Film takes scientific approach to GMOs

When it comes to genetically modified foods, it’s not easy to change minds. In fact, it might be easier to convince a Saskatchewan Roughriders fan to cheer for the Toronto Argonauts.

Nonetheless, proponents of GM food are hopeful that a movie will succeed where science and evidence have failed.

The movie is called Food Evolution and the film, as described on its website, explores the controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms and food.

The narrator, Neil deGrasse Tyson, leads viewers through the “emotions and the science driving one of the most heated arguments of our time.”

For the last 10 months, the documentary has been screened across the U.S. and in multiple countries around the world. It’s mostly been shown at film festivals, universities and at theatres that air non-Hollywood movies.

In Canada, it’s been shown at theatres and events in Toronto, Montreal, Saskatoon and a few other cities. This month, on Jan. 16, Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo plans to screen the movie.

“The movie is very good at looking at all sides of the debate about GMOs,” said Robert Wager, a member of the biology department at the university and a well-known defender of the safety and science around GM foods.

Wager organized the screening, which will feature a question and answer session with Kevin Folta, of the University of Florida, and Nina Federoff from Penn State.

Since GM soy, corn, canola and cotton became commonplace, more than 20 years ago, biologists like Wager have tried to share the facts of GM foods with the public.

However, public polling shows a huge gap exists between what scientists think and what the average citizen thinks about GM food.

A 2015 Pew Research survey found that 88 percent of scientists believe GM foods are safe, but only 37 percent of public respondents agree.

It’s become clear to many scientists that the standard arguments for GM foods are not working.

“It’s very true that science communication with the public in this area has been less than totally successful,” Wager said from Nanaimo.

“Without a doubt, new methods and new platforms and approaches are definitely welcome to help the public understand the realities of this technology.”

Wager said Food Evolution deals with the scientific facts of GM food but it also has an emotional component.

“It is one of the most powerful documentaries that you’re ever going to see.”

Some critics have called it a pro-GMO movie. Others have said the film presents both sides of the debate.

“With a soft tone, respectful to opponents but insistent on the data, “Food Evolution” posits an inconvenient truth for organic boosters to swallow: In a world desperate for safe, sustainable food, GMOs may well be a force for good,” noted a review in the New York Times.

So far, only a small number of people have viewed Food Evolution because it wasn’t shown in mainstream theatres and it isn’t available on home entertainment channels.

Advocates of the film are hoping to change that.

There is an online petition urging Netflix to carry the documentary.

“(It) is unfortunate because they (Netflix) air a great many of the anti-GMO films,” Wager said.

Right now Food Evolution is available on iTunes, Amazon, Hulu and YouTube.

Wager is hoping that DVDs will soon be available at public libraries and it will be shown at high schools across Canada.

Food Evolution was commissioned and funded by The Institute of Food Technologists, an organization that champions a “world where science and innovation are universally accepted as essential to a safe, nutritious and sustainable food supply.”

The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) will host a free screening of Food Evolution in Regina on Tuesday February 13. The movie will be shown at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum starting at 5:30.

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

About the author

Robert Arnason's recent articles

Comments

  • SUNNY

    Anyone who enjoys watching full-length propaganda infomercials will love this steaming piece of half truth lies. Several of the people interviewed, who’s words were so heavily edited as to change the meaning of what they said, have asked to have their comments removed from the film, but the filmmaker has refused.

    Real science needs no defense. Only the agenda driven junk pseudo-science needs to be protected from real science and the truth at all costs,

    Tyson lowers his standing and credibility for lending his hand in the production of this film that is way outside of his scientific area of expertise.

    This is one of the sleaziest one-sided pieces of industry propaganda to come along in quite a while. I’ll give it a one star for the photography, but the rest of the film a zero for accurate factual credibility.

    See this film at your own peril.

    • Harold

      “Real science needs no defense” is absolutely true and like you have pointed out, the Industry promotes “sleaze” and “sleaze” is necessary only when you are covering up a lie. You have further pointed out how the industry upholds their own agenda above any truth by the further “sleaze” of fashioned editing; the same “sleaze” as our fashioned televised nightly National news and other mainstream media. The travesty is, that in good faith, the heavily edited “walked into it’ willing, but unknowing of the false pretences, and now they need the benefit of the legal system and its expense to walk out of it unharmed by Industry sleaze; free to walk in but you pay dearly to get out. Nonetheless, Tyson has a lot to gain by promoting this Industry trash because Tyson is an extremely large food supplier so I am not surprised that Tyson supports what brings Tyson the greatest profit returns. If the film is made up of trash so is Tyson made up of trash and I don’t see Tyson coming to the aide of the heavily edited whereby anyone can say that Tyson is an advocate for the People. Tyson has always had a low standing but it is the propaganda that has always covered it up. They are all business people doing business things: they are not advocates for anything other than for themselves; they change only when we change and preventing that change is the meaning of their trash talk and propaganda (this film etc.. ) and why they are supporting it. Moreover, Industry will never vote away one iota of their wealth or power, but the public certainly can, and you can see who they are truly “at war” with and why. Science does not support them and they know it and that is the meaning of their fierceness and contempt and their means to confound the public and as you have said; “real science needs no defense”. It is all about the Money and power and what they take from us is money and power. Thanks for your comment.

    • Bruce

      The truth hurts. Organic kale will not feed 9 billion hungry people. That’s the true peril that we’re facing.

    • RobertWager

      Hi Sunny How was your holiday break? Have you actually seen the film?
      Can you be more specific about which facts in the film you take issue with? We can discuss them on this forum. Did you know that RottenTomatoes gave it five stars? Hmm wonder why?

      • But Robert, how do you explain omission of the tax-subsidized industry that single-handedly opposes this field of science? “What’s bad for GMOs is good for organics and vice versa.” Yes?

        • RobertWager

          I like to distinguish between the organic growers and the organic lobby. Different parts of the organic food industry and definitely acting differently.

          • So, you’re saying this film goes after the anti-GMO organic lobby?

          • Harold

            They act differently because the Corporations who sell GMO also are either deeply affiliated or own the organic company’s and they peddle their wares from out of both left and right hands to gain the highest possible profits. For example, even PepsiCo owns two organic companies; do you think that PepsiCo does not lobby or are you thinking that the organic farmer is doing the lobbying? You have not distinguished a thing. Perhaps you need to come off of the battle field where all of the blinding gun smoke and mirrors are and perhaps talk to a few Generals such as PepsiCo and the many others who are controlling what you have not seen.

    • Can you provide an example or two of these “half truth lies”?

