Jimmy's GM Food Fight

Jimmy's GM Food FightJimmy Doherty, pig farmer, one-time scientist and poster-boy for sustainable food production is on a mission to find out if GM crops really can feed the world.

We need to double the amount of food we produce in the next fifty years to feed the world's growing population. Are GM crops the answer? Or are they a dangerous Frankenstein technology that could start an environmental catastrophe?

To find the answers Jimmy is on a journey that will take him from the vast soya plantations of Argentina to the traditional Amish farms of Pennsylvania; and from the cutting-edge technology of the GM laboratories to the banana plantations of Uganda.

Watch the full documentary now

Ratings: 8.76/10from 34 users.

More great documentaries

91 Comments / User Reviews

  1. joe

    we may have done selective breeding of plants to get characteristics we wanted but wild cabbage or cabbage we have made (broccoli etc) would all die under chemicals. what we are doing now are making plants immune to chemicals. these chemicals are hazardous to us and kill normal plants for a reason

  2. Jim Vez

    It's the 2nd time I've watched this documentary and its definitely one of my favorites. The main idea is to produce more effective crops to feed the world and add additional nutrients needed by humans to reduce illness or chronic diseases genetically. As we all know man has manipulated crops and animal selection to the point we won't recognize the original ones. A high % of people eat just crap and now they are so concerned about what they are eating? Sounds illogical and it's clearly seen everyday and everywhere with all those sick a obese population.

  3. Temperance Raziel

    The best documentary I have seen in years.

  4. nooka

    Note how all GMO health hazards were reduced to "simply unstudied and not yet understood", even when specifically requested. But IF there were any, they could not possibly be so dangerous, since GMO procedures are so "simple and natural". What about the idea that if it is toxic for insects, the accumulation of these products could be just as threatening to us. Are we really willing to risk that?

    In addition, the documentary portrays the usage of GMO crops as being a sincere choice farmers can make. What about those farmers who are forced to succumb to Monsanto's hold over terminal seeds, simply because the wind carried seeds to their fields from nearby fields?

    Tampering with nature, which has served us well for so many centuries, because we are merely starting to comprehend its complexity is so unbelievably arrogant. Hasn't this arrogance, with respect to food, already resulted in enough damage... an obesity "epidemic" (for example)?

    I am glad that I had never heard of this documentary prior to watching it and I sincerely hope to not be the only one. This kind of seemingly trustworthy source of information can sway those not yet properly informed on this subject (as seen with the sausage experiment). Shame on them.

    We have the right and the responsibility to know the truth, in order to make the best choices for ourselves.

  5. nooka

    Note how all the GMO health hazards were never actually mentioned, even when specifically requested. They managed to generalized them to: being "simply unknown and unstudied but IF there were any, it could not possibly be so tragic, since GMO methods are all natural and simple methods".

    I am glad that I had never heard of this "documentary" prior to watching it and I sincerely hope I am not the only one. It is this kind of seemingly trustworthy source of information that falsely sways uninformed and susceptible people. Shame on them.

    We have the right and responsibility to know the truth, in order to make the best choices for ourselves.

    1. a_no_n

      if something is unknown and unstudied, then for a scientist to go any further than that would be false.

      You can't complain about truth and then have a go because someone won't lie.

  6. Ian Batra

    This was a a complete and udder piece of crap. It showed no one knowledgable on the opposition side. I'd be curious to see who financed this.

    1. a_no_n

      so...it was like all anti GM films then

  7. disqus_PMfL8Bxobv

    To me the biggest danger around GM crops is that underneath
    they promote the absence of biodiversity. One reason non-GM crops are so susceptible to pests is the lack of biodiversity around.

  8. joe elliott

    Wow definitely being payed by either Monsanto or Syngenta to promote a product that is putting our very freedom at stake. YAY!!!! LETS KEEP POISONING OURSELVES!!!!

    1. a_no_n

      sure...It isn't possible that a human being has this opinion. he must be a paid shill....Can you say paranoid delusional?

  9. ray7390

    I think the point of gmo is not so much its effectiveness as a boom crop. I feel the problem is the practice of putting patents on seeds which can eventually modify non gm crops. Just the idea of one company owning the worlds food supply, doing away with diversity. Then what!! the world would be at the mercy of a few American corporations. I don't think so I go out of my way not to let that happen

  10. Sébastien Talbot-Vachon

    the solution to feed the hungry is contraseption.

  11. Jerry

    As for me, I will grow my own produce for my family. The GMO argument will rage on, and in the mean time, my family will eat from the labor and love of our own hands on food that was created without the aid of GMO, pesticides, herbicides or petroleum-based fertilizer. Maybe one day it will be proven beyond a doubt that GMO is fine, or it will not. In the mean time, while the world is fighting, we will live our lives on our terms. I urge any of you who are unsure, to reclaim your lives from the grip of the Corporatocracy.

    1. sknb

      Teach as many people as you can

    2. a_no_n

      except there isn't enough land for everyone to feed themselves in that fashion.

      If the City of London went entirely organic, you could knock down every other city and town and turn every inch of land in England scotland ireland and wales into farmland, and you still wouldn't have enough food for London.

    3. healthyMike

      this statement is complete ignorance. Clearly you are not educated enough to know that traditional methods of cultivating crops organically actua;lly produces higher yeilds than these GMO farms.

    4. a_no_n

      tell you what mike, rather than calling me stupid and pretending that's an argument, why don't you provide me with a source for all of your claims, so it doesn't look like your just making them up off the top of your head!

  12. C. Melbye

    'Golly!' (He might as well have gushed 'Golly!')

