Food, Inc. (2008)

The one thing I would like to say about this documentary film is that they should be ashamed of themselves for plagiarizing The Future of Food (2004). In The Future of Food, the documentarian (Deborah Koons Garcia) tackles the organic food vs. GMO food issue in decent detail. She interviews individuals who have been affected by GMOs: farmers, mothers of sickened children, consumers, experts. She presents a link between the behemoth Monsanto and its exploitation of farmers over supposed GMO patent infringement. She reveals the blatant conflicts of interest between current (at the time in 2004) and former executives of Monsanto and current and former officials in the US Government and its various regulatory agencies. She interviews experts. She presents scientific data about what a GMO really is (including the 6-7 the viruses and bacteria that go into genetically modifying those organisms to make them Roundup Ready). Yes, it’s got an emotional appeal, but then again, what documentary doesn’t?

What is nauseating is that Food, Inc. acts like it came up with its own format, when in actuality, it plagiarized and appropriated its format directly from The Future of Food!

Shameless!  It makes me sick that within a mere 4 years, another filmmaker could come out with the same film and not even reference its predecessor.

Sure, in Food, Inc., they based the first half of their film on the mass production of MEAT, which was not covered in The Future of Food, but in exactly the same vein as The Future of Food, the 2nd half of Food, Inc. was devoted to GMO soybeans and corn (GMO corn is covered to a great extent in The Future of Food) and the exploitation of farmers by who else but MONSANTO!

I’m disappointed that, as a viewing nation, we are too stupid to even recognize, or care about, the obviousness of this plagiaristic appropriation.

We have too few memories.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Food, Inc. (2008)

  1. While plagiarism should not be tolerated, that is the affair of the filmmakers directly involved and the law.

    But, as for the facts and the message, they cannot be plagiarized as all the info is out there in the public domain.

    So, as a consumer, I applaud any and all attempts to get the message out there – it cannot be said/seen too often!

  2. Well, I couldn’t disagree with you more about the topic of plagiarism. Had the Food, Inc. filmmakers NOT plagiarized, they would have been able to establish and maintain a legitimate authority (therefore argument) on the subject. Instead, they chose to re-use, appropriate, or directly plagiarize from another source without referencing it; therefore, their authority on the subject is entirely compromised. The very essence of plagiarism is that you don’t bother to develop your own argument or material so you steal someone else’s. You can get kicked out of college and fired from jobs for plagiarizing so it IS a big deal.

    You should watch The Future of Food, and then you’ll see my point about their none-too-subtle appropriations.

    And I suggest you take another look at the concept of public domain vs. plagiarism. Just because something is available to the public, doesn’t mean it is above the plagiarism rule–you absolutely, always MUST reference your sources. Just because people copy text(s) from other websites and post them on wikipedia or other websites without referencing them (or vice versa), doesn’t mean it’s not plagiarism. It is. Trust me, it is.

    I certainly agree that the message should be put out there, only properly done.

    Thanks for your comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s