Food Evolution GMO film is ‘agribusiness propaganda’

Print Email Share Tweet LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Telegram
|

Food Evolution, a documentary produced by Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, claims to look at all points of view in the debate over genetically modified foods (GMOs) debate. But the film quickly devolves into a hard sell for GMOs, based on specious claims and industry sources. See below for our June 2019 review.

Since then, many more academics have described the film as propaganda, and some people interviewed for the film described a deceptive filming process, and said their views were taken out of context. See for example:

See also our follow up article, Neil deGrasse Tyson Owes Fans a More Honest Conversation About GMOs, by Stacy Malkan.

Review of Food Evolution

By Stacy Malkan, 6/19/2017

Some industry messaging efforts are so heavy-handed they end up highlighting their own PR tactics more than the message they are trying to convey. That’s the problem with Food Evolution, a new documentary by Academy Award-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The film, opening in theaters June 23, claims to offer an objective look at the debate over genetically engineered foods, but with its skewed presentation of science and data, it comes off looking more like a textbook case of corporate propaganda for the agrichemical industry and its GMO crops.

That the film’s intended purpose was to serve as an industry-messaging vehicle is no secret. Food Evolution was planned in 2014 and funded by the Institute for Food Technologists, a trade group, to culminate a multi-year messaging effort. IFT is partly funded by big food corporations. The group’s president at the time was Janet Collins, a former DuPont and Monsanto executive who now works for CropLife America, the pesticide trade association. IFT’s President-Elect Cindy Stewart works for DuPont.

IFT chose Scott Kennedy to direct the film, but Kennedy and producer Trace Sheehan say they had complete control over the film. They describe Food Evolution as a fully independent investigation into the topic of GMOs that includes all points of view.

The film’s credibility suffers from their choice to embrace only the science and scientists who side with the pesticide industry groups that profit from GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data that doesn’t fit that agenda.

The Monsanto science treatment

The clearest example of the scientific dishonesty in Food Evolution is the way the film deals with glyphosate. The weed killer chemical is at the heart of the GMO story, since 80-90% of GMO crops are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate.

Food Evolution reports that the increase in glyphosate use due to GMOs is not a problem, because glyphosate is safe. Two sources establish this claim in the film: a farmer says glyphosate has “very, very low toxicity; lower than coffee, lower than salt,” and Monsanto’s Robb Fraley – in response to a woman in an audience who asks him about science linking glyphosate to birth defects and cancer – tells her that’s all bad science, “it’s pseudoscience.”

All science raising concerns about glyphosate is “pseudoscience,” says Monsanto.

The film makes no mention of the carcinogenicity concerns that are engulfing Monsanto in an international science scandal, or the many farmers who are suing Monsanto alleging they got cancer from the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide.

There is no mention of the 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency that classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, or California’s decision to add glyphosate to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, or the peer-reviewed studies that have linked various adverse health outcomes to glyphosate and Roundup.

Instead of an objective look at the evidence, Food Evolution gives viewers the full Monsanto science treatment: Any science that raises concerns about the possible health risks of pesticides should be ignored, while studies that put those products in a favorable light is the only science worth discussing.

Double standards in science and transparency

Equal treatment of interview subjects with different points of view would have helped the credibility of Food Evolution. Instead, the film paints the GMO critics it features as dishonest or out to make a buck off the organic industry, while leaving out key details about its pro-industry sources.

In one scene, the film’s main character, UC Davis professor Alison Van Eenennaam, frets that appearing onstage with a Monsanto executive at a debate could sully her independent reputation. Viewers never learn that she used to work for Monsanto, or that she holds several genetic engineering patents which suggest a financial interest in the topic at hand.

Pro-industry scientist Pamela Ronald, another key science source, gets the hero treatment with no mention that two of her studies have been retracted, or that she sometimes get paid by pesticide companies for speaking events. Yet viewers are hammered with news that a study by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini – which found kidney problems and tumors in rats fed GMO corn – was “retracted, retracted, retracted!”

The film leaves out the fact that the study was subsequently republished, and was retracted in the first place after a former Monsanto employee took an editorial position with the journal where it was originally published.

The ‘Africa needs GMOs’ narrative

In another neatly spun public relations move, Food Evolution takes viewers on an emotional journey to the developing world, and along another favorite industry messaging track: Rather than focus on how genetic engineering is used in our food system now – primarily to convey herbicide tolerance, and resulting in a huge spike in the use of toxic herbicides – we should focus on how GMOs might be used in the future.

With plenty of airtime and dramatic tension, the film examines the problem of banana wilt, a disease killing staple crops in Africa, and leads viewers to believe that genetic engineering will save the crop, the farmers and the community.

Maybe. But the film neglects to mention that the savior GE technology is not yet available and might not even work. According to a paper in Plant Biotechnology Journal, the resistance shown in the lab is robust but may not be durable in open fields.

The film is “fundamentally dishonest.”

