Guest guest Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 > The_Fahrenheit_9/11_of_GM > " GM_WATCH " <info > Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:04:54 +0100 > > GM WATCH daily > http://www.gmwatch.org > --- > " The Future of Food could be the Fahrenheit 9/11 of > the genetically engineered food battle. " - Doug > Mosel as quoted in Wired News Article (see item 2) > > " As we move on into this so-called biotech > revolution and we start producing more and more > transgenic manipulations, we'll start seeing pieces > of DNA interacting with eatch other in ways that are > totally unpredictable... I think this is probably > the largest biological experiment humanity has ever > entered into. " - Ignacio Chapela > http://www.thefutureoffood.com/resources.htm > > How to buy the film on VHS or DVD: > http://www.thefutureoffood.com/sales.htm > > 1.The Future of Food > 2.GMO-Food Foes Turn to Film > 3.Bad Seeds > --- > 1.The Future of Food > http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ > > " The Future of Food could be the Fahrenheit 9/11 of > the genetically engineered food battle. " - Doug > Mosel as quoted in Wired News Article (see item 2) > > " If you eat food, you need to see The Future of > Food... " - Newstarget.com > > " This stylish film is not just for food faddists and > nutritionists. It is a look at something we might > not want to see: Monsanto, Roundup and > Roundup-resistant seeds, collectively wreaking havoc > on American farmers and our agricultural neighbors > around the world. In the end, this documentary is a > eloquent call to action. " - The Telluride Daily > Planet > --- > 2.GMO-Food Foes Turn to Film > By Jason Silverman > Wired News, Jul. 08, 2004 > > Last March, the food-safety organization GMO Free > Mendocino did something no group had ever done: It > ushered through a law banning genetically engineered > crops and livestock. > > It was a David-thrashes-Goliath victory. Opponents > of the legislation, led by the agricultural trade > group CropLife America, outspent the anti-GMO > activists by a nearly 10-1 ratio. But GMO Free > Mendocino had a secret weapon: a film, then a work > in progress, called The Future of Food. > > The new documentary, created by Deborah Koons > Garcia, uses archival footage and interviews with > farmers and agriculture experts to argue that GMO > foods are jeopardizing our food safety. During the > past 10 years, the film tells us, genetically > engineered crops have infected our food supply and > undermined cultivation methods that have been > refined over thousands of years. > > The Future of Food lays out a detailed case against > genetically engineered crops. Exploring a gamut of > issues from so-called suicide seeds to lax > food-safety enforcement laws, and from the > controversy over patented genes to infected > cornfields, the film is a comprehensive and chilling > example of anti-GMO rhetoric. > > GMO Free Mendocino spokesman Doug Mosel described > The Future of Food as a major factor in the passage > of Measure H, which banned the use of GMO farming > within Mendocino County, California. > > " The Future of Food could be the Fahrenheit 9/11 of > the genetically engineered food battle, " Mosel said. > The film is currently touring festivals and other > events, including an upcoming screening in San > Francisco. > > Garcia, Jerry Garcia's third and final wife, has > been interested in the ways plants can be mutated > since childhood. At 15, she won a science fair award > for an experiment involving irradiated plants, and > she has followed the evolution of genetic > engineering for years. > > " My goal was to make a film that gave the average > person a clear understanding of how genetic > engineering works, from the cellular level to the > global level, " Garcia said. " I'm hoping this film > can be a combination of Silent Spring and The Battle > of Algiers. Once you see it you'll feel compelled to > act, even if that means just changing the kind of > food you eat. " > > Though The Future of Food is not intended as a > two-sides-to-the-story analysis, Garcia said she > requested interviews from representatives at > Monsanto, the multinational seed and pesticide giant > that is driving the genetically engineered food > movement. She did not receive a response. > > Perhaps Monsanto is trying to keep a low profile. > The company has suffered a string of well-publicized > setbacks to its genetically engineered crop > initiatives in recent years, including closure of > its GMO wheat project in May. > > According to agriculture expert Chuck Benbrook, > Monsanto and other biotech agriculture companies are > " retrenching -- reducing their research, reducing > projections for profits, watching the range of > viable applications shrinking. " > > Benbrook served in the Carter and Reagan > administrations before becoming executive director > of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy > of Sciences. In his various positions, he watched as > biotech companies rushed products to