food evolution docu

=usrtk 2x?
FOOD EVOLUTION GMO FILM SERVES UP CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AGENDA
Posted on February 4, 2018 by Stacy MalkanThis post has been updated with reviews of Food Evolution: 
Letter from 45 academics: “Food Evolution deserves to be called out for what it is: a piece of propaganda“Letter from University of Minnesota research scientists: “The Food Evolution movie is agribusiness propaganda“NYU Professor Marion Nestle: Food Evolution is a “slick piece of GMO industry propaganda” … “I have asked repeatedly to have my short interview clip removed from this film. The director refuses. He believes his film is fair and balanced. I do not.” Follow up post by Marion Nestle: “A win for GMO trolls: this blog no longer accepts comments“Michael Pollan: “My experience and take much the same” and “This movie is funded by industry“UC Berkeley Associate Professor Alastair Iles: “No evolution in thinking in Food Evolution“UC Berkeley Professor Miguel Altieri: “Food Evolution is propaganda for public support of GMOs“Doug Durian-Sherman, PhD: “Food Evolution Supports GMOs, but Not Science” Part 1 and Part 2Vice article: “This Documentary Wants to Teach People About GMOs, But Experts Call It Propaganda“Alternet by Stacy Malkan: “Neil deGrasse Tyson Owes Fans a More Honest Conversation About GMOs“