Meanwhile, a low-tech solution is working well and looks like it could use some investment. According to a 2012 paper in the Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, farmer field schools, which help growers acquire hands-on knowledge of techniques to prevent banana wilt, led to lower infection rates and high crop recovery in Uganda. Results from farmer field schools “have been remarkable,” according to the UN. That solution doesn’t warrant a mention in Food Evolution.

“It’s fundamentally dishonest of the film to tout a GE solution that may not even work, as the scientists themselves acknowledge,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, “while failing to point out another way to control the problem that works very well, but doesn’t involve selling a product to make money.”

Did Monsanto cook up the idea for Food Evolution?

Monsanto and allies were discussing plans for a documentary in late 2013, according to emails obtained by US Right to Know. The emails do not contain evidence linking those discussions to Food Evolution, but they do establish Monsanto’s desire for a film that sounds surpassingly similar to the one Kennedy created.

Monsanto’s Eric Sachs wrote in Dec. 2013 to a group of PR advisors, “there is clearly a lot of interest to pursue a documentary film. Importantly, the consensus was that Monsanto’s participation was welcome, particularly in the planning phase.” He recommended a January 2014 planning call.

Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project stepped up to take the lead, and mentioned he had “gotten a personal pledge of $100,000 from a private business person if we can get” (the rest of the line is cut off). We don’t know if the film’s eventual funder, the Institute for Food Technologists, was mentioned at that time. But we do know Entine had a connection to the group; he spoke about “anti-food activism” at IFT’s 2012 annual meeting.

Another person involved in discussions with Monsanto about a possible documentary was Karl Haro von Mogel, who co-founded the GMO-promotion group Biofortified, Inc. Emails indicate that von Mogel had discussed with Monsanto’s Eric Sachs “the downsides of a film funded by the ‘Big 6’” and he suggested that “what would matter more than their money is their participation.” Von Mogel appears to have played a key role in Food Evolution; not only was he interviewed in the film, he was involved in filming one scene, which suggests close coordination with the filmmakers.

In reaction to these emails, the film’s producer Scott Kennedy wrote on Twitter that his movie had “ZERO $ or INPUT from Monsanto. We are fully transparent & happy 2 have fact-based dialogue.”

He said in an interview, “that email exchange had absolutely nothing to do with our project whatsoever … we hadn’t even committed to making the film with IFT at that date in 2013.”

The people in the email exchange were not involved in filming or advising, he said, and Karl Haro von Mogel “was a subject in the film and had no involvement or influence on any creative/editorial decisions on the film at any point in the production. Also it may be useful to point out that the email conversation you reference occurred long before we ever even knew Karl or any of these people.”

Sneak peek behind the scenes of making Food Evolution

Another email exchange obtained by US Right to Know offers a peek behind the scenes at the narrative development process of Food Evolution. The exchange depicts Kennedy’s search for examples to bolster a storyline about how developing countries “need” GMOs.

Kennedy asks his team and advisors for examples of successful GMO projects to use in the film: “Any other ‘us/developing world needs gmo’ you can give me names of aside from oranges? Shintakus lettuce?” Producer Trace Sheehan responded with a list of GMO products he thought could be used as examples: drought-tolerant rice, allergy-free peanuts, carcinogen-free potatoes … “and then button with Golden Rice.”

Kennedy pushed for “the top GMO crops currently in use, and what countries,” and that prompted Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science (a PR group funded by the Gates Foundation) to admit, “Really Bt brinjal in Bangladesh is the only one that is truly GMO in and is in widespread operation.”

The rest of the examples, in other words, don’t exist in real-world settings (and the Bt brinjal project is fraught with controversy). Food Evolution ended up ignoring that detail the filmmakers discovered about the lack of operational GMO solutions. The film also does not mention that the “button” example, vitamin-A enhanced Golden Rice, still isn’t available despite huge investments and years of trials, because it doesn’t work as well in the field as existing rice strains.

‘How do we determine what is propaganda?’

In a scene that is supposed to convey scientific credibility, Food Evolution flashes the logo of the American Council on Science and Health at the very moment the film’s narrator, Neil deGrasse Tyson, says there is a global consensus on the safety of GMOs. It’s a fitting slip. ASCH is a corporate front group closely aligned with Monsanto.

The ACSH logo scene also appears in the background in this 2-minute clip from a recent Climate One debate, as Kennedy pushed back against the suggestion that his film is propaganda.

“How do we determine what is propaganda?” Kennedy asked. “I say one of the ways we do it is (to ask), are results asked for, or results promised? I was not asked for results and I did not promise results. If you have a problem with the film, the problem lies with me.”

This review originally appeared in Huffington Post.

See our follow-up article, Neil deGrasse Tyson Owes Fans a More Honest Conversation About GMOs than Food Evolution. “Interviews with several other GMO critics who appear in the film, or were asked to be in it, corroborate the picture of a strange process involving sneaky filming, selective editing, misrepresentation and lack of disclosure about the film’s funding.”