Genetically Modified Food: Panacea or Poison

Genetically Modified Food: Panacea or Poison

Ratings: 6.77/10 from 124 users.

Genetically Modified Food - Panacea or PoisonThe fact is, there has never been a single study on the human safety of these products. Any implication to the contrary is a pure fabrication. Make the corporate apologists produce a single study, and they can not. The important point is this. Among scientists, the scientific community is deeply divided as to whether these foods are safe or not, so the burden of proof is on industry. And so far, the corporations have failed to demonstrate the safety of these foods on humans through a single study. In the last thirty years global demand for food has doubled. In a race to feed the planet, scientists have discovered how to manipulate DNA, the blueprint of life, and produce what they claim are stronger, more disease-resistant crops. However, fears that Genetically Modified Food may not be safe for humans or the environment has sparked violent protest. Are we participating in a dangerous global nutritional experiment? This informative film helps the viewer decide if the production of genetically modified food is a panacea for world hunger or a global poison.

More great documentaries

Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 years ago

The fact is that if their food is labelled who will buy it
insects wont eat corn because its poisoned..You want to eat it..same as the flouride waste poison from a chinese factory in the water supplies..Trust these people??sure cant!!Ask the thalidomides!!

5 years ago

Dear lord. What a crock of sh**. Scaremongering doco. Surely no one with an Internet browser and knows how to type, ‘study on GMO food’ can make the premise of this doco redundant in about 2 mins.

Johnny Brokenheart
5 years ago

how these types of protests just go on and on.
Every season there's a new boogey man in town and how two dimensional and superficially informed these protesters are.

5 years ago

There have been thousands of studies on this topic. Any statement to the contrary is just sticking your head in the sand and wishing it to be true.

Go back to science class. Pay attention this time.

7 years ago

"The fact is, there has never been a single study on the human safety of these products. Any implication to the contrary is a pure fabrication. Make the corporate apologists produce a single study, and they can not."
- this is dead wrong. Here's over 1,700 to get you started:
Manufactured controversy, as there is no "deep divide" among scientists in relevant fields.

9 years ago

we have had 2000 years to learn how to grow food and dealing with pests and still can t do it right, it s ridiculous we will fare better with gene manipulation!

Trevor McHale
9 years ago

My simple ansewer to Sum up everything is if people want to
eat GMO's they should be allowed to because there is such a big demand for GMO;s RIGHT? So let’s produce GMO food for everyone.


If the demand for GMO is really high then I don't see why Governments are so against labeling GMO Products.

Because Supply and demand right if people love these
products what do manufactures have to loose or Monsanto or all corporations involved with the food supply chain.

Everyone has a Right to Choose to Eat GMO or Not to Eat GMO.

If there is a huge demand for Non-GMO I don't understand why
they would not tap that market and cater to it as well.

If manufactures would label products GMO or Non-GMO

People can make an informed choice this is not going to be a profit loss because everyone loves GMO’s right…so if everyone loves GMO’s they will buy GMO products. Right?

Everyone should have the right to choose to have a GMO and Non-GMO option.

I am not bashing any sides here this is my personal unbiased

9 years ago

Monsanto makes us sick, doctors can not cure you because they don't have a clue where all these mystery illnesses, that have become almost epidemic in the last 20 years are coming from. And the drug companies get rich off you being sick this is well orchestrated. Also they do not want you dead, no money in that. There should be such an out rage of the populace in this country do we even care about our children, if not ourselves. No I suppose most Americans are more concerned with Hollywood bull**** etc., than taking charge of their lives. Forget those stupid sitcoms and endless drivel of series after series every evening its mindless ****. Wake up we are not sheep use some time to expand you awareness, Reading not what they tell in the media and such but for what they don't tell you. You have to dig it takes time, but you will find truth. When I say they, being the rich corporations, our government, and the medical industry

9 years ago

monsanto hurts non gmo producers by crossing with their crops and will not pay for the losses of the farmers or consumers that are sick from this new crops such as bt corn that will kill bees or some humans

10 years ago

400 un scientists studied gmo's and found they do not increase yields just do a search ..

middle eye
10 years ago

how is b.t. insecticide distributed within the corn plant and what factors affect gene expression? If Monsanto can prove and allow third parties to reproduce their data showing residual insecticide in the edible portion of the plant is well below max n.o.a.e.l. at harvest and remains so through to the table might ease my concerns.

10 years ago

Ha..Finally the drug companies have found a way to patent nature so are now able to profit from it! Is anything going to be natural any so so sad Not sure how we are going to stop this one :P

10 years ago

They are killing us all...slowly but surely; and for a profit.

10 years ago

You are paid by MOnsanto to say such stupid lies!