    Clearly, this man is promoting GM products, despite his attempts to appear neutral.

    Perhaps there are some benefits to GM foods (few issues are black or white), but what he did NOT address is the certainty that GM crops will cross-pollinate with non-GM crops, through the air and birds, etc. Then there is no turning back. We are stuck with GM plants.

    He does not address -- because he CAN NOT address -- the long-term implications of GM. The long-term effects are not known. And Monsanto is in no hurry to look into that. Monsanto is making HUGE profits around the world. Europe's objections hardly matter now.

    Monsanto doesn't just impose GM products in Argentina. Monsanto bullies US farmers who don't sign up to use only Monsanto seeds, and drags them through lawsuits until they are bankrupt. Monsanto-seeded plants hardly produce any seeds for the following season, so farmers MUST buy seeds from Monsanto.

    Monsanto has gotten its representatives on a huge number of corporate boards of directors, including small regulator boards in Canada. They have a worldwide strategy to influence so much!

    1. a_no_n

      look...can you tin foil hatters pick a conspiracy and stick with it?

      Either Monsanto are selling Barren seeds, or the plants are going to breed with everything in sight, you literally cannot have it both ways.
      One or the other please.

    2. healthyMike

      The cross contamination is not done through the seeds. You arre clearly a troll who knows nothing on the subject. The plant can easily cross contaminate while still producing barren seeds.

    3. a_no_n

      You think the plant can cross contaminate whilst barren? and you're calling me a troll? Seriously?
      You must be pulling my leg, nobody is that stupid surely?

  13. CeilingCat

    Jimmy Doherty; The poster boy for monsanto.

  14. mikenelsonmikenelson

    What a pack of lies!

  15. Pat Pretorius

    Would'nt it be wonderful if GM produce could be grown in the arid areas of Africa such as Somalia.
    Slowly turn the Sahara into a crop producing area

    1. polytrixx

      that is foolish! what is against nature doesn't hold up in nature! its that simple.. splice human genes into food, or animal genes into food or all the combinations in between is creating new proteins and expressing genes or not expressing genes that may have monumental disastrous effects of the crop, the environment and the entire order of nature.

  16. Kris Miller

    I am an intelligent person and I am insulted and totally disappointed with this propaganda. None of this is scientific and no real answers were found, just opinions. How much did he get paid for this sham of a documentary? Shame on you Jimmy!

  17. Genevieve Malouin

    Wow, I thought this was going to be educational! I am so disappointed. GM crops need LESS herbicides? They're needing more and more due to weeds becoming resistant!

    Sigh, I'm moving to Britain!

  18. mikey

    unfortunately this infomercial for gm crops is rather simplistic.What the reporter fails to ask (due to a lack of nutritional knowledge) is what happens when gmo crops like soy are manipulated to remove certain consitiutents like omega 3 oils because they are highly violatile and give soy beans a limited shelf life.If many major gmo crops are thus manipulated removing consituuents vital for human survival then what happens?
    not to mention who determines what the plant will have or not have? does anyone on the planet other than employees trust companys like monsanto?
    which brings up another point of new terminator technology added to gmo crops so they do not reproduce. this now brings up yet another problem if the plants do not reproduce are they producing pollen for the birds and bees so they can live to pollenate other crops of food?(or do they have to travel hundreds of miles) what happens to the pollenators?
    furthermore, if they do produce pollen,now the pollenators will cross pollenate into other plants, how will this cross pollenation effect other crops and non gmo crops?
    If all these plants are each designed to kill certain insects and they all cross pollenate what will happen to the insects? If these insects die off what happens to the insect ecosystems, and wildlife that depend upon those insects for sustanance? what happens to the bottom of the food chain will eventually effect the top of the food chain. ie what if worms become extinct that are food for fish then what happens?
    does anyone stop to think that poor people half starving cant afford to buy new seeds from monsanto every year?
    how about small local individual organic raised bed farming as a solution to world hunger as it increases yields anywhere from 25-100%.
    another great solution ...put the world on a meat ration card...it will decrease health care costs around the world, solve fresh water problems, reduce or eliminate world hunger as some of the worlds main crops are mostly fed to animals, stop the red(dead) sea from expanding on the east coast of the usa, and more.
    anyhow this infomercial was almost an epic fail, i learned one thing thats how they actually produce gmo crops in the lab.Other than that very little real information or discussion.

  19. LynnM

    And honestly, look at the American people...Do they look like the picture of health to you? That ought to be a cause for concern right there.

  20. LynnM

    "They hardly spray at all"...... because every part of a BT plant is a registered pesticide. How can you think that eating pesticides won't affect your health. If the bugs don't want it, why would you?

    1. AlfBeta

      [quote]How can you think that eating pesticides won't affect your health. If the bugs don't want it, why would you? [/quote]That is very simple and good logic, common sense, but many people after university science, feel that simple ideas are embarrassing, the way they find simple clothes, simple homes and simple food embarrassing. It's a conditioned disorder to keep us "progressing" (buying)

  21. Shooter McGaven

    paid for by monsanto - outright propaganda

  22. kiraak miabhai

    What about the thousands of farmers around the world who commit suicide when the experiment goes wrong. Eg. Farmers in India, every year thousands of them commit suicide because of plastic GM crops.

    They also turn people into indentured slaves of Monsanto, because without them there wont be any seeds. Look at corn farmers in USA.

    The real problem is nutrients. Our soil is missing all the essential nutrients and is being poisoned by petro fertilizers making it weak, thereby welcoming all sorts of pests.

    Please watch the documentary THE FUTURE OF FOOD, this documentary is very optimistic not balanced, there are hundreds of pessimistic docus on this issue.

