Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Sandy and I watched Food Inc. on the CBC.  Did anyone else see it?  How did make you feel?

 

I am not sure how I feel about it, they made some interesting points.

The movie makes the large agri business firms look bad....that is who they are targeting.

 

They claim modern technology and large scale has some negative consequences - ecoli, overweight kids....

 

Here is the movie trailer,

 

Views: 487

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Overweight kids - yup, part of modern agbiz technology includes strapping some poor, skinny kid into a chair and, against their will,  ramming an endless stream of Big Macs and Baconators down their throat with the sole and inevitable consequence of causing childhood obesity. On their own, these poor, overweight kids would never do anything to contribute to their own extra poundage.

 

Thus, they are completely absolved of personal responsibility for their agbiz industry-induced, unhealthy physical state.

 

Therefore, it is clear that personal eating choices have nothing to do with society's obesity epidemic.

 

Well at least that's what Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan types would have you believe . . .

 

"The average consumer does not feel very powerful . . .the exact opposite", says the driver of the mini van while the mother and child? (@1:23) sit there and chow back on fast food. Were they powerless to choose a healthier kind of meal?

 

It is self-contradictions and lies like this, interspersed with half truths and misrepresented facts, that destroys any credibility that the producers of Food Inc. so desperately try to achieve. The trouble is, this type of media strikes a chord with the ill-informed consumer of today.

 

What really trips my trigger on this issue is that the consumer totally fails to acknowledge or understand their part in driving agricultural practices to what it has become today. The consumers that support the big stores offering the lowest prices are 99% at fault for driving modern into an "economy of scale" type of production.

 

They want cheap food - well, they get cheap food, but the way it is mass produced is part of the hidden cost.

 

 

Interesting points John,

 

If anyone wants to watch it online...it is on the CBC.ca site.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/foodinc/

 

Happy New Year,

 

Sandy

 

 

Good points John but I also believe people need to be reminded of the evolution of agri-business through the political process.

 

One person that stands out is Dr. Earl Butz, Sec. of Agriculture under Pres. Nixon and Ford.

 

His mantra which is refective of his persona:  "Get big or get out".

 

Agri-business took a firm root under his tenure, corn production exploded and the use of high fructose corn syrup became a cheap and effective additive to the exploding "fast food" businesses.

 

And he was also noted for the quote: (Time magazine November 11, 1974) 


"Food is a weapon. It is now one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit".  (this from the U.S.A. Sec. of Agriculture!!!!)

 

So it just begs the question...... If food is a weapon... who are the intended targets? ... and to what end?

 

John Schwartzentruber said:

Overweight kids - yup, part of modern agbiz technology includes strapping some poor, skinny kid into a chair and, against their will,  ramming an endless stream of Big Macs and Baconators down their throat with the sole and inevitable consequence of causing childhood obesity. On their own, these poor, overweight kids would never do anything to contribute to their own extra poundage.

 

Thus, they are completely absolved of personal responsibility for their agbiz industry-induced, unhealthy physical state.

 

Therefore, it is clear that personal eating choices have nothing to do with society's obesity epidemic.

 

Well at least that's what Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan types would have you believe . . .

 

"The average consumer does not feel very powerful . . .the exact opposite", says the driver of the mini van while the mother and child? (@1:23) sit there and chow back on fast food. Were they powerless to choose a healthier kind of meal?

 

It is self-contradictions and lies like this, interspersed with half truths and misrepresented facts, that destroys any credibility that the producers of Food Inc. so desperately try to achieve. The trouble is, this type of media strikes a chord with the ill-informed consumer of today.

 

What really trips my trigger on this issue is that the consumer totally fails to acknowledge or understand their part in driving agricultural practices to what it has become today. The consumers that support the big stores offering the lowest prices are 99% at fault for driving modern into an "economy of scale" type of production.

 

They want cheap food - well, they get cheap food, but the way it is mass produced is part of the hidden cost.

 

 

John you will find that the food is more extensive in poor suburbs and more fastfood franchisers than the white collar areas of a city. Ads are in the kids faces, from the day they sit in front of the TV.  Low income people have no choice, but to buy these foods, a person living on the dole or minum wage, are living on credit as it is.  It is alright to sit in an ivory castle and throw rocks. You have limited resources, pack the kids up and go to the farmers market an hour down the road the will cost you a hundres bucks all up, or go to Walmart and MacDonalds cost you 50.
Let me tell you a little story about Wollworth coming to town, with in a year they got the local council to close the local market though bylaws. Two butcher shops and three independanthree grocery stores closed who bought of local farmer, milk, fruit and vegitables and meat. My father's was one of the butcher shops. 
John Schwartzentruber said:

Overweight kids - yup, part of modern agbiz technology includes strapping some poor, skinny kid into a chair and, against their will,  ramming an endless stream of Big Macs and Baconators down their throat with the sole and inevitable consequence of causing childhood obesity. On their own, these poor, overweight kids would never do anything to contribute to their own extra poundage.

 

Thus, they are completely absolved of personal responsibility for their agbiz industry-induced, unhealthy physical state.

 

Therefore, it is clear that personal eating choices have nothing to do with society's obesity epidemic.

 

Well at least that's what Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan types would have you believe . . .

 

"The average consumer does not feel very powerful . . .the exact opposite", says the driver of the mini van while the mother and child? (@1:23) sit there and chow back on fast food. Were they powerless to choose a healthier kind of meal?

 

It is self-contradictions and lies like this, interspersed with half truths and misrepresented facts, that destroys any credibility that the producers of Food Inc. so desperately try to achieve. The trouble is, this type of media strikes a chord with the ill-informed consumer of today.