By Stacy Malkan, 6/19/2017 
Some industry messaging efforts are so heavy-handed they end up highlighting their own PR tactics more than the message they are trying to convey. That’s the problem with Food Evolution, a new documentary by Academy Award-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
The film, opening in theaters June 23, claims to offer an objective look at the debate over genetically engineered foods, but with its skewed presentation of science and data, it comes off looking more like a textbook case of corporate propaganda for the agrichemical industry and its GMO crops.
That the film’s intended purpose was to serve as an industry-messaging vehicle is no secret. Food Evolution was planned in 2014 and funded by the Institute for Food Technologists, a trade group, to culminate a multi-year messaging effort.
IFT is partly funded by big food corporations, and the group’s president at the time was Janet Collins, a former DuPont and Monsanto executive who now works for CropLife America, the pesticide trade association. IFT’s President-Elect Cindy Stewart works for DuPont.
IFT chose Kennedy to direct the film, but he and producer Trace Sheehan say they had complete control over the film they describe as a fully independent investigation into the topic of GMOs including all points of view.
The film’s credibility suffers from their choice to embrace only the science and scientists who side with the chemical industry players who profit from GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data that doesn’t fit that agenda.
The Monsanto Science Treatment
The clearest example of the scientific dishonesty in Food Evolution is the way the film deals with glyphosate. The weed killer chemical is at the heart of the GMO story, since 80-90% of GMO crops are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate.
Food Evolution reports that the increase in glyphosate use due to GMOs is not a problem, because glyphosate is safe. Two sources establish this claim in the film: a farmer says glyphosate has “very, very low toxicity; lower than coffee, lower than salt,” and Monsanto’s Robb Fraley – in response to a woman in an audience who asks him about science linking glyphosate to birth defects and cancer – tells her that’s all bad science, “it’s pseudoscience.”
All science raising concerns about glyphosate is “pseudoscience,” says Monsanto.
There is no mention of the carcinogenicity concerns that are engulfing Monsanto in an international science scandal, or the many farmers who are suing Monsanto alleging they got cancer from the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide.
There is no mention of the 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency that classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, or California’s decision to add glyphosate to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, or the peer-reviewed studies that have linked various adverse health outcomes to glyphosate and Roundup.
Instead of an objective look at the evidence, Food Evolution gives viewers the full Monsanto science treatment: any science that raises concerns about the possible health risks of agrichemical products should be ignored, while studies that put those products in a favorable light is the only science worth discussing.
Double Standards in Science and Transparency
Equal treatment of interview subjects with different points of view would have helped the credibility of Food Evolution. Instead, the film paints the GMO critics it features as dishonest or out to make a buck off the organic industry, while leaving out key details about its pro-industry sources.
In one scene, the film’s main character, UC Davis professor Alison van Eenennaam, frets that appearing onstage with a Monsanto executive at a debate could sully her independent reputation. Viewers never learn that she used to work for Monsanto, or that she holds several GE patents which suggest a financial interest in the topic at hand.
Pro-industry scientist Pamela Ronald, another key science source, gets the hero treatment with no mention that two of her studies have been retracted. Yet viewers are hammered with news that a study by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini – which found kidney problems and tumors in rats fed GMO corn – was “retracted, retracted, retracted!”
The film leaves out the fact that the study was subsequently republished, and was retracted in the first place after a former Monsanto employee took an editorial position with the journal where it was originally published.
The “Africa Needs GMOs” Narrative
In another neatly spun narrative, Food Evolution takes viewers on an emotional journey to the developing world, and along another favorite industry messaging track: rather than focus on how genetic engineering is used in our food system now – primarily to convey herbicide tolerance – we should focus on how it might possibly be used in the future.
With plenty of airtime and dramatic tension, the film examines the problem of banana wilt, a disease killing staple crops in Africa, and leads viewers to believe that genetic engineering will save the crop, the farmers and the community.
Maybe. But the film neglects to mention that the savior GE technology is not yet available and might not even work. According to a paper in Plant Biotechnology Journal, the resistance shown in the lab is robust but may not be durable in open fields.
The film is “fundamentally dishonest.”
Meanwhile, a low-tech solution is working well and looks like it could use some investment. According to a 2012 paper in the Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, farmer field schools, which help growers acquire hands-on knowledge of techniques to prevent banana wilt, led to lower infection rates and high crop recovery in Uganda. Results from farmer field schools “have been remarkable,” according to the UN.
The solution doesn’t warrant a mention in Food Evolution.
“It’s fundamentally dishonest of the film to tout a GE solution that may not even work, as the scientists themselves acknowledge,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, “while failing to point out another way to control the problem that works very well, but doesn’t involve selling a product to make money.”
Did Monsanto have anything to do with Food Evolution?
Monsanto and allies were discussing plans for a documentary in late 2013, according to emails obtained by US Right to Know. The emails do not contain evidence linking those discussions to Food Evolution, but they do establish Monsanto’s desire for a film that sounds surpassingly similar to the one Kennedy created.
Monsanto’s Eric Sachs wrote in Dec. 2013 to a group of PR advisors, “there is clearly a lot of interest to pursue a documentary film. Importantly, the consensus was that Monsanto’s participation was welcome, particularly in the planning phase.”
He recommended a January 2014 planning call. Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project stepped up to take the lead, and mentioned he had “gotten a personal pledge of $100,000 from a private business person if we can get” (the rest of the line is cut off). Entine also has a connection to the Institute for Food Technologists; he spoke about “anti-food activism” at IFT’s 2012 annual meeting.
Another person mentioned in the Monsanto emails, Karl Haro von Mogel – who had discussed with Sachs “the downsides of a film funded by the ‘Big 6’” and suggested “what would matter more than their money is their participation” – was interviewed in Food Evolution, and was also involved in filming one scene, which suggests some behind the scenes coordination with the filmmakers.
In reaction to the emails, Kennedy wrote on Twitter: “@foodevomovie has had ZERO $ or INPUT from #Monsanto. We are fully transparent & happy 2 have fact-based dialogue.”
He said in an interview, “that email exchange had absolutely nothing to do with our project whatsoever … we hadn’t even committed to making the film with IFT at that date in 2013.”
The people in the email exchange were not involved in filming or advising, he said, and Karl Haro von Mogel “was a subject in the film and had no involvement or influence on any creative/editorial decisions on the film at any point in the production. Also it may be useful to point out that the email conversation you reference occurred long before we ever even knew Karl or any of these people.”
Sneak Peek Behind the Scenes
Another email exchange obtained by US Right to Know offers a peek behind the scenes at the narrative development in Food Evolution. The exchange depicts Kennedy’s search for examples to feature for “us/developing world need GMO.”
“Any other ‘us/developing world need GMO’ you can give me names of aside from oranges? Shintakus lettuce?” Kennedy asked. Producer Trace Sheehan responded with a list of GMO products including drought-tolerant rice, allergy-free peanuts, carcinogen-free potatoes … “and then button with Golden Rice.”
When Kennedy pushed for “the top GMO crops currently in use, and what countries,” Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science wrote, “Really Bt brinjal in Bangladesh is the only one that is truly GMO in and is in widespread operation.”
The film’s frame-driven reporting ignores that detail about the lack of operational GMO solutions, and doesn’t mention that the closer example, vitamin-A enhanced Golden Rice, still isn’t available despite huge investments and years of trials, because it doesn’t work as well in the field as existing rice strains.
What is propaganda?
In a scene that is supposed to convey scientific credibility, Food Evolution flashes the logo of the American Council on Science and Health at the very moment Neil deGrasse Tyson says there is a global consensus on the safety of GMOs. It’s a fitting slip. ASCH is a corporate front group closely aligned with Monsanto.
The ACSH logo scene also appears in the background in this 2-minute clip from a recent Climate One debate, as Kennedy pushed back against the suggestion that his film is propaganda.
“How do we determine what is propaganda?” Kennedy asked. “I say one of the ways we do it is (to ask), are results asked for, or results promised? I was not asked for results and I did not promise results. If you have a problem with the film, the problem lies with me.”
This review originally appeared in Huffington Post and has been reprinted in Alternet. 
See also: Stacy Malkan’s follow-up article, Neil deGrasse Tyson Owes Fans a More Honest Conversation About GMOs than Food Evolution. “Interviews with several other GMO critics who appear in the film, or were asked to be in it, corroborate the picture of a strange process involving sneaky filming, selective editing, misrepresentation and lack of disclosure about the film’s funding.”
 Food For Thought, GMOs   Alison Van Eenennaam, American Council on Science and Health, Cindy Stewart, Cornell Alliance for Science, CropLife America, Dupont, Eric Sachs, Food Evolution, Genetic Literacy Project, GMO, Institute for Food Technologists, Janet Collins, Jon Entine, Karl Haro von Mogel, Mark Lynas, Monsanto, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pamela Ronald, Robb Fraley, Scott Hamilton Kennedy, Trace Sheehan, UC Davis
==https://usrtk.org/tag/pamela-ronald/
CORNELL ALLIANCE FOR SCIENCE IS A PR CAMPAIGN FOR THE AGRICHEMICAL INDUSTRYPosted on September 23, 2020 by Stacy MalkanThe Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS) is a public relations campaign funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to train fellows around the world, especially in Africa, to promote and defend genetically engineered crops and agrichemicals in their home countries. The group based at Cornell uses its academic-sounding name and affiliation with an Ivy League Institution to try to gain credibility, but CAS has a long history of spreading inaccurate and misleading information.
The Gates Foundation has spent $22 million since 2014 funding this PR effort. This fact sheet documents inaccuracies, deceptive tactics and corporate partnerships of CAS and people affiliated with the group.  The examples described here provide evidence that CAS is using Cornell’s name, reputation and authority to advance the PR and political agenda of the world’s largest chemical and seed corporations.
INDUSTRY-ALIGNED MISSION AND MESSAGINGCAS launched in 2014 with a $5.6 million Gates Foundation grant and promises to “depolarize” the debate around GMOs. The group says its mission is to “promote access” to GMO crops and foods by training “science allies” around the world to educate their communities about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology.