    • Wally

      Marion Nestle was interviewed for this film. Here is what has to say Marion is the Paulette Goddard Professor, of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Healht Emerita, at New York University, which she chaired from 1988-2003 and from which she retired in September 2017. She is also Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She holds honorary degrees from Transylvania University in Kentucky (2012) and from the City University of New York’s Macaulay Honors College (2016). She earned a Ph.D. in molecular biology and an M.P.H. in public health nutrition from the
      University of California, Berkeley.

      https://www.foodpolitics.com/2017/06/gmo-industry-propaganda-film-food-evolution/

      • richard

        Very cogent, thanx for the link…… Whats clear from the onset is that Food Evolution is just another infomercial for the technics of biotech…..I was disabused of any hope for something new as it slid into the old platitudes of feeding the starving planet, progress as defined by novelty, and the evil….activists, organic farmers, and anyone who dares question the sanctity of technology and those who own it…… One is left wondering how currently, the largest world grain stocks to use ratios in the past hundred years…..with the commensurate lowest commodity prices in real dollars in the past hundred years, and the highest farm subsidies in the Western World in a hundred years….. are somehow a sound social or economic imperative to apply even more biotechnology……to somehow feed the eight hundred million currently undernourished? When does the revelation crystalize finally with these promoters that its not a production issues…… its politics and greed…..And no amount of profit driven proprietary technology is going to change the fact that hungry citizens cannot afford our food at any price….. let alone techno food with a hundred dollar an acre price tag attached for GM seed, technology licensing agreements and the ancillary three coats of proprietary herbicide, pesticide and fungicide…… Food Evolution would have been far smarter to examine the reality of bio tech driven herbicide, pesticide and disease resistance in modern agriculture…. the forty percent of the worlds food supply that never gets consumed…… or the sixty percent of Western citizens who are overweight or obese. But of course these facts would force us to face the looking glass to discover where the real hunger lies….. and that’s a documentary few are willing to face….

      • Harold

        It would stand to reason that if I wanted to prop up my Industry propaganda I would also employ the very most titled. I noticed that the purpose of the video was not totally centered on Marion Nestle and how she has by her own effort changed the health of the people at large. When a video is not centered on the most titled it is the same event as the corporate create when they get a movie star to help them sell their product on TV. In this case the most titled were the GMO Industry and Marion Nestle the “lab coat” placed upon the commerce Actor. Any time a corporate produces a video it is for the purpose of gaining a profit and there is no other purpose. What would we see on a video produced solely by Marion Nestle based upon her many titles; a guest shot with a GMO industry representative? The Industry uses the titled to dazzle the unaware into acceptance.

      • Damo

        Thanks for that link. After reading it, it is obvious that Dr. Nestle is just upset because she got caught telling the truth. Nothing she says contradicts her statement in the film.

        A lot of what she said is mostly just suggestion. For example: “Food Evolution focuses exclusively on the safety of GMOs; it dismisses environmental issues out of hand. It extols the benefits of the virus-resistant Hawaiian papaya and African banana but says next to nothing about corn and soybean monoculture and the resulting weed resistance…” She is implying that GE derived crops are responsible for pesticide resistant weeds, which is true of any method of controlling weeds. Eventually some mutation gives the weed an advantage. Horse owners are seeing the same occur with dewormers. And yes there is weed resistance to some pesticides. But that is nothing new.

        This really hasn’t added to the conversation in any meaningful way, but it did serve as an advertisement for her book–right after she claims the film is propaganda. Takes one propagandist to know another, I guess.

        • Goldfinger

          It doesn’t seem obvious to me. It seems to me that you have an opinion, but no real facts to back it up. Only speculation.

          • Damo

            The facts are what she said. She admitted to saying what they put in the film. She is just mad because they didn’t put all of her other unrelated remarks in it. She even admits they were focused on food safety but then gets annoyed that they didn’t include her non-food safety comments. If you can’t see that you didn’t read the article.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I’ll pay attention to what she actually says and ignore your spin.

          • Damo

            She did say it. It is in the first paragraph. She admits it. You are the one spinning it.

          • GOOSE

            Nope. Read the first six paragraphs and we can all see that your claim is not true.

            ” I have asked repeatedly to have my short interview clip removed from
            this film. The director refuses. He believes his film is fair and
            balanced. I do not.

            I am often interviewed (see Media) and hardly ever quoted incorrectly or out of context. This film is one of those rare exceptions.

            In my 10-second clip, I say that I am unaware of convincing evidence
            that eating GM foods is unsafe—this is what I said, but it is hugely out
            of context.

            Safety is the industry’s talking point. In the view of the GMO
            industry and this film, if GMOs are safe, they ought to be fully
            acceptable and nothing else is relevant.

            I disagree. I think there are plenty of issues about GMOs in
            addition to safety that deserve thoughtful consideration: monoculture;
            the effects of industrial agriculture on the environment and climate
            change; the possible carcinogenicity of glyphosate (Roundup); this
            herbicide’s well documented induction of weed resistance; and the how
            aggressively this industry protects its self-interest and attacks
            critics, as this film demonstrates.”

          • Damo

            “In my 10-second clip, I say that I am unaware of convincing evidence
            that eating GM foods is unsafe—this is what I said, but it is hugely out
            of context.’

            She then proceeds to explain the context, which is irrelevant to food safety. The movie was focusing on food safety, which is why the only relevant part was the food safety bit. …

          • razorjack

            Let’s see, who do I believe?

            Marion Nestle is Paulette Goddard Professor, of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, Emerita, at New York University, which she chaired from 1988-2003 and from which she retired in September 2017. She is also Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She holds honorary degrees from Transylvania University in Kentucky (2012) and from the City University of New York’s Macaulay Honors College (2016). She earned a Ph.D. in molecular biology and an M.P.H. in public health nutrition from the
            University of California, Berkeley.

            Or do I believe Damo who is an anonymous internet poster with an obvious agenda?

          • GOOSE

            It looks like you choose to promote the same half truths while ignoring the nuanced balanced attempts to present her views in full context of her thinking. No wonder you support the film. …

          • E. Sandwich

            The real issue here is intellectual integrity.

            There is no integrity when the film maker chooses to reinforce his propaganda narrative by omitting the interviewees qualifying statements to the point of misrepresenting the interviewees position on the issues being discussed in the interview. When agenda trumps factual reporting it brings into question the rest of the contents of the film.

            The fact that you choose to support this lack of integrity says more about you than the information you are attempting to spin.

          • Damo

            No, the lack of integrity is on Nestle’ s part. She is trying to qualify her truthful statement with things that are irrelevant to the subject matter. She is trying to muddy the waters. You have proven that she agrees that GMO is safe. Her concerns have nothing to do with safety.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            So you say. …

          • E. Sandwich

            Nonsense.

            Dr. Nestle did not carve up her interview and only present the scrap of out of context words that fit the narrative on this propaganda film.

            Her integrity is above reproach. Dr. Nestle is a moderate well educated woman who is working hard to see and understand all the facets of these issues. Your claims about her tell us much more about you than it does her.

          • Damo

            She admits to saying that GMO is safe. Everything else you say about the matter is you trying to spin it in your favor.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            No. She admitted that she said that as part of a more nuanced response that was presented in an out of context way that change the meaning of her words.

            We’ve all heard you spin over and over again but it won’t change the simple facts of the matter.

          • Damo

            What spin is that? … [A]nyone can read Marion Nestle in her own words admit that GMO is safe.

