Monday Movie: Food Inc.

I honor of the academy awards last night, today's film recommendation is Food Inc. I saw this film a few months ago and was impressed; it presents a whole bunch of information in a way that it understandable and compelling. It basically goes into the ways in which food production (and, thus, consumption) has changed over the last 100 years, and how that is a problem.

The film isn't perfect, though. I did feel like it was a bit scattered and lacked a cohesive narrative. Still, it was informative and I've found myself thinking about it often. The academy apparently agreed, as it was nominated (but didn't win) an academy award.

I have included a video from the movie below, however, the "official trailer in HD" has embedding disabled, so you'll actually have to go to youtube and watch it here.

Animals, Food, and Compounding Problems

This morning I read this New York Times OpEd, which basically argues that many animals are being subjected to cruel treatment and that that needs to stop. I agree, but was appalled at the proposed solution: genetically engineering animals so they cannot feel pain.

Initially, I couldn't believe I was reading such a shocking and idiotic idea. Surely the author's intentions (eliminating animal cruelty) are worthy, but this seems like an absurd way to go about it. Instead of actually addressing any of the current problems with animal/meat production (of which there are many), it actually suggests that all those problems can be solved (or skirted) with a quick and easy fix.

Obviously, this raises ethical questions, (is it right to eliminate animals' ability to feel pain?) but it also raises more practical ones as well. For example, wouldn't it be better to eliminate the conditions that produced the problems in the first place? Can a technological fix solve problems that are the result of technological farming in the first place? Doesn't this article itself reveal the severity of the problems? Doesn't that mean we should try to solve them at their roots (or reverse their causes), instead of simply reducing animals' sensitivity to dangerous conditions.

The proposal also fails to adequately acknowledge the dangers that current meat production techniques pose to humans. Though I'm not, as a rule, opposed to all genetic engineering, I am opposed to raising animals in ways that are both cruel to them and unhealthy to the people eating them. The article points out, for example, that some animals are suffering because they have an unnatural high-grain diet. That diet not only hurts the animals, however, but also makes the eventual meat they become far less healthy for people to consume. Altering animals to not feel pain doesn't begin to address that problem. In essence, the same things that are producing cruel situations for animals are making meat products dangerously unhealthy for humans. Genetically reducing animals' pain would allow unhealthy practices to continue, ultimately causing far more harm (to animals and humans) in the long run.

Ultimately, this article advocates a dangerous idea. It will deceive consumers into thinking that they're getting a better product when they're actually getting something that is the same, or worse, as usual. Instead of figuring out how to make animals more comfortable in horrible situations, we should be figuring out how to eliminate those situations. We could give them the proper food, space to grow properly, and a more natural environment to live in. There are serious farming-related problems out there for which we urgently need solutions, but simply reducing animal pain would mean winning one battle while ignoring a much larger war. Fighting that war might mean higher prices for consumers (and/or less meat consumption), but side-stepping it with more genetic engineering will only compound a terrible situation.