Pesticide industry group promotes CAS 
A key part of the CAS strategy is to recruit and train Global Leadership Fellows in communications and promotional tactics, focusing on regions where there is public opposition to the biotech industry, particularly African countries that have resisted GMO crops.
The CAS mission is strikingly similar to the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), a pesticide-industry funded public relations initiative that has partnered with CAS. The industry group worked to build alliances across the food chain and train third-parties, particularly academics and farmers, to persuade the public to accept GMOs.
CAS messaging aligns closely with pesticide industry PR: a myopic focus on  touting the possible future benefits of genetically engineered foods while downplaying, ignoring or denying risks and problems. Like industry PR efforts, CAS also focuses heavily on attacking and trying to discredit critics of agrichemical products, including scientists and journalists who raise health or environmental concerns.
WIDESPREAD CRITICISMCAS and its writers have drawn criticism from academics, farmers, students, community groups and food sovereignty movements who say the group promotes inaccurate and misleading messaging and uses unethical tactics. See for example:
Experts in agroecology withdraw from Cornell Alliance for Science Agroecology Webinar, citing bias — Community Alliance for Global Justice (9.30.20)Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: A Case Study of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellows Program, by AGRA Watch, Community Alliance for Global Justice (8.7.20)Students Should Continue to Question the Ethics of the Cornell Alliance for Science, by Fern Anuenue, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, Cornell Daily Sun (11.19.19)Mark Lynas slammed for exploiting African farmers’ images to promote GMOs, African Centre for Biodiversity press release (2018)Mark Lynas’ unauthorized use of farmer’s images in misleading and unethical tactics to promote GM crops in Tanzania, report by Eugenio Tisselli, PhD, and Angelika Hilbeck, PhD. (2018)Seeds Of Neo-Colonialism: Why The GMO Promoters Get It So Wrong About Africa, statement by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (2018)6 ways this Ivy League university is acting like a PR firm for junk food, GMOs and pesticides, by Sophia Johnson, Salon (2017)New York Farmers Call for Cornell to Evict the ‘Alliance for Science,’ Bioscience Resource Project press release (2016)The GMO Debate: One Student’s Experience of Pro-GMO Propaganda at Cornell University, by Robert Schooler, Independent Science News (2016)Gates-funded Cornell Group Misfires in Protest of Vandana Shiva, USRTK (2016)Why is Cornell University hosting a GMO propaganda campaign? by Stacy Malkan, The Ecologist (2016)Gates Foundation Backed Pro-GMO Cornell Alliance for Science On the Attack, Corporate Crime Reporter (2015)The War on Genetically Modified Food Critics, by Timothy Wise, Food Tank (2015)EXAMPLES OF MISLEADING MESSAGINGExperts in genetic engineering, biology, agroecology and food policy have documented many examples of inaccurate claims made by Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell who has written dozens of articles defending agrichemical products in the name of CAS; see for example his many articles promoted by the Genetic Literacy Project, a PR group that works with Monsanto. Lynas’ 2018 book argues for African countries to accept GMOs, and devotes a chapter to defending Monsanto.
Inaccurate claims about GMOsNumerous scientists have criticized Lynas for making false statements, “unscientific, illogical and absurd” arguments, promoting dogma over data and research on GMOs, rehashing industry talking points, and making inaccurate claims about pesticides that “display a deep scientific ignorance, or an active effort to manufacture doubt.”
“The laundry list of what Mark Lynas got wrong about both GMOs and science is extensive, and has been refuted point by point by some of the world’s leading agroecologists and biologists,” wrote Eric Holt-Giménez, executive director of Food First, in April 2013 (Lynas joined Cornell as a visiting fellow later that year).  
“disingenuous and untruthful”
Africa-based groups have critiqued Lynas at length. The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, a coalition of more than 40 food and farming groups across Africa, has described Lynas as a “fly-in pundit” whose “contempt for African people, custom and tradition is unmistakable.” Million Belay, director of AFSA, described Lynas as “a racist who is pushing a narrative that only industrial agriculture can save Africa.”
In a 2018 press release, the South Africa-based African Centre for Biodiversity described unethical tactics Lynas has used to promote the biotech lobby agenda in Tanzania. “There is an issue definitely about accountability and [need for] reigning the Cornell Alliance for Science in, because of the misinformation and the way that they are extremely disingenuous and untruthful,” Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity, said in a July 2020 webinar.
For detailed critiques of Lynas’ work, see articles at the end of this post and our Mark Lynas fact sheet.
Attacking agroecologyA recent example of inaccurate messaging is a widely panned article on the CAS website by Lynas claiming, “agro-ecology risks harming the poor.” Academics described the article as a “demagogic and non-scientific interpretation of a scientific paper,” “deeply unserious,” “pure ideology” and “an embarrassment for someone who wants to claim to be scientific,” a “really flawed analysis“ that makes “sweeping generalizations“ and “wild conclusions.” Some critics called for a retraction.
A 2019 article by CAS fellow Nassib Mugwanya provides another example of misleading content on the topic of agroecology. The article, “Why traditional agricultural practices can’t transform African agriculture,” reflects the typical messaging pattern in CAS materials: presenting GMO crops as the “pro-science” position while painting “alternative forms of agricultural development as ‘anti-science,’ groundless and harmful,” according to an analysis by the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice.
“Particularly notable in the article are strong usages of metaphors (e.g., agroecology likened to handcuffs), generalizations, omissions of information and a number of factual inaccuracies,” the group said.
Using Monsanto playbook to defend pesticidesAnother example of misleading industry-aligned CAS messaging can be found in the group’s defense of glyphosate-based Roundup. The herbicides are a key component of GMO crops with 90% of corn and soy grown in the United States genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup. In 2015, after the World Health Organization’s cancer research panel said glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, Monsanto organized allies to “orchestrate outcry” against the independent science panel to “protect the reputation” of Roundup, according to internal Monsanto documents.