            You are on a role. First you point out that Dr. NESTLE agrees that GMO is safe. Then you admit that ge is curing blindness for over 1000 people. …

    • Dear Sunny, Please do let me have up to three specific examples of what you mean by ‘half truths’, ‘propaganda’ and junk pseudo-science. Over the past 17 years I have often been confronted by people who like you are genuinely concerned about this technology and as yet I have failed to find any real evidence to support their concerns. However there is alway a first time so please let me have them, BUT no more than three please because investigations often take some time to carry out properly. (I teach plant biochemistry at a leading university in the UK but don’t let that put you off!)

  • Rob Bright

    This half-baked, antiscience, corporate propaganda flick is as pro-science as the tobacco scientists who defended the tobacco industry. Figures this nonsensical article features none-other than two of the most agrochemical industry friendly spokespeople and propagandists, Robert Wager and Kevin Folta. These two corporate meat puppets know where their bread is buttered and, like the film itself, spew industry talking points and antiscience gibberish to promote and defend their beloved corporate masters.

    • ed

      Right on. It is simple to see the truth and to spot the advertising campaign.

  • richard

    Nothing like this cast of deeply compromised politicians to promote a so called documentary on the facts of life…. It will undoubtedly galvanize even greater resistance to their GM pipedreams…. as per usual the public can smell a skunk from a mile away…… Look at the poster for crying out loud… Theres nothing like fifty years of trying to push rope….yikes!

  • debbie3554

    Typo in the title: Should be ‘Film fakes scientific approach to GMOs’. What a waste of film.

    • ed

      Wow. Rare wisdom indeed but gaining speed quickly.

  • ed

    Not worth watching. Compared to some of the substandard movies coming out of Hollywood these days that people would actually still pay dearly to watch, (being more careful what kind of butter toppings to put on their popcorn I might add), you couldn’t pay people enough to sit thru such tripe. Good attempt, but seriously! Get a grip on the gravitational death spiral that this type of bulk industrial production method is in. With changing consumer demands, the prices for this stuff is only going lower and blending it into the food supply thru non-labeling can only get you so far.

    • Have you seen the movie? Nothing in your comment suggests you have.

      • ed

        There are many advertisments that mimic it for sure. I didn’t say the camera angles were bad or picture clarity or the sound was bad. Sorry, just trying to be honest with this.

  • Donavon

    It’s not that hard to cheer for the argonauts,just have them play with he Calgary stampeders lol

  • The problem with this film is it lets organic activists off the hook. As Dr. Patrick Moore and I put it in a piece for The Daily Caller: “You can’t separate the organic movement from the anti-GMO movement. They are one and the same, existing in perfect anti-technological symbiosis. What’s bad for GMOs is good for organics and vice versa.”

    • GOOSE

      Moore was the industry PR representative who went on television and claimed glyphosate was safe enough to drink. When they offered him a glass he refused it. Why would anyone believe a word he says?

      https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore

    • richard

      Absolutely correct….whats bad for GM is good for organic…..When GM priests in their infinite brilliance decided to cower in the weeds on transparency and labelling, intelligent consumers moved to organic….. same with glyphosate residues in everything….. same with this little movie…….The organic sector is deeply indebted to the worlds longest running PR disaster….Check out the SPIN data retail receipts on days following the next GM debacle….

      • It’s a shame people aren’t buying organic for any positive reasons. Negative marketing will only go so far.

    • Harold

      What hook is the Organic activists on? Is GMO the HOOK? GMO is simply a modified organic so exactly what hook are Organic activists on? How do you support a natural state plant when the natural state speaks and has always spoken for itself? You modify a natural state and somehow the natural state needs a defence? Without natural state (organic) GMO cannot exist. When you modify something the microscope is pointed at the modification for cause and concern and not the other way around. Am I on a hook because the elements of by body were used to modify my son in some scientific experiment or are my modified son the object of concern? Therein lies the complete BS of the GMO Industry. Both organic and GMO are modern agriculture and both can live side by side in harmony if you remove the BS of Industry GMO propaganda and their overreaching tactics. Remove the BS and each Industry will live the life it ought to and will die when it ought to upon the will of the consumer and that freedom is despised by the GMO industry because it takes the power out of their hands. The GMO industry rhetoric is nothing more than a well written and crafted fable that they use to gain them their profit and power. The reason that the terms organic and GMO exist is because Industry BS has whitewashed the word organic. It’s like saying that a natural state fruit has to defend itself in the presence of the same genetically modified fruit as though the natural state has somehow become inedible. I lived in a pre-GMO era and I lived quite well and I don’t have to defend what I ate in that era and neither do I have to defend wanting more of the same in this era. Those who are willing to produce the natural state plants and those who wish to consume it have not committed any crime for which they need a defense. Why all of the fuss unless it is GMO industry led and they are trying to place a road block between both willing parties. This is nothing more than an overreaching GMO profit and power grab to which true science has no part in.

  • Using Third-World hunger to justify the science of genetic engineering seems entirely self-serving and shortsighted. How will we defend GMOs at such time as world hunger is solved? And, more to the point, what other form of technology is defended in this manner? We like faster computers simply because they’re fast. No one cares about any supposed humanitarian impact faster computers might have. Do they?

  • Solving world hunger is a terrible argument for GMOs. Let me ask you Bruce, will we abandon this technology at such time as world hunger is solved and the Third World learns how to farm?

    • S.G.

      That’s a lame old industry PR lie. These GMOs have been in our food supply for 20+ years and the starving still exist. GMOs have not helped them at all. Our world produces enough food to feed them and double our current population. Food is not the issue here, it has to do with distribution costs and resources. Please stop lying to the public.

    • When that time comes GMOs will get the credit. People living in deep poverty – less than $2 a day – has already declined from 80% 100 years ago to 20% today. That didn’t happen because of Whole Foods Market and yoga classes.

      • I couldn’t agree more. Technology is the only way forward for mankind. Always was, always will be, God willing.

        • Harold

          Technology can also destroy mankind and in a wide brush technology isn’t always a way forward whereby God has been willing. Certainly our guiding history is being overlooked today and is now seen as being something meaningless and we are doomed to repeat it.

          • If technology scares you, you can always go live in a cave. Don’t burn any fires or make any stone tools, that’s technology.

          • Harold

            … I rather like my new Vehicle but should I go and live in a cave because the technology of PCB’s was banned? … Should I walk to the cave, take a horse and buggy, or is it ok if I drive there? PCB’s still scare me, and so do the long list of other pharmaceuticals and chemical technologies that have also been banned. Am I to suppose that by your say so, no future technology blunders are possible and none will ever occur? Do you know of some deity that has arrived that I may have no knowledge of? Perhaps the meaning of the word technology has escaped you along with the meaning of the terms “a wide brush”, but then again, that is your problem and not mine. Awareness is not fear; it is the tool of resolve.

          • Harold

            Richard Bennett, like the video, I’ve been edited (censored) by the WP so kindly disregard my entire comment. Thank you. What is written is the WP thoughts and they no longer represent my own thoughts.

          • Harold,

            I cut two sentences from you comment – both of which made negative comments directed at the previous poster and, in my humble opinion, neither added to nor detracted from the overall gist of your comment.

