GMO OMG Movie Screening!

Hi! I am working with GMO Free NJ and we would like to do
a screening of the movie GMO OMG. Please let me know if you would be interested
in seeing it and any suggestions for a venue in Maplewood or the surrounding
area.

Many thanks!

Maria

I would be interested in seeing it. Not sure about location or how big you're looking to go, but maybe something like the Woman's club or the Middle School?

Would the Library be interested in hosting? Maybe you could reach out to them.

All of the above are great suggestions. I too would be very interested in seeing it and helping promote it too.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/omg-gmo-smdh

I recently watched “OMG GMO,” Jeremy Seifert’s aggressively uninformed “documentary” about the corporate duplicity and governmental callousness that he says drives the production of genetically engineered crops—which are, in his view, such barely concealed poisons that he actually dressed his children in full hazmat gear before letting them enter a field of genetically modified corn. Seifert explained his research process in an interview with Nathanael Johnson of Grist: “I didn’t really dig too deep into the scientific aspect.”

Fair enough. Normally, I would ignore anyone who would say that while publicizing his movie. But Seifert has been abetted by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the patron saint of internally inconsistent scientific assertions, and Seifert’s message of fear and illiteracy has now been placed before millions of television viewers.

Seifert asserts that the scientific verdict is still out on the safety of G.M. foods—which I guess it is, unless you consult actual scientists. He fails to do that. Instead, he claims that the World Health Organization is one of many groups that question the safety of genetically engineered products. However, the W.H.O. has been consistent in its position on G.M.O.s: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of G.M. foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” Britain’s Royal Society of Medicine was even more declarative: “Foods derived from G.M. crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than fifteen years with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health) despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries the U.S.A.” In addition to the W.H.O. and Royal Society, scientific organizations from around the world, including the European Commission and, in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences, have strongly endorsed the safety of G.M. foods. I could cite quotes from a dozen other countries. But let’s leave the overkill to Mr. Seifert.

What else can you call it when a man sends his children into a field of genetically modified corn wearing gas masks? The director has few qualms about using his kids to make a point: early in the film, we watch him at a kitchen table with his boys, who are happily eating some Breyers ice cream. Seifert asks if they like it. They reply in the affirmative. “Even if it’s genetically modified, do you still like it?” he went on. His sons, neither of whom was older than ten, looked at him like he was a loon. Then he delivered the coup de grâce. “But, years and years from now, it might hurt you.” Nobody can really argue with that assertion. As a matter of fact, next Tuesday every person who has ever consumed a genetically modified product might drop dead. I can’t say it won’t happen, because you can’t prove what doesn’t exist. You can only look at the data, something that Seifert refuses to do.

As Ferris Jabr pointed out in extremely thoughtful review in Scientific American, Seifert’s intellectual laziness is profound. “Instead of using his children like marionettes for ludicrous theatrics, Seifert could have, I don’t know, done some actual research,” Jabr wrote. If he had, Seifert would have found that the toxin Bt, which is engineered into genetically modified corn, kills certain pests but poses no harm to people—which is why organic farmers have been spraying insecticide containing the Bt bacterium on their crops for years. Seifert also missed that Bt corn is actually sprayed less than conventional corn, and that the pesticide used, glyphosate, is hundreds of times less toxic than atrazine, the chemical it largely replaces. There have been more than six hundred studies published that address the relative risk of genetically engineered products; he might have read a few. Instead, Seifert relies heavily on research published, last year, by Gilles-Eric Séralini, which has been widely denounced throughout the world for its lack of statistical rigor, poor study design, and small number of controls.

(continues at link)

So, yeah. Maybe contact the library

I saw maybe a quarter of the movie before I had to shut it off, so I can't comment on the whole thing. I am for labeling of GMO foods and avoid them when possible, but this guy actually had me saying "Give me a f*cking break."

I almost wondered if he were actually a double agent from Monsanto put out there to make the anti-GMO crowd look stupid.

Film Review: GMO OMG SRSLY? An #EpicFail in Exercising Our Right to Know

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/film-review-e2809cgmo-omge2809d-srsly-an-epicfail-in-exercising-our-right-to-know/

What quickly becomes obvious, however, is that Seifert’s naivete is a charade. He is not so much trying to develop an understanding of GMOs from scratch as searching for affirmation of preconceived concerns. Even before he talks to any scientists or farmers, Seifert suspects that GMOs are unhealthy; that they disturb “the peace of wild things;” that the government and scientists have hidden damning facts about GMOs from the public; and that, in general, we don’t know how they work or what the consequences of growing and eating them will be. Instead of seriously investigating these suspicions, he is content to parrot numerous misconceptions spread by people who fiercely oppose genetic modification. As a result, Seifert's intellectually lazy and, at times, emotionally manipulative film only detracts from the public understanding of GMOs.

