oilseeds 29 0.4%
Tobacco 18 0.2%
Wool and mohair 12 0.1%
Vegetable oil products 11 0.1%
Honey 3 0.0%
Other crops 160 2.0%
Total 8,022 100%
"I did. It made me sick."----Lt. Minderbinder in CATCH 22
The film DOES talk to "conventional farmers"!
There's a whole section that focuses on the struggle of farmers to practice agriculture in a way it has been for 80 years or less, but is wholly undesirable to Monsanto's attempt to patent the life forms that feed us all.
The article slicky interchanges "farmers" and "agricultural industry" to confuse this point. Kenner fell for this tactic, unfortunately, as his quote shows.
-matti.
Of course they will try to frame the debate as an attack on farmers, but as the film pointed out, most of the farmers feel trapped between bad policy and aggressive tactics from the chemical and seed producers(usually the same companies like Monsanto).
The farmers say they will grow whatever we want...all the more reason to reduce demand for GMO's, and of course, CORN!
The movie does feature many small farmers, but it doesn't feature any of the big food industry bosses. Its the big wigs that didn't want to talk, according to Kenner.
Once again the native Americans have done us in.
First we took their tobacco and used it to excess. They only smoked after hostilities, to seal the peace.
Now we have taken their corn which along with all the other crops they gave us - think Thanksgiving - and have run this to excess.
High fructose corn syrup will eat out our pancreases and the nation will go down in a spiral of obese diabetes.
In the long run maybe a few Bison will roam the plains again.
I think this happens- film-makers try to talk to the industry folks while making a film and the industry people won't have anything to do with them. Then it backfires because the film does not carry the whole message...in this age when just about anyone can make a good documentary, big ag and big oil and big just about anything else should make every effort to work with film-makers. Or it could come back and bite them in the butt- as in this case.
"The documentary looks at the chemicals used to fatten up chickens and cattle, criticizes genetically engineered crops and links practices at livestock operations to deaths from E. coli poisoning. The widespread use of corn also is blamed for the country's obesity epidemic and high rates of diabetes."
How about doing some actual reporting, AP? (Instead of your lazy, "balanced" he said/she said.)
If you had done so, you could have informed consumers that growth hormones and GMO foods are linked to cancers.
You could have confirmed that industrial livestock operations do indeed cause E. coli poisoning and deaths.
You could have also confirmed that corn (high-fructose corn syrup) in junk foods is indeed a primary cause of the diabetes epidemic in the U.S.
I found this statement to be interesting:
"Dan Glickman, former secretary of agriculture under President Bill Clinton and current chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America" -- Mary Clare Jalonick
How does someone go from being Secretary of Agriculture to Chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America?
Must be business as usual in the U.S.A. -- corporate, that is!
Sure enough -- In 2004, he was hired to lobby for MPAA -- The Motion Picture Association of America.
I haven't seen this film, but I did see Fast Food Nation, starring Greg Kinnear.
Food, Inc. is highly recommended. Very worthwhile. You should borrow the DVD from your public library, or rent it.
HEMP could be one of those subsidies and think of the benefits...
http://www.jackherer.com
It's all about money. Large corporate farmers have large sweet subsidies and they don't want to lose them.