            Stick to debating the issue at hand, and not the individual offering his/her opinion, and you’ll find your comments will not be edited.

            My only available alternative would be to delete the entire comment, so I’ve chosen to edit – not censor.

            I would think that a quick examination of your commenting history here would more than adequately counter any claim of censorship.

            Cheers,
            Paul

          • Harold

            You speak of my commenting history as though you by your power have allowed me my freedom of speech; very telling. It is the Constitution of Canada that allows me my freedom of speech and it is the subscribers to your paper that gives you any power to print or to censor. Advertisers do not give their money to subscriber dead news print, so therefore, I am owing to the subscribers. Amendments to the Supreme Law have given you the ability to censor comments and that is now what you are calling editing. Your policy reflects the censorship amendments that take the power away from the Supreme Law of the freedom of speech. Please do not give me your opinion on what censorship is or what editing is when clearly the Constitution has never been your focus. Every Canadian is awash in legalized censorship, by amendments to Law and organized incomplete news reporting and they are running hand in hand. Further, what you deleted was pointed at the statement and not the person; I didn’t say – “you are” – I said the ”statement” was – but I guess that little detail escaped you in your pursuit to find something sinister. The other statement was a challenge for a deeper thought and by editing it out the intended receiver of the statement is denied the challenge. Behind every statement there is intent, and the statement can hide the true intent and by attacking the person is how the true intent becomes known. Words do not cause physical harm to anyone; they only tear down the façade. A vow to cause physical injury or harm to another human being is quite another matter. Censorship hides the person. If a person is in fact six foot tall inside that person remains six foot tall inside regardless of any worded attack. Pandering to the weak gives the illusion that the weak are the very same being as the strong – allowing the weak, corruptible, and corrupt, to lead us. Now we have delusional “social justice word warriors” parading as though they are fighting off the same injuries as caused by sticks and stones. Your censorship was an attack against me but in the government led illusion it will not be seen as such. Nonetheless, my editing request to Richard Bennett stands and I do not accept your “humble opinion”. To accept your opinion, I would have to disrespect myself and respect you instead. We will agree to disagree instead, after all, pandering to you by cause and nature of amendments and legislations is exactly what our government wants all Canadians to be; a stalemate and inactive.

          • Harold,

            The constitutional right of “free speech” does not exist here within the WP’s forum. You are free to type whatever you wish, but OUR rules – respect for others and their opinions, no foul language and a keen awareness of potentially libelous statements – are what governs everything we allow to be published here.

            Abide by those rules or you will continue to see edits made to any of your comments containing such statements.

            Among the many other freedoms offered you in Canada is the freedom to post elsewhere if you don’t care to play by our rules.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Harold

            I will point out that that the topic was censorship, not the constitution. Your challenge to me was the word Censorship. For the challenge that you presented me with I offered to you some background. Had the law not been amended I would have taken you to Court and so would anyone else because you could not have lawfully enforced your policy; that is the background to your policy and it is not up for debate. Further, I will point out that “Libelous statements” are out of your league and they are only decided the Courts and not by the friendly news editor. You are making assumptions only – and creating a policy around that assumption. For what you edited out of any of my comments I would not have been held Liable in any Court of Law. Perhaps you didn’t notice your own contradictory statement so let me revise it for you by adding in a single word: “You are” NOT “free to type whatever you wish, but OUR rules – respect for others and their opinions, no foul language and a keen awareness of potentially libelous statements – are what governs everything we allow to be published here”. The word “free” standing alone contradicts your entire statement and for the definition of “free” you can find it in any Law dictionary. I will further point out that I was abiding by your rules when I asked Richard Bennett to disregard my comment. As far as I am concerned you can edit whatever you wish in keeping with your policy but that does not make any of what I have said Irrelevant or untrue. Furthermore, has the request to Richard Bennett to disregard my comment created for you any harm that you now have an invitation for me to go elsewhere? Your last statement was very insulting and disrespectful; the very same thing that you claim that you will not allow. Your “respect for others and their opinions”; really?

          • PCBs are a banned chemical once used as an insulator in electrical transformers. What does a chemical banned in 1979 have to do with cars?

          • Harold

            They are both technologies and I am not surprised that you had to ask the question.

          • I’m a big fan of the wheel myself. The yoke and moldboard plow are also classic pieces of technology that advanced mankind by quantum leaps.

          • The Amish made a huge mistake by accepting the wheel. Once you open the door to the wheel, cell phones, vaccines, and GMO seeds are inevitable.

            All of these fancy-pants technologies are used by the Amish, of course.

          • Would you support GMOs more if the Communist Chinese had invented them rather than capitalists?

          • Harold

            Is this question your invitation into nonsense and adventure? When I look into the microscope – where will I find the lifestyles of capitalism or the lifestyles communism being played out? What I see is simply an organism accepting an alteration only because the nature of the organism has allowed it and I also see in front of me the tool to get the job done; an invention. Per adventure, how do I recognize if a tool, such as microscope, is a communist or a capitalist so that the microscope can earn my support? Democracy and communism are life styles and they each have nothing to do with the science of GMO. Capitalism created Democracy – a little fact that only the people who have studied history will know. A singular human mind in a state of curiosity starts the process of science irrelevant of a physical geographical land location and innovation or technology follows it. Per adventure, Einstein a German, was his theory of relativity Nazi? When Einstein moved to the United Sates did his theory suddenly become American and American Capitalism? Apparently you seem to think that Science obeys human ideology’s and race and apparently you don’t think that the men and women of science ever travel or have traveled around the globe; Science does not belong to anyone and race or ideology do not invent a single thing other than a chosen lifestyle but thanks for the adventure. Hopefully I’ve helped you understand your own question.

      • richard

        wonder when that time is….? Because there is no precedent in human history for any self evident technology to be drowning in its own self pity forty years later,,,,,

      • Damo

        Sure it did. Yoga instructors would not be making money if they had to rely on a skill to earn a living.

  • So you think we should ship food to the Third World instead of teaching them to grow their own? How do you plan to deal with those distribution costs?

    • S.G.

      They can learn to grow their own without GMOs.

    • S.G.

      They can be taught without GMOs. That’s another lame excuse.

  • RobertWager

    You need to include the fact the world loses ~40% of the crops to disease, pests and rot. So the excess food is pretty much a myth. Funny thing is GE technology has many answers to these significant loses.

    • richard

      nonsense…..how do you measure losses that never existed? please… Check the dumpsters behind food stores, restaurants, apartments. hotels and homes….. Check the landfills and compost facilities……check the fields where up to half the produce is culled on the spot in the name of cosmetics. Have a look in the ditches of highways and in hospital kitchens…… Your specious arguments speak loudly to why your little movie is gonna go over like a lead balloon….. more tired sophistry from a caste of aging reactionaries preaching half truths and victimization….. Get a helmet Robert.

    • Harold

      If Democracy and their own source of cheap energy from their natural resources were developed in those third world Countries it will do more, but GE is not the answer that creates Energy and Democracy which is their true starvation; maintaining that starvation is the GMO industry Hype and profit and power driven agenda. You are correct in saying “funny thing is GE technology has many answers to these significant loses” because it is “funny” and it is a joke.

