The gmo debate has been raging since the first genetically modified product hit the shelves, with proponents and opponents screaming and frothing at the mouth to each other in a wonderful display of adult behavior. The first genetically modified crop to be sold was the Flavr Savr tomato back in 1994 that kept tomatoes ripe for longer, which was soon after taken off the market due to customers disliking the taste.


The opponents of GMO's claim that genetically modifying an organism is dangerous, can harm humans in the long run and are often seen as a forced science experiment on unsuspecting people.

Many believe that GMO's will alter your DNA as well, increasing the risk for cancer growth. On the other hand, proponents believe that the fears are unfounded, and that genetic modification is a tool for good that can be beneficial to future generations.

The Documentary

That said, the newest documentary out now on the topic, Food Evolution, looks at GMO's from a different viewpoint than most other documentaries. The documentary is directed by Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson Their rational and science-backed approach has gotten many to attack the documentary in numerous ways. After one screening of the documentary in UC Berkeley, a list of 45 researchers and scholars denounced the work as "a work of propaganda." Other scientists, such as Keven Folta, has

Other scientists, such as land-grant scientist Keven Folta, has tried to invite the researchers and scholars listed for a talk, to see if they would like to discuss their reasoning, and none have yet to come forward.

Folta is currently looking to make a counter-letter of scholars defending the film against the claim.

Several reviews of the documentary are out now, with people from both sides having their say. The New York Times describes the documentary as "With a soft tone, respectful to opponents but insistent on the data, “Food Evolution” posits an inconvenient truth," while others claim "The film purports to offer an ‘objective analysis.’ It manufactures scientific consensus where no such agreement exists.

And it naturalizes the knowledge it conveys as common sense."

The film itself shows both sides of the story, although it does refute many of the arguments brought up by prominent GMO opponents. The film will be a good balance in the otherwise wide sea of anti-GMO documentaries.