Tony Gassner
10 years ago

How many farmers in India commit suicide DAILY because they (1)Believed the lies, (2)bought Monsanto seed at very favourable prices, (3)Used Monsanto toxic herbicide which contaminat the environment, (4)then were enslaved into the system as seed prices were deliberately increased to the level of unsustainability ? The result you can check it out, suicide widows and orphans. It is pure avarice and control. To call it evil is a compliment.
Please also see research in France which shows rats with huge tumors from being fed Monsanto GMO maize.
Who says that GM food has a higher yield? Is it the producers of this Franken-food. Do you believe them? Who can you trust? just look at the collapse of ethics in the West There is always a price to pay, may it not be disease and death.

10 years ago

You are right. We can all benefit from this great technology. This will help us feed the world much faster than organic or sustainable practices. That Failure to Yield study is baloney. Less pesticides maybe not yet, because we are now being told to spray more Round-Up due to resistance but we can switch more genes around and can improve upon this. Deregulation is moving too slow, I am waiting to buy that modified salmon coming soon and those non-browning apples everyone is talking about. We throw our apples away when they turn brown. GE carrots are to be planted soon too. I am a Pescetarian and it would be nice to get some animal protein put into my veggies via genetic engineering.

Angela R
10 years ago

The great thing about genetically modified foods are that they can often be grown successfully with little to no pesticides (ex if they are modified to make them more resistant to pests, etc). I like when GM is matched up with organic growing techniques. The real concerns with GM is in the pace of the industry, which is fueled by the monopoly of the corporations. IF time is taken to assess the potential impacts of introducing these new species into our ecosystems, and independent testing is done to evaluate the products safety, then why not benefit from this technology?

Carla Littleton
11 years ago

The FDA woman says that there needs to be no labels because GMOs are not different from the original foods. I would like her to show me some naturally occurring plants that have animal DNA.

Nicolas Mullin
11 years ago

Long before GMO crops ever left the drawing board, the agricultural industry has used ionizing radiation to trigger spontaneous mutations in various crop in the hope of stumbling upon some useful trait. The descendants of these experiments are what we have at our dinner table today, and I've never heard anyone complain. There could be harmful proteins lurking in every meal, and because of the 'sledgehammer' type of approach to breeding we would be none the wiser. With this in regard, the more precise and highly controlled gene splice modifications of today should seem like a good thing by comparison, yet paranoia, as usual, always prevails.

The GMO industry is a dangerous beast not because of any inherent health risks concerning GMO crops in general, but because of industry monopoly and heavy patenting. Only the mega-corporations can afford to buy their way past the legal constraints, and thus the farmer and ultimately the consumer, are at their mercy.

Independant research gets labeled as corporate espionage, and so the lack of it leads to media paranoia, which leads to heavier legislation, which leads to a stronger monopoly for Monsanto and the likes. In the end you could say documentaries such as this is a win-win for them.

11 years ago

Look up information on Monsantos. In some of the articles that I have read they are said to be not only be a company that produces its own crops and herbicids but also perscription pharmaceutical drugs,

11 years ago

the rockafellers taught the lesson of extintion of competition .... you just under cut the price so low that the people only buy your product ... that is exactly what is happening ... people buy what they can afford.... and that is the processed mass produced crops....

11 years ago

I know to make GMO soy they add a toad gene, to make GMO corn - a scorpio gene, to make GMO rise even a human gene, however honestly, here in EU I am yet to hear about and see with my eyes the GMO rise. Perhaps it is in the market in Asia more than here.

11 years ago

What year was this documentary made? I've heard that GMO is a reason for infertility (studies were conducted testing on lab rats). To minimize population of "street" grey rats which carry diseases, they tried to feed them GMO soy, but these rats wouldn't eat it at all. What can I say, is it really safe then. Also in humans noticed, with GMO in their diet it is much harder to lose weight and much easier to gain it.

Juliann Gnile
11 years ago


12 years ago

2 doc's : "The World According to Monsanto" and "The Future of Food"
are better , lot's more info. "Future of Food" has very low audio in every
instance i found and viewed it.

fasffeaf geamna
12 years ago

good information yes, but presented in a bleak manner and also missed a lot of points, like the huge political factor in GM foods and also the independent studies that that have confirmed the suspicions of dangerous soil alteration and an increase in colon cancer in humans. They didn't even mention how half of the FDA has ties with Monsanto!?!?!
This documentary isn't worth your time..

Stand up people buy organic and local its worth the price spread the news!!!!!!!

12 years ago

We all know the problems. But living in US I am at a loss as to how to avoid eating this poison.

