King Corn; A Review
Last night, we figured out that “King Corn” was available on Netflix’s instant watch, so we did. And I am still wigging out about it.
Rowan has been reactive to corn products since he was small, so we’ve been a corn-free house for a few years. I wasn’t expecting to go into this to learn anything at all (sorta like my experience with “Super Size Me” and “Fast Food Nation”.) Sometimes, when you’re the only person you know on the “know what you’re eating” bandwagon, (OK, other than my two fave food blogs, the Cleaner Plate Club, who reviewed the film here, and Ethicurean, who reviewed it here, and my peeps over on the foodlab list), you get kinda jaded about yet another film trying desperately to get the average consumer’s attention about what they’re putting in their mouths.
So it’s with no small delight that I report here that there was one, just one, fact in the film that just rocked my world. I’m still geeking out over it. Maybe it’s because I came late to the party (and the film) and the lunacy with food prices going on right now highlights this particular aspect of the corn madness.
Near the end of the film, our heroes, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, interview Earl Butz. Ethicurean says,
Many would argue that Butz, who was secretary of agriculture in the 1970s, is singlehandedly responsible for the corporatization of U.S. farming, the obesity epidemic, and the pollution of vast swathes of America by agricultural chemicals. But face to face with the nonagenarian Bogeyman of the sustainable food movement in his nursing home, the guys can’t quite bring themselves to come in for the rhetorical kill, neither in person nor voiceover.
Friends, this was the most horrifying part of the film, and I’m still metaphorically chewing on it. Butz says flat-out that Americans today pay a smaller percentage of their money for food than any other generation, and that’s the key to our prosperity. In light of the sustainable food movement’s take that we should be paying more and getting real food for it (see grist’s blistering critique of Michael Pollan and Alice Waters’ takes here and the New York Times here), the idea that Butz was able (with what support? Who knows) to make the decision that our health as a nation was to be sacrificed on the altar of prosperity makes me ill.
What grist and the NYT are missing (along with the vast majority of Americans) is that it’s not about dollars and cents; it’s about choosing to eat food which sustains health, and choosing to eat crap which will kill you and make a lot of money for the pharmaceutical industry in the later portion of your life. You will end up paying the money, the question is just whether you want to spend it on food all along the way, or in medical costs at the end.
And in grief and pain, of course. The film interviews a cabby in NYC, whose entire family is diabetic and/or dead from diabetes-related illness. It seems almost cruel and macabre to contrast his family’s story of early, gruesome death, with Butz sitting in his nursing home in his nineties. The man who decided that it was OK for us to eat the inedible and pay the inevitable health cost sits alone, well-groomed and clean into his nineties, while the people on the streets are slowly amputated to the point of choosing death.
Our family has always paid a larger percentage of our budget in food than pretty much anyone I know. When trying to plan last year’s household budget, I gave up in dismay, discovering that not a single budget recommendation I could find included an adequate food percentage (I usually transferred the allotment from “entertainment” and “clothing”, because being a Californian, there surely was no way to shed a dime from “housing”). The folks who deal in finance don’t see the difference between payments to a CSA and trips to McDonald’s; it’s all just “food” on the balance sheet.
This is not the only cogent point in the film; depending on your background, there may or may not be other bits that come as news. The filmmakers make the point that an acre of corn in Iowa touches “everything”, and of course, that alone comes as no surprise to folks who recognize that yes, it’s all connected, isn’t it? So check it out and see if there are any connections in there for you.
I’ll bet my family is up there with yours in percentage of budget going towards food. Sometimes I’m embarrassed by that; sometimes not so. After watching King Corn, it was definitely not-so.
Thanks for the link, and also for the great thoughts about the film. I didn’t even consider the Butz-in-his-nineties and diabetic-cab-driver contrast.
It is a great film. So glad those guys made it.
Ooooh, L! Thanks for the review and the Netflix tip. I missed PBS’s airing of the film, so am happy to get to see it.
