Comments on: Food Inc.’s Fact Problem

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 22 May 2010 18:30:12 +0000

I’m not looking for a defense from Monsanto. You will get just as much biased information from Monsanto as you did Food Inc. Why are you OK with trusting Monsanto but not Food Inc.? Because YOU have already made up your mind, as you did before you even saw the movie.

I’m looking for an independent fact check, which is pretty much impossible in today’s world (soo many connections), but it certainly isn’t Monsanto.com or Food Inc writers.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:04:43 +0000

Joe, Food Inc. spends a lot of time attacking Monsanto. One would think that they, like the murderer you cite, would have the right to defend themselves. As long as you are secure in your opinion that Food Inc. is right and its opponents are wrong, no argument would work to convince you.

By: Joe Kroemenhock

Joe Kroemenhock — Wed, 19 May 2010 06:17:59 +0000

You complain about Food Inc’s poor fact checking in two instances, one of which is pretty much true (less inspections), and one that doesn’t alter the point of the movie. Then you point readers to Monsanto for them to fact check that area of the movie? Are you kidding? That’s like pointing to a murderer and asking what his facts tell him. I’m search google for food inc fact check and i just get a mouthpiece for the industry. great.

By: Ken Westervelt

Ken Westervelt — Fri, 14 May 2010 03:41:48 +0000

I get the feeling ‘propomentary’ is a portmanteau of documentary and propaganda.

By: mlinskey

mlinskey — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:50:16 +0000

Mike,

When someone has nothing intelligent or factual to counter someone’s comment they disagree with, their only comeback is to criticize that person’s spelling. See it all the time. Sad.

By: Mike Thompson

Mike Thompson — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:03:11 +0000

Bob, what does propomentary mean? I could use a little clarification on that “word” because I couldn’t seem to find it in any dictionary.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 20:17:06 +0000

Wow, two minor errors. Amber are you able to read or did you even listen to the movie? The errors are all over the movie and you can find answers from multiple sources in minutes. The movie said we had thousands of beef processors and now we have 13. Lie. Tyson alone has 12 and you can find that on the web in 2 minutes.

E-Coli -5700 is very common in people and has been around for a while. Human anti-biotics are affecting it as much or more than animal anti-biotics.

If the movies producers didn’t care to get little facts right, why would they want to get the big facts right. So you could ask why don’t they care to present truth.

Because they want to sell books and movies. They are as evil as the corporations they speak out against. Let me guess they flew in private jets in a limo entourage to the movie awards to rail against capitalism and green house gasses.

We live in hypocrite nation with the propomentary movies.

By: Raj

Raj — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:09:31 +0000

I followed the link referencing the food inspection numbers, and even though Mr. Kristof has doubts about the specific numbers of inspections performed in 1971 and 2008, he did conclude that the number of FDA food safety inspections performed “had plunged”.

By: Amber

Amber — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:15:35 +0000

Wow, two minor errors.

To speak as if this movie is full of “fact problems” is not only deceitful, but flat out, WRONG.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:31:57 +0000

Done. Thanks for the heads-up.