Dissection of an Evil Power. Critical Review of “The World According to Monsanto

by Adham Ghandour

POL128 Politics and Film - Ryerson University 

In 1901 the original Monsanto company was founded and with it began a century of controversy regarding the ethics and morals, that went to into its products and operations.  Monsanto is an American multinational company that specializes in agricultural biotechnology and the production of agrochemicals based in Missouri. Monsanto is regarded by many experts as one of the most unethical and inhumane companies to ever function let alone accrue billions of dollars in sales annually. However, many individuals that are part of bigger private and government run organizations support Monsanto’s downright evil methods because it provides them with a plethora of financial gain. Monsanto’s consistent efforts to cover up the truth behind its corrupt system is evident in its regular changes to documentation or announcements on their websites, after that had been found to falsely advertise and make false statements (Fedoroff, 2013). In the film “The World According to Monsanto” by Marie-Monique Robin the evil and corrupt company that is known to be Monsanto, is dissected and thoroughly analyzed with the support of experts from the point of view of those who disagree with Monsanto’s ways as well as that of the people that support Monsanto. Light is shed on the internal operations and real life personal encounters of individuals with Monsanto and its representatives. Marie- Monique Robin looked at both sides on the topic of corruption in Monsanto’s operations and their attempt at essentially poisoning and unjustly controlling the worlds food production.

The documentary begins showing us farmers explaining the effects that Monsanto products have had on their business some positively and others negatively. To start off the documentary that shows that the director wanted to show both points of views before showing her personal opinion on the matter. The next scene shows Marie-Monique turning on her computer with the presence of diegetic sound coming from the start up tone on a Macintosh computer. The sound of the computer turning on signifies the beginning of Marie-Monique’s extensive research on the topic of interest, which is Monsanto. The tone also sets the mood of the documentary showing that it will be informative and based on real research in support of Marie-Monique’s personal point of view. A reoccurring scene throughout the documentary that is present between cuts is the interviewer positioned on her desk physically surfing the web, in search of information regarding a corrupt company that is gaining power at a dangerously fast rate. The sound of the mouse clicking as she does her research is always there and intensifies the importance of what she is doing and how important it is for her as a documenter as well as a person (Robin, 2008).

Throughout the documentary Marie-Monique is narrating her thought process making the audience feel like we can read her mind. Every piece of information that she learns or wants to find out, we learn and discover simultaneously. This approach for documentation makes the viewers feel more engaged almost as if they are part of her research team contributing to the research. Early on in the documentary she makes this statement “For 20 years I have travelled the globe and everywhere I have heard about this American Multinational but what I have heard hasn’t always been positive, wanting to know more I surfed the web for months to put the pieces of the puzzle together” (Robin, 2008). The previous quote ensures the idea that the creator of this documentary is truly passionate about this topic and is genuinely interested in educating herself further to justify the negative image that her and many others have towards Monsanto. She understands that many might disagree with her on her personal opinion, but she is doing her job to provide as much credible research and encounters with specialists to prove her point of view on the unethical acts performed by Monsanto. In her narration she also poses questions that are then answered by a series of different interview approaches including talking heads with people that can relate or are informed enough to provide their experiences or opinions. The questions that are narrated act as sort of an introduction to what is to come up next in the documentary.

Marie-Monique was not afraid to delve into extremely controversial topics that had to do with government organizations and personnel. She took somewhat of a hostile approach when attempting to show all of Monsanto’s wrongdoings. This method does help her prove her personal opinions against Monsanto and satisfies those who share her same belief. In the documentary she seems to focus a lot on portraying Monsanto as the evil conglomerate that it probably is, but does not keep the balance of Monsanto supporters. Although that is not necessary for her to do, since her stance towards the topic is clear, it does give those who disagree with her reason to say that her studies are potentially biased towards one side. Such claims could cause the credibility and reputation of her documentary to suffer. Marie-Monique spoke openly about the food drug administration (FDA) accepting the production of genetically modified organs (GMOs) as suggested by Monsanto although they did not meet the safety standards. One of her interviews when discussing the FDA situation was conducted with James Maryanski who headed the biotechnology department at that point. In that interview Maryanski agrees that the FDA’s decision was influenced by politics rather than following real scientific criteria. She also spoke to Dan Glickman who used to be Bill Clinton’s secretary of agriculture, in that interview he mentions that he was given orders not to question the decisions being made regarding GMOs (Robin, 2008). She really went to any extent to prove her points, even if it means that her documentary became extremely controversial.