  • RobertWager

    “meat puppets” Thank you Rob for once again clearly demonstrating your typical discourse . Very telling to those watching.

  • Jason

    What, in the film, was fake or inaccurate?

  • Jason

    Is there anything in the film that is in accurate or misleading? If so what? Or do you just object to its promotional poster?

    • richard

      …..because it pretends to have a worldview when its really about corporate hegemony.

      • RobertWager

        You do realize the papaya and the banana stories completely contradict your narrative?

        • richard

          Youre right about stories…. I call them myths….because theyre just subterfuge, for the ninety percent of GM seeds and chemicals which are proprietary, the usurious costs of which are unattainable to most developing world growers. The reason GM is failing is because its a feudal anachronism…..a deeply defective business platform. Your film is not about liberating poor agrarians, its about tithing them with ideology….

          • Benjamin Edge

            The only ideology I see here is folks like you claiming that we shouldn’t do anything to help these people. That everything will be okay once some miracle comes along and fixes their infrastructure and civil unrest. Until then, let them eat cake, as long as it is organic.

          • richard

            Yeah yeah… the usual invective… but the facts speak to blind faith in technology as a dead end street…. How about a basic education for women as a path for lower birth rates in the developing world? It has been proven…. but of course that flies i the face of the 9B 2050 marketing delusion driven by… the usual suspects….

          • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

            Said it before to Mr. Wager here again:

            Monsanto (who owns the patent)…the failed PR ploy of Monsanto’s transgenic papaya.

            The majority of the globe’s GMO corn traits are developed here…we voted for a moratorium until tests but the chemical corporations sued to overturn the vote.

            No one wants to grow the transgenic papaya, it is only still grown because trees were already planted and it is kept going by government subsidized insurance payouts. Less than half of the current acres are even harvested.

            The selling price of transgenic PRS virus containing papaya has fallen to 30-40 percent below production costs!

            Hawaii has lost half of our papaya farmers since transgenic papaya was introduced and the market was collapsed.

            No one in their right mind would start to grow the inferior GMO papaya which is more susceptible to black spot fungus, has a dangerous coat protein and damages soil biota.

            It sells for less than the production costs! Only possible due to tax payer subsidized RMA payouts.

            Our biggest years in production and price were both before transgenic papaya and during the virus.

            http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry9a4f.html?recid=95

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10535-007-0065-1

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11104-006-9020-8 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4a2ba3039f566a571b3ca32ae3caf855a1c713e23f290630132e804e69e385f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6b7ec82dc00aee1fa0493089059df7c4673c439608bb138cc62f539a032f762.jpg

          • richard

            Thanx for the links Kanawai…..useful information!

          • Non-patented or open-source GMOs are beyond reproach. You can argue the technical point of who developed such GMO crops, but unless a licensing fee is charged they are essentially free to mankind.

          • Harold

            All seeds were given to mankind absolutely free by nature itself and those seeds were only owned by those who by their own labors gathered them. A fee, or a trade of equal value, was given to them who labored in gathering the seed. GMO is not beyond reproach when those GMO seeds are only just another middleman. Licensing is the event of the government taking away from you the Property, Freedom, and Rights, that you own and to your property the Government adds their own rules, regulations, and jail terms, and a continuous fee that you pay to keep the new contract alive, and then they hand the property that you own back to you – provided you pay the fee. To keep the proper perspective, I call it a sense to lie – a license (Obviously this is not a physical process; it is an intellectual ownership process) Certainly if you do not understand my comment then perhaps anyone with a drivers license can look at the license plate attached to the property that they own – their car. You own the Car, the Province owns the LICENCE Plate and the Province owns your Drivers LICENCE and both have a fee attached. (Nothing changed when you crossed the border did it?) There is no difference in any other form of licensing so your reference to licensing is irrelevant. A license takes away from you what you freely own and makes what you own a privilege to have in your possession. We become a society of privilege to the masters who are the government; every license represents a loss to ownership, Rights, and Freedoms and it is not the liberty that most Canadians believe that it is.

        • Not only that Robert. But those GMO crops can be grown and certified as organic!

          • Harold

            The government is corruptible isn’t it? Are you providing to us the governments own confession? I wonder who is responsible for the corruption. Would it be pressure from GMO to help the corporate profit? I wonder who profits from the deception. Is it the consumer’s fault that they are lied to – and if they are being lied to – who is ultimately responsible? It must be the organic sector and not the government, right? After all, we wouldn’t want to aim the pointer stick in the right direction or give any support to the competition would we. I see this as nothing more than the GMO industry infiltrating the organic sector with the aid of government in their relentless attempt to breed mistrust of the organic sector in the eyes of the consumer. It is a confession by the GMO industry that they cannot stand solely based upon their own merit and it is quite pathetic really.

      • Jason

        For example??

  • RobertWager

    Very interesting comments section. Lots of ad hominem lots of saying the documentary is full of false information but when pressed to demonstrate these claims…..crickets. Very telling and I would bet none of the critics have actually seen the film. When you get a chance go see it and decide for yourselves. You will not be disappointed.

    There are free screenings in Toronto, Waterloo and Nanaimo in the next little while
    and more to come soon.
    cheers

  • The anti-science, pro-fear, pro-organic lobby is totally freaked out by Food Evolution because it shows, quite clearly, that opposition to GMO rice and bananas is literally killing people. They throw manure at the movie because its facts are incontrovertible. I’m enjoying their temper tantrums.

    • E. Sandwich

      Can you show us the bodies of those you claimed were killed because yellow rice has not been approved and bananas are currently vaporware?

      • richard

        Yeah, its hard to know if its science fiction or faith based religion….. but it is entirely predicated on fear of scarcity….. and a stale carrot dangling for forty years that’s only relevant to the faithful and the bamboozled…..

        • Jason

          Fear of scarcity???

          You say that as if there are no places where scarcity is a reality.

          • richard

            True….scarcity exists…..but fear of scarcity is a uniquely Western disease that manifests itself in cheap food, bad food, gluttony, obesity, bad health, entitlement…… and the profound belief we deserve more, while we are throwing half of it away….. And its all being enabled by a production ideology jacked up on subsidies, NPK , xenobiotics….. and over production…… for no apparent reason other than the vainglory of trying to grow our way out of our self inflicted stupidity……and fear of scarcity. Now does that sound like a moral or business platform that needs to be exported to the developing world? Watch carefully how this little film uses fear to trigger emotional response….Its not about science…. its about the guilt of a hundred years of neglect of our fellow humans.

          • Benjamin Edge

            I’ll consider your arguments serious when you swear off eating any food that is grown with NPK. Like any other alternative is even possible.

          • Damo

            I will allow that our civilization has its own set of problems with obesity tied to a lack of scarcity.

            Those problems related to getting fat in your forties are somehow less important than childhood malnutrition. I think even developing countries would rather have our problem than theirs.

