For the purpose of this entry, I will be talking about the documentary "Fresh"
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637620/
Going into the analysis, we will be ignoring any personal preexisting prejudices about organic farms versus industrial, and recognizing that, like most documentaries, this film has a clear bias. Firstly, it is not a bad thing that the film has bias, but it would be a problem if the film attempted to hide its bias.
The film is certainly not afraid to show the darker side to industrial farming in order to raise the idea of organic farming as high as they can, and nor should they be. Having already undergone a culinary class in High School, I already knew about some of the more inhumane and morally bankrupt sides to industrial farming, but many people still don't know about some of the horrors involved with milking (pardon the analogy) as much efficiency out of animal slaughtering as possible. Those who are aware, however, are pressured to ignore such brutal processes by the vast wealth of meat-processing companies, and, on a lighter note, the good that comes from introducing industrial farming to the more impoverished and famished countries of the world.
Just as I was, they could also be swayed in the opposite of the intended direction by the horrendous actions of radical groups such as PETA, whose brutal acts of violence toward men, women, children, and even the animals they supposedly live and die by, are only detrimental to helping the vast problems they claim to solve with but the pettiest of attempts. A fact that I loathe to no end. That, however, is a rabbit hole for another day.
Unlike the aforementioned radical groups, this documentary uses far, far more than mindless fear-mongering and brainwashing to get their point across. The film mainly seems to express the proof that, on a smaller scale, organic farming is far more efficient than industrial farming. The proof comes from many facets, one of which being that industrial framing breeds bacteria, as well as animals, at an alarmingly swift rate. This means that animals need to be given antibacterial medicine to avoid tainted meat, which can create stronger infections that require yet stronger medicine, etc. The point of organic farming is not that "giving medicine is unnatural and therefore bad", as many assume, but that giving medicine is simply unnecessary if the animals are treated well, and are given the resources to live more naturally.
As a skeptic of organic farming, it was very important that I ignore my own prejudices and took the film at face-value. Instead of scoffing when the film introduced an idea I disagreed with, I treated it as a given that the documentary knew more than me, and cross-referenced the information with my own previous knowledge, and new research. Even if the documentary was wrong, or lied, it would still have done its job of bringing information about organic farms, even if that wasn't the creators original intention.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637620/
Going into the analysis, we will be ignoring any personal preexisting prejudices about organic farms versus industrial, and recognizing that, like most documentaries, this film has a clear bias. Firstly, it is not a bad thing that the film has bias, but it would be a problem if the film attempted to hide its bias.
The film is certainly not afraid to show the darker side to industrial farming in order to raise the idea of organic farming as high as they can, and nor should they be. Having already undergone a culinary class in High School, I already knew about some of the more inhumane and morally bankrupt sides to industrial farming, but many people still don't know about some of the horrors involved with milking (pardon the analogy) as much efficiency out of animal slaughtering as possible. Those who are aware, however, are pressured to ignore such brutal processes by the vast wealth of meat-processing companies, and, on a lighter note, the good that comes from introducing industrial farming to the more impoverished and famished countries of the world.
Just as I was, they could also be swayed in the opposite of the intended direction by the horrendous actions of radical groups such as PETA, whose brutal acts of violence toward men, women, children, and even the animals they supposedly live and die by, are only detrimental to helping the vast problems they claim to solve with but the pettiest of attempts. A fact that I loathe to no end. That, however, is a rabbit hole for another day.
Unlike the aforementioned radical groups, this documentary uses far, far more than mindless fear-mongering and brainwashing to get their point across. The film mainly seems to express the proof that, on a smaller scale, organic farming is far more efficient than industrial farming. The proof comes from many facets, one of which being that industrial framing breeds bacteria, as well as animals, at an alarmingly swift rate. This means that animals need to be given antibacterial medicine to avoid tainted meat, which can create stronger infections that require yet stronger medicine, etc. The point of organic farming is not that "giving medicine is unnatural and therefore bad", as many assume, but that giving medicine is simply unnecessary if the animals are treated well, and are given the resources to live more naturally.
As a skeptic of organic farming, it was very important that I ignore my own prejudices and took the film at face-value. Instead of scoffing when the film introduced an idea I disagreed with, I treated it as a given that the documentary knew more than me, and cross-referenced the information with my own previous knowledge, and new research. Even if the documentary was wrong, or lied, it would still have done its job of bringing information about organic farms, even if that wasn't the creators original intention.