Monsanto’s PR playbook: attacking cancer experts as ‘activists’
Mark Lynas used the CAS platform to amplify the Monsanto messaging, describing the cancer report as a “witch hunt” orchestrated by “anti-Monsanto activists” who “abused science” and committed “an obvious perversion of both science and natural justice” by reporting a cancer risk for glyphosate. Lynas used the same flawed arguments and industry sources as the American Council on Science and Health, a front group Monsanto paid to help spin the cancer report.
While claiming to be on the side of science, Lynas ignored ample evidence from Monsanto documents, widely reported in the press, that Monsanto interfered with scientific research, manipulated regulatory agencies and used other heavy-handed tactics to manipulate the scientific process in order to protect Roundup. In 2018, a jury found the that Monsanto “acted with malice, oppression or fraud” in covering up the cancer risk of Roundup.
LOBBYING FOR PESTICIDES AND GMOSAlthough its main geographical focus is Africa, CAS also aids pesticide industry efforts to defend pesticides and discredit public health advocates in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Islands are an important testing ground for GMO crops and also an area that reports high exposures to pesticides and concerns about pesticide-related health problems, including birth defects, cancer and asthma. These problems led residents to organize a years-long fight to pass stronger regulations to reduce pesticide exposures and improve disclosure of the chemicals used on agricultural fields.
“launched vicious attacks”
As these efforts gained traction, CAS engaged in a “massive public relations disinformation campaign designed to silence community concerns” about the health risks of pesticides, according to Fern Anuenue Holland, a community organizer for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. In the Cornell Daily Sun, Holland described how “paid Cornell Alliance for Science fellows — under the guise of scientific expertise — launched vicious attacks. They used social media and wrote dozens of blog posts condemning impacted community members and other leaders who had the courage to speak up.”
Holland said she and other members of her organization were subjected to “character assassinations, misrepresentations and attacks on personal and professional credibility” by CAS affiliates. “I have personally witnessed families and lifelong friendships torn apart,” she wrote.
OPPOSING THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW     CAS Director Sarah Evanega, PhD, has said her group is independent of industry: “We do not write for industry, and we do not advocate or promote industry-owned products. As our website clearly and fully discloses, we receive no resources from industry.” However, dozens of emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know, now posted in the UCSF chemical industry documents library, show CAS and Evanega coordinating closely with the pesticide industry and its front groups on public relations initiatives. Examples include:
CAS played a key role in trying to discredit a public records investigation by U.S. Right to Know to obtain information about the pesticide industry’s partnerships with academics. According to Monsanto documents released in 2019, Monsanto was deeply worried about the USRTK investigation and planned to try to discredit it as an attack on “scientific freedom” — the same messaging CAS used in a in a public petition opposing the investigation.CAS partnered on the petition with Biofortified, a group that lobbied against pesticide regulations in Hawaii at the behest of a pesticide industry trade group, while claiming to be independent.The Monsanto PR plan to counter the USRTK investigation suggested having a Monsanto executive reach out to Rob Horsch at the Gates Foundation to ask for assistance with the effort.CAS Director Sarah Evanega was a Trustee in 2017 of the International Food Information Council, a food and chemical industry-funded PR group that defends sugar, food additives, GMOs and pesticides.More examples of CAS partnerships with industry groups are described at the bottom of this fact sheet.  
ELEVATING FRONT GROUPS, UNRELIABLE MESSENGERSIn its efforts to promote GMOs as a “science-based” solution for agriculture, Cornell Alliance for Science has lent its platform to industry front groups and even a notorious climate science skeptic.
Trevor Butterworth and Sense About Science/STATS: CAS partners with Sense About Science/STATS to offer “statistical consultation for journalists” and gave a fellowship to the group’s director Trevor Butterworth, who built his career defending products important to the chemical, fracking, junk food and drug industries. Butterworth is founding director of Sense About Science USA, which he merged with his former platform, Statistical Assessment Service (STATS).
Journalists have described STATs and Butterworth as key players in chemical and pharmaceutical industry product defense campaigns (see Stat News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Intercept and The Atlantic).  Monsanto documents identify Sense About Science among the “industry partner” it counted on to defend Roundup against cancer concerns.
Climate science skeptic Owen Paterson: In 2015, CAS hosted Owen Paterson, a British Conservative Party politician and well-known climate science skeptic who slashed funding for global warming mitigation efforts during his stint as UK Environment Minister. Paterson used the Cornell stage to claim that environmental groups raising concerns about GMOs “allow millions to die.” Pesticide industry groups used similar messaging 50 years ago to try to discredit Rachel Carson for raising concerns about DDT.
Lynas and Sense About Science: Lynas of CAS is also affiliated with Sense About Science as a longtime advisory board member. In 2015, Lynas partnered with climate science skeptic Owen Paterson Paterson also Sense About Science Director Tracey Brown to launch what he called the “ecomodernism movement,” a corporate-aligned, anti-regulation strain of “environmentalism.”
INDUSTRY DEFENSE IN HAWAIIIn 2016, CAS launched an affiliate group called the Hawaii Alliance for Science, which said its purpose was to “support evidence-based decision-making and agricultural innovation in the Islands.” Its messengers include:
Sarah Thompson, a former employee of Dow AgroSciences, coordinated the Hawaii Alliance for Science, which described itself as a “communications-based non-profit grassroots organization associated with the Cornell Alliance for Science.” (The website no longer appears active, but the group maintains a Facebook page.)
Social media posts from the Hawaii Alliance for Science and its coordinator Thompson have described critics of the agrichemical industry as arrogant and ignorant people, celebrated corn and soy mono-crops and defended neonicotinoid pesticides which many studies and scientists say are harming bees.
Joan Conrow, Managing Editor of CAS, writes articles on her personal website, her “Kauai Eclectic” blog and for the industry front group Genetic Literacy Project trying to discredit health professionals, community groups and politicians in Hawaii who advocate for stronger pesticide protections, and journalists who write about pesticide concerns. Conrow has accused environmental groups of tax evasion and compared a food safety group to the KKK.
Conrow has not always disclosed her Cornell affiliation. Hawaii’s Civil Beat newspaper criticized Conrow for her lack of transparency and cited her in 2016 as an example of why the paper was changing its commenting policies. Conrow “often argued the pro-GMO perspective without explicitly mentioning her occupation as a GMO sympathist,” wrote journalism professor Brett Oppegaard. “Conrow also has lost her journalistic independence (and credibility) to report fairly about GMO issues, because of the tone of her work on these issues.”
Joni Kamiya, a 2015 CAS Global Leadership Fellow argues against pesticide regulations on her website Hawaii Farmer’s Daughter, in the media and also for the industry front group Genetic Literacy Project. She is an “ambassador expert” for the agrichemical industry-funded marketing website GMO Answers. Like Conrow, Kamiya claims pesticide exposures in Hawaii aren’t a problem, and tries to discredit elected officials and “environmental extremists” who want to regulate pesticides.