          • richard

            Childhood malnutrition anywhere is not pretty, but it exists here in the form of antinutrition… sugar, fat, salt, food color, preservatives, additives….empty calories…. And the result is physically challenged, educationally incapacitated and medically dependent for life….individuals. At what cost? Cheap and abundant food is a privilege abused and we don’t even know how to feed our own…..turn a shift at the local food bank or soup kitchen and see the pathos. How does our unhealthy disrespect for foods fundamental life force give us any moral authority in the developing world? Blind faith in technology as the solution to everything does not somehow make our willful ignorance….more clever.

          • Damo

            Well, that was a lot of words.

            But I think you were trying to say that eating empty calories is bad. I don’t disagree. But the problem isn’t as bad as you make it out to be.

            Also, our kids aren’t dying. … let people make up their own minds.

          • richard

            Sixty percent of North Americans are overweight or obese….and health care services in both countries are maxed out and underfunded…. do you think there might be a connection? And you think that those in the developing world envy our self loathing through gorging….? I don’t think so….They think we are fat, over privileged and stupid….. Sorry, our grotesque self image of wealth as measured by waist line is a bizarre anachronism….. and one of the reasons why this film looks totally disingenuous……fat people telling thin people how to eat right…

          • Damo

            Then why do so many come here and become obese? I think they prefer obesity to childhood mortality. I know I do.

          • richard

            Those of us who understand the connection between real food and personal health do not accept the normalization of bad food, bad health, obesity, nine degenerative digestive disorders, inflammation, diabetes and cancer as a lifestyle… Those stoned on blind faith in technology see all of the above as progress……for no other reason than they create economic activity….GDP….That’s just reality……But please let us not ever mistake the vain notion that transferring our willful ignorance to the developing world is somehow either humane or progressive….. Self contempt is at the root of bad food and worse lifestyle….which is how reductionist science and its missionaries have become an apocalyptic religion…..that somehow has faith in finding a way to push rope?

          • Damo

            Why not trade places with someone starving and see who has it more difficult: the person who doesn’t know if their children will live past two or the fat guy who might get diabetes after his kids are grown. I know I am happy to have first world problems.

          • richard

            Thank you for confirming my points… the film is a disingenuous look at what is in fact a first world crisis of willful ignorance and guilt….

          • Damo

            You have not shown that to be the case. My point is that obesity beats starvation–even if your assertion that GE derived foods somehow causes obesity is true, most will choose obesity over hunger.

          • richard

            ….and most people will choose willful ignorance as subterfuge to constructive dialogue…… I am fat therefore I am…..I am fat therefore I GM must be good for hungry people…. Your myopic reductionist worldview is the self same reason this little film fails….. more of the same tired sophistry from aging, white reactionaries with foot in mouth disease…..

          • Harold

            Both hunger and obesity seek health so your point is a nothing burger if I were to trade places with any of them. Tell me how you made your choice of where to be born? Did the third world get their choice too? Tell me how you made your choice to become obese? Do you think that there are choices between starvation and obesity? How did I make my choice to remain thin? The strong are on the planet to help the weak and to this end the whole world is failing and you want to choose obesity?

          • Damo

            You aren’t very coherent. I can’t really figure out what you are trying to say.

            Regardless, my point stands. Obesity is a disease of affluence. People in developing countries don’t choose to starve. They may choose to be obese if given the chance.

            Holding back life saving tools because they might become obese, which is still much better than starvation and is actually a symptom of a society that values consumption and not a product of the tools themselves, is selfish.

          • Harold

            I am not coherent to your sense of reasoning? That is because there is no logic that reasonably connects what you are saying to any sense of reality. It is not logical to choose obesity under any circumstances and It is not logical to choose starvation under any circumstances yet you place them together as though they are logical choices. What human being who is hungry or starving eats with the desire to become obese? Not even the obese eat for that purpose. Every single person on this planet eats because they are starving for food; period. Moreover, obesity is not a disease of affluence it is a disease of consuming improper foods. To support your opinion – Is every wealthy man fat and every low income earner thin? At what pay scale do you find the highest levels of obesity? You have simply conjured up an opinion based upon the illogical; choosing between obesity and starvation is only your minds adventure into a law that you have created to which no man or woman of conscience would even consider; I know where your point stands and I will take your observation of my lack of coherency as being a complement even though you may not think it is so. Thank you.

          • Harold

            The fact that people are overweight is starvation. Nutrients turn off the body’s craving for food in the same way as the body turns on and off thirst. The fact that people are overeating is a fact of empty calories and nutrition starvation. Americans and Canadians are being fooled by the food Industry into believing that the food Industry is providing food. It is also known that sugar is in the same league as a narcotic and they load the foods empty of nutrition and calories with sugar to have people crave the emptiness of their food products and from that the consumer over-eats. There is a reason why fast food comes with a supersized drink of syrup. Often times it is the feeling of overeating that forces one to stop eating but not the signal of nutrition and calories as it ought to be and it is only because the body hasn’t received enough nutrition yet from yesterday’s or today’s so called industry food. You know which one of the two gives Industry their MAX profit. The Industry promotes flavor taste because they cannot boast nutrition without being sued for false advertising so they use colorful words instead. The Industry captures dictionary words by coercing the governments to legally change the meanings because the true meanings of the dictionary words cannot be used creating a food deception. For example, the word natural has no true meaning now. There are perhaps over a thousand chemicals that are routinely used and placed into the varieties of so called foods that the Industry produces but they are kept hidden from the public; kept hidden, the public cannot have them removed. For example, the word Modified on a label can mean an entire soup of chemicals. Flour completely void of nutrition cannot be sold and that is what enriched four means; void flour – with nutrition added; most think it is nutritional flour with added nutrition but it is not. Regular flour has nutrition and therefore it can be sold without adding nutrition. The Industry chemical food of today, void of nutrition and empty in calories, is probably masked and out of the spot light due to the vitamin pill industry or pharmaceutical chemical industry and their success. A cocktail of vitamins to go with your empty Industry food brings to them all of their success. The food Isles of the supermarkets are no longer the health food store. Where do you see health care and not caring; Is the most amount of money the most amount of care; after the fact? Hospital beds are about not caring and they are not health care; they are sickness care for those who don’t care or don’t entirely know what they have been eating. Food with chemical additives and void of nutrition harms us and food without additives harms industry. Where is health care really?

          • Damo

            Why was my comment drastically edited?

          • Damo,

            Five words were cut from your comment because you chose to direct that part of your statement toward the previous poster, rather than comment on the issue at hand.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

      • No, I can’t show you the bodies. Nor can I show you the bodies of *any* famine victims. I don’t collect bodies.

        But if you see the movie, you’ll understand the problem a little better.

        • E. Sandwich

          … there are no bodies only … over the top hyperbole. I’ll pass on the movie. I won’t waste my time watching industry propaganda. …

          • Benjamin Edge

            Figured you hadn’t seen it.

          • Isn’t America wonderful? People in this country have been protesting movies they haven’t watched since “Inherit the Wind”.

          • E. Sandwich

            Isn’t America wonderful? Some people have been promoting lousy movies and industry propaganda because it is their job.

