WASHINGTON -- Poultry and meat industry groups are refuting allegations in the movie 'Food Inc.' concerning industry practices on how food is produced and sold in the U.S.
The National Chicken Council termed the film "one-sided, negative and misleading;" the American Meat Institute called it a "caricature;" while the Animal Agriculture Alliance said it was "an assault on American farmers and ranchers."
The film purports to be an investigative look at animal welfare practices of the meat and poultry industries, while advocating small-scale, local production. It is largely based on writings of Michael Pollen, who has long criticized commercial agriculture.
NCC noted that the modern U.S. food industry is composed of many disparate industries, which together produce the world's most abundant, diverse, safe and economical supply of food for consumers in the U.S. and around the world.
Claiming that the movie is a documentary about the U.S. food system is like claiming " 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was a documentary about archeology," NCC said.
AMI Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Janet Riley, in an ABC-TV 'Nightline' interview said, "It was like going to see a film about modern investigative techniques and having Scooby Doo show up on the screen. It was a caricature."
While small-scale production is a viable niche in the food system, it would not provide sufficient food for 300 million in the U.S. and millions of others around the world, NCC stated.
In addition, The cost to consumers would also be prohibitive since small-scale products are typically more expensive.
"If a consumer wants to pay more, this is his or her business, but insisting that only expensive products from small-scale operations are worth eating is pure snobbery," NCC said.
Riley also said it would be foolhardy to abandon modern food production methods during a global recession, when people are starving in parts of the world.
"Why would we want to turn the clock back to a less efficient way to produce food," Riley asked.
The Animal Agriculture Alliance pointed out that the film is not only an assault on U.S. farmers and ranchers, "but it is also an assault on families who cannot afford -- or simply do not choose -- products that cost more just because of the method in which they were produced."
"The film suggests that affordable food is nothing to brag about, and consumers should be willing to pay more for food that is produced in systems that the film advocates," the alliance said. "We consider that approach to food affordability incredibly elitist . . . Now, more than ever, it is important for food to remain affordable."
A coalition of industry groups has launched a web site -- http://www.safefoodinc.com -- to respond to the film's claims. Together, the coalition members produce more than 90 percent of U.S. beef, pork, lamb, veal, turkey and poultry.
In a statement on the web site, the coalition said, "We are proud of the way we care for our animals, our employees and the environment. We are also proud of the nutrition, safety and good taste that our products offer."
The coalition statement noted that while the makers of the movie have a right to state their opinions, "consumers and the media have the right to the facts. And that's what this web site is all about: the other side of the story."
Current News