 

What really trips my trigger on this issue is that the consumer totally fails to acknowledge or understand their part in driving agricultural practices to what it has become today. The consumers that support the big stores offering the lowest prices are 99% at fault for driving modern into an "economy of scale" type of production.

 

They want cheap food - well, they get cheap food, but the way it is mass produced is part of the hidden cost.

 

 

Sorry, I'm kinda slow on the uptake here.

 

So, please make something clear for me - How many dollars does it cost to pay for a meal for a family of four at McDonald's? How many dollars does it cost to buy a package of hamburger buns, a head of lettuce and 2 lbs. of ground beef?

 

Numbers, please.

 

Torronto prices as of today 11 Jan2005
Mince beef 12.79 per kg converted to 4 Ilbs $25.59

head of lettuce $4.99

hambers buns 1.00 by 4 $4.00

Total $31.08 tax not included

 

$5 for a big mack x 4 $20 and no washing up or cooking.

 


John Schwartzentruber said:

Sorry, I'm kinda slow on the uptake here.

 

So, please make something clear for me - How many dollars does it cost to pay for a meal for a family of four at McDonald's? How many dollars does it cost to buy a package of hamburger buns, a head of lettuce and 2 lbs. of ground beef?

 

Numbers, please.

 

If I am not mistaken, you priced enough ground beef and lettuce to make at least 16 Big Macs, if not Quarter pounders. Maybe the real problem is that some fast food/fat food shoppers cannot do math and comparative shopping and don't like cleanup...

Here is what happens when someone declines to take responsibility for her/his own personal condition -

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V168xofxgu0

 

 

Where are you buying your ground beef from?  MacDonalds big mac does not have extra lean ground veal meat, and only has (2) patties, which does not add up to 1 lb of meat.  You can buy a head of lettuce for $2 and make at least 10 hamburgers with it also (thats a lot of lettuce).  People just like to make excuses for not having to put the effort into making your own dinner. It is a lot cheaper to eat at home, really cheap if you shop for your ingredients.   People just like everything to be convenient, and shop usually at a big box store also.  You forgot about the cost of driving to the restaurant (ie fuel, mileage on vehicle etc.)
Prices are from the net from Torronto, the conversion is from Kg to pounds. As for the prices they may vary depending on the competition. I went to Hearst today one suppermarket in the town. Head of lettus $3, 4bls of Beef mince $24.05, hamburgar buns pack of 6 $6.00. Total $31.05. Distance travel 30km. Yes you may get more, I have no quarms that eating at home you may get more for your dollar. But when you are unemployed, living on the pension, or a single mother with five kids to five fathers, a old pensioner in a flat depress as shit and a Mac ad comes on. As Andy says people want convience, and if your are given the illution, that is cheap at fast food place.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Farmers Want Stable Canola Demand – Domestic Biofuels Market is Key

Trade Wins & the Need for Market Diversification: Lessons from the Canola Tariff Breakthrough After months of uncertainty, we are pleased to report positive developments on the trade front. Prime Minister Carney and Premier Moe’s diplomatic visit to China in January 2026 resulted in a resolution that led to a reduction in China’s canola tariffs—read this news release for greater detail on this file. While this is welcome news, it has also highlighted the risks of relying too heavily on only a couple of export markets. In today’s global trade environment, market diversification is more important than ever. Over the past year, canola—one of our largest export crops—has faced significant market risk. The recent tariff ruling confirms that depending on foreign buyers leaves us vulnerable to unpredictable policy changes. That’s why expanding domestic demand, especially biofuel, is crucial. Unlike exports, local biofuel markets can’t be affected by foreign tariffs. Crush It: Renewable Die

USask earns high marks in world university subject rankings

USask was listed among the top 50 universities in the world for veterinary science in the QS World University Rankings by Subject for 2026, earning a spot at 49th overall. In addition, USask ranked 54th in the world in agriculture and forestry, both increases that speak to USask’s strong research and scholarly impact in those subject areas. “Seeing USask’s success in these international rankings is just one indicator of the incredible research, scholarly and artistic work that takes place on campus,” said USask Vice-President Research Baljit Singh. “We are proud that the world-class work of our staff and faculty is recognized on a world stage such as this.” USask also climbed the rankings in four other subject areas: geophysics, chemistry, electrical and electronic engineering, as well as physics and astronomy. USask placed in the top 300 institutions in the world in the subject areas of veterinary science, agriculture and forestry, environmental sciences (151-200 tier), geophysics

USask Agros’ Bedpush raises more than $135,000 for Telemiracle

Bedpush 2026 raised a total of $135,400, the most ever in the history of event. In the 42 years of Bedpush, there has been more than one million dollars raised for Telemiracle. TeleMiracle is a telethon fundraiser benefiting the Kinsmen Foundation. The non-profit organization provides specialized mobility and medical equipment to people and organizations throughout Saskatchewan, as well as travel assistance for residents in need of vital medical treatment outside their home community. “Participating in Bedpush is one of my favourite memories throughout my journey at the University of Saskatchewan,” said Laurel O’Neill, an Agribusiness student and the Agros public relations officer who led Bedpush. “Bedpush has truly made me proud to be an Agro and to be involved in my community and college.” Bedpush is an exciting tradition in the College of Agriculture and Bioresources (AgBio) at the University of Saskatchewan (USask). As part of the college’s legacy, the biannual fundraiser brings

Purdue University Launches New Online Digital Agriculture Course

Purdue University is offering a new online Digital Agriculture course, introduced through a webinar that highlights course features, faculty insights, discounts, and enrollment support for learners.

Lower premiums for field crop businesses

Quebec City, QC – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service