There are huge nutrition concerns in the contemporary society especially where industries make processed food in attempts to meet the growing world populations. Therefore, in a bid to comment on the film ‘Fed Up’, it would be prudent first to understand the message in this documentary.Fed Up’ is an advocacy film that mainly conveys obesity as a global epidemic that endangers the wellbeing of children and blames the increased sugar consumption for being responsible for the situation. The growing food industries take share blame for the increased sugar consumption among the population since such businesses are claimed to add hidden sugar in the manufactured foods. Furthermore, the companies bombard people with advertising where they tend to favor profits over human health. Finally, the movie accuses the government of being responsible for the obesity epidemic since it has failed to regulate the food industries and their nature of food production.
The first question that one needs to ask before beginning the analysis of this movie is that, does sugar actually causes obesity? The answer to this issue requires a practical approach that is also backed by a sound scientific evidence to help explore some of the contentious issues in the film. It is often prudent to give credit where it is due, and it would be good to state that the moviemaker deserves tremendous credit for assisting to keep this critical societal challenge center and front in the collective human conscience, as well as for attempting to navigate the debate in a whole new direction. Regrettably, the compass is fragmented.
It is good to know that sugar exists in three forms namely; fructose, sucrose, and fructose. There are a lot of things that the filmmaker has not got correct, and thus it would be wrong to make an early judgment on the sugar/obesity debate. However, substantive research on this subject has not been well elongated. Therefore, the sugar versus obesity hypothesis has never been appropriately confirmed either. For example, there are numerous instances where people consume a lot of sugar as well as other processed foods but never become obese. Precisely, one boy in the movie protests that his brother feeds in a similar manner, as he does though never add weight. Therefore, the movie’s thesis that states that sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic has not well been backed by substantive empirical evidence.
This paper concludes by saying the central prerogatives of the movie are just shadings of the truth, outright fabrication, and sins of the omission. It suggests the movie’s obsessive focus on one nutrient honestly may cause serious harm than good, in the sense that too much consumption of any macronutrient can result in obesity and overweight. The movies shall unquestionably do some virtuous by aiding raise public awareness regarding obesity as well as other issues of hidden sugar present in processed foods. It would be prudent for the filmmakers to do so without fact misrepresentation, biasness, and hype especially in support of the moviemakers’’ political agenda of raising food regulation. For example, the film rejects the known concept of the energy balance, though the scientific and empirical evidence plainly depict that it is probable to lose some weight by lowering the intake of calories as well as by reducing the calories expenditure. Therefore, supporting facts could be necessary for the movie to pass its objective to people.