market. The > first GMO foods reached shelves in 1997. > > Though scientists were initially supportive to the > point of being myopic -- Benbrook described early > reports from the National Academy as " unadulterated > boosterism " -- biotech foods today look less > promising than they did even a few years ago. > According to Benbrook, genetic engineering has > failed to solve the problems advocates hoped it > would. And, he added, food-safety concerns remain > unresolved. > > " The biotech industry is beginning to recognize that > there are lots of reasons why it's hard to move > genes across boundaries, " Benbrook said. " Scientists > have found ways around the natural protections, but > there are really good reasons for them being there, > and we violate them at some cost. " > > For five-sixths of the problems that genetic > engineering promises to address, Benbrook added, > genetic solutions are not necessary. > > GMO companies are also finding increased resistance > on the legal front. In April, Vermont became the > first state to require registration and labeling of > genetically modified products. According to one > anti-GMO site, nearly 100 towns in New England have > approved some sort of anti-GMO legislation. > > Since the Mendocino law was signed, Garcia said as > many as a dozen other California municipalities have > drawn up similar legislation. > > " The Future of Food has already helped change > policy, " Garcia said. " I think it is possible to > make California GE-free, and it's exciting to think > that the film could have some role in that. " > --- > 3.Bad Seeds > By Denise Caruso, AlterNet. Posted August 23, 2004 > http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19628/ > > Whoever controls the seed controls the food. And as > a new film documents, the dangers of monoculture, > industrial agriculture – and Monsanto –bode poorly > for the future of food. > > In less skillful hands, a film about genetically > modified (GM) food could have been tough sledding > for regular folks to sit through. Making visual > sense of the science alone would be a daunting task. > But The Future of Food is an engaging and lucid > presentation of not only the science of genetic > engineering, but of the people and the politics > behind what looks to be a pitched battle to control > the global food supply. > > Deborah Koons Garcia, a long-time documentary > filmmaker (and wife of the Grateful Dead's Jerry > Garcia), spent the past three years writing, > directing and producing Food for her Mill Valley, > CA-based Lily Films. The idea for the film came > after her award-winning educational series " All > About Babies, " an in-depth examination of the first > two years of a child's life. She's had a lifelong > concern about how food is grown, and " I always > wanted to make a big film about agriculture that was > as thorough as 'Babies,' " said Garcia. > > She has said that her goal in making the film was to > produce a cross between Silent Spring – Rachel > Carson's historic shot-heard-'round-the-world about > the dangers of chemical pesticides – and The Battle > of Algiers, the 1965 film by Gillo Pontecorvo that > became a training film for the Black Panthers as > well as those who opposed the Vietnam War. > > And it's true, The Future of Food makes no secret of > its desire to see GM seed and food removed from the > food supply. But its rendition of the science of > genetic modification (and its potential risks) is > clear and accurate. And the many startling facts > that it presents about both the agriculture industry > and the U.S. government, which continues to prop it > up with taxpayer subsidies, make the film very > difficult for a reasonable person to dismiss as mere > anti-GM propaganda. > > Fear of a Modified Planet > > In farming, a monoculture is the result of > cultivating a single plant variety over a large area > of land. Monocultures make a single strain of plant > – one particular variety of soybean, for example, > out of the hundreds that may exist – particularly > vulnerable to being wiped out by a single pest, > microbial infection or some other environmental > stressor, like an unseasonable heat wave or cold > snap. > > In fact, according to the film, a monoculture caused > the 1845 potato blight and subsequent famine in > Ireland that killed a million people. When the same > blight hit Peru, where potatoes originated and many > different strains are still grown, its effect was > far less devastating. > > One of the hazards that has already come to pass > with GM crops is that seeds from modified, > " transgenic " plants are contaminating fields planted > with traditional, non-GM crops. History provides > ample evidence that this type of contamination and > other unintentional plantings of GM seed may > gradually create dangerous, invasive species-type > monocultures on many of the most fertile, diverse > and productive crop lands in the world. > > " A single genotype that's preferential crowds out > diversity, and that is a threat to food