Seifert concludes that the “science is still out” on genetically modified organisms. This is completely misleading. For almost 20 years, farmers around the world have grown corn, cotton, soybeans, canola and other crops that scientists and biotech companies have genetically engineered to fight off specific pests and survive a dousing of weed-killer, among other advantageous traits. Using evidence from studies conducted in the last two decades, scientists have in fact reached conclusions about the safety and dangers of GMOs—especially about how safe they are to eat. As the editors wrote in the September issue of Scientific American: “The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.” (To clarify, it is incumbent upon biotech companies to fund and conduct such tests, the results of which the FDA rigorously evaluates. If the FDA is not satisfied, they will request further testing. Selling a GMO before going through such procedures puts a manufacturer at great financial and legal risk.)

(more at link)

Or, I don't know, maybe a series of smaller intimate screenings at people's houses? Some guys here have pretty elaborate set-ups in their basements

Why not project it on the side of the post office?

seems like my job here has been done already

Well, you could have added Neil DeGrasse Tyson's clip on GMOs.

dave said:
Why not project it on the side of the post office?

The new Post house will be great for projecting big screen movies. I heard it was 60 feet tall. Of course, the current vacant building will have to suffice for the next 10 years.

dave and woot: I'm impressed. Well played.

spontaneous said:
I saw maybe a quarter of the movie before I had to shut it off, so I can't comment on the whole thing. I am for labeling of GMO foods and avoid them when possible, but this guy actually had me saying "Give me a f*cking break."
I almost wondered if he were actually a double agent from Monsanto put out there to make the anti-GMO crowd look stupid.

I have a feeling I'll have the same reaction, but I like to see what people put out there.

My question.... if Monsanto is sure that the stuff is harmless, why not allow labeling. Sooner or later, the "free market" (that's the market controlled by lobbyists) will decide and people will buy it.

Because when governments have created stigmas about GM food with labels, people begin selecting for non-GM, which contributes to an increased use of more and harsher pesticides, which must be used on non-GM crops.

"I almost wondered if he were actually a double agent from Monsanto put out there to make the anti-GMO crowd look stupid."

Worth consideration.

"Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.”

This is the thing most people--educated people, in fact--do not understand. They imagine there are "plant genes" and "pig genes" and "human genes" and "allergic substance" genes and so forth. But what there are, are arrangements and placements of G,A,T and C. Rearranging their order through breeding is no different from doing it in a lab, except that breeding is cruder and takes longer.

There is nothing we get from Trade Joe's or your local organic farmer that is not manufactured as a consequence of about 10,000 years of human interference. If someone sees fit to genetically engineer a tomato that tastes decent, I am going to buy it and feed it to my family. I don't remotely care if it's labeled GMO or not.

All that said, diversity's a good thing, so why wouldn't we want to preserve heirloom cultivars? (Seeds from this place have been available since the late 1980s: http://www.seedsofchange.com/productlanding.aspx?c=123&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Sitelink&gclid=Cj0KEQjw27etBRDA3-ux4p3c58EBEiQAkJzTABLbFcEThsnjjFcywTtPhGPaUxPQdiLyfKLcwxJuTVcaAmNG8P8HAQ.)

By all means, we should. So maybe it's the non-GMO food that needs to be labeled so that folks who want to support such efforts know what to buy.

JCSO said:

"Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.”
This is the thing most people--educated people, in fact--do not understand. They imagine there are "plant genes" and "pig genes" and "human genes" and "allergic substance" genes and so forth. But what there are, are arrangements and placements of G,A,T and C. Rearranging their order through breeding is no different from doing it in a lab, except that breeding is cruder and takes longer.

How many A, T, G', C's different is a poisonous mushroom from an edible one?

How do you test for "allergenic", when for many allergies, it's just a small percentage of the population who has them, and may react?

I have recently become allergic to some store-bought cucumbers. The ones from the store made my throat itch like crazy. When I had some from my garden, I was fine.

Guttural emotional instincts are poor conditions for policy making especially when there are facts to the contrary.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

There are hundreds and hundreds of informative articles that shred the anti-GMO crowd such as that one. I remember one in particular however, and I'll try and find it, that compared the views of those defending global warming with their same views against GMOs. The shift in mindset was astonishing. With GW there was an overabundance of reliance on science and studies and testimony--the whole lot of it. When those same folks were asked about GMOs, their responses sounded eerily similar to those in attendance at a faith-healer convention. Amazing stuff.

Fear of GMO's is just woo at this point.

Woo is harmless. Fear of GMOs in places like India brought about government foot-dragging in adopting the golden rice program and led to the deaths of thousands of children. The loss is actually calculated in life-years: 1.4 million life years.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/