Another aspect of the film that really brings things into perspective is the inclusion of real life video recordings of historical events and commercials into the documentary. Footage is shown of George Bush senior on a visit to Monsanto’s research labs in 1987. In the video clip Monsanto scientists are taking the former vice president through the steps of creating genetically modified organisms. A video like the one mentioned above shows the influence that Monsanto has on society to the point that the vice president of the United States paid them a visit. It amplifies the severity of Monsanto’s reach on the political system and the economy. In the film when transitioning from one topic to the other, Monsanto commercials were put in to serve what I saw to be a strong purpose. The commercial would show an actor that looks like he could not be happier to present a product and talk about all its benefits, when in reality it is actually harmful in many different ways both for plants and humans. Directly after showing the commercial the viewer would receive ample research results and interview outcomes that point out all the flaws in the product that was just shown in the commercial. It is a more creative approach to portray an opinion and falsify the opposing one. (Robin,2008)

Marie-Monique Robin travelled across the world to become closer to the areas and individuals affected by Monsanto’s products. Amongst the many places she visited were cotton farms in India, soybean farms in Indiana and corn fields in Mexico. In each country she interviewed those directly impacted my Monsanto and allowed them to tell their story from their own point of view. By doing this she is breaking this intangible barrier that often lies between the interviewer and those being interviewed. It helps her show us that she takes pride in the issue she is discussing and will go as far as needed to retrieve sufficient evidence and information to support her argument. By getting up close and personal with the farmers she was able to show the emotions of those affected farmers. Emotions bring out other people’s emotions, which Marie-Monique needed to have the viewers feel to get them to understand the severity of the cause she is documenting and have them side with her (Hindo,2007).

In the film as the interviewer surfs the internet on her computer she often visits Monsanto’s website and other official Monsanto documentation and shows the statements that the company makes in support of their cause, as she narrates what she sees. In one scene she is looking at the Monsanto website as she narrates and highlights a piece of text that said “Our products provide significant economic benefits to both large- and small-holder growers. In many cases, farmers are able to grow higher-quality and better-yielding crops with fewer inputs and less labour” (Monsanto Company,2016). She is trying to show the viewers how Monsanto is able to get local farmers to use their products. Farmers have families to support and when promised less cost with more overall profits they will definitely want to give it a try even if they are not sure of the consequences. The fact that she uses the positivity in Monsanto’s statements to further supplement her argument against them is a powerful way to get her messages across to the masses.

As the documentary comes to a close we can hear the audio of a phone call between Marie-Monique Robin and one Cristopher Warner from Monsanto. In the audio we learn that Monsanto had refused to allow Marie-Monique to interview any current employees or directors at Monsanto. Throughout the film the viewer is flooded with an abundance of knowledge and information that opposes anything that had to with Monsanto as a producer of chemicals and GMOs as well as an establishment. The purpose of it was to raise awareness and really let the horrible acts that Monsanto has executed resonate with the audience. A scientific and fact based approach was taken by the filmmaker to convince people of the evil power that is Monsanto. A very emotional and human approach was also taken to really shake the viewers emotionally in a way that they can relate in a humane and ethical manner. Marie-Monique scrutinized every aspect of Monsanto to deliver a powerful message to millions of people around the world.

Bibliography:

Whipple, Dan. The Futurist33.8 (Oct 1999): 10-12. 21 Oct.2016.

Iyengar, Sudarshan; Lalitha, N. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics57.3 (Jul-Sep 2002): 459.21 Oct.2016.

Hindo, Brian. "Monsanto: Winning the Ground War." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 6 Dec. 2007. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Fedoroff,Nina.”Can We Trust Monsanto with Our Food?” Scientific American. Nature American Inc.,25 July 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

‘Latest Headlines.” A Sustainable Agriculture Company. Monsanto Company,n.d.Web. 21 Oct.2016.