  23. Erik van den Enden

    No facts introduced at all.
    Pure propaganda.

  24. King Vitaman

    Pure propaganda. Most likely financed by Cargill or Monsanto.

  25. Vikram Tejpal

    misleading documentary ..more like propoganda

  26. Jaak Henry Wassmuth

    Considering all the manipulation of "facts" about GMO's and the poor record that corporations have generally with fudging the facts to their own benefit, Jimmy's Food Fight is a video sedative.
    One might ask, what made him think to say that.
    He did not mention the udder infections that cow's suffer as a result of being injected with bovine growth hormone. He did not mention that the United Nations accepted and endorsed the Codex Alimentarius doctrine. He did not discuss the fact that these plants can only produce sterile seeds and farmers must purchase new seeds from the manufacture. He did not bring up the fact that you must purchase all your insecticides for your GMO crop from the seed manufacture.

    Jimmy, you did a couriers job. I would probably like you, but I doubt I would trust you.

    In closing, I have some questions:
    Who paid for this documentary Jimmy? Who paid for you to travel round the world and film this offering? I would just love to see the bank statements cause methinks theres a ghost in the works. Give us an anagram will you?

  27. StevenLJones

    A 43-page study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reveals that since the inception of genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed to them.
    The report is called "Failure to yield"

    South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds

    Monsanto presented GMO technology as the redemption of the cotton industry; in reality it has helped take growers to the bottom of an abyss, especially the small and medium cotton-growers of Cordoba and Tolima, who in the 2008-2009 harvest had enormous losses."

    In the 1990s, USAID, together with Monsanto, helped spearhead a 14-year, $6 million project through the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) to develop a genetically modified, virus-resistant sweet potato. The project has proven to be a failure. Local varieties outperformed GM varieties in field trials. Researchers in Uganda developed a virus-resistant hybrid through conventional breeding techniques at a tiny fraction of the cost.

    If you use Google and take a look you can see this technology is simply a bunch of bull. There's lots and lots of examples. The US now has super weeds resistant to roundup. In India farmers are committing suicide because they can't pay the price of the seed that has gone up because Monsanto is the only player. People are being duped by big money. Control the food supply you control the world. Think about that.

  28. Guest

    Photographs are important to families, many times we hear that people would save their photographs if fire was about to consume their house....
    Even though i truly enjoy photography,
    I say: SAVE YOUR GOOD SEEDS...GMO=sterile seeds

    1. equidae

      Not all GMO seeds are sterile, that is a lie.

    2. neomentis

      Not quite a LIE... what she said is basically true. Monsanto is pushing their sterile seeds as being somehow better. The real hidden lure lies in how they make it convenient to get frankin-seeds and difficult to get good seeds. They will get away with whatever you let them; and in a few decades it WILL be impossible to get non frankin-foods if you don't fight against it. It's almost impossible now to get decent food anyway, as compared to a few decades ago.

      Good tip. I'm learning a bit about home farming and gardening from my grandma so I can begin my own process of not buying food anymore. The word on the ranch is "get HEIRLOOM SEEDS".

    3. Guest

      If i could give you two thumbs up, i would.

      Find some red orach, the best green there is to grow. Produces a kind of large heart shape greenish/redish leaf. I call it "the green with the red heart". It taste somewhat like spinach but doesn't go into seeds early like spinach does. You can grow it to about 5feet tall and have fresh huge amount of leaf to steam or eat raw in salad or smoothie all summer...very good

      Hey i am grand ma too!

  29. ZarathustraSpeaks

    “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” BARTLETT
    Thousands of nuclear weapons, civil wars, religious zealots, cheap energy depleted, exponential population growth limited only by apocalypse.

  30. Hambone78704

    Just one more example of a useless debate that could be solved once and for all by REDUCING THE POPULATION of consumers on this planet, whether they be consumers of food, energy, housing, transportation, ad nauseum. If the population of this planet was within the natural carrying capacity of this planet -- somewhere under one billion, where our population remained for the first 200,000 years of our existence as a species, when we lived in balance with Mother Nature -- virtually every environmental and social problem on this planet would be solved, period, for the simple reason that overpopulation (along with its evil twin, overconsumption) is at the root of EVERY single environmental problem on ths planet. What is so hard about this concept to understand?

    1. Justin LeClair

      Nothing is hard to understand about your concept. It's very reasonable, so why don't you be a leader and opt out first?

      Seriously; what are you saying? Yes, we are way past carrying capacity. That's been obvious for a while, but what do you suggest we do about it? Rather than point out obvious problems, can you provide realistic solutions?

    2. Jaak Henry Wassmuth

      Hambone, when you choose who should not live, did you include yourself in this list? I'm old, and I will soon be composted and reintroduced into the sustenance of this ecosystem, the earth. Are you volunteering to compost yourself? If I were young I would want to live and see what I could do to change some ideas that humans have about themselves. Example: how humans deal with the creation of wealth and it's distribution.. Seem a bit cockeyed to me at present. We might also look at our obsession with sex and how that feeds our insecurities. WE will all die and this is a powerful concept, unless you accept the fact that you will be composted, as will we all.. Once you accept that, as Bill Hicks once famously stated, "...it's just a ride."

      Sit back and watch the movie.

