The three texts that we have read over the past couple of months and the documentary Food Inc., have brought up issues and controversies that I have not heard about before in my life. These texts have been able to provide me with both sides of a “war” that I did not really know was going on. I admit I was ignorant to the supposed corruption between food production companies and Federal agencies such as the FDA, as well as the lack of consideration for the health and safety of the general public. I knew money made the world go round but I thought we at least cared about ourselves as a society more than making money. This appears to be one of, if not the largest motivating factor in this ‘war’ we call food politics. All of the pieces we have read or watched have had consistent themes throughout one another, although they did not necessarily take the same stance on the same issues. For exampleOrganic Illusions by Hurst was clearly against the method of production used by the organic food industry and one of his main arguments was that organic production is not efficient enough to sustain the entire country, and would require more workers to join the work force. “People who are now working in other industries would have to leave them in order to provide the manpower necessary to replace technology in agriculture, and what they would have produced in those careers would figure into the cost of organic farming. These opportunity costs would be huge” (Hurst). It is clear that this argument is based on the premise that it would cost too much money to have only organic, ‘healthier’ food. Similarly, In Food Inc. Carole Morison was explaining how she was being forced to always upgrade to new equipment, along with various other farmers interviewed during the film. In particular Morison was in the predicament where she needed to upgrade her chicken coop to an enclosed version, which was even more inhumane than the conditions that chickens were currently in. These chickens would die daily due to sicknesses caused by living in close quarters in their own feces. This showed me that the food producers don’t care about the safety of the animals or the people that consume them, and that they only care about making extra money on having more chickens in a smaller inhumane space and upgrade fees. Continuing with the common thread of money being the most important factor, in Nestle’s “Resisting Food Safety” she clearly addresses many current and growing problems relating to our food supply and the increasing number of food-borne illnesses. She calls out organizations and federal agencies on their corruption and oversight of food handling and contamination issues going on with our food supply. She also explains how agencies such as the FDA are not able to put regulations in motion due to a lack of funding. This surprised me because it shows how we don’t have a priority for the general public’s food safety. Nestle and Food Inc. both bring up the argument that there are people who hold positions of power in government agencies such as the FDA that have close connections with Big name food producers, such as Monsanto. In “You Are What They Eat” both sides of the argument on food safety is brought fourth. However a common theme throughout the article that stuck me was when the people working for the food industry were saying that these cheap and fast solutions that kill bacteria on our food, instead of addressing the issue that is actually causing the growth of harmful bacteria on our food. For example, they say that cattle and chicken are still fed corn based feeds. This corn based fed is known to causes growth of unwanted bacteria inside the animals that eat it, however it is significantly cheaper to feed the animals corn because it is cheaply available. This requires food producers to use ammonia solutions on possible contaminated meats, as shown in Food Inc. This means that food producers would rather save money on feed and have a cheaper, not necessarily safer, solution to food contamination, instead of addressing the source of the food contamination, the feed.

Nestle’s article on food safety in particular addresses the complicated politics that involve the government’s ability to properly regulate the United State’s food production standards and safety protocols. “Although outbreaks of food-borne illness have become more dangerous over the years, food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal”(Nestle, 27). Nestle points out that major food industries have significant power when it comes to rallying against an unfavorable regulation proposed by government agencies. This claim is further backed up by Food Inc. when the small farmers that were fighting a very powerful company, Monsanto who is the creator of genetically modified soy beans. The fact that Monsanto is the creator and patent holder of these seeds not only gives them total control over their product, it also gives them legal and financial power over the farmers that use their seeds. Monsanto has made it illegal for farmers to save their seeds, which is a serious concern for neighboring farmers that do not use Monsanto products. Roger Nelson was interviewed in Food Inc. because he was being sued by Monsanto for promoting other farmers to save their seed by continuing to save his non-genetically modified seed as well as his clients’. Ultimately, Nelson was unable to continue running his farm and business due to a copious amount of legal fees. Furthermore Nestle goes on to say in her article “the FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under the pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of drugs” (Nestle, 46). Perhaps this is a wake up call for government agencies to take power away from the businessmen and into the hands of the correct regulating agencies that way the public can be assured a safer food supply.

In conclusion, all of these texts share the same information stated in a way that supports their arguments, however the most common theme when you look from an unbiased perspective is that it is easier for the food industry to find a cheap adjustment to the system we have instead of changing the parts of the system that need to be. It all seems to boil down to money being the main wall that is preventing the proper regulations to take place to make our food supply safer.