The World According to Monsanto. Dir. Marie-Monique Robin. Perf. Marie-Monique Robin. National Film Board of Canada,2008.DVD.

Obesity and Politics

by Christian Zanetti

POL128 - Ryerson University

Everyone in today’s society hopes to live a healthy and happy life, nevertheless people are constantly looking for ways to fulfill this goal.  Although living a healthy lifestyle appears to be straightforward, there are several external influences that mislead people and cause them to make harmful choices.  The film Super Size Me, by Morgan Spurlock, demonstrates the negative health influences society faces and the role of politics throughout this dilemma.  In this film, Spurlock divides his documentary into sections and uses comedy to address different components of his argument. Throughout the film, he portrays the theme that obesity has to do with not only personal responsibility but corporate responsibility as well.  Ultimately, Spurlock demonstrates the importance of living a healthy lifestyle and allows the audience to determine the role politics plays in finding a solution to one of the leading causes of death in North America.  The film Super Size Me successfully depicts the themes of personal, corporate and political responsibility, while including features of a comedic documentary of Morgan Spurlock’s 30-day McDonald’s diet.

            Obesity in the United States of America (USA) from the early 2000’s to today prompted the development of several films about the epidemic.  The majority of these films such as, Fed up and Overfed & Undernourished, were strictly documentaries trying to inform people about the dangers of obesity.  The film Super Size Me was also a documentary however it takes a slightly different approach and uses the form of comedy to grab the attention of the audience.  Furthermore, director and producer Morgan Spurlock separates his documentary into different chapters and uses non-diegetic sounds such as voice-overs and songs related to the themes of the movie.  Spurlock also uses diegetic sounds such as the unwrapping of the food and drinking out of the cup, which helps make it relatable and more realistic to the audience.  At the end of the film, the epilogue does a fantastic job by including all the information necessary to help answer any of the audiences’ remaining questions.   

Before analyzing the film Super Size Me it is important to understand the situation surrounding certain fast food restaurants in the early 2000s.  “In 2002 McDonald’s corporation was the subject of two high profile lawsuits alleging liability for weight-related health claims”(Carpenter & Tello-Trillo, 2015).  Although most people understand that fast food restaurants are not the place to go to have a healthy well-balanced meal, others tried to put the blame on the corporations.  At the beginning of the film, Spurlock discusses one of these lawsuits regarding two teenage girls attempting to sue McDonald’s blaming the organization for their obesity and illnesses.  Lawyers for McDonalds stated, “The danger of its food are universally known and that they could not prove their weight and health problems were caused solely by their McDiet”.  In response to these claims, the judge states that “if lawyers for the teens can show that McDonalds intends for people to eat its food for every meal of every day and that by doing so would be unreasonably dangerous, they may be able to state a claim” (Spurlock, 2004).  Throughout this scene, Spurlock does a tremendous job of narrating over the complex law reports being shown to the audience and helps viewers clearly understand.

After hearing about this case, Morgan Spurlock decided to go 30 days eating solely McDonald’s products for breakfast, lunch and dinner, while exercising the same amount as an average American.  Spurlock consults with several doctors before he starts his new diet, during his diet and again at the end to help evaluate the overall health impact it will have.  Ultimately, Spurlock had several negative health implications such as weight gain and rising cholesterol that were noticeable as early as day 5 and escalated from there. 

Throughout this process, Spurlock uses many different types of interviews. He has conversational interviews when he is speaking to his doctors about his overall health and the changes in his health over the 30 days.  Additionally, Spurlock gets public opinion by having informal interviews with people on the street and formal interviews with experts in nutrition. Throughout these interviews, Spurlock uses many different camera shots and angles to help the audience understand the point being made. These different camera angles also help capture the mise en scène by showing the arrangement of scenery and stage properties in play.  In between interviews, Spurlock does a tremendous job presenting the harmful reality in a comedic way by using unpleasant cartoons to represent the harmful effects of fast food.  Overall, these different camera shots and animations get his message across and keep the audience engaged and interested. 

