Truth or Fallacy?
The film, Food, Inc., argues that our food system has been corrupted by corporate interests; as a result, we are put in danger by very items that should guarantee our survival. We should reclaim our right to health by eating more locally produced organic food and ensuring all people have access to such food. The film wants the viewers to think negatively of the business of mass production of the foods that we eat on a daily basis. The logical fallacies allow the film to capture the attention and emotions of its audience by giving a reason for their concerns, but without any legitimate statistics or facts to back up their claims. The use of these logical fallacies in the film help strengthen its arguments by making the audience feel as if the corporations are exploiting the farmers and their traditions, causing families to go through avoidable obstacles, and making the companies and government look like the “bad guys” in this web that is called the food industry. However, the reality is that the food industry isn’t as evil as depicted by the fallacious arguments in the film. To begin with, the film argues against the corporate interests and works to make its audience view the companies as exploitative of being the ones who are exploiting the farmers and taking them away from their traditions. For example, at one point, one of the farmers who was interviewed said, “theyThey not only changed the chicken, they changed the farmer...today chicken farmers no longer control their birds. A company like Tyson owns the birds from the day they are dropped off to the day they are slaughtered.” This statement makes companies like Tyson look like they are completely responsible for the way that farmers now farm and for the lack of control that a farmer has over the way that he choseschooses to raise his chickens. This logical fallacy doesn’t state how such companies control the chickens and how they have “changed the farmer.” The lack of hard facts behind this statement makes it illogical because it doesn't back up its claims with credible pieces of evidence; however, the logical fallacy works in the film’s favor because it makes the audience emotional towards the farmers’ deprivation of the basic traditions at the expense of working under big companies. The audience being the middle class progressives, who value hard work, fair competition, and oppose corruption, would find Tyson’s control over the farmers oppressive and something that would make them angry and even somewhat hostile towards companies like Tyson, working in the favor of the film. Additionally, the film goes on to say “animals and workers are being abused,” but doesn’t necessarily offer any examples of the ways that companies seem to be abusing both the animals and the workers. This use of excessive pathos and guilt by association makes the viewer feel sympathy towards not only the animals, but also the workers as a result of the corporate abuse; they are being forced to do something they don’t really want to. No logic exists behind the argument being stated since we don’t have any hard facts or statistics to prove how the animals and humans are being abused and to what extent.
Furthermore, the film, Food, Inc., uses its logical fallacies to make the audience feel as if the food industry is the cause of families facing obstacles that deal with processed food such as diabetes and even fatal reactions to the food. . The film uses a story of a child’s death r esulting the death of a child from E Coli poisoning acquired after eating a processed hamburger. Even though the story of the young child’s death and its toll on the mother arewas very heart wrenching and hard to listen to, they don’t it didn't logically support the film’s argument with facts or statistics. It simply allowed the film to pull on the emotional side of its audience by, once again, making them think of how bad the food processing...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document