12 years ago

first and for most i want to say @ those who don't object to GMO's would you knowingly eat GMO food. There's a reason that fish are fish and tomato's are tomato's. If nature wanted a fishamto there would be one either swimming around or growing on a vine somewhere. i think that might be sight to see(haha). If we want to improve food growth or production we should follow the example set forth by nature and our ancestor's. Natural selection( which has been going on for millions upon millions of years) and selective breeding set forth by Mendel( keeping only the plants that carry the characteristic your looking for and rejecting all others) Which is what our ansectors have been practicing any ways. Just because we can insert genes from one species to another doesn't mean we should.

12 years ago

Fishgenes omg? There is no such thing as Tomato/Fish/whatever genes. There is no such thing as a Tomato with fishparts in it, claiming that is just stupid, and only shows that some people just don't know what they are talking about.

People allergic to fish have jet to have an reaction to...Fishtomatoes. Concern by some scientists was voiced on that matter, but there is just no data on the subject, at all.

We as a species have altered what we eat for tousands and tousands of years. Most of the things we eat today would, in its original form, actually be poison to us. It's only that ability to alter food, that has allowed us to be so succesfull as a species and grow so large in numbers.

But jeah sure, those evil Corporations are trying to kill us all, and make a buck doing it...what a pile of c@#$.

12 years ago

Lastly --- Thought to Ponder, perhaps?

Remember, these 'developing' and 'poverty stricken' 'hungry countries/continents' - India, South America, Africa, etc ... are the many suppliers of the 'privileged' nations - Europe/Canada/US, as they have clear-cut the farms and exploit the labour of farmers ...

Question: why is there advocacy on Fair Trade? Why is there argument on quality of GMO's? ...if they didn't pose a SLIGHT concern ... think about it?

I challenge, invite, and encourage you to use your logic, before considering the inconsistency of probable 'facts'...

world hunger is due to the failed trading system, where the European/North American countries inhumanely traded/exploited native - natural harvesting countries (Africa, South America, Asia, etc) from being able to sustain themselves, but over trading, unfair trading to better/improve/sustain the health of the 'wealthy', by commodifying/privatizing imported raw goods, and shipping their manufactured 'dehydrated' 'powered' 'enriched' chemically produced c@#$ to these naturally harvesting countries, and convincing them it's better!

watch documentaries and see how corporations are, in my opinion, invading these countries, and building their polluting factories (look at Coca Cola), and draining out all the water in India, for example…what good is Coca Cola, other than money and marketing 'refreshing c@#$'… what about the diabetes? what about the fact that farmer are running remarkably low on underground water to farm? COME ON PEOPLE … THINK, THINK THINK!!!

(pardon the poor grammar…editing is not priority in the value of my message/point).

12 years ago

PS ....


oh so true!

12 years ago

some fail to consider the natural things that came before us made us here today.

this new machine-gene production of food is corporate profit - not the interest of what will sustain life. how many allergies, health concerns, crisis, etc were there prior to corporate consumption of the natural necessities of life: food, water, air - which they privatize.

a saying goes: "those who can't hear will feel"

the mentality is overconsumption; confusing need versus want --- we have been conditioned and/or conformed to over eat. corporations have extracted and exploited ingenious crops (down to the seed) from farmers, to boost their economic wealth (poor values) and manipulate our immune/digestive systems.

if the gmo supply of food was so great ... reflect of both nations deemed 'wealthy' and 'non-wealthy' ... the health situation is the same S different end of the boat...but it's the same boat floating in the water!!!

Those who are selfish, blind, and greedy will agree to GMO plague. Those who are conscious, aware, and humane will understand how severely damaging GMO's are ...

Everyone (for/against GMO) has the right to be an informed consumer - reading and understanding the content of ingredients packaged (disturbing) in their food purchase.

Remember, these 'developing' and 'poverty stricken' 'hungry countries/continents' - India, South America, Africa, etc ... are the many suppliers of the 'privileged' nations - Europe/Canada/US, as they have clear-cut the farms and exploit the labour of farmers ...

Question: why is there advocacy on Fair Trade? Why is there argument on quality of GMO's? ...if they didn't pose a SLIGHT concern ... think about it?

I challenge, invite, and encourage you to use your logic, before considering the inconsistency of probable 'facts'...

13 years ago


Evidence for no evidence? What?

13 years ago

@young - where is your evidence? I'd like to see it and I promise I won't get hysterical.

13 years ago

There is not a single shred of evidence to show GM foods are unsafe. Not a single piece. Oh how people love their hysteria.