          • Harold

            Hollywood is real life? I wonder what “Alice” is in wonderland?

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Actually I think you are being wildly optimistic here. he really doesn’t want to understand.

          • E. Sandwich

            You don’t speak for me. Eric.

      • Damo

        Yes, hunger and malnutrition doesn’t exist, thank you, Duncan.

      • Harold

        It seems to be getting easier and easier these days to prove a future time fiction by focusing on now time realities. However, today is the evidence of the help fiction told twenty years ago and interestingly enough in their failure, the same ones of twenty years ago are still telling us, now time, of the future time. How can you prove future time wellness when that time has not yet occurred and how do you prove future time wellness when at – now time – we do not have wellness from past time. How do you define a food religion? Industry profit seems to be the church, but the real churches are still donating and feeding the poor in the Industries wake, the same as it had been doing twenty years ago. Those who do not place their money into the offering plates of the Industries many church’s are seen and treated as sinners in need of Industry scripture and repentance as though the sinners were being disobedient to “god” and “Jesus Christ” the savior. Be that as it may, if yellow rice is so important, why aren’t we eating it and why is the same industry not demanding that we eat it first? The unanswered scientific questions are the only reasons that yellow rice is not on the market, (it may be harmful) so the people the rice will save, is nothing more than industry fiction; a fiction used by the Industry to deceive the public into believing that the Industry, is by cause and nature, the savior of the world. How much money will they earn by instilling that religion? Like any religion, the truth can only be verified and known after you die; that is in future time. Each new day is a death of yesterday and what did all of the Industry preachers of all of the yesterdays say about our now time “new day in their heaven”? Is it still yesterdays hell of twenty-five years ago and we are still the sinners owing them alms? It seems as though “organic” is gods sin, and who other than Monsanto would think it?

    • Frank

      Richard, quite the contrary, this film is nothing more than a desperate plea by a self serving industry that is living in fear of its profits future. Their scientific experiment (at what cost?) is ultimately failing and their only recourse is to mimic the ‘anit-GMO’ community action. Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery!

      • RobertWager

        Hi Ted

      • hyperzombie

        Ummm, Organic charges 2x more for exactly the same thing.

        • Duncan DeBunkerman

          No it is not the same thing. Organic food does not contain GMOs and the cancer causing synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not used. It is not cultivated using municipal waste. It doesn’t allow the use of toxic food additives that are banned in many parts of the world. …

          • hyperzombie

            All fertilizers are chemicals. Duh.

  • Damo

    Why would anyone drink a glass of glyphosate, safe or not? …

    • Peaceful Warrior

      Why would anyone say that glyphosate is safe to drink?

      • Damo

        Because it is.

        • Goldfinger

          So you say. Will you drink a glass to prove that you mean what you say?

          • Damo

            It is not food. It would taste bad. It may not be poisonous but drinking it serves no purpose. Ted, we covered this already.

        • Harold

          The so called “safe levels” that your industry applies to glyphosate being found in the food defies what you are saying …

          • Damo

            What are you talking about?

          • Harold

            Damo, please disregard this edited comment.

    • Harold

      That was the Goose’s point. No one in their right mind would drink it because no one is that stupid but the Idiot said that the product was safe enough to drink defying everyone’s much more superior mind so they asked the fool to drink it but he refused proving to the superior in minds that they were in fact superior in intellect above that of a fool.

      • Damo

        It is not food. Plenty of things may be safe, that doesn’t make them food or appetizing. Non-Toxic water colors may be safe, but I ain’t going to eat them. Do you have anything to say other than defending Goose for expecting someone to eat something other than food?

        • Harold

          You are correct – it is not food – but why did this “brilliant” man say that you could drink it whereby insulting the intelligence of all those in his presence and now even you? What do you expect to hear coming out of the mouth of the so called highly educated; a fool’s errand? Why did he say it at all; everyone knows that he was not speaking the truth. What amount of credence do you give to someone who in desperation resorts to lying? Further, you seem to think that I was defending Goose; Is that what you see? Goose is an adult and he doesn’t need me to come to his defense just because he dares to hold a personal opinion that differs from yours. Perhaps you think that this forum is a school yard? All I did was give you my opinion and that was all. If you feel “ganged up on” that is your illusion to resolve. The only one that I see who is in the act of defending, Is you, defending you, and non-toxic water colors was a nice little adventure away from the topic of concern, but I can tell you that it hasn’t worked for you because I like to stay on task. I can assure you that neither Goose nor I expected this man to drink a glass of Glyphosate because neither one of us are that stupid; we both know, so did everyone else, that the man was full of BS when he said it. Perhaps this tiny wee bit of simplicity had escaped you in your pursuit to find something more sinister to your own liking. Moreover, food is anything of nutritional value – period. Nutritional food is not always appetizing but nonetheless it is food regardless if you eat it or not. Further, when a product is labeled non-toxic and that product was not intended to be consumed, such as your water color example, the pathway that they are referring to is through the skin and into the blood stream, the pathways to the vital organs. The man was talking about drinking and your example was through the skin – just in case you hadn’t realized that in your attempt to try and marry the two as being the same thing.
          To answer your question: “do you have anything to say other”. Yes.

          • Damo

            So, you have no proof it isn’t safe?

          • Harold

            Not until you drink it. Up until now you have only provided excuses for anyone not to drink it. Saying that it is unsafe to drink or saying that it tastes too bad to drink achieves the very same results doesn’t it? Nobody drinks it. Are the excuses for not drinking it your proof of its safety? Nonetheless, rest assured that under my watch I would knock the glass right out of your hands if you ever attempted to drink it. Glyphosate is a weed killer correct? Do you think that Glyphosate has a little brain that distinguishes between a human and a weed plant? The word “safe” is not the word “nutrition” and those lacking in nutrition are unsafe; the word safe that you use only brings to you your profit. Are you going to try to tell me that glyphosate was intended to be consumed and therefore it is safe and the side effect is the killing of weeds?

          • Damo

            If you think people and weeds are the same, then you are no doubt unqualified for an opinion on the subject.

          • Harold

            I didn’t say that weeds are the same as people but if you yourself had knowledge in the study of biology you would not have drawn that conclusion. Let me put it in the utmost simplicity for you. If a plant lacks water and a human lacks water am I calling them the same if they both die of thirst? Anyone who understands biology knows exactly what I am saying and they do not draw the conclusion that I am saying that they both are the same. Do you think that water has a little brain that distinguishes between a human and a weed plant? Am I saying that they are the same? How did glyphosate become so confusing if you yourself understand biology? I think that you should be a little more concerned about what you do not know yet and study it and be a little less concerned about the qualifications of those who post an opinion. In essence, that is how you become “smarter” than your teacher or opinion giver and it is a better fitting suit and tie.

    • I wouldn’t drink a glass of Roundup because of the surfactants in it. It would be like drinking a bottle of shampoo.

      • SUNNY

        Glyphosate is only one ingredient in Roundup. Would you drink a glass of that?

      • Denise

        Shampoo is safer to drink than the surfactants in Roundup.