STAFFERS, ADVISORSCAS describes itself as “an initiative based at Cornell University, a non-profit institution.” The group does not disclose its budget, expenditures or staff salaries, and Cornell University does not disclose any information about CAS in its tax filings.
The website lists 20 staff members, including Director Sarah Evanega, PhD, and Managing Editor Joan Conrow (it does not list Mark Lynas or other fellows who may also receive compensation). Other notable staff members listed on the website include:
Gregory Jaffe, Associate Director of Legal Affairs of CAS, is also the Director of Biotechnology for Center for Science in the Public Interest where he draws a $143,000 salary plus benefits. CSPI opposes GMO labeling and Jaffe argues that “Americans should embrace” the current crop of genetically engineered foods.Jayson Merkley, one of 10 members of the CAS training team, worked as a social media consultant for March Against Myths Against Modification, a project of the industry partner group Biofortified. For an example of misleading messaging involving Merkley, see 2016 post, Gates-funded Cornell group misfires in protest against Vandana Shiva.The CAS advisory board includes academics who regularly assist the agrichemical industry with their PR efforts.
Pamela Ronald, a geneticist at UC Davis, has ties to chemical industry front groups and PR efforts that claim to be independent; she co-founded and served on the board of Biofortified, and set up the industry-tied Genetic Literacy Project and its founder Jon Entine with a platform at UC Davis. Ronald receives industry payments for speaking engagements; see $10,000 invoice to Bayer and $3,000 invoice to Monsanto.Alison Van Eenennaam, a cooperative extension specialist at UC Davis, argues for deregulating genetically engineered animals she is developing. She is a key outside spokesperson who has worked with the agrichemical industry on various PR efforts to oppose regulations and transparency.Cornell Professor Tony Shelton was one of several professors recruited by Monsanto to write pro-GMO papers that were published by the industry front group Genetic Literacy Project with no disclosure about Monsanto’s role. Shelton created a controversy when he asked his students to taste a pesticide, ostensibly as a stunt to promote GMOs.GATES FOUNDATION CRITIQUES  ...<div>=</div>wikiScott Hamilton Kennedy (born 1965) is an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans" title="Americans" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">American</a> film director, producer, writer and editor primarily known for his work in directing documentary films. He is known for writing and directing the documentary, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden(2008_film)" title="The Garden (2008 film)" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">The Garden</a>, which was nominated for an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Documentary_Feature" title="Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature</a> for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81st_Academy_Awards" title="81st Academy Awards" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">year 2008</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Hamilton_Kennedy#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">[1]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Hamilton_Kennedy#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Hamilton_Kennedy#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">[3]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Hamilton_Kennedy#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">[4]</a><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-family: " linux="Linux" libertine="Libertine" georgia="Georgia" times="Times" serif="serif" line-height="line-height">Filmography<span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-size: small; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; font-family: sans-serif; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Hamilton_Kennedy&action=edit&section=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Filmography" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h2><ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">2002: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OT:Our_Town" title="OT: Our Town" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">OT: Our Town</a> (Director/Editor/Producer)</li><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">2003: Faking It (Director/Producer)</li><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">2006: Livin' It Up With The Bratz (Director/Editor/Writer)</li><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0.1em;">2008: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden(2008_film)" title="The Garden (2008 film)" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Garden</a> (Director/Editor/Producer/Writer)</li><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">2011: Grace & Mercy (Editor)</li><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">2012: Fame High (Director/Editor/Producer)</li><li style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0.1em;">2016: "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_Evolution&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Food Evolution (page does not exist)" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88);">Food Evolution</a>" (Director/co-editor/co-writer/co-producer)</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"> Raoul Adamchak ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Himself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Charles Benbrook Charles Benbrook ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Himself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Tamar Haspel Tamar Haspel ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Herself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Mark Lynas Mark Lynas ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Himself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Emma Naluyima Mugerwa Emma Naluyima Mugerwa ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Herself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Bill Nye Bill Nye ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Himself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Michael Pollan Michael Pollan ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Himself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Pamela Ronald Pamela Ronald ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Herself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Leena Tripathi Leena Tripathi ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Herself</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Neil deGrasse Tyson Neil deGrasse Tyson ... </li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Narrator</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Alison van Eenennaam Alison van Eenennaam [uc davis ex monsanto?!]</li></ul><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/neil-degrasse-tyson-owes-fans-more-honest-conversation-about-gmos-food-evolution" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">http://www.alternet.org/food/neil-degrasse-tyson-owes-fans-more-honest-conversation-about-gmos-food-evolution</a>deGrasse Tyson has inspired millions of people to care about science and imagine themselves as participants in the scientific process. What a hopeful sign it is to see young girls wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words, “Forget princess, I want to be an astrophysicist.”His devoted fan base, as I’ve discovered in the past few days, includes my mom, my best friend and my closest colleagues. All of them, and especially the young people who trust Tyson to lead with integrity in matters of science, deserve better than the twisted tale dished out by "Food Evolution," the new documentary film about genetically modified foods that is driving its promotion on the coattails of Tyson’s narration and kicking up controversy for its biased approach.  