Michael Candels
Film Annotation – 1000 words
Genetically Modified Food: Panacea or Poison? is a documentary released in 2005,
directed by Josh Shore. The central argument of this film is that genetically modified fruits and
vegetables are potentially very dangerous, yet no one has done a study on them. The film asks
(from a slightly biased perspective) that studies be done and that people wait until safety is
guaranteed before eating GM food.
This film covers, as one can tell from the title, the topic of genetically modified
organisms, specifically those in food. It reviews the history of patenting plants and plant species,
and how companies like Monsanto are creating monopolies for themselves through genetically
altered seeds for crops like corn.
This film can teach anyone something about politics and the government, for they are the
reason that these food products are being sold to the general public. In one point of the movie, an
interviewee states that the FDA scientists are extremely wary of GM crops, and warn their
publicly elected superiors, who do not listen to them, and push the crops out into the market. One
story mentioned in the movie mentions a specific amino acid that was present in a specific GM
food product, which killed hundreds of people. Clearly the reckless capitalistic attitude of the
government officials who approve these products is detrimental to society. Also, indecision of
representatives has stopped the U.S. from further regulating GM food; the film stated at one
point that most grocery stores contain about 70% GM food due to the inclusion of GMO
products in very many processed foods.
A part of the film that I thought was particularly persuasive was the multiple times that
the natural process of cross pollination caused organic farmers to have GM crops amongst their
harvest. In one of the cases, the farmer was actually sued by Monsanto for using their
technology, which seems rather crazy, seeing as the farmer would have to take extreme measures
just to protect his or her farm from the bees that simply do their job. Monsanto, however, won
this suit, which, despite making little sense, set a precedent. The government created the Plant
Variety Protection Act, which was ignored explicitly by the U.S. Patent Office, who created
patents for plants anyways. This blatant disregard for the safety of Americans is surprising, and
frankly, somewhat disgusting.
An unconvincing portion of the film was when an interviewee explained the depth of the
problems with controlling GM crops. It doesn’t seem like it would be possible to lessen the
breadth of them when they have contaminated naturally growing crops, soils, food processing
equipment, amongst others; in addition, insects are growing resistant to the pesticides that are
built into these crops and are passing the effects onto other species. All these barriers keep
humanity from protecting itself from itself, and it appears to be an almost insurmountable task.
And while, according to the film, 80% of Americans would prefer their food labelled, no policies
have been created on the federal level that do require labelling, which would likely be the first
step in combatting GMO products in our food supply.
The film definitely declares that there should be a change in policy on GM food. The
beginning of the film focuses more on the fact that more study needs to be done on the topic of
genetically modified food and its possible effects on humans. Human allergies could be
aggravated by genes of allergenic foods being in other products, along with toxins being
increased or added into other foods. Other corrective action includes preventing food that hasn’t
been thoroughly tested from being put out on the market, and labelling food that contains
GMO’s, so that the consumer themselves can make the choice of whether they want to eat GM
food; for in the face of a lack of action on the part of the government, the citizens must take
actions to preserve their health, or at least to make sure that they are not harming their health as a
whole.
This film has led me to seek more information regarding the passage of GMO labelling
laws in the United States. My home state of Connecticut has been the only state in the Union to
pass a law requiring the labelling of genetically modified products. Unfortunately, though, the
law requires that four other states must enact similar legislation, one of which must be a
bordering state of Connecticut, before the law will come into effect, thereby making the law null
until other states join the struggle to keep our food safe to eat and safe for the environment as a
whole. So, while I can be proud of my home state, it is disappointing to see such useful
legislation go to waste, at least for now. The passage of GM food labelling legislation is starting
to spread, but even Maine, the second state to pass a bill like Connecticut, has decided to hold off
until the constitutionality of the bill is determined.
Additionally, this film has led me to look up the magnitude of the allergens in GM foods.
According to one article, “The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in
the natural functioning of the plant’s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently
turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral
damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a
completely new, unknown allergen within the crop.” This danger is scary, and increasingly more
so as unknown allergens are created by the biotech industry. Certain people are highly allergic to
many things, and eating something that was previously safe could be potentially fatal.
Bibliography:
Wattles, Jacqueline. "Connecticut Still Alone On Passing GM Labeling Bill." CT News Junkie.
N.p., 23 July 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
Smith, Jeffrey M. "Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies." Institute
for Responsible Technology. N.p., 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.