    3. Dave Campbell


  31. SieglindeP

    Huge companies do not spend millions (billions?) of dollars doing research and testing to come up with products to "save" the world by feeding starving people. If that were the case, there would be no starving people, as all these huge publicly traded corporations would have already solved the problem. Companies, to get the public and government out of the way, tell us and them what will make us agree to let them get their way. America throws away enough in one day to feed a starving nation for a month. It's not because there is not enough food. We have stockpiles of food that would take your breath away. It is stockpiled to manipulate price in America and other countries, and sometimes it is stockpiled because they cannot sell it. Many times it rots and is turned into animal feed. Lack of food is not the reason people are starving. People are starving due to artificial control of food and universal greed and absence of compassion. Since the dust bowl days and the Great Depression, we have not had a lack of food or the ability to grow more food. We waste the land we have. People plant grass and inedible stuff in their yard. We don't plant gardens any more. Public lands are kept in grass or native species, with no effort to increase public or free food. We have been encouraged over decades to leave the food planting to the corporations, and to stick pine trees or gardenias in our yards instead. In a true emergency, we would all starve. We would not know how to boil a dandelion. Monsanto and the likes of them makes me sick. America would do well to get back to its roots if it is going to survive the technological nightmare of food control. The lies and manipulation by the Big Boys is going to continue.

    1. wald0

      The purpose of GM food is not just to increase yeilds. We can do much more than that with genetical engineering. The problem you speak of is very real, you are exactly right that people do not starve because of a global shortage of food. But getting rid of genetical engineering will do nothing to effect that problem what so ever. However, approving it could help that problem. Not that I expect Monsanto or some other corp to feed these people no matter how much yeild they get. But, some people will help them and they could use these seeds that produce a larger yield. No matter how you slice that it is positive. They could also use seeds that prouce plants with antibiotics in them or vaccinations, two things these people desperately need as well as food. Basically what I am saying is that these are two different issues, whether or not to use gm foods and how capitalism effects the less fortunate around the globe have nothing to do with one another.

    2. rollandmiller

      GM Food is dangerous as no long term testing has occured.

      It goes against nature.

      The human species is at risk of extinction because of GM Food.

      Do some research as I have since GM Food was announced.

      A Russion academic research on GM Food had disasterous results; infertility, damaged organs and death after the 3rd generation.

      Population Control Perhaps?

    3. Guest

      Last year i attended a meeting in Grand Forks where Mr. Percy Schmeiser and his wife were invited to talk about and explain their court case with Monsanto.

      A very interesting case which was won in parts by Schmeiser.
      A rare situation when a family operation fights a big corporation.

      "The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto. Schmeiser won a partial victory, where the court held that he did not have to pay Monsanto his profits from his 1998 crop, since the presence of the gene in his crops had not afforded him any advantage and he had made no profits on the crop that were attributable to the invention. The amount of profits at stake was relatively small, C$19,832, however by not having to pay damages, Schmeiser was also saved from having to pay Monsanto's legal bills, which amounted to several hundred thousand dollars and exceeded his own. Schmeiser says he has lost the right to use his strain of canola, which took him 50 years to develop, because he can not prove they do not include the Roundup Ready gene Monsanto patented. Furthermore, he says that on the advice of his lawyers, he destroyed all his seed and purchased new seed, so his strain of canola no longer exists, which presents an additional obstacle to his continuing to farm it. However, he was ordered to turn over all his remaining seed from his 1997 and 1998 crops to Monsanto, so even if he hadn't eradicated his own strain on his own initiative, it would likely not have survived."

  32. IzirAtig

    GMO's gonna kill people.

  33. Michael Blott

    The calculations are based on continued use of animals as food which is 15 times more inefficient as eating plants ourselves. This does not take into consideration the rate the environment must absorb the waste animal farming produces. If people ate animal products the way the longest lived cultures have, there would be no problem.

  34. equidae

    If a single one of you ignorant whiners has an actual workable solution I'd like to see it. The fact that none you can actually cite a proven connection between GMOs and negative health, doesn't make your positions one iota more tenable. The only valid and common charge against GMOs is not even really against GMOs even against the companies that purvey, but rather against a single company. One whose history of malfeasance is well known. But to hold a whole technology guilty because of the sins of even a small number corrupt corporations, let alone one is ridiculous, and simply reveals the depths of your ignorance.

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.- Aldous Huxley

    1. wald0

      Though I wouldn't be as arrogant nor insulting as you, I do agree that GM foods have never been proven to cause any health concerns. I think humans have an instinctual fear of stepping out of the natural order of things when it comes to food or reproduction. There are some concerns when it comes to gm foods, but they have them under control as far as I know. Mutations need to be closely studied as far as long term helath effects, there impact on the reproduction rates of the species egineered, etc. before they are released to reproduce in the wild. The truth is that we have been genetically modifying both vegetables and live stock for years through selective breeding. We cross one cow with another or one strain of corn with another in an attempt to get the desired traits. We also do it with dogs, we even use artificial insemination to cross breeds that could never reproduce naturally because of size or design. In my opinion genetical egineering is not far from what we are already doing, what we have already done. Besides, the benefits could eradictae all kinds of horrible things like desease, malnutrition, hunger, etc. Nature has no predestined end, no design it is trying to accomplish. Man has already taken control of the evolution of certain animals and plants when he domesticated them.

    2. equidae

      Let it be known far and wide, patience, mannerly speech, and a tolerance of ignorance are not among the sins I've been accused. And I have no intention of committing them now, stupidity is stupidity, and it rightly deserves every syllable of lambasting hurled at it.

      But to the topic at hand. You are generally right in the idea that genetic modification, but I'm going to try and demonstrate just how right your statements are. GMOs despite popular perception can refer to any crop or animal, though it seems most often crops, which has undergone some degree of modification from a previously accepted normal breed. But a GMO crop can be arrived at from GE, marker assisted breeding, mutageneis, hybridization. Of those four only GE or marker assisted breeding actual require a lab. Yet an organism produced using any of these processes either singly or in combination with each other. Though they are regulated differently, in actual practice the processes are little different. What makes these newer methods different is their economy, very specific traits can be selected for and incorporated in single generation, and with minimal land requirements. Whereas before, significant acreage would be required, and several generations would pass before it could even be determined whether a population of plants was expressing the desired traits. Never mind whether or not the required genes were present.