security, " > says one of the scientists interviewed in the film. > " Without access to genetic resources, we will have > challenges we cannot solve. " > > And while this is a frightening enough proposition, > it becomes clear in The Future of Food that there > are other, equally insidious " monocultures " involved > in this story. > > The second, more figurative monoculture is > developing as a result of consolidation in the food > supply chain. Today only four clusters of seed > companies provide seed to farmers around the world. > In the last decade, this consolidation has started > to happen in the retail sector too. Within the next > 10 years, one expert estimates, all retail food will > come from six American firms. This level of > corporate control means we'll have virtually no > choice about what's on our store shelves. > > As another scientist in the film says, " Whoever > controls the seed, controls the food. " > > The third and possibly most frightening monoculture > is the political one that Garcia details. It has > already contaminated most of what could pass as > public discourse, and it's co-evolved between > government regulators and industry – industry, in > the case of GM food, meaning primarily the Monsanto > Company. > > A one-stop shop for global industrial agriculture, > Monsanto has also managed to install a revolving > door between its corporate headquarters and most of > the agencies in the U.S. government that regulate > its products. > > During the first Bush administration, for example, > after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists > protested the lack of regulation for GM foods, the > agency hired Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto > official, to write a new, industry-friendly FDA > policy for GM food crops. Linda Fisher, a former > executive vice president at Monsanto, is now deputy > administrator for the Environmental Protection > Agency. (According to the film, Fisher has actually > been back and forth between Monsanto and EPA three > times.) Ann Veneman, the head of the U.S. Department > of Agriculture, is a former Monsanto executive. So > is Mickey Cantor, former Secretary of Commerce. As > is Clarence Thomas: now a Supreme Court judge, > formerly a lawyer in Monsanto's pesticide and > agriculture division. > > One is tempted to begin this next sentence with " As > a result ... " But of course we don't know why, > exactly, the U.S. EPA and FDA have determined that > GM crops and the foods produced from them should be > classified under the rubric " GRAS " – 'generally > recognized as safe.' In any case, the fact remains > that these products require no labeling, no > traceability, no corporate liability and no ongoing > collection of data on health effects. > > And the GRAS designation doesn't even touch the > patent laws that allow companies like Monsanto to > prosecute farmers who end up with Monsanto plants > that they didn't sow contaminating crops on their > own property. Just blowing in from a neighboring > field is good enough for the company to drive onto > thousands of farmers' properties and demand a sample > of whatever is growing in their fields. One farmer > in the film, who was being sued by Monsanto, > believes the company has sent 9,000 patent > infringement letters demanding payment, and has 100 > active lawsuits against farmers. > > " It's like a return to the feudal system, " he said. > > Roundup of Reliable Sources > > While The Future of Food falls short of Garcia's > goal of creating a hybrid of Silent Spring and The > Battle of Algiers, that's hardly her fault. First, > there's a shameful lack of scientific data about > genetic engineering overall: simply not enough to > support or condemn GM food in the same way that > Carson condemned DDT. As one scientist says, > transgenic manipulations are " probably the largest > biological experiment humanity has ever entered > into, " while there's been virtually no long-term > risk or safety analyses to support their widespread > deployment. As for Algiers: so far, successful > guerrilla warfare against multinational corporations > has proven to be even more difficult to sustain than > war on the equally elusive target of terrorism. > > That said, the film is an eloquent, compelling > introduction to one of the most complicated, > critically important and criminally overlooked > issues of the day. It's a story well-told, mostly by > the people who are living it – the film's > " consultants, " as they're called, are for the most > part involved in blowing the whistle, or trying to, > on the present situation. > > They include Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director > of the Center for Food Safety; Charles Benbrook, > Ph.D., the former director of the Board on > Agriculture for the National Academy of Science > whose extensive research counters much of the > biotech industry's hype; Rodney Nelson of Nelson > Farm Enterprises in North Dakota, who claims his > livelihood and reputation were destroyed by a > Monsanto lawsuit; Ignacio