I don’t know why the word of mouth of this film is extremely polarized. In fact, the film is clearly criticizing monopoly companies such as Tyson and Meng Sandu, the production method of the food industry, and the attack on the agriculture and labor force of third world countries, etc. etc., there are also small workshop-style agricultural production methods that directly promote the original green. But its purpose is nothing but to break the monopoly, to seek diversification and checks and balances. No one would expect small farms to feed the world's population, but the so-called "inducing farmers to violate patent laws," "vegetarian defamation laws," and some food industry protections do have elements of unreasonableness that need to be heard. For individual food consumers, this film can at least make everyone pay more attention to product ingredients the next time they go to the supermarket, and think about how they are processed through complex industrial production processes before eating junk food. It looks beautiful. I think most of the purpose is achieved.
As for Walmart's role in the film, sponsorship is certain. But it seems doubtful whether the encouragement to consumers at the end of the film stems from the filmmakers' optimism about the future or something else. After all, it is really difficult to say how much the choice of consumers can play on retailers and even producers.
View more about
Food, Inc. reviews