Educational Media Reviews Online

This is clearly an advocacy documentary highlighting a few major and controversial opponents of genetically modified food organisms (GMO’s). The two scientists highlighted are Dr. Arnad Pusztai, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland and Dr. Ignacio Chapela, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California Berkeley. A lawyer who heads the Center for Food Safety advocacy organization in Washington, DC and an author are the two other major spokespeople. The documentary does provide brief clips of a more moderate voice, Dr. Nina Fedoroff of Pennsylvania State University who states that no reliable studies have shown GMO food plants to be harmful.

On the plus side, the production values are high and, more importantly, specific studies by Pusztai and Chapela are cited. However, the general tone of the documentary is sweeping in its accusations and somewhat alarmist. Little time is spent discussing any of the benefits of GMO foods. Having been produced in 2009 in Germany, the film risks being a bit dated by the time of this review was written (2014), given how rapidly science evolves.

The viewer’s reaction to this film will likely be shaped by their already formed opinion of this well-known, controversial topic. Are the dangers of GMO’s highly exaggerated junk science, much ado about nothing, or is there a world-wide conspiracy by governments and food companies to ruthlessly suppress anyone studying the deadly nature of GMO’s? This later claim is the one made by the film, but was supported by minimal data. The truth may well lie in between the two extremes outlined in this question. No one mentions in the film that the benefits and dangers of GMO’s may require a case-by-case analysis; that the generalization that all GMO’s are completely benign or that all are fraught with danger could be equally misguided.

Most troubling to this reviewer were some examples of subtle biases. This includes ominous background music and selective use of information. For example, Dr. Nina Fedoroff, the counterbalancing voice, was identified only as a Science Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State, perhaps subtly associating her with international business interest. What is not mentioned is that Dr. Nina Fedoroff was a recipient of the prestigious National Medal of Science and also a member of the National Science Foundation’s oversight board. Dr. Arnad Pusztai was reported as being suspended for life from the Rowett Research Institute for public statements regarding his research on and opinions of the high degree of danger represented by GMO’s before publishing his research in a peer-reviewed journal. In fact, he was suspended and barred from speaking publicly about the research by his employer. However, in the end, his annual contract with the institute was simply not renewed.

Caution should be exercised by educators in using this film in the classroom. It certainly could be used as an example of a well-presented advocacy documentary. Showing this film along with an advocacy documentary taking the exact opposite position could provide a significant learning experience for students and open many avenues for classroom discussion of hot controversies where public opinion fueled by a few dissenting scientists can run counter to the generally accepted science. The film could also provide opportunities to explore how scientists and the public view risk assessment and how difficult it is to prove any technology completely safe.