The logical fallacies allow the film to capture the attention and emotions Of its udience 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 avoidTABLE 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 he 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… oday 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 nd for the lack of control that a farmer has over the way that he choseschooses to raise his chickens. This logical fallacy doesnt 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 iddle 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 nimals, 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 rom 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 business really is, but this was only one case, and E coli has been a problem for many years now. It didn’t offer any statistics such as howas how many more people have died from E Coli or the ncrease in E Coli related deaths from the 50s till now as a result of eating processed foods. The use of excessive pathos allowed the film to strengthen its argument by emotionally connecting to its audience, audience.
It made it seem as if the food industry is the only reason for this mother’s suffering and emotional distress causing the audience to lean towards the mother and her story and once again see the food industry as the “bad guys” who are ruining our households and families. but failed to act as a truly logical reasoning as to why the food industry is corrupted and seen as something that is putting our ives in danger. Likewise, the film talked about another family that was having trouble managing their dietary needs and the importance of living a healthy lifestyle.
Once again the use of excessive pathos not only made the family look completely incapTABLE of doing anything different, but it also made the food industry look “evil” and inconsiderate. The family talked about how they are forced to buy fast food for nearly all of their meals while the dad suffers from problems such as diabetes which is getting worse; they lack the ability to be TABLE to live a healthy lifestyle. The blame for this was put on the food ndustry for having foods that lack any nutritional value and foods that lead to health problems.
The film made it seem as if the food industry is the cause of the diabetes and will be the reason if the dad ends up losing the ability to function properly, The family talked about how they don’t have enough time or money to buy fresh produce from the grocery store; therefore, they are reluctant to buy fast food for many of their meals despite the fact that the dad suffers from diabetes. This makes it seem as if its the food industrys fault that they are not being TABLE to live a healthy lifestyle and thusthus supporting he films intended argument: we are put in danger by the food items that should guarantee our survival.
However, this is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t provide any reasons, facts, or statistics as to how difficult it actually would be if they decided to live only on buying healthy and fresh foods from the supermarket as compared to spending $1 1 on fast food for just one meal that doesn’t offer much nutritional value. The fallacy works with the argument of the film by allowing the viewer, who belongs to a middle class working household, to once again connect emotionally to the family.
The audience ember might also have similar problems in which they rely on fast food for many of their meals and suffer from health related problems, as a result of their dependence on fast food. and see the The food industry is therefore seen as as something that is truly putting us in danger of health problems and taking away the necessity to buy healthy and locally grown produce. Lastly, Food, Inc. , uses logical fallacies to make the food industry look like the “bad guys” in this whole situation.
For instance, the film interviewed a farmer who doesn’t work for the big corporations and doesn’t work with mass roduction of chickens or cows. He at one point says, “the USDA tried to shut us down because this Was considered unsanitary, can you imagine? ” while pointing to the beautiful outdoor system they believed they had. This is a misrepresentation of the facts because he doesn’t offer the complete details about their dispute, but only says that the USDA tried to shut them down as a result of them working outdoors.
He doesn’t give the exact words, letters, or anything that the USDA issued to him that would allow the viewers to see why they considered the outdoor operation to be unsanitary, other than the information he gives about . he amount of ammonia present in the chicken that was tested. However, that point is quickly overlooked and the ridiculousness of why the USDA would do such a thing and try to close down such a peaceful and calm operation that they seem to have going, is highlighted.
This logical fallacy allows the film to further its argument against the corruption by the corporate interests and makes its audience look at the industry leaders as the “bad guys” for trying to shut down such a peaceful and calm operation that the film along with the farmer portrays. The audience is tricked into thinking that the food industry might be against this outdoor peration because it doesn’t follow the “processed food” guidelines and doesn’t want the production of the all-natural food products, even though that is not the case.
But the way that the film uses its fallacious arguments as mentioned earlier, creates a negative image of the food industry in the eyes of the middle class progressives. Furthermore, the film interviewed another farmer who was against the corporate interests in farming, who said “… The reason our government is supporting corn is because companies like Tyson and Smithfield, have an interest in purchasing corn below cost of roduction… They use the extensive amount Of money they have to lobby congressman and give us the kind of farm bills we now have. ” This once again works in the favor of Food, Inc. ecause it allows the audience to hear from an average farmer who shares his personal story of how he is being manipulated and given high bills as a result of these big corporations working with the government and using their power and money to do as they please. However, this is a logical fallacy because the farmer doesn’t offer any details about when and where companies such as Tyson and Smithfield have lobbied ongressman and used their extensive amounts of money to work against farmers like him and nor does he show how his farm bills have increased over the years.
This statement is pure opinion that is being portrayed as facts by the film, but it does work to further the film’s argument of how the food system is being corrupted by the corporate interests. The highlighting of the corruption by the logical fallacies works with the audience of the middle class progressives who oppose the corruption and therefore will oppose the food industry and their corporate interests. As can be seen, the use of logical fallacy is clearly apparent in the movie, Food, Inc. , working to support its intended argument against the processed food industry.
