Food or movie for profit? This is the question!

We publish in full an interesting article published by www.ruminantia.it on the case of the film ‘Food for Profit’:

“Food for profit or Movie for profit? The opinion of a Veterinary Doctor

After the publication of our article We saw “Food for Profit” a reader wrote to us sending us a thoughtful reflection on Dr. Innocenzi’s film. Signed by freelance veterinary surgeon Roberto Preti of Milan, this open letter provides an objective and informed analysis of the issues raised by the film. With his vast experience in the sector, Preti aims to critically explore the delicate issues related to the relationship between man, animals and nutrition. The editorial staff of Ruminantia is grateful for this informative and stimulating contribution, which invites reflection on a topic of crucial relevance.

The letter

Dealing with the topic of the relationship between man, animals and food is neither simple nor banal. The topic is complex and requires, in addition to great competence, also a fundamental honesty that allows, beyond one’s own opinions, to fully expose the different positions on the topic.

Considering that information is one of the fundamental components of democracy and that disinformation is one of totalitarianism, I want to go into the merits of the contents of Dr. Innocenzi’s film “Food for Profit” which, according to the information available, appears to be among the most currently shown in Italian cinemas and for this reason it deserves to be commented on.

In the total silence of public institutions and representative bodies, with this simple contribution I try to bridge the gap between those who raise livestock and those who consume their products. And no one hates me.

I am a freelance veterinary doctor and for over 40 years I have been dealing with farmed animals, also known as livestock; Precisely for this reason I want to make a contribution to the ongoing debate which I could briefly define with the question: is it permissible for humans to raise animals intended for food production?

Foods of animal origin (milk, eggs, meat), together with vegetables, fruit and seeds, are part of the normal human diet, as man is physiologically omnivorous.

The domestication of animals began about 10,000 years ago (8,000 BC); to be “domesticated” the animal had to meet three main characteristics: be “governable”, that is, manageable; be able to reproduce in captivity; and be useful to man, that is, providing edible or useful products (milk, eggs, meat, skins and wool) and/or manpower for traction and transport.

In that period, in different parts of the earth, groups (tribes) of men and women slowly passed from a life based on migration aimed at collecting food from the plant world and hunting large herbivores, to a settled and organized life.

The current world population of over 7,000,000,000 individuals derives from this process, as well as from man’s extraordinary ability to adapt to the most extreme climatic situations and to vary his eating habits in relation to the environment and living conditions.

We can broadly divide animals into three macro categories in relation to their relationships with humans: wild animals, synanthropic animals and domestic animals.

The investigative film “Food for profit” is dedicated to describing the methods of raising domestic animals in relation to livestock; beef cattle are not taken into consideration; the investigation focuses on poultry, dairy cattle and pig farming.

Through so-called infiltrated activists, images of breeding practices are presented which unquestionably constitute crimes of mistreatment of farmed animals.

Against the backdrop of poultry farming, the dominant position of an industrial production group is hinted at, without ever naming it as responsible for the practices described; an attitude that I would define as silenced.

The serious thing is that they want to make it clear that these practices represent normality; Furthermore, it would be interesting to know whether, following this irrefutable evidence, the necessary and necessary reports were presented to the authorities of the countries in which the crimes took place, Italy, Spain and Germany; but there is no trace of this in the investigation film.

The film interviews “free thinkers” who are presented as philosophers, writers and science communicators; there is never an interview with a scientific representative, university professor or a veterinary doctor; There are no official public data nor an analysis of the farming system.

The video also contains false and misleading statements that insult the intelligence of the viewer; it is stated, for example, that “spoiled” milk coming from cows with clinical and sub-clinical mastitis without reporting that all the milk that enters the dairy circuit is regularly subjected to precise controls and that the milking product is used only after having undergone precise and consolidated processes that guarantee its hygienic quality and healthcare; it is implied that antibiotics are used indiscriminately and without control while in daily practice the drugs are prescribed by the Veterinary Doctor who also has the obligation to precisely indicate the usage protocol; it is suggested that antibiotic resistance, and therefore the presence of “super bacteria” insensitive to treatments in human medicine, certainly responsible for incurable infections that lead to the death of affected individuals, are the direct consequence of this indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of antibiotics in farms, as if resistant bacteria passed from meat, milk or eggs directly to consumers of foods of animal origin.

Anyone who has dedicated time to studying this serious problem knows perfectly well that the transition does not occur directly, also for the simple reason that products of animal origin are never consumed as they are but only after transformation processes that guarantee their sanitization and conservation over time; antibiotic resistance occurs through genetic recombination between pathogenic bacteria that have become resistant and ubiquitous bacteria; the other source, in my opinion much more risky for this phenomenon, is represented by “affectionate” pets, mainly dogs and cats who live in close contact with their owners; since they are living beings, they too get sick and are very often treated with antibiotics, frequently intended for the treatment of men, privileged in the choice of pet owners, for a cost that is decidedly lower than those registered as veterinary drugs, if not even purchased on medical prescription. Among these there are also CIA.s, that is, that category of antibiotics considered to be among the main causes of antibiotic resistance in human medicine.

It should be remembered in this regard that over 60,000,000 domestic animals live in Italy, including approximately 10,000,000 cats and 8,000,000 dogs, all physiologically carnivores and potential vectors of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Returning to the omnivorous man, I do not want to blame those who feed on foods of animal origin, nor do I want to praise those who have an exclusively vegetarian diet; I would just like everyone to make their own choices in a conscious and informed way. I don’t like people who fill their stomachs with meat, but I don’t like people who fill them with salad either. In both cases the history of evolution is ignored.

As mentioned above, man has evolved by adapting to different climates and diets suited to his growth and survival.

For example, the monument to the “sacred cow” erected in Cuba called Ubre Blanca (white breast), obtained with genetic processing methods in the seventies from a cross between a Holstein bull and a Zebu cow, which still holds the record today world milk production. The cow died at the age of 13. The Cuban regime, in the midst of the embargo period, dedicated a life-size white marble monument to this bovine, thanking it for the thousands of children who were able to feed themselves thanks to its exceptional productions.

This represents an instrumental use of man’s exploitation of animals but goes hand in hand with the opposite instrumental use, that is, that of considering all farmed animals as victims of exploitation by man.

For those who wish to delve deeper into topics relating to the relationship between animals intended for food, the environment and human society, I recommend watching the film “Cowspiracy” presented in cinemas in 2014, made by directors Kip Andersen and Keegan Kunn, visible on Netflix or on You Tube. In my opinion, it is a true investigative film that tells the story of an environmentalist (the director) who becomes vegan, not for animal rights reasons but for environmental reasons.

Anyone who has the chance to see both will easily be able to grasp the difference between a true investigative film and an instrumental film, between militant journalism and journalism that exploits the “guts” of the spectators, offending their intelligence.

Roberto Preti, Freelance Veterinary Doctor – Milan- Italy”

Here the link to the original article in Italian:

https://www.ruminantia.it/food-for-profit-o-movie-for-profit-leconomia-di-un-medico-veterinario/

Some insights of M.A.C. on the topics of the article:

The editorial staff of M.A.C.