    3. Achems_Razor

      You have already lost your arguments, or any others that you you may come up with, by your "Ad Hominem" attacks on the commenters!!
      Case closed!!

    4. equidae

      Well now that you've shown everyone you know the meaning of ad hominem. How about proving my ad hominem attack was wrong. Calling it ad hominem neither disproves the ignorance I've accused others of, nor does substantiate the thus far unsupported bias against GMO. So either formulate an actual rebuttal. Or demonstrate a modicum of dignity by not tossing around whatever trite little phrase you've picked up. It's not fooling anyone.

    5. Achems_Razor

      @Eric Legg:

      Am afraid not, you are the one that brought up your malfeasance towards the commenters, now the ball lays in your court to prove your actions, the onus is on you, nice try though.

    6. fonbindelhofas

      "GMOs is not even really against GMOs even against the companies that purvey, but rather against a single company."

      Eric this aint that... this kind of problem is here BECOSE of capitalism consequences. and illness canot be cure here. feeding the 3rd world countries? u mean taking profits for so called feedind? no goverment will do smf altruistic. sry but this is just another awsome example how to transfer wealth from major masses to corporations. think about it... who gets all and who looses all???

    7. Norm


      "Because it's not at all like major investments are made in developing gmo crops for marginal land that previously couldn't support agriculture. Or large quantities food simply donated at little to no cost. Or like the industrialized agricultural system here in the US actually sells food, at prices below the cost of production. Oh no wait, those all actually happen."
      Don't believe me, believe the government; that's what you're really saying.
      I see that the site you use for reference is usda.gov. The gov refers to the US government, and in case you didn't know, it is supported by the US tax dollar. The same dollar which is used to pay for "subsidized" food that is "donated at little or no cost". So we pay for it with a combination of purchase price and taxes. Corporations are transferring the wealth, and of course, not from impoverished nations, that is ridiculously obvious. They steal our tax dollars and try to make us feel good about it by convincing us we have "helped the unfortunate". The end result is the same, the corporations are transferring the wealth to themselves and the people in impoverished nations still die from starvation. Business as usual and you seem content with that.

    8. Nwttp

      How about this for a solution? "stop having so many worthless kids". In this day and age having more than one child is plain selfish. It is no longer required for survival to have as many helping hand as possible.

      The narrator asks shortly after this doc starts "can GM food save the world?" Are you serious? Not "can GM food help the starving people of the word" He says save the world. Please tell me who's idea of a saved world is, as many people as physically possible crammed onto it?

      Every single starving person currently on this planet can be fed with America's excess.

    9. StevenLJones

      Here's your proof of death and GM.
      In 1989, the Japanese manufacturer Showa Denko K.K. began marketing a genetically engineered supplement of the amino acid L-tryptophan in the U.S. In producing it, a gene to increase tryptophan yield was spliced into the DNA of bacteria, from which the substance was then extracted. Within a few months of entering the market, the bioengineered supplement caused an epidemic of an unusual malady (called EMS) that resulted in the death of 37 people and the permanent disability of at least 1,500 others. (FDA's Regulation of the Dietary Supplement L-Tryptophan. Human Resources and Intergovernmental Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., 1991)
      To me this stuff is like playing with nuclear energy. It's safe until you discover to your horror that it isn't. And then it's to late.

    10. wald0

      Citing this or that incident only says that we have to be careful with this technology just as we must be careful with many other technologies that we benefit from every day. As long as the effects of a mutation have been thoroughly researched we can avoid incidents like the one you referr to. You cite nuclear energy as a good example of another technology you say is to dangerous to use. Well, a huge amount of the people reading this are using nuclear power as we speak, has the world come to an end? To be less dramatic has it even caused enough concern for the majority of them to know in fact that the power they are using did come from a nuclear reaction? The answer to both questions of course is no, they dont know how the power they use is produced nor do they worry about it. The same will eventually be true of genetical egineering- it will be a power we must respect, that has some real dangers if used recklessly, but one we control rather easily and gain great benefit from.

      As science progresses and mankind discovers more and more about the fundamental forces that shape our world he will begin to bend them to his own design, it is inevitable. This is how science has always worked and why it has proven to be the single largest contributing factor in our developement as a species. It has been natural for man to be scared as he progressed through science and began to harness and use stronger more dangerous forces and types of energy, to understand more and more fundamental truths about our universe. The steaks get higher and higher with every discovery we make, we can do more good only because we can do more damage, we can destroy old beleifs that were very dear which is painful to us but we also gain more truth and can therefore better navigate reality. Its all a trade off.

      There will always be a price to pay for progress. The question is do the scales tip sufficiently far enough toward the positive to justify the risks or negative consequences of mistakes. In my opinion in this case the answer is yes, a resounding yes in fact. We could do so much good with genetical egineering that it would far out weigh the risks of mistakes or misadventure.

      Now often when I say this someone says, "Well ask some victim of genetically egineered products if it was worth it." My answer, "Ask a person who just was cured of cancer or who avoided having to live with mental retardation for the rest of their life if it was worth it." Like I said, it is a trade off.