13 years ago

Those so called "Scientist" in the GMO industry should be the 1st to feed their own children & spouses with those FrankenFood that they create themselves. There's got to be a higher value in human nature AS AN INTELIGENT SPECIES than just the $$$$$$$$$ sign.
In all I think THOSE SCIENTIST THEMSELVES ARE BUYING ORGANIC FOOD for their own families. I wish that those so called "Scientist" have some "HUMAN CONCIENCE".
The world hunger issue is not about production. Its about PURCHASING POWER & ACCESSIBILITY of FOOD to those who are really hungry and not THE NEED TO PRODUCE MORE.
If the world has anything to fight for, this is the "MAIN EVENT" to go for. It will involve the entire planet. Any creed or religion is immaterial. Everyone needs food every couple of hours. If the "MONSTER SCIENTIST" won, there is no reason for us to live anymore. People can actually "OWN" what ever lives on this planet. Including what you plant, sow, harvest & eat.

Lisa Bee
13 years ago

GMO's have proven to be cancer causing toxic waste. I see people here that obviously don't know what they are talking about. It is NOT safe. Never was. Do people like seeing their families die from an allergic reaction so bad that it kills them? Or how about cancer. New statistics state 1 out of every 3 people will die from cancer. Now the people that want the GMO's & sales? SHOULD HAVE TO EAT THEM ALL EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. INCLUDING THE AHOLES AT MONSANTO CORP & THE ONES IN GOVERNMENT OFFICE!!!! Then we will see how much they want to sell it...

13 years ago

@Toms P: are you seriously saying that because someone may be allergic to tomatoes with fish, we should remove ALL fish products? In a normal shopping trip, I should feel confident that because I'm not allergic to tomatoes, I should be able to buy tomatoes without fear of an allergic reaction. If I'm allergic to fish, I can confidently avoid fish and products labeled as containing them - which tomatoes do NOT. It's not a matter of removing all allergens from stores; it's a matter of not PURPOSELY putting them in foods that never contained them before.

I would like to be informed about the food I'm eating, to avoid allergens safely and reasonably, to avoid built-in pesticides and genes that don't belong there.

I also find it incredibly short-sighted that we're looking at plants as renewable sources for fuel without remembering what has happened to the price of food once we began using food plants that way - and what happens when crops are affected by weather (eg floods and droughts). Promises that we can solve world hunger with these crops without addressing the overarching political and economic issues which keep food out of the hands of the poor while we already throw away a huge percentage of the food we currently grow are disingenuous at best.

We have already made many irreversible changes to the world's food supply and ecosystems with NO testing on the world that is being changed, with no regard for whether or not it's even safe, let alone truly effective.

13 years ago

I think the movie missed discussing what standards we want to apply for all types of new crops no meter are they traditionally bred, GMO, found in rainforest or arrived from Mars. The first – how do these crops interfere with nature? Where is the border when we can say that the new arrivals and their companions like insects and bacteria is not spreading too much and overtaking natural wildlife? Most of anti-GMO activists say that the new plants must have zero influence to the wildlife but it seems absolutely unfair if we look at examples like introduction of corn and potatoes in Europe.
Second – what must be the influence on consumer’s health? Should 99.9%, 90% or 50% be non-allergic to the new product? The film showed a misconception in the example about tomato with fish genes. If a tomato containing fish genes is dangerous to fish-allergic people and that is why we must restrict selling it, than absolutely all products containing natural fish must be taken out of market just to make sure that those people don’t get poisoned. Not to mention we must withdraw dairy products, peanuts and so on. The same about other poisonous substances – the existing scientifically based regulations about the dangerous contents in traditional products must be applied to GMO too.
My idea is that booth GMO and traditional crops correspond to the same health and environmental quality standards and legislation must give no privilege to one or another. Let the market chose from products of equally high standards.

David G.
13 years ago

@peter i believe you missed a key point in the film. the point of the protests were that the consumers, and farmers, were not consulted in the issue of altering the food supply. The purvasive manner by which GM crops spread has undermined agribusiness. The institutions in place allows for patenting of life and creation of global food monopolies. As for the health concerns, the film argues that lack of human studies is the one of reasons for GMO qualms. That alone should alarm the average consumer. i would imagine that an informed consumer would demand adequate testing be done on the crop before is it introduced to market.

Emily Hargrove
13 years ago

Due to the fact that these manipulated genes maintain the ability to cross-pollinate with natural/wild populations, "gifts" from these multi-nationals often have the added bonus of contaminating native plant varieties, inserting the manipulated genes into native DNA strands. After the patented gene is there, it belongs to the multi-national corporation. Not the farmer, not the consumer, to the company. And they own the gene, found in every cell of the plant, from seed to bloom., with a price tag.

Peter James
13 years ago

As a student of Environmental science I was hoping they would have shown data to back their claims. If they believe these new crops pose a health risk they should commence a thorough unbiased study themselves; nothings stopping them.
I do agree however that DNA should not be subject to copyright and the development must be more open.
They chose not to mention that golden rice was donated, in good will, to countries like India. The reason for adding vitamin A to rice was to prevent blindness in children which they neglected to mention either.