Food Evolution

Name: Food Evolution
Genre: Documentary
Released: June 23, 2017
Duration: 92 min
Rating: 72
Cast: Bill Nye, Charles Benbrook, Emma Naluyima Mugerwa, Karl Haro von Mogel, Kavin Senapathy

2017

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 5 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

No score yet

tbd

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

tbd	Your Score
tbd	User Score No score yet

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Food Evolution

Now Playing: Food Evolution

Movie Details & Credits

Abramorama | Release Date: June 23, 2017 | TV-PG

Starring: Bill Nye, Charles Benbrook, Emma Naluyima Mugerwa, Karl Haro von Mogel, Kavin Senapathy, Mark Lynas, Michael Pollan, Pamela Ronald, Raoul Adamchak, Tamar Haspel

Summary: Traveling from Hawaiian papaya groves, to banana farms in Uganda to the cornfields of Iowa, Food Evolution wrestles with the emotions and the evidence driving one of the most heated arguments of our time. Enlisting experts and icons of the struggle such as Mark Lynas, Alison Van Eenennaam, Jeffrey Smith, Andrew Kimbrell, Vandana Shiva,Traveling from Hawaiian papaya groves, to banana farms in Uganda to the cornfields of Iowa, Food Evolution wrestles with the emotions and the evidence driving one of the most heated arguments of our time. Enlisting experts and icons of the struggle such as Mark Lynas, Alison Van Eenennaam, Jeffrey Smith, Andrew Kimbrell, Vandana Shiva, Robert Fraley, Marion Nestle and Bill Nye, as well as farmers and scientists from around the world, this bold and necessary documentary separates the hype from the science to unravel the debate around food. While the passionate advocates on all sides of this debate agree on the need for safe, nutritious and sustainable food for the planet, their differing views over what constitutes the truth have pit them against each other, rendering the subject of food itself into an ideological battleground.… Expand

Director: Scott Hamilton Kennedy

Genre(s): Documentary

Rating: TV-PG

Runtime: 92 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Kenneth Turan

Jun 29, 2017

Persuasive rather than polemical, it's the unusual issue film that deals in counterintuitive reason rather than barely controlled hysteria. Read full review

Moira Macdonald

Jun 29, 2017

It’s a compelling argument, in a film that may well change a few minds — or at least inspire some heartfelt post-screening arguing. Read full review

John DeFore

May 10, 2017

Though it doesn't address all of their complaints, the movie makes an excellent case against those who seek blanket prohibitions against genetically modified organisms — and, maybe more importantly, against those of us who support such bans just because we assume it's the eco-conscious thing to do. Read full review

Serena Donadoni

Aug 10, 2017

Kennedy unabashedly admires scientists, and Food Evolution is his rallying cry to make advocacy as important as lab work. Read full review

Daniel M. Gold

Jun 22, 2017

With a soft tone, respectful to opponents but insistent on the data, Food Evolution posits an inconvenient truth for organic boosters to swallow: In a world desperate for safe, sustainable food, G.M.O.s may well be a force for good. Read full review

SEE ALL 5 REVIEWS

Write a Review

Negative:

User Reviews

Terra-ist

Nov 16, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Unfortunately, this documentary could really use an impartial editor. It is overly long, repetitive and self-indulgent. It came across as propaganda. It is a pity because I expect GMOs hold great promise, but I doubt this will change minds. For that to happen the benefits need to speak for themselves and be overwhelmingly better than the potential problems. I don't think GMOs have found their killer app yet, but they may be close.

Far too long was spent opposition bashing and on the safety issues. Yes they need to be safe but much more they need to be beneficial. You had to wait till near the end to really hear about the benefits. The most important application to me was the use in bananas, because bananas are typically propagated as clones at it is not possible to fight disease by conventional breeding. This was not explained. Also, it is a staple for many people. But it looked like a tiny trial which had not been tested as a crop. So it's probably not ready for prime time. The main benefit they focused on was papaya in Hawaii, but the main beneficiaries of this are the papaya growers, so this will be less persuasive to a public who may already be in conflict with industrial farming.

Another major problem with the film is that it bought into the anti-GMO movement's characterisation of GMOs as one thing. The first mention of not treating it monolithically was the Kenyan parliament saying they will examine it on a case-by-case basis - hooray! Now if the film had taken that approach it would have been more convincing. There are legitimate criticisms of the GMO industry and some of the most damning were not mentioned which seems disingenuous. People have been harmed by terminator genes and having organic crops polluted by wind pollination from GM crops 2km away, and then prosecuted for 'theft'. I was startled to hear the mosquitoes had been engineered to produce scorpion venom. Maybe that's perfectly safe but I don't know enough to be able to tell. It must be possible to cause harm through GE, so I don't see how you can make a blanket judgement that it's safe any more than you can condemn it all as unsafe.

I think that if the GE industry had taken some sensible precautions then the public backlash may have been prevented. For example, maybe germline engineering should have been embargoed for a long time (as it is in human research), or at least wind pollinated species.

I hear they are producing a short version of the film - good, I expect that will help. I think this is a great example of why you need a producer over the top of a director, or we'd all have to sit though directors' cuts.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

SEE ALL 1 REVIEWS