nesslig
After decades of one sided anti-GMO documentaries, such as "The Future of Food", "seeds of death" and "GMO OMG" we FINALLY have a documentary that provides the science in a digestible form for the laymen. As someone who has done a minor in biotechnology and planning to apply for plant biotech in agriculture, this film was just a delight! Not only that, it has people of both sides being fairly represented, which is rare for a documentary. Some people might (and some reviewers here have) disagree with this, since it largely argues in favor of GMO and debunks many anti-GMO arguments, but that's not a necessary feature of a balanced documentary. If you do a documentary that accurately represents the science of an issue, and one side of the issue is clearly wrong, then "bashing" the wrong side is inevitable. The same would be true if you would do a balanced documentary on evolution vs creationism, vaccines vs alt-medicine, or on climate change. What matters is for a balanced documentary is that both sides have an opportunity to present their arguments and both arguments are being examined against the evidence. What I especially like about this film is when it goes into how people are often not affected by facts. "When was the last time you changed your mind?" The major problem in communicating science is that science between professional is being argued with facts, but when you present a fact that goes in conflict with people's beliefs, it more often doesn't persuade them. So we shouldn't just throw out uncomfortable facts at people. That won't help. We need to have a critical discussion on this, which is what this film attempts to do. It is also very heartwarming to see that they do acknowledge that the humanity of the other side. Often in anti-GMO propaganda pieces, the other side is overtly demonized as "Shills hired by Monsanto". We do of course have "shills", but both sides have people who are invested in their opinions. Charles Benbrook is a good example featured in the film. People like "the food babe" and "Zen Honeycutt" also benefit from people believing their side, which selling their woo products on their website. But we also have human beings on both sides who are genuinely caring with pure motivations. How much I despise when people actively destroy test fields, I have to recognize that, while they did the wrong thing, they were motivated with good intent. Something that I've learned from this film.(Some things I would like to mention what other reviewers have said)A general response first:
Some people have commended that this is a propaganda film. A very severe accusation that should not be taken lightly. Most of the reasons given for judging it as propaganda weren't even true of were not even relevant. As wikipedia defines it, propaganda "is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented." The documentary doesn't fit the bill, in fact it provokes a rational response, to recognize the bias that even the side of which it argues in favor of. Another wikipedia article lists some propaganda tactic, which is basically a list of logical fallacies commonly used for propaganda. None of these were used in "Food Evolution" though commonly used by anti-GMO documentaries. Ironically some of the reviewer here used some of these fallacies, such as the ad hominem, or specifically the (monsanto) shill gambit fallacy. Accusing the film makers of being shills (which isn't true, the documentary was funded only by IFT, a non-profit organization), rather than dispute the arguments being made with the facts. -To "So where's the science Neill?" by ariel-mr83
Which contains several insults at Neil, even though he was just the narrator. I guess when a documentary contains something you disagree with, you complain to the narrator. Anyway: First, the documentary did represented many studies on the safety of GMO's at around 16 minutes to 18. One paper that I recommend (which I think was feature) is "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" which is free to read. Second, monocultures are the result of the green revolution, not a consequence of GMO's. Third, there are no 10 species of papaya. Fourth, the fact that there could be other potential solutions out there, that doesn't mean one based on GMO's isn't a valid one. Fifth, of course they want you to know the scientists that are right, that's what a good documentary does.-To "More from Monsanto's propaganda machine" by goldie6175
The title screams the "shill gambit". As previously pointed out, monsanto didn't fund this documentary. It was IFT. Not everyone who is pro-GMO is in league with Monsanto. This person probably never saw the film, because glyphosate got extensively covered including the explanation that Glyphosate is much safer than most other herbicides, thus the use of this herbicides has decreased the net toxicity of herbicide use. Something even Charles Benbrook agreed with, which was also featured in the film. And as mentioned, both sides were included.A Totally Blatant Propaganda Film pushing GMO's by md1255Largely the same mistakes. Glyphosate got covered, also both sides were represented. This person also makes a big fuzz about "the science that proves the very real and dangerous effects it will have on our planet and our health in the long run" which was somehow ignored. Perhaps there aren't any of such studies. Ever thought about that possibility? Also, one infamous "study" commonly used by anti-GMO activists (the Seralini rat study) was included in the video, and pretty much exposed as how bad the paper is. If you want something that goes deeper into the paper that wasn't mentioned by the documentary is that there is (among all the inconsistent dat) just one consistent dose response that indicates that male rats who ate herbicide lived longer. Look it up! https://mylespower.co.uk/2013/06/29/drinking-roundup-herbicide-makes-men-live-longer/