      • Denise

        Downplaying the poisonous ingredients in the surfactants in Roundup by comparing it to shampoo doesn’t fly.
        healthfreedomidaho.org/round-up-toxicity-its-not-just-the-carcinogen-glyphosate

  • Harold

    How do you know that your statement is true? They are buying Organic for a positive reason unless the word positive in the dictionary has changed to suit your comment. The fact that the Government is corrupt, toothless, ineffective, and incompetent, has nothing to do with the people shopping for organic who are not getting what they want. Perhaps their persistence will pay off some day; is that positive enough for you? Money has two driving forces; the force and power that the consumer has when directing their dollars and the power that the corporation has after receiving those dollars. When GMO attacks a product that the people have legitimized by the power of their dollars that attack is of a corrupt source and it is in all intent an over-reaching money and power grab; It does not in any way, shape, or form, express “freely” or “freedom”. There is a reason why this propaganda film did not express equally both legitimate industries; it is company HYPE. My garden at home is completely organic and who are you or the GMO industry to tell me that I am wrong? Who are you, or anyone else to say that I am wrong in paying someone else to duplicate what I have at home to save me my burdens. Is paying that individual for saving me the effort of gardening positive enough for you? Where is this negative marketing that I should give a damn about because to me it is irrelevant? Irrelevant is a word that the GMO industry despises. It is so ridicules that the very plant that they modified they are at war with and I am to assume that there is something negative as though the modification was necessary to draw some poison out of the original plant. Are Organic plants in the same league as poisonous mushrooms where there ought to be negative marketing? Like me, the people who are eating organic are not confused people; it is only the Industry propaganda that paints us that way and those who believe it and it is sad and despicable what they are doing all for the sake of a dollar. Anyone who wants to create a value by labor and product should be 100% supported and for the negativity coming from the GMO camp they can all go to hell as far as I am concerned. Inside the Labs of the science of GMO/GE technology is a place where you don’t find all of the GMO Industry BS and isn’t that strange; outside of the Lab It’s all about the money, power, and insults.

    • Organic marketing is based almost entirely on negative propaganda. If organic food was sold on its positive merits, it would have larger market share and permanence. As it stands, most organic food is imported because grocers aren’t the least-bit concerned with the positive merits it should have.

      • Harold

        If I didn’t know better I just might agree with you. Unfortunately there are many factors that you are unaware of or have ignored that have narrowed your perspective making it very easy for you to come to your conclusion. Like most you are solely focused on the label or organic or GMO as if that is all that there is to tell or to understand. Further, the grocer does not sell any product based upon merit, the grocer sells based upon profit and demand and it is the customer that decides the merit and the flow of any demand. Do you think that evenly priced produce wouldn’t affect GMO sales and now you are going to explain to me market shares and propaganda? You wouldn’t be saying what you have said if you yourself had ever been a owner of a company. Clearly you are an outsider to this. You would also not be saying what you said if you understood who has the controlling interests of the Organic industry. You also would not be saying what you are saying if you had a background in economics. You would also not be saying what you are saying if you had a background in Law. Do you think that none of these play an active part? (I have a background in each and more) All that you have brought forward to me is the “street fighting” and all of its nonsense. You have not brought me into any boardroom.

  • Benjamin Edge

    Folks have been trying to teach them to grow their own for a lot longer than 20 years. Should we give up on that too, since you seem to think 20 years is all the time needed? Actually, saying they need to learn to grow their own is pretty condescending and comes from a place of privilege. They know how to grow food, they just don’t have the resources in land, fertility, improved seed, crop protection, and mechanization, or a stable system of distribution to produce and get food to everyone in those countries.

    • Harold

      When you can figure out how you would operate without democracy, cheap power, water, and technology/equipment, then you will understand what their true starvation is all about. The starvation is not about us feeding them, it about them being denied the ability to feed themselves.

    • Sounds like Africa might be a basket case.

  • My point is that GMOs are not material to the discussion of world hunger. Nor is distribution. The people of the world need to learn to feed themselves.

  • Harold

    Like any film, the producer and industry caste choose the focus of the content and focus and direction of the camera and a lens that is narrow is nothing more than a corporate sponsored infomercial. (They call what they put on popcorn “topping” because they cannot call it 100% butter) I’m sure you are saying that this video is nothing more that Industry “topping”.

  • Right… except, does the film mention the organic industry’s opposition to GMOs? Or merely allude to it?

  • Sorry Harold… I’m not sure I follow.

    • Harold

      I didn’t give you anything to “follow” because I am not your leader, teacher, or employer.. I gave you something to think about or to reason with or to investigate and it was only my opinion which is not relevant to you, only to my life’s accumulated knowledge for which it is not possible for me to give to you every detail. For every action there are many interconnected actions and therefore one action never stands alone as many have the illusion that it does. I can only communicate freely with those who have completed the same tasks, studies, or have had the same experiences or interconnections. Those who cannot see a concept or a picture in what I have written would be better served if they threw my opinion in the trash. Further to this, “sorry” expresses a feeling, and “I’m not sure I follow” is contradictory, just in case you thought I hadn’t noticed.

  • gskibum

    Neil deGrasse Tyson is faking science in the film? How so?

    • debbie3554

      You may have noticed that he’s just a paid narrator. Nothing to do with ‘science’. He’s reading a script.

  • gskibum

    Crickets…

  • Peter Olins

    Good work, Robert.

  • ɹǝdɯoʇs ɥʇʎɯ

    Do have any practical ideas for redistributing the world’s resources? Would this be voluntary, or do you plan to take care of this once you become Emperor?

  • gskibum

    You didn’t explain how the words he speaks in the film are incorrect.

    • SageThinker

      In the big picture, he’s being paid to lend his public image of credibility to the broad lie which is the assertion that there is a consensus where there is not, and to make things sound just so pat and neat which is the hallmark of good propaganda. It’s a big think, and if your mind is closed already then you’re not going to get there. It’s a big picture thing. This space is full of useful idiots and minions.

      • gskibum

        You also didn’t say what words Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke that are incorrect.

        You merely played the logical fallacy card called Poisoning the Well. Very weak form and only serves to reveal your inability to argue on the facts.

      • gskibum

        Besides being a science communicator, Neil deGrasse Tyson also gets paid to be an astrophysicist. In the big picture it is clear that he does not fabricate things about astrophysics. Yet you, being unable to argue the science and facts, instead attempt to use the weak card of poisoning the well on the topic of agriculture.

        I think I’ll play a poisoning the well card too: Last time I stepped into Whole Foods, I didn’t see any products on the shelves being given away for free. Nor do I expect Whole Foods obtained them for free. Nor do I think the producers gave them away to Whole Foods for free. Hmmm. It’s as though these producers stand to gain financially from the unscientific campaign of fear and misinformation surrounding agriculture and science.

  • SageThinker

    The film is propaganda. The biotech industry has been gaming the science and making there appear to be a consensus where there is not. They’ve captured the EPA to approve glyphosate and hide the evidence that it’s not completely. The cooptation of science bugs me. Science works well when there is not a huge undue influence tipping the scales.

explore

Stories from our other publications