Already, two of the best-known experts interviewed for the film, Marion Nestle and Michael Pollan, have complained that their views were misrepresented and their comments taken out of context.My <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/food-evolution-gmo-film-serves-up-chemical-industry-agenda/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">review</a> of "Food Evolution" describes the film as a textbook case of corporate propaganda, and offers clearcut examples of how the film selectively and unfairly presents science. The review explains how a trade group, whose leadership hails from the agrichemical industry, funded "Food Evolution" as part of a multi-year messaging project and handpicked its director, Scott Hamilton Kennedy.This is an unusual scenario for a science documentary, but it wouldn’t matter if the film reported fairly and honestly about the topic it purports to objectively explore. The film does not deliver on that promise, and making matters worse, the filmmakers are facing a series of embarrassing revelations about their unfair treatment of interview subjects. Two days before the film’s official release, Nestle, a professor at New York University, <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2017/06/gmo-industry-propaganda-film-food-evolution/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">wrote a harsh review</a> about the film’s many biases, and said she has repeatedly asked the filmmakers to remove her short interview clip. “The director refuses. He believes his film is fair and balanced. I do not,” Nestle wrote. “I am <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/media/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">often interviewed</a> and hardly ever quoted incorrectly or out of context. This film is one of those rare exceptions.”She concluded of the film, “I view it as a slick piece of GMO industry propaganda. If you want a thoughtful discussion of the real issues raised by food biotechnology, you will need to look elsewhere.”Pollan, a professor at UC Berkeley who also appears in "Food Evolution" and whose name the filmmakers have been dropping in their promotional efforts, said his experience and take on the film were “<a href="https://twitter.com/michaelpollan/status/877526504909000704" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">much the same</a>” as Nestle’s, and that the filmmakers have <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelpollan/status/868179839580336128" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">misrepresented his views</a>.  Interviews with several other GMO critics who appear in the film, or were asked to be in it, corroborate the picture of a strange process involving sneaky filming, selective editing, <a href="https://twitter.com/thefoodbabe/status/877599898043949056" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">misrepresentation</a> and lack of disclosure about the film’s funding.Eric Holt-Giménez, the executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), an agroecologist with 30 years of experience in the developing world, said he spent four hours with the filmmakers discussing research from the institute’s books and trying to raise issues related to the structural aspects of hunger and how GMOs have exacerbated rural poverty and decreased environmental resilience. His interview was left out of the film entirely.Holt-Giménez said that no matter what information he provided, director Kennedy focused on the health and safety discussion and replied that he just didn't see what was wrong with GMOs. Holt-Giménez also said the filmmakers refused to answer his questions about who was funding them.Tufts researcher Timothy Wise, an agricultural development expert, withdrew his consent to be included in the film after asking repeatedly for more information about the funding.Why the evasions and deceptions? One possible explanation is that the film is not an objective investigation into the science of GMOs but rather a messaging project to advance the agenda of the agrichemical industry. The positive publicity from a pro-GMO movie—such as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/movies/food-evolution-review.html?_r=0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">shallow review</a> written by Daniel M. Gold in the New York Times—could prove useful at a crucial political moment as the seed/chemical corporations face <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">lawsuits</a> and <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2017-01-27/california-fights-monsanto-on-labels-for-popular-weed-killer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">regulatory</a> <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-2012_en.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">threats</a> and pursue <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/14/bayer-and-monsanto-merge-in-mega-deal-aimed-at-domi-worlds-food-supply/?utm_term=.cf4f378c54f9" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">mega mergers</a> to consolidate control over our food supply.As Neil deGrasse Tyson has famously said, “The good thing about science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it.” But Tyson seems to forget that history is also true, whether or not you believe in it.  It is true, whether or not we like it, that corporations such as Monsanto have a <a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/seedy-business/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">history of manipulating</a> science, academia and the media to manufacture doubt and confusion about science in order to keep regulations and public scrutiny to a minimum as they do whatever they need to do to maximize profits.Now that he is in the middle of the contentious GMO debate, Tyson owes it to his fans to broker a more honest conversation—one that involves not just the views of genetic engineers who have a financial stake in public acceptance of the technology that provides their livelihood, but also considers the broader cultural, political and scientific realities relevant to the future of our food system.A more honest conversation about GMOs would include information about the <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs12302-014-0034-1.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">complex and contradictory nature</a> of the science; the proprietary <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">controls over research</a>; the legitimate concerns about the <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">health risks of glyphosate</a> and the worsening <a href="http://www.panna.org/gmos-pesticides-profit/pesticide-treadmill" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">pesticide treadmill problem</a>.It would consider the <a href="http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">environmental</a>, <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9602e/x9602e03.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">social justice</a> and <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/falling-short-on-feeding.html#.WUw_EGMRUyE" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">economic issues</a> at stake, and the <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/the-new-scientism/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">political context</a> in which decisions about science—and big-budget movies that purport to document science—are made.As Tyson has so eloquently explained, “the cross pollination of disciplines is fundamental to truly revolutionary advances in our culture.”<a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/neil-degrasse-tyson-owes-fans-more-honest-conversation-about-gmos-food-evolution">http://www.alternet.org/food/neil-degrasse-tyson-owes-fans-more-honest-conversation-about-gmos-food-evolution</a>acsh preZ ny premier<a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/27/food-evolution-new-york-city-premiere-proof-science-reason-win-gmo-skeptics/">https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/27/food-evolution-new-york-city-premiere-proof-science-reason-win-gmo-skeptics/</a>==<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/neil-degrasse-tyson-narrates-new-doc-food-evolution-blatant-case-monsanto-corporate">http://www.alternet.org/environment/neil-degrasse-tyson-narrates-new-doc-food-evolution-blatant-case-monsanto-corporate</a>Some industry messaging efforts are so heavy-handed they end up

