Talk:Food, Inc.

Factual information regarding slaughterhouses in US

The film states there are only 13 slaughterhouses in the US.[ http://getafilm.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-horizon-food-inc.html] Since I knew of 2 within a few miles of where I live, I thought this number sounded low. The wikipedia page on slaughterhouses states there are 5,700 in the United States. This seems like a large discrepancy. Makes me wonder what other facts stated in the film are in error? 68.111.246.29 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Article talk pages should not be used by editors as a platform for their personal views, nor for casual conversation. Article talk pages are only to be used for discussing improvements to their associated pages. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How is discussing factual inaccuracies in the film a personal view? I suggest an improvement to the article by addressing this issue, OK? 68.111.246.29 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then go ahead and do so, so long as it is not original research. But make the change to the article, not o the talk page. And by the way, "the film" makes no such claim about "13 slaughterhouses." That Getafilm.blogspot.com Web site makes that claim. Just because someone who runs a blog says, "The film says X", that doesn't mean the film actually says it. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen the film or you would'nt say that they don't make this claim. It is right here in their own press materials on page 8 under the title "Facts from Food, Inc": [1] 68.111.246.29 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• You are mis-reading that fact sheet. It says the top 13 slaughterhouses provide the majority of beef in the U.S. It does not say that there are only 13 cattle slaughterhouses. It does not say there are only 13 slaughterhouses for all animals. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, not to keep quibbling about this, but both the film and the the fact sheet says "In the 1970s, there were thousands of slaughterhouses that weren't producing the majority of beef sold. Today, we have only 13." I'm done with this, apparently there is no room for 'an inconvenient truth' here. Sorry. 68.111.246.29 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Once, it took thousands of slaughterhouses to produce the majority of beef sold. Today, it takes only 13. Are you somehow claiming that those 13 don't produce the majority of beef sold today? No one is preventing you from adding to the article, if you can do so under Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to argue semantics rather than improve the article, that is OK too. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that it is not really wize to use Wikipedia as a source for anything. It is a good place to begin but you can't take articles seriously. Gingermint (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I utterly disagree. Well-cited articles in Wikipedia are terrific sources! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

link to Food libel laws

I added a link to one of the issues covered, its a bit messy, but I wonder if we couldn't go a bit more into detail as to the content. Certainly this is the norm with most movies and novels. Unomi (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that there is a dead link referring to "food label laws" Possibly this is a typo? From context, food libel laws were discussed in the film, including the case in which Oprah Winfrey was sued for criticizing beef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.117.142 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

The second and third sentence in the "Controversy" section does not make sense. Could someone correct the ambiguous pronouns and clear up who invited who and what happened?Prottos007 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is fairly biased. The article should point out some of the controversy about the POV of the movie, reference some rebuttals and answers and concerns if the movie is providing the facts correctly. There has been at least some claims in the movie (seed cleaners being "hunted", sueing farmers who had some of their crops unintentionally infected with the patented seeds) that have been disputed (i.e. http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/FAQs.aspx). Gligeti (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kevin's Law

Can someone find and incorporate information about Kevin's Law into this article, or create a whole separate one? Interestingly, there is very little solid information about this senate bill. Personally, I think it merits its own article here. SweetNightmares (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you believe that "law" needs to be incorporated into Wikipedia, create an article about it. The film does not mention it (insofar as I can recall). - Tim1965 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember the mother whose son died? She wanted stronger legislation in the case of e. coli outbreaks.SweetNightmares (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wiki page, this law has been thrown out. Too bad, really. Rjbarber (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the women who wanted Kevin's law made a good claim about bad beef. To think they would change other laws that affects bad beef. For instance the FDA outlawed to say what country the beef comes from and why can't consumers know where the beef comes from, who lobbied that, McDonalds, the FDA is run by former elected lobbyist? Even seen the beef McDonald's, Jack n the Box, Taco Bell buy? It's low quality high saturated beef, it's heart attack beef all made from corn feed cows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Avant-garde

Food, Inc. ist NOT a "anti-modernist film". It's a very modern film. Like others:

• We Feed the World
• Darwin's Nightmare
• Monsanto, mit Gift und Genen
• L'assiette sale
• Super Size Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.112.145 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be an added section on corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup dangers from this movie to make is a heated topic. I switched and have not eatten anything with corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup at all for the last 3 years, even trans fats hydrogenated oils, eliminated all of it out of my diet. http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2010/03/15/daily44.html I am very please with the director and the making of this movie. It is a great film and their should me more like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Corn

I feel like no one on here has mentioned corn enough, which I believe to have been a big part of this film. Kenner put a whole section in the film dedicated to how we abuse corn and manipulate it to be substitute for so much of the "food" we eat. In fact in part of the movie it compared walking down a grocery store aisle to walking down a field of corn. After watching this movie it seriously made me think twice about what I ate before I ate it. Just think about it, how much of the food we use is actually food and how much of it is the chemically processed food? There are also commercials being shown out in television that claim that corn syrup is not unhealthy at all and that it's ok to consume because it's made from corn, has the same calories as sugar and honey, and fine in moderation. However they fail to mention that basically everything you buy at the supermarket has high fructose corn syrup which makes it almost impossible to consume in moderation, real sugar tastes better, etc. Overall my point is that corn was a big part/contribution to the film and I felt like it went under rated/not cared about. When indeed it should have gone noticed.Anabananas27 (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Page text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anabananas27 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Concern regarding the "See also" section

I don't understand why it is relevant to the article to include this section.

I can see nothing linking the listed articles except for subject matter and a shared political view point - they're all the work of different people.

It's like "If you liked this, you may like these". It's abnormal for Wikipedia to advertise in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.181.132 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Food, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314031032/http://truefalse.org:80/program/details/FoodInc.htm to http://truefalse.org/program/details/FoodInc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)