There was also even the paper of Benbrook on the use of herbicide glyphosate that was featured. So when this person said that these other studies were left out and "only the science they wanted you to see" were shown, it is clear to me that he either did not watch the film, didn't listened to it or is just lying. He ends about patents, which is another Anti-GMO argument that god (sort-of) debunked in the film when it points out (around 35 minutes in) that many non-GMO (including organic) crops varieties are patented as well. Patenting seeds isn't an invention of GMO's! There is one thing he said I agree with. Don't believe what is said, check the citations, read them. Don't believe me! Ask questions and actually listen to the answers.To "You'd have to be really interested - long-winded partial account" by rowaneisner-1
Aside from the points that were already argued by other reviewers, this one made several errors. The film had the approach that GMO's isn't one thing. The narrator (neil) even said that GMO have to be studied on a case by case basis (at around 18.30 minutes in) just like the Kenyan parliament. Also, terminators seeds don't exists and haven't ever, so how can anybody being harmed by them? That's a persistent myth. What he is referring to when he said "organic crops polluted by wind pollination from GM crops 2km away, and then prosecuted for 'theft'." it is referring to how companies like Monsanto will sue farmers who have crops that have patented genes as a result of accidental contamination via cross-pollination. However, that is also a persistent myth. Such lawsuits have never happend. Organic farmers tried to sue Monsanto, before (as they believed) Monsanto had a chance to sue them because of this myth. However, the case was dismissed when it became clear they couldn't site even one example to prove that Monsanto ever did something like this. Percy Schmeiser is often presented as one case of a farmer being sued for accidental contamination of his canola plants. When Percy was sued, he tried to claim innocence by blaming accidental contamination, however >98% of the canola were round up ready, which couldn't have been the result of contamination. The true story is that Percy deliberately sprayed glyphosate on a few canola plants at the edges of his fields and collected the seeds of the survivors and planted them. So as a result, he grew 1,030 acres with canola plants which were roundup ready with full knowledge. Because he knew that he was deliberately planting these seeds, he lost the case, but Percy went online misrepresenting the truth and thereby creating this myth. Also, "the mosquitoes had been engineered to produce scorpion venom" is actually fungi that specifically infects insects had been engineered with certain genes that inhibit the propagation of malaria. Notice that he didn't mention about how this could stop the spread of malaria.....oh I wonder why....And it is not that the fungus just strait up produces venom. Venom is often composed of many different proteins with different functions. Some may be deadly on their own, but others may just have useful properties that isn't the same as the whole venom. Basically what is true for the whole isn't necessarily true for the part. For example cone snail venom is very potent, however some of it components have practical uses in medicine. Example is Ziconotide, a pain reliever 1000 times as powerful as morphine. Likewise this gene of the scorpion venom doesn't have all the properties of the entirety of the venom. It has anti microbial uses, and kills malaria. More on this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/02/24/fungus-loaded-with-scorpion-venom-to-fight-malaria/#.WlzXzsZx90s
md1255
I have no idea why the film director decided to blatantly side with GMO's, and accept only the science that points to some benefits right now, and totally ignore the science that proves the very real and dangerous effects it will have on our planet and our health in the long run. I can't say the director was paid off by Monsanto or someone else of interest because I don't know, but the film did come off as if every frame from beginning to end was hand picked by such companies to try and settle the storm of truth that's been coming their way. For a moment I thought to give this film a 10 because it forced me to look deeper into the truth about GMO's., but I had to get real and give it a 2 because it was so completely one sided. Sure there was science, but only the science they wanted you to see. They completely left out the dangers of dumping hundreds of millions of pounds of the chemical Glyphosate all over the earth. This film is obviously aimed at being a 100% propaganda film to try and convince us that GMO's are good and this poison is safe, while plenty of other scientist are pointing out a very real and wide spread danger. And from what I read so far it doesn't look good ir we let them take over.But don't believe me, or the film, do your own research. And definitely don't fall for all the phony reviews on here praising this film as if it's a breath of fresh wonderfully pure science. Those people for sure are either paid, or sadly not very aware of the facts.In any case, I sure don't like the idea of big corporations patenting seeds and owning our food supply. That's just one step away from owning us. If we let them, they will keep getting bigger until we have no choice but to eat what they have or starve. We'll be like dogs to it's master if we give up control of our food. Let's not do this.
Have a happy, healthy life, sincerely, M.D.