highlighting their own PR tactics more than the message they are trying

to convey. That's the problem with "<a href="http://foodevolutionmovie.com">Food Evolution</a>," a new documentary by Academy Award-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson.The

film, opening in theaters June 23, claims to offer an objective look at

the debate over genetically engineered foods, but with its skewed

presentation of science and data, it comes off looking more like a

textbook case of corporate propaganda for the agrichemical industry and

its GMO crops.That the film's intended purpose was to serve as an industry-messaging vehicle is no secret. "Food Evolution" was <a href="http://www.ift.org/About-Us/Our-History/FutureFood-2050.aspx">planned in 2014</a> and funded by the Institute for Food Technologists, a trade group, to culminate a multi-year messaging effort.IFT is partly funded by <a href="http://www.feedingtomorrow.org/content/our-programs">big food corporations</a>, and the group's <a href="http://news.ift.org/2014/06/21/janet-collins-reflects-on-ift-at-75/">president at the time</a> was Janet Collins, a former DuPont and Monsanto executive who <a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/croplife-america-hires-dr-janet-collins-as-senior-vice-president-of-science-and-regulatory-affairs/">now works</a> for CropLife America, the pesticide trade association. IFT's president-elect Cindy Stewart works for DuPont.IFT chose Kennedy to direct the film, but he and producer Trace Sheehan <a href="https://foodevolutionmovie.com/about/the-film/">say they had</a>

complete control over the film they describe as a fully independent

investigation into the topic of GMOs including all points of view. The

film’s credibility suffers from their choice to embrace only the

scientists who side with the chemical industry players who profit from

GMOs and the chemicals used on them, while ignoring science and data

that doesn’t fit that agenda.The 'Monsanto science treatment'The

clearest example of scientific dishonesty in "Food Evolution" is the

way the film deals with glyphosate. The weedkiller chemical is at the

heart of the GMO story, since <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx">80-90 percent of GMO crops</a> are genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate."Food Evolution" reports that the <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419">increase in glyphosate use</a>

due to GMOs is not a problem, because glyphosate is safe. Two sources

establish this claim in the film: A farmer says glyphosate has "very,

very low toxicity; lower than coffee, lower than salt," and Monsanto’s

Robb Fraley—in response to a woman in an audience who asks him about

science linking glyphosate to birth defects and cancer—tells her that’s

all just "pseudoscience."There is no mention of the carcinogenicity concerns that are engulfing Monsanto in an <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/06/02/monsanto-les-moissons-du-fiel_5137487_3244.html">international science scandal</a>, or the many farmers who are <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/">suing Monsanto</a>

alleging they got cancer from the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup

herbicide. There is no mention of the 2015 report by the World Health

Organization’s cancer agency that classified glyphosate as a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate_IARC2016.php">probable human carcinogen</a>, or <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/glyphosate">California’s decision</a> to add glyphosate to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, or the peer-reviewed studies that have linked <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0">various adverse health outcomes</a> to glyphosate and Roundup.Instead

of an objective look at the evidence, "Food Evolution" gives viewers

the full "Monsanto science treatment": Any science that raises concerns

about the possible health risks of agrichemical products should be

ignored, while studies that put those products in a favorable light is

the only science worth discussing.Double standards in science and transparencyEqual

treatment of interview subjects with different points of view would

have helped the credibility of "Food Evolution." Instead, the film

paints the GMO critics it features as dishonest or out to make a buck

off the organic industry, while leaving out key details about its

pro-industry sources.In

one scene, the film’s main character, UC Davis professor Alison van

Eenennaam, frets that appearing onstage with a Monsanto executive at a

debate could sully her independent reputation. Viewers never learn that

she used to work for Monsanto, or that she holds <a href="http://patents.justia.com/inventor/alison-van-eenennaam">several GE patents</a> which suggest a financial interest in the topic at hand.Pro-industry scientist Pamela Ronald, another key science source, gets the hero treatment with no mention that <a href="http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/">two of her studies</a> have

been retracted. Yet viewers are hammered with news that a study by

French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini—which found kidney problems and

tumors in rats fed GMO corn—was "retracted, retracted, retracted!"The film leaves out the fact that the study was <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463">subsequently republished</a>, and was retracted in the first place after a former Monsanto employee took an <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2016/07/11/la-discrete-influence-de-monsanto_4967784_1650684.html">editorial position</a> with the journal where it was originally published. The 'Africa needs GMOs' narrativeIn

another neatly spun narrative, "Food Evolution" takes viewers on an

emotional journey to the developing world, and along another favorite

industry messaging track: rather than focus on how genetic engineering

is used in our food system now—primarily to convey herbicide

tolerance—we should focus on how it might possibly be used in the

future.With plenty of airtime and dramatic tension, the

film examines the problem of banana wilt, a disease killing staple

crops in Africa, and leads viewers to believe that genetic engineering

will save the crop, the farmers and the community.Maybe.

