By Robert Kenner (producer/director of the 2009 Oscar-nominated documentary)
(February 2010)

“Food, Inc.” became a different film than what I’d intended to make. I thought it would be fascinating to look at how our food gets to the table — from different points of view. On one hand, we spend less on food today than at any other time in history. We can eat what we want, when we want it, regardless of seasons. On the other hand, this food has hidden costs that we will all pay for down the line. Industrial food production pollutes the water, robs nutrients from the soil, exploits the workers who grow and process the food, exploits the animals and, ultimately, it makes people sick. This seemed like fertile ground for a film.

As we started filming, I was not prepared for the stonewalling we received from the food industry. We approached many of the big food companies, often multiple times, asking them to participate in the film. I wanted them to argue the benefits of the industrial system and I wanted to understand their point of view, but, for the most part, the food industry said no. Being turned down, I started to move the film in a different direction. I became intrigued by why companies in the food industry would not speak to me about something as seemingly innocuous as food. What I discovered is that a handful of companies essentially control the food supply and exert tremendous power over what we eat and how much — or how little — we know about it. I was stunned by the lack of transparency, the intimidation of critics and the influence over government.

One of the major food companies referred me to Richard Lobb, the spokesman for the National Chicken Council, who did grant us an interview. Richard made a compelling argument that the industrial system is the very reason why chicken has become so affordable today, and I was very happy to have Richard’s point of view in the film. I was also thrilled when, after many months of requests, Walmart finally agreed to participate. We were nearly finished with production at this point and fitting them in would be difficult, but I didn’t want to lose the opportunity to hear from such a major player in the food industry. The Walmart story turned out to be a great example of how consumers can influence even the biggest corporations, and that storyline is one of the most important parts of the film.

While we were contacting companies, we were also calling farmers and growers all over the country, hoping to film their point of view. Finding people to speak on camera was difficult, as the farmers have contracts with the big food companies and they needed to be careful not to upset the apple cart. One poultry grower who agreed to speak on camera cancelled the interview as we were on the way to meet him at the airport. He said he had received a visit from people at the larger companies and he’d had a change of heart. He eventually granted us an interview but he never did let us inside his chicken houses.

Robert Kenner, filming “Food, Inc.”

After running into this fear and reticence from so many different farmers and growers, we realized that what we were experiencing was the result of companies having too much power. It suddenly felt like this story was much bigger than food. But would anyone care?

The answer to that question is, apparently, yes. “Food, Inc.” hit at just the right moment, when people were interested in the food industry and ready to listen. It benefitted from the groundbreaking work of authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, and from food activists who have worked for years to raise awareness. The press also took great interest in the film, which helped tremendously in spreading the word.

The response from the food industry was less enthusiastic. It was quiet at first. They thought no one would care about the film and it would be better to ignore us. But as the audience for “Food, Inc.” grew, the industry was forced to respond. They started by dismissing the film’s arguments as elitist and naive. Then they tried to discredit the film by launching Web sites that used strong rhetoric, seemingly designed to pit us against the Great American Farmer and the forces of progress. None of these attempts, however, stopped the momentum of the film.

Slowly, as the film continued to garner support, the tone from the food industry began to change. On an episode of “Nightline,” Richard Lobb, the spokesman for the National Chicken Council (who appears in our film) said that, in retrospect, the food industry should have been more receptive. A story in Business Week notes that Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant now says he should have commented in “Food, Inc.” And last fall I was invited by the Center for Food Integrity, a group of food industry heavyweights, to attend their annual convention. I agreed to attend, even though I feared I’d be walking into the lion’s den. I ended up having productive conversations with people from the very companies that refused to participate in the film when we initially approached them. They seem to be waking up to the fact that consumers have lost trust in them and they need to do something about it.

I believe that “Food, Inc.,” along with a growing food reform movement, is exerting pressure on the food industry to change. But can giant corporations ever change enough to place public health before the bottom line?

I’m reminded of the famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I’m not sure we’re winning, but I am sure we can no longer be ignored.

Photos courtesy Magnolia Pictures

Films in association with Participant Media are backed by social action campaigns that are aimed at public awareness and making a difference. To learn more about the social action campaign in association with "Food, Inc.," visit www.takepart.com/foodinc.