Many of the mistakes being made in society today are commonly due to personal choices people make.  In the film Super Size Me, Spurlock introduces the theme that the problems with obesity are not only our own fault, but also responsibilities of the fast food corporations.  At the beginning of his documentary, Spurlock poses two questions and asks the audience, “are the food companies solely to blame for this epidemic?” and “where does personal responsibility stop and corporate responsibility begin?” To answer his second question, Spurlock argues that the advertisements that these corporations use target children, which is extremely influential and at the same time unethical.  Spurlock divides this section of his documentary and labels it “The Impact” together with an animation of a young Ronald McDonald in a wheel chair, symbolizing the consequences of these advertisements.  Although Spurlock accuses corporations of targeting children and should therefore take some responsibility, he also explains to the audience that these organizations are running a business. Spurlock explains that in the end, it comes down to personal responsibility and it is ultimately up to us to make responsible choices.

            There are many different ways to get a message across without saying anything.  Certain movies present ideas and themes but leave it up to the audience to interpret what they think the film is trying to communicate.  In the article ‘Saying things without appearing to have said them’: politics and protest in Jafar Panahi's This Is Not a Film, author Trent Griffiths explains how an Iranian film director, Jafar Panahi, was arrested on charges of collusion and intent to produce propaganda against the Islamic Republic.  During his 6 years of house arrest, Panahi creates a video diary, This Is Not a Film, in protest of his 20-year directing ban (Griffith, 2015).  “This Is Not a Film depicts the Iranian artistic tradition ‘saying things without appearing to have said them’ and as a result Panahi has no choice to speak directly so he speaks symbolically instead” (Griffith, 2015).  Although American culture is far different than Iranian culture, films still present ideas without directly stating them to the audience.  In the film Super Size Me, the concept that politics has a role to play in the obesity epidemic is mentioned briefly near the end of the film; however Spurlock does not get into much detail about this issue.  Spurlock poses a new question and asks “How much influence on government legislators does the food industry have?”  The response to his question is that the food industry is an enormous business in the United States and therefore they employ very well paid lobbyists.  “These lobbyists are in Washington for two purposes; number one, to make sure no government agency ever says “eat less” and number two, that the government never passes legislation that is unfavorable” (Spurlock, 2004).  Instead of pursuing this idea that the government has a bigger involvement than one would anticipate, Spurlock lets the audience make their own decision as he focuses the corporate problems by visiting the Grocery Manufacturer of America (GMA) and finally trying to contact McDonald’s directly.  Nevertheless, one point of view is that the government is able to make a difference by introducing guidelines for healthy eating and by not allowing food industry lobbyists to have an influence on legislature.  Ultimately, Spurlock introduces the notion that politics has a role to play in the obesity epidemic, but leaves it up to the viewers to make their own judgment on the significance of their role. 

            The film Super Size Me successfully discuses the importance of a healthy lifestyle, while depicting the themes of personal, corporate and political responsibility, with features of a comedic documentary of Morgan Spurlock’s 30-day McDonald’s diet.  In this film, Spurlock divides his documentary into chapters in addition to using a comedic approach to discuss different components of his argument.  One theme that Spurlock presents is that although some blame can be placed on corporations, people have to take personal responsibility if they hope to live a healthy life.  In the end, Spurlock suggests that politics plays a part in preventing the growth of obesity but leaves the significance up to the interpretation of the viewers.  People in society have to understand that although politics and corporations are involved in the obesity epidemic, it is ultimately up to them to be the difference they wish to see.

Work Cited

Carpenter, C., & Tello-Trillo, S. (2015, March). Do ‘Cheeseburger Bills’ Work? Effects of Tort Reform for Fast Food. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from https://www.economics.mcmaster.ca/documents/seminars/2015_carpenter 

Griffiths, T. (2015). ‘Saying things without appearing to have said them’: Politics and protest in Jafar Panahi's This Is Not a Film (2011). Studies in Documentary Film, 9(1), 28-41. doi:10.1080/17503280.2014.1002249  

Spurlock, M. (Producer & Director). (2004). Super Size Me [Motion picture].  United States: Samuel Goldwyn Films.

Free Documentary Making Workshop at BRAFFTV 2012