    11. StevenLJones

      Google Genetically Modified Failure. Look at the Failure to yield a
      report by the Union of Concerned Scientitsts. Look, look and look. Their
      are super weeds in the US resistant to Monsanto's roundup. In India
      farmers are committing suicide because the price of seed is to much. In New
      Zealand sheep die from eating BP cotton. In Australia scientists created a
      contraceptive for mice only it killed all the mice including the control
      subjects that were supposed to be immune to mousepox virus that was tweeked.
      There are many examples. These people don't give a damn about anything but
      big bucks.

    12. rollandmiller

      It seems wald0 knows better.

      Science can be of a benefit or the opposite. Nuclear Energy is a very negative one, and may be the death of our species.

      Genetically modified food is another serious danger.

      Use your head!

      My God what do they teach

    13. StevenLJones

      You misunderstand. I’m not advocating nuclear energy or GM food, quite the
      opposite. I’m saying that we will continue to get away with it until
      something goes seriously wrong and we are forced to live with the

    14. equidae

      Finally someone that actually bothered to look beyond the spoon.

      However there are issues with the case you cite. One it's an isolated incident, in the sense that one GMO product being unsafe, does not inherently mean all GMO products are. But further more, the those EMS cases were caused by an impurity that to date has not been positively identified. It may have the GMO L-tryptophan, it may have been another substance that was put into the supplement. Furthermore Showa's production process violated not only food safety laws, but also common sense. For one the bacteria producing the tryptophan were grown in an open vat process in a fertilizer factory. But one company's incompetence is no more an indictment of the technology than a single product can be.

    15. StevenLJones

      Look up GM superweeds. Superweeds are resistant to Monsanto's roundup. How
      long do you think it will take for super insects to appear?

      The idea of a super-pest is quite scary, especially for farmers who depend
      on crops for their livelihood - Scott Macfarland, National Corn Growers

      clipped from net - New evidence suggests that the GM technique could cause
      super-pests to evolve. Authorities recommend that farmers set aside 30% of
      their land as a refuge for traditional insect life, to prevent the super-bug
      taking hold

      I mean it goes on and on and on. This technology is about the greed of one
      big corporation that controls 90 percent of the seeds. They could succeed
      in controling the food supply. Don't play ball and you may find yourself
      without food on your table. What a weapon. To me that is the scariest
      outcome. And I'm obviously surmising with this. You have to have access to
      CIA and pentagon records to find the truth and I doubt if they're going to
      be very forthcoming.


    16. equidae

      A valid point. Superweeds as you call them are an issue. But they always would have been. What we are seeing in these superweeds is evolution in action. And evolution will not stop simply because it inconveniences someone. You would have seen weeds and other pests, resistant to the prevailing methods of pest control arise, regardless of whatever that method might be. If you were to kill every pest insect with your bare fingers, given time they would evolve poisonous spikes, or a shell too durable to be crushed. If you pull up every weed given time they also will find ways to trump that method of control. OUr response as a society cannot be singular, but a multitude of mehtods of control. And we cannot wait to develop new ones simply because what is currently done is effective. As for monsanto, I'll write up a response in a bit, right now there is a lovely Marker Assisted bred baked potato calling me in the other room.

    17. equidae

      Now about Monsanto. There really is no defending them. That's all there is to it. But I have to say it again, and will persist in repeating it, because seemingly no one gets it. Monsanto is not, nor ever has been the entirety of the GMO industry. Biotechnology is not even the core of their business, making up less than half of their profits. And if Monsanto's involvment is your sole argument for opposing the research, and disciplined use of this technology than your every bit as criminal as they are. However the majority of research and development is not performed by Monsanto, but instead primarily academic programs, and non-profit research and out reach programs.

    18. Jaak Henry Wassmuth

      Ignorant whiners? When one starts a rebuttal with an ad homenem argument I immediately become suspicious of the statements that follow.
      So, to begin with GMOs produce sterile seeds. How's that for a health risk? I think that plants that grow big and strong but whose seeds are sterile find a convenient simile in athletes who take steroids, they are big and strong but impotent. The fact is, the FDA is funded by companies like Monsanto, although there are many others. AS far as ignorance is concerned, there have been no studies on GMOs that were not funded by the same companies producing them. Do you imagine that these are objective scientist? Fact is, we are ignorant of the effects of consuming genetically modified plants. We do know that the bovine growth hormone made by Monsanto causes nothing but misery. One more thing equidae, Aldous Huxley was a eugenicist. I think you might consider looking into this subject a bit more before you begin labeling people ignorant. AT this point in the discussion to factual statements can be made: one is there has been no objective blind analysis of the effects of the Monsanto seeds on the environment, let alone the end user, and two, the products that have been used, like the bovine growth hormone have been proven without doubt to be harmful to all who come in contact with them or the products produced by their use.

    19. equidae

      The vast majority of biologists, and other physical scientists alive at the time were eugeniscists. That one idea or theory is popular and later disproven, does not invalidate all scientific thought contemporaneous with it.

      Secondly, you state all GMO research is carried out and tested by corporations. Either you are as ignorant as a claim, or you are a lier. I'm not even gonna bother further, since you didn't feel compelled to actually do any research on what your talking about, you spoon fed child.

    20. rollandmiller

      Sir you are a fool!

      Please eat all of it you can; it will reduce our excessive population.

      Don't you read anything?

    21. equidae

      I clearly read vastly more than you, since I have no issue eating GMOs.