But the film neglects to mention that the savior GE technology is not

yet available and might not even work. According to a paper in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.12170/epdf">Plant Biotechnology Journal</a>, the resistance shown in the lab is robust but may not be durable in open fields.   Meanwhile, a low-tech solution is working well and looks like it could use some investment. According to a 2012 paper in the <a href="http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379961894_Kubiriba%20et%20al.pdf">Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics</a>,

farmer field schools, which help growers acquire hands-on knowledge of

techniques to prevent banana wilt, led to lower infection rates and high

crop recovery in Uganda. Results from farmer field schools "have been

remarkable," <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/7418/icode/">according to the United Nations</a>.Yet the solution doesn’t even warrant a mention in "Food Evolution.""It's

fundamentally dishonest of the film to tout a GE solution that may not

even work, as the scientists themselves acknowledge," said Michael

Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, "while failing to point out

another way to control the problem that works very well, but doesn't

involve selling a product to make money."Did Monsanto have anything to do with 'Food Evolution'?Monsanto and allies were discussing plans for a documentary in late 2013, according to <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/movie.pdf">emails obtained</a>

by U.S. Right to Know. The emails do not contain evidence linking those

discussions to "Food Evolution," but they do establish Monsanto’s

desire for a film that sounds surprisingly similar to the one Kennedy

created.Monsanto’s Eric Sachs <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/movie.pdf">wrote in December 2013</a>

to a group of PR advisors: “There is clearly a lot of interest to

pursue a documentary film. Importantly, the consensus was the Monsanto’s

participation was welcome, particularly in the planning phase."He recommended a January 2014 planning call. Jon Entine of the <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/">Genetic Literacy Project</a>

stepped up to take the lead, and mentioned he had “gotten a personal

pledge of $100,000 from a private business person if we can get" (the

rest of the line is cut off). Entine also has a connection to the

Institute for Food Technologists; he spoke about "<a href="http://www.acsh.org/news/2012/07/23/jon-entine-on-anti-food-activism">anti-food activism</a>" at IFT’s 2012 annual meeting.Another person mentioned in the Monsanto emails, Karl Haro von Mogel—who had discussed <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/movie.pdf">with Sachs</a> "the

downsides of a film funded by the 'Big 6'" and suggested "what would

matter more than their money is their participation"—was interviewed in

"Food Evolution," and was also involved in filming one scene, which

suggests some behind the scenes coordination with the filmmakers.In reaction to the emails, Kennedy wrote <a href="https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/868489555086721025/photo/1">on Twitter</a>: "@foodevomovie has had ZERO $ or INPUT from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Monsanto?src=hash">#Monsanto</a>. We are fully transparent & happy 2 have fact-based dialogue‬."He

said in an interview, "that email exchange had absolutely nothing to do

with our project whatsoever … we hadn't even committed to making the

film with IFT at that date in 2013."The people in the

email exchange were not involved in filming or advising, he said, and

Karl Haro von Mogel "was a subject in the film and had no involvement or

influence on any creative/editorial decisions on the film at any point

in the production. Also it may be useful to point out that the email

conversation you reference occurred long before we ever even knew Karl

or any of these people."Sneak peek behind the scenesAnother email exchange obtained by <a href="https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/top-findings-of-the-u-s-right-to-know-investigations/">U.S. Right to Know</a>

offers a peek behind the scenes at the narrative development in "Food

Evolution." The exchange depicts Kennedy's search for examples to

feature for "us/developing world need GMO.""Any

other 'us/developing world need GMO' you can give me names of aside

from oranges? Shintikus lettuce?" Kennedy asked. Producer Trace Sheehan

responded with a list of GMO products including drought-tolerant rice,

allergy-free peanuts, carcinogen-free potatoes … “and then button with

Golden Rice."When Kennedy pushed for “the top GMO crops currently in use, and what countries," Mark Lynas of the <a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html">Cornell Alliance for Science</a> wrote, “Really Bt brinjal in Bangladesh is the only one that is truly GMO in and is in widespread operation."The

film's frame-driven reporting ignores that detail about the lack of

operational GMO solutions, and doesn't mention that the closer example,

vitamin-A enhanced Golden Rice, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/food/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready/">still isn’t available</a> despite huge investments and years of trials, because it doesn't work as well in the field as existing rice strains.   What is propaganda?In

a scene that is supposed to convey scientific credibility, "Food

Evolution" flashes the logo of the American Council on Science and

Health at the very moment Neil deGrasse Tyson says there is a global

consensus on the safety of GMOs. It's a fitting slip. ASCH is a <a href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/">corporate front group</a> closely aligned with Monsanto.The ACSH logo scene also appears in the background in a <a href="https://climateone.org/video/defense-food-evolution">2-minute clip</a> from a recent Climate One debate, as Kennedy pushed back against the suggestion that his film is propaganda."How

do we determine what is propaganda?" Kennedy asked. "I say one of the

ways we do it is (to ask), are results asked for, or results promised? I

was not asked for results and I did not promise results. If you have a

problem with the film, the problem lies with me."This review originally appeared in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-evolution-gmo-film-showcases-chemical-industry_us_5942b09ce4b024b7e0df49db" style="">Huffington Post</a>.Watch the trailer for "Food Evolution":==