“Food, Inc. 2,” the follow-up documentary to the groundbreaking 2009 film, revisits the complex and often unsettling landscape of the American food system. In a moment that unintentionally encapsulates the film’s somewhat muddled message, journalist Eric Schlosser, known for “Fast Food Nation,” reflects on the decline of competition within the corporatized food industry. He evokes a nostalgic image of the 1950s and 60s, a period of middle-class growth and rising wages, a sentiment that oddly resonates across the political spectrum.
To illustrate this idealized postwar era, the film jarringly cuts to a vintage documentary clip celebrating the wonders of the burgeoning supermarket. The camera lovingly pans across shelves stacked high with Campbell’s Soup cans, Minute Rice, Ritz Crackers, and Van Camp’s Baked Beans. The clip even highlights a cash register ringing up a seemingly miraculous total of $2.99, a price point from a bygone Kennedy era. However, for viewers attuned to the original “Food, Inc.” and its critiques, this nostalgic imagery feels deeply dissonant. Are these not the very products, the very supermarket aisles, that embody the industrialized food system the filmmakers are ostensibly challenging?
This jarring juxtaposition unintentionally mirrors the central thesis of the first “Food, Inc.”: the supermarket experience is often a carefully constructed illusion. Beneath the veneer of abundance lies a reality of processed foods, excessive sugar, chemical additives, and nutritionally deficient products masquerading as wholesome meals. While many, including the author who admits a childhood fondness for Campbell’s Soup, grew up consuming and even enjoying these products, the nutritional shortcomings are undeniable. This minor, perhaps 20-second misstep in “Food, Inc. 2” inadvertently reveals a larger issue: while the film raises crucial and familiar concerns about the American food system, it lacks the focused authority and revelatory impact of its predecessor.
“Food, Inc.” back in 2009 served as a cinematic wake-up call, a pivotal work in a wave of documentaries and books exposing the hidden truths behind our food production and its consequences. Among numerous films exploring similar themes, “Food, Inc.” stood out as a visionary piece, fundamentally altering viewers’ perceptions of their plates. It unveiled the pervasive presence of high-fructose corn syrup and the alarming reality that even seemingly natural foods like tomatoes are often compromised in the industrial system.
One section of “Food, Inc. 2” highlights this uncertainty as it profiles Impossible Foods, a company pioneering plant-based meat alternatives since 2016, through the lens of acclaimed food writer Michael Pollan. Pollan’s exploration of Impossible Foods reflects a broader ambivalence within the documentary itself. The film acknowledges the potential benefits of reducing industrialized meat production, a major contributor to climate change and environmental degradation. Pollan himself recognizes this, stating that diminishing our reliance on industrialized meat is “probably a good thing.”
However, “Food, Inc. 2” doesn’t shy away from the complexities and contradictions inherent in these “revolutionary” food technologies. The film reveals the intricate process behind the Impossible Burger, detailing the use of genetically engineered yeast to produce heme, the molecule responsible for meat’s characteristic taste, combined with ingredients like wood pulp. While these plant-based alternatives eliminate hormones and antibiotics, even Pollan concedes, “Make no mistake. This is built on commodity agriculture.” They remain ultra-processed foods, raising questions about their overall health benefits compared to whole, unprocessed foods. The film subtly acknowledges that while reducing meat consumption might be environmentally beneficial, substituting it with highly processed alternatives presents a new set of concerns. Even the nutritional advantages of “actual, good meat” are briefly mentioned, further complicating the narrative.
“Food, Inc. 2” showcases a range of startups offering substitute products – plant-based chicken wings, cow-free milk, bean-less coffee, and bee-less honey – framing them as part of a food revolution. The documentary even ventures into labs where “grown” chicken, beef, and pork are being cultivated. This exploration prompts a critical question: are these innovations genuine improvements, or do they represent an even more disconcerting, “Orwellian” step further into a technologically detached food future? While Pollan correctly emphasizes the necessity to “shrink the meat system” due to its detrimental climate impact, the film also suggests a potential for these ventures to become a “save-the-world fetish for tech companies,” driven by profit motives rather than genuine systemic change. This inherent tension leaves “Food, Inc. 2” feeling somewhat conflicted, presenting an honest but ultimately less clear and impactful message than its predecessor.
“Food, Inc. 2” effectively reiterates numerous critical issues within the modern food system, echoing points made in the original film and subsequent documentaries. It highlights the ethical concerns of factory farming and animal cruelty, the ongoing economic pressures squeezing local farmers – citing the alarming statistic of Wisconsin losing half its dairy farms since 2007 – the shockingly low wages paid to migrant farm workers and fast-food employees, the persistent problems of processed food culture, and the accelerating consolidation of power within the food industry. The film underscores the dramatic increase in market control by a handful of corporations, using the beef industry as a stark example: from 25% market share controlled by the top four companies in the early 1980s to a staggering 85% today. Similar consolidation trends are noted in cereal, soft drink, and baby food industries, directly linking this concentration of power to events like the infant formula shortage during the pandemic. Schlosser aptly summarizes the anti-competitive nature of this consolidation: “Why do companies buy up their competitors? It’s because they don’t want to compete.” A glimmer of hope emerges in the story of a fisherman turning to kelp farming, joining a growing movement towards revitalizing individual and sustainable farming practices.
However, while these points remain relevant and crucial, they are not presented with the same groundbreaking impact as in “Food, Inc.” “Food, Inc. 2” unfortunately lands as a decent, but not exceptional, addition to the genre of food documentaries. It lacks the transformative, perception-shifting quality that made “Food, Inc.” a landmark film. The documentary implies that the industrialized food system, dominated by a few multinational corporations, is solidifying its future, even while acknowledging its unsustainable nature. Pollan points to the weakening of antitrust laws over decades as a core problem. Yet, the film stops short of addressing the systemic political challenges – the influence of corporate lobbying and campaign finance on both political parties – that perpetuate this broken system. This omission leaves a significant gap, hinting at a problem so deeply entrenched that “Food, Inc. 2” seems hesitant to fully confront it, ultimately making the sequel a somewhat less impactful and more diluted version of its revolutionary predecessor.