    22. mikey

      uhhh remove volatile nutrients like omega 3 oils from foods that reduce shelf life and how this will create retarded humans is fact.Not some hocus pocus. A lack of omega 3 oils have been proven to cause mental retardation.Your complete ignorance of nutrition and how removing or adding simple nutrients can completely change human health is astonishing.One needs no connection other than what nutrient has been removed. Science already knows what nutrients are necessary for health.Marketing knows what nutrients are volatile and give foods limited shelf life.This is why radiation of food is used as it kills all the living potental of the potato so that the shelf life is doubled, tripled or more. I suggest that you do an experiment and eat all the dead foods(gmo with terminator tech, radiation etc) that you can find and see how healthy you will become.Giving immoral companys like monsanto the "Right" to remove nutrients without the consent of the citizens who are then unknowingly forced to eat these foods is a crime.

    23. equidae

      Back it up sucka, I don't see a single citation here, just unsupported and unsubstantiated accusations. Furthermore nowhere do I defend Monsanto, and indeed disagree with the majority though not necessarily all of their practices. Like the other ignoramuses you once again make the mistake of equating a private for profit company= all GMO methods, researchers, enterprises etc etc. But guess what it isn't, Monsanto is responsible for Monsanto's mis-doings, not anyone and everyone who has ever engaged in genomic research or even genomic modification research.

    24. mikeysbro

      back up that essential fatty acids are in fact essential for humans! You must be joking ...just google essential fatty acids. I cant believe you are so ignorant about basic nutrition but yet you seem to have formulated an "opinion" without any nutritional knowledge. Citations are not needed at all, this knowledge is commonly found in any college and university nutritional text book. Not to mention alternative health books. If there is any made up "ignoramuses" it is certainly the fact that you ask for citations on this topic.This topic is easily reasearched in minutes on the internet. This proves to me and anyone who is educated even a little in nutrition that you have no knowledge in nutrition other than a few newspaper and magazine articles.

      The reason why essential fatty acids are called "essential" is because the human body "must" be supplied with them from an external source.(the human body cannot manufacture them... this is your first lesson in nutrition 101) Omega 3 oils being found in flax seeds, raw nuts, various fish and more. I suggest you start studying as you are beginning to embarrass yourself rather publicly.

      Monsanto is the major company pushing its GMO products worldwide and its associated agendas. I never said that MONSANTO is responsible for all the wrongdoings in the GMO community of companys and associated employees.

      Like I have mentioned before Monsanto has no "right" to produce products and force us to eat them. Especially as citizens have no "right" to even know if we are even eating any of these foods. At least with alcohol or tobacco one can choose, now our "right" to choose is even taken away. When will people understand what is happening to democratic countries as a result of these multinational companies usurping our constitutional rights. Freedom of choice today, what will it be tomorrow?

    25. equidae

      The back it up sucka was a suggestion that you back up the statement that Monsanto is removing those sections of the DNA that code for fatty acid production. Not prove prove that fatty acids are essential. Nice job failing at basic reading comprehension though, though I'm sure your former teachers are proud you're even vaguely familiar with fatty acids.

      Also if "I never said that MONSANTO is responsible for all the wrongdoings in the GMO community of companys and associated employees." Why are you so fundamentally incapable of forming a cogent argument without involving Monsanto.

      If the possibility of ingesting GMO derived food is so distressing why don't you try growing your own. Or are you afraid of having to come to terms with the reality that organic food requires more land, energy, and chemicals to produce.

      Humor me for one second here, and tell me what the scientific definition of organic is. Spoiler alert, it's not what you think it is, and far, far more inclusive as well. Next try reading a comparison of an "organic" pesticide/herbicide like pyrethrin versus a conventional one like imidan. 'Nother spoiler alert, the comparison won't be favorable to pyrethrin.

    26. mikeysbro

      Well if my comprehension is failing, your omission of a clear question in written english as to what you were referring to was the cause of the confusion in the first place. Ambigious inferred questions are not the hallmark of a good writer.Thus I beg to differ who is one incapable of an arguement. I suggest going back to your teachers in english and find out how to write clear consise questions that you feel are worthy to argue about. The inability to write clear questions is not my "failing" comprehension skills as you infer, but is rather a failure of your written english skills. Suck up and stop trying to pass the buck of irrresponsibility.

      Apparently you did not read the sentence (re I never said that Monsanto is responsible for everything...) if you did then you wouldnt be referring to Monsanto again and compaining that im incapable of forming a logical arguement without them.

      I have not written about "ingesting GMO derived food" I will reiterate for you what I have been saying monsanto (now one could take out this company and replace with GMO scientists,GMO researchers, Bill Gates(owner of Monsanto ) if that makes you happy) has/have no right to manipulate foods in order to give longer shelf life for foods at the expense of nutrients essential for human life. Especially without giving the citizens a choice on the matter which is a violation of the constitution. Apparently you have no problems with other individuals making decisions for you about what you eat. One could infer that this is not an important subject worthy of your notice as you choose to continue to give immoral unethical companys and their hired cartel of "employees" the benefit of the doubt. Not to mention the avoidance of the topic at hand.

      Your reality of "organic food requires more land energy and chemicals to produce" is not mine in fact I believe the opposite is true. Obviously, you are not aware that there are many different types of organic farming. There are types of organic farming that do not use chemical /"herbal"* or so called "organic" pesticides/ insecticides. Thus your arguement that "organic" pesticides are somehow not as favorable as chemical pesticides is useless to the overall arguement. I really couldnt care about the carbon at the end of the molecule that supposedly makes something organic.
      Furthermore there are organic farming methods that use only a small fraction of land that is conventionally used. Finally, mulching pratices used in various types of organic farming reduce the amount of water required for farming.

      I have no desire to grow and eat foods deficent in nutrients and adulterated with humans, pigs, lizards, feces, penis's or what ever scientists deem necessary to implant in foods in order to make them able to exist in extreme temperatures and on the shelf in the supermarket.
      Now if you have no moral/ethical or even intelligent questionable objections to eating a human/snake/cucumber that can grow in the dessert without water you are more than welcome, be my guest.