I just finished Pollan’s _In Defense of Food_ and felt relieved to read that although most people in the US allot 10% of earnings towards food, people in other countries (like Italy) allot something like 14-15%.
I’m not sure of our actual percentage, but it’s definitely over 10. I, like Ali, felt a bit embarrassed about that until I read _In Defense_. Now I can say I just prefer to live like the Italians! Mange!
Thanks for sharing your review. Another film I’ll have to look out for…
Another vote here for the food allocation in the budget. We don’t go for the cheapest food - good food costs good money.
Your nominations of “entertainment” and “clothing” definitely resonated with me - we spend a *lot* less on those than most people I know (and more on the food than they do). When I look at it that way, I’m not embarrassed in the slightest, because we have enough to wear and keep us amused… The one thing that I *am* embarrassed about is that we have a backyard and a garden, and could certainly spend a lot less on our food by growing more of it ourselves. But I wouldn’t be taking from the “food” allocation to give to the “entertainment”.
We have two growing boys who *love* to eat, and I’d much rather have good stuff available.
Thanks for the links….I can’t wait to watch/read. We also have two young boys who love to eat (they ate buckwheat pancakes, oatmeal, and Italian seasoned mushrooms late last night after we fed them a full dinner…..perhaps a growth spurt?) We are so invested in the importance of spending more now, when it really counts, to nourish our children’s bodies and to heal our own from food damage when growing up. We definitely see the value of spending more but what burns me up is why should I be paying more for less in my food, ya know. The other thing that bothers me is that people don’t realize that their diabetes could be healed through diet, AND the worst part is they don’t want to hear your experiences or those of other healed diabetics, cuz their doctor has them on some insulin and whatever else to keep their DB under control. Why is it so hard for people to make the connections between food and health? Ok sorry for the whiny rant but it’s early.
Haven’t seen the King Corn documentary, but I remember reading an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola a few years ago about how corn has been pushed onto the general public despite its low nutritional value because it’s cheap to produce. Reading that put me off it for life, although, of course, it turns up in all sorts of food as an ingredient and usually I don’t know.
I’ve read stories from several sources about how the food industry changed around 1950 and became driven by the idea of ‘cheap and plentiful’ and that nutrition then started to become almost an afterthought. Perhaps that was a reaction to the scarcities of the Second World War and the rationing after it. Food is a deeply psychological subject.
I’m no paragon of virtue by any stretch, but the crap some people eat these days amazes me. Down at my local servo (gas station, that is), in their food freezer, there’s a range of food called Aussie Hero that’s promoted as ideal for the busy mum to pop into her children’s school lunch box. Choose from frozen pizza slice, frozen hot dog, or whatever, stick it in the microwave at school and eat it. The brand name says so much about what life is like for most people these days and how that’s rationalised. Very sad. I used to love hot dogs, by the way, but I haven’t eaten one since Joseph Mercola told me what was in them. Say it ain’t so, Joe! Unfortunately, it is.
I’ve also been told to never eat anything that has Kraft or Nestle on the label. And McDonald’s … well, the burgers are better at Hungry Jack’s, as they say here in Oz. But that wouldn’t be hard. McDonald’s burgers are the most tasteless ever. The best burger I ever tasted was in Planet Hollywood at Disneyland Paris. Scrumptious. That was nearly ten years ago. I eat about six burgers a year these days. Like I say, I’m no paragon of virtue; but I know more about food than I did and I’m starting to be a bit more awake. I expect there will be more documentaries like King Corn and others in the years ahead to help us on the path to enlightenment. I hope so.
Thinking back to my chlidhood in the 1950s and my dear mum slaving away in the kitchen for half a day to produce the Sunday dinner, I’m not surprised convenience has been very easy to sell down the years, but, yes - not just with food but in many areas of our lives - the hidden costs of convenience are coming to the surface now.
I’m glad I’m old enough to remember when home cooked meals made from fresh out of the ground ingredients were the norm. Gives me a chance at least.
Great post, as usual. I’ll have to check out that movie - ILs have Netflix, so I’ll watch it from Denver.