Chapela, the U.C. Berkeley > professor whose graduate student discovered that the > Mexican land races of maize had been contaminated > with Monsanto's Bt version – and whose peer-reviewed > results were subsequently disavowed in pages of a > leading science journal; and Arpad Puzstai, the > former Rowett Research Institute scientist who was > suspended from his position after releasing > preliminary results that transgenic potatoes had > stunted growth in rats. > > And perhaps most famously, Percy Schmeiser, the > Canadian canola farmer whose fields were invaded by > Monsanto's " Roundup Ready " canola seeds which blew > off a neighbor's truck driving by his land. > ( " Roundup Ready " seeds have been genetically altered > to resist the popular herbicide, Roundup, so that > farmers can douse entire fields with the chemical > and only the crops survive. Monsanto sells farmer > both the seed and the herbicide.) Monsanto sued him > for infringing on its patent, and the case went all > the way to the Supreme Court in Canada; Schmeiser > lost. > > People who know the subject matter may have some > quibbles with Garcia's presentation. For example, > nowhere in the film does she say that she tried to > contact Monsanto for a comment, although apparently > she did and they didn't respond. Noting this would > have deflected at least the most obvious criticism > about why and how Food is an un-balanced > representation of the situation. > > And some of the facts of the cases she presents – in > particular, the Percy Schmeiser case – may have > suffered a bit from wishful interpretation. The > Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser decision made > headlines around the world because for the first > time a company won control over the higher life form > – in this case, the plant – that contained its > patented gene, and not just the gene itself. > > But according to an article on the decision, > published in the July-August 2004 issue of the > newsletter GeneWatch, " the Court was at pains to > point out that its decision was based on the facts > as found at trial and that in different factual > circumstances, a different legal outcome " might have > resulted. The factual circumstances were that a year > after Schmeiser's fields were contaminated, > Monsanto's tests showed that 95 to 98 percent of his > plants contained the company's patented gene. > > " The issue is not the perhaps adventitious arrival > of Roundup Ready Canola on Mr Schmeiser's land in > 1998, " it says in Paragraph 92 of the decision. > " What is at stake in this case is the sowing and > cultivation [its emphasis] which necessarily > involves deliberate and careful activity on the part > of the farmer. " > > Nowhere does Schmeiser or the film explain the > conflict between the original, accidental arrival of > Monsanto's canola on his land and the court's > finding – undisputed by Schmeiser – that he'd sown > and cultivated the seeds once they were there. > Analyses of the case have been based on wildly > diverging versions of what actually happened. By not > acknowledging this factor in the court's decision, > the film again opens itself to accusations of > selective interpretation of the facts. > > But these are small as quibbles go. If The Future of > Food starts making the rounds on VHS and DVD in > living rooms, as Garcia is hoping it will, it might > well start a movement that cannot be stopped in the > usual fashion; that is, by maligning researchers or > suing farmers. Garcia says she often sees people cry > during the film, or they " get so freaked out about > food that they stay awake at night and end up going > through all their cupboards checking ingredients and > chucking food. " > > Such reactions might instigate a grassroots response > across the U.S. much like that which is happening in > California today: Following the example of Mendocino > and Trinity counties, which have passed laws banning > genetically modified organisms, several other > California counties have begun GE-free campaigns. > Vermont and Maine are considering moratoria or bans > as well. The power of such a response should not be > underestimated: In response to overwhelming negative > reaction from consumers and suppliers around the > world, Monsanto has dropped its Roundup Ready wheat > globally and withdrawn its applications for food use > in all countries except for the U.S. > > Of course, it has already been approved for human > consumption here. > > 'The Future of Food' will be screened August 20-27 > at the ArcLight Theater in Los Angeles as part of > the International Documentary Association's InFACT > Festival. VHS copies are available now; DVDs will be > ready mid-September. > > Denise Caruso is the former technology columnist for > The New York Times and serves on the board of the > Independent Media Institute, the parent organization > of AlterNet. Her book, Redefining Risk in the > Post-Genome World, will be published by Doubleday in > 2005. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.