      *(most are not really herbal at all. Naming pesticides/insecticides either herbal or organic is really a misnomer as they are neither herbal nor truely organic. Chemicals that are taken out of flowers in order to produce the pesticide/insecticides, I agree are harmfull to the enviroment and life in general on the planet.

      Conversely, a truely herbal insecticide would mean spraying a tea made up of peppermint on the plants to rid them of ants ..which in reality is done with "real organic" farming.)

      Since you are trying to strap me with the burden of proving your questions I will now shift the responsibility back to you. "So back it up sucka" since you need proof, so do I.

      Prove to me that humans are able to eat everything that scientists are implanting in GMO foods.
      I have a suggestion start with HUMANS I want to see the studies proving that humans can eat other humans with no side effects and that it is moral, ethical and constitutional. I will be waiting patiently for your peer reviewed papers, articles and any other proof that you can provide. No inferred ambigious unclearly written question here.

      In conclusion, I will answer your new question about evidence that GMO scientists and companys etc are in fact removing essential nutrients necessary for human survival and will post them. In addition, I will post articles that I know that already exist of how GMO crops are destroying lives and the enviroment. Since GMO is rather a new scientific experiment forced upon citizens, news coming out that there are negative effects of these "foods" might be difficult to find and slow to be published. Thus finding such articles/studies due to the nature of the funding for such work will be slow.

  35. fonbindelhofas

    i get the feelining that all this movie is just a pro GM propaga and from the wery first moment of doc makers are not investigating and arguments are realy silly like what tastes beter GM oil or GM free oil? i mean what is this? an argument??? if u would be asked how do u feel, while beeing in deadly radiation enviroment for few mins u would say its ok, i dont feel anything, but still u will die after few days... u know what i mean? no argumants what so ever... no investigation... no critical thinking... just gloryfying GM dosnt make it healthy.

  36. equidae

    God complex, your citing god complex as a reason to not pursue a technology. Thats a crock of shit.
    1. It's not randomly mixing dna. If it were random, it'd be no more likely to result in a beneficial change than simple evolution. Possibly even less likely. Instead the change is targeted, not only the gene which is transplanted but where in the host plant's own genetic code it is placed. That is by definition not random.
    2 The benefits to farmers and or consumers are not imagined, just because you choose to ignorant of them, in no way alters that fact. A GMO crop can possess greater nutritional value, than an unaltered plant. Genetically modified sweet potatoes are increasingly common in third world countries, Africa especially, because they contain vastly greater quantities of vitamins, vitamin A in particular than do baseline varieties. Further more, such a crop often requires less if any pesticide, or supplementary fertilizer. They can also be grown on more marginal land that previously would not have been able to support agriculture of any kind. All resulting in crop that is more valuable, yet paradoxically less costly to produce.
    3. Organic, organic is with only few exceptions a joke and a lie. Organic foods cannot be grown in as many different regions, cannot be grown on marginal land. They are by definition not grown with pesticides or chemical fertilizers, resulting in universal vulnerability to pest insects, fungus, and disease. And while organic standards prohibit sterile chemical fertilizers, they encourage other forms of fertilizers. Many of which can in fact spread diseases and fungus, some which harm the crops themselves, and others like e. coli which can harm humans.

    If the entire world were to convert to organic practices today, we'd in the midst of massive world food shortage by the end of the year. You snowsurfing would never notice, unless you were to go out of your way. Because when such conditions arise, living in the developed world we are simply able to buy our way through it, pushing the harm further to the less developed peoples of the world.

    The only valid criticism I ever see of GMO has less to do with the process itself or it's results, and far more to do with the companies which have thus far produced them, and how and where they implement the technology. What seemingly no one is able to understand is that those faults are circumstantial lie with those companies, not the technology, technique, or theory involved in GMO.

    If any of you have a real, realizable solution to world hunger, not simply providing food for the current population, but also future larger populations. Then prove it.

    Facts do not cease to exist because you ignore them.

  37. Snowsurfing

    From what I've seen in this one and many others focusing on or covering in part GMO foods, we could probably have done without them, in most cases. The benefits do not in my opinion outweigh the risks, consequences, and god complex that develops from changing nature by randomly mixing dna. Not to mention the threat to biodiversity, which is already threatened by environmental destruction.

    The real benefits of GMO seem to be the corporations, not the farmers, or the consumers, because there are just as many starving people as before GMO, and probably more fat wallets for CEO's & such.

    I have started moving toward growing my own vegetables, and purchasing local organically grown foods whenever possible. Grow organic, buy seeds from trusted sources, and learn to save seeds from your crops. Urban gardening and eating as locally as possible, is one way to fight GMO.

  38. Sieben Stern

    I don't know if GM is good or bad. all i know is that i don't trust monsanto. they sue farmers who are non gmo and who accidentally get patented gmo pollen in their fields.

    with gmo farmers cannot keep their own seed and have to buy from monsanto every year, keeping them in debt.

    as for africa, maybe if they didn't export food to america and china, and actually plant foodstuffs instead of colonial era cash crops maybe they wouldn't have a problem. see no GMO needed e_e

    1. Aleirah Stevens

      I completely agree with you there SS, they're all about the money and the way monsanto get it is extremely shadey. "oops, we had a spill up the road and now our seeds have contaminated your farmland... yeah... by the way either destroy your whole crop and earn nothing this year or give us money for letting you use our intellectual property."

      Once it stops becoming profitable to have a farm where will our food come from? Monsantos wallet? Nope.