3 ms·

first paragraph states the opposite: I was surprised to see Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle, two giants of food advocacy, take a clear stance in favor of gene

by smugma 1y ago

first paragraph states the opposite: I was surprised to see Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle, two giants of food advocacy, take a clear stance in favor of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, since the two have previously been critical of these controversial foods. The film, which purports to explore “the good, the bad and the ugly of genetic engineering,” is unusual in that it’s unabashedly pro-GMO, using science to debunk the myth that GMOs are harmful and portraying the activists who oppose them as the food-world equivalent of flat-earthers.

msla 1y ago
Read further: > Pollan, for his part, signed a letter with a group of fellow academics (including Nestle) on June 16 to protest UC Berkeley’s screening of the film (let’s pause here to note: they are protesting the mere fact that this film was even shown). Those who signed the letter attested that the movie was nothing more than an advertisement for GMOs, and said it “marginalizes the lived experiences of farmers and eaters.”
- muchosandwich 1y ago
  Seems like he has a problem with the final edit of the movie and not anything specific about GMO. This is a growing problem with documentaries where the filmmakers claim a certain angle to get people to participate but reveal a corporate angle in the edit. This is his actual position (source: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinner-party/ https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinn... 2012) > Americans have been eating genetically engineered food for 18 years, and as supporters of the technology are quick to point out, we don’t seem to be dropping like flies. But they miss the point. The fight over labeling G.M. food is not foremost about food safety or environmental harm, legitimate though these questions are. The fight is about the power of Big Food. Monsanto has become the symbol of everything people dislike about industrial agriculture: corporate control of the regulatory process; lack of transparency (for consumers) and lack of choice (for farmers); an intensifying rain of pesticides on ever-expanding monocultures; and the monopolization of seeds, which is to say, of the genetic resources on which all of humanity depends. Largely he's been proven correct as GMO crops from Monsanto have has negative biological, legal and financial consequences on neighboring crops and water supplies. https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/#:~:text=Monsanto%20and%20Terminator%20Seeds%20Monsanto,many%20GMOs%20into%20the%20earth. https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/#:~:... GMO crops from other sources don't have the same problems.

by smugma 1y ago

msla 1y ago

Read further: > Pollan, for his part, signed a letter with a group of fellow academics (including Nestle) on June 16 to protest UC Berkeley’s screening of the film (let’s pause here to note: they are protesting the mere fact that this film was even shown). Those who signed the letter attested that the movie was nothing more than an advertisement for GMOs, and said it “marginalizes the lived experiences of farmers and eaters.”

muchosandwich 1y ago
Seems like he has a problem with the final edit of the movie and not anything specific about GMO. This is a growing problem with documentaries where the filmmakers claim a certain angle to get people to participate but reveal a corporate angle in the edit. This is his actual position (source: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinner-party/ https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinn... 2012) > Americans have been eating genetically engineered food for 18 years, and as supporters of the technology are quick to point out, we don’t seem to be dropping like flies. But they miss the point. The fight over labeling G.M. food is not foremost about food safety or environmental harm, legitimate though these questions are. The fight is about the power of Big Food. Monsanto has become the symbol of everything people dislike about industrial agriculture: corporate control of the regulatory process; lack of transparency (for consumers) and lack of choice (for farmers); an intensifying rain of pesticides on ever-expanding monocultures; and the monopolization of seeds, which is to say, of the genetic resources on which all of humanity depends. Largely he's been proven correct as GMO crops from Monsanto have has negative biological, legal and financial consequences on neighboring crops and water supplies. https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/#:~:text=Monsanto%20and%20Terminator%20Seeds%20Monsanto,many%20GMOs%20into%20the%20earth. https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/#:~:... GMO crops from other sources don't have the same problems.