ddmgmgh
Contrary to some earlier reviews GMO OMG was not bad at all, I quite enjoyed most of it. It is done in a narrated home movie style featuring a father and his family. This style makes it much more appealing to younger viewers.The very pro gmo big agribusiness supports may not enjoy the questioning tone of this movie, as massive profits are hinging upon public perceptions of their chemicals and genetically altered food products are at stake.The premise for the film is a fathers concern that he is doing everything in his power to keep his kids safe and healthy as he learns about how little we question what we eat. I think it speaks volumes toward the fact that most of us have lost touch with where and how we produce our food. His self education process appears credible. There are things that could have been more polished, but I think he preferred the one take credibility as opposed to more staging and scripting.He gives us a picture of the striking difference in public concerns for food production between North America and many places around the planet by traveling to and interviewing people in the business of farming and food safety. One chemical company turfs him off their property rather than say one word about their products.Quote for one scene:"It is ultimately not being about GMOs or big industrial agriculture and chemicals. It is about being for what is good and healthy and right for the planet." "We are finally beginning to wake up and become part of a food movement happening around the world". This movie is a good starting place for families interested in what we are eating and how it is grown.
Steve Pulaski
Jeremy Seifert's documentary GMO OMG has a strong approach to its subject matter, stringing along a thesis of a father's concern for the health and wellbeing of his two young children. Seifert explains his son's love for collecting seeds and his fascination that something so big and impacting on a person's life emerges from something so tiny. Seifert then states how he went on to learn about genetically- modified organisms (GMOs), which are manipulations to agriculture in order to increase the longevity and sustainability of crops. Immediately, he breaks down the information to two key types of GMOs, which are "pesticide producers" and "herbicide resistors." The former occurs when a crop is injected with a special chemical that allows it to produce a toxin to kill off invasive insects, while the former occurs when a crop is made immune to weed killer, allowing it to be entirely submerged in widely-distributed fertilizer and still remain unharmed.This prompts concern for Seifert as a father and, well, a consumer, as he begins to question the contents of everything he is eating. Because the presence and use of GMOs need not be labeled on food in America, it brings question as to whether or not the common phrase of "all natural" holds any leverage. On top of that, what are the effects of GMOs on the human body in the long run? If they are safe and harmless, what's the issue in labeling them? Have we all become involuntary participants in a large, global experiment at the expense of humongous seed corporations?Such questions are either directly or indirectly peddled by the documentary, and its big point of attack goes in the direction of Monsanto, one of the largest seed/chemical manufacturers in the world. Monsanto kickstarts a lot of farms and agriculture by forcing farmers to trade their natural seeds in order to use the exclusive Monsanto seeds. The company made headlines following the devastating earthquake in Haiti, when it sent over four-hundred tons of seeds to their community, gifting the seeds and allowing them to use them only if the country agreed to stop using their own natural seed. The Haitian community saw this as a backhanded attempt at kindness, as the natural seed holds immense importance in the country, and Monsanto's genetically-modified seed seemed far less attractive.Seifert persists on to show the impact of Monsanto, through colorful, legible graphs, along with batting off startling statistics. For one, eighty perfect of all processed foods contain GMOs, with eight-five and ninety-one percent of corn and soy being genetically-modified as well. About one-hundred and sixty-five acres in the United States contain genetically-modified crops with about four-hundred and twenty acres housing them all over the world. One of the most alarming things presented in the film is how farms with non-GMO crops are affected negatively by those bearing GMOs. When crops are injected with special chemicals, they shed or bear the chemicals, and when the wind blows, spread the chemicals to other locations. Non-GMO farms in close proximity with GMO farms are often affected by the latter's unintentional spread of chemicals, allowing tests for the quality of the crops to become skewed, which are then met with repercussions from Monsanto's legal team.Seifert presents all of this to us in a way that, while sometimes too hardened on statistical data, is digestible and easy to follow, especially given the fact that, judging to the beginning of the film, few know what GMOs are and where they can be found. Whether you support the use of genetically-modified organisms and see no harm in it, or find they're an abhorrent route for mankind to make an attempt to "play God," as Seifert bills it in the film, I don't see a harm in wanting to know the health effects of something found in an overwhelming majority of the foods we eat. This is part of the reason I enjoy Seifert's approach to the subject matter, as it forms a thoughtful outline and conversation.What I didn't enjoy, however, was Seifert's rapid descent into negativity over GMOs, which seemed to happen all too quickly. From the beginning, we see a concerned father wanting to get to the bottom of what's in his food. By the half hour mark, we can see Seifert has clearly taken the pathway to being against the use of GMOs, which is fine if the film had started out by taking that stance rather than trying to travel down the middle of the road. Once Seifert starts digging into the potential harms of GMOs, he never revisits or adheres to what one thought he would in the beginning of the film, which is a fair analysis of both sides. In an age where prolific fact-checking has made every documentary at least questionably authentic, GMO OMG would've benefited from an equal examination not only for intellectual purposes but for consistency purposes as well.Yet, it's sophomoric to dismiss GMO OMG has a film with no substance or thought-provoking questions whatsoever. Seifert gets almost philosophical and contemplative when he talks about the pervasive patenting and trademarking of seeds and wildlife that is occurring with big seed corporations like Monsanto, Du Point, and Syngenta, saying these companies are in a "race to own the building blocks of life." He questions the ethical behavior of corporations - in a way that's very popular right now - about their evasive ways to avoid questioning on the GMOs used in their products in a way that would lead any reasonable person to assume there is something to hide. The only detractor to GMO OMG is that Seifert picks a side far too easily and, in turn, compromises hope for a mostly-unbiased analysis.Directed by: Jeremy Seifert.
Samantha Gan
This is the stupidest "documentary" I've ever seen. How exactly do interviews with 3 year old kids and long montages of said kids running around contribute to a rational discussion of the GMO debate? He at no point presents any useful information one way or the other. All he does is interview non-experts who provide their opinions on the matter - opinions that are not necessarily based on any facts. Only one scientific study was presented, from a paper that was later retracted due to widespread criticism from the community. The director indicates that all of the scientists who criticised the paper were somehow linked with the biotech industry, but this would not be enough to force the journal to retract the paper. There had to have been enough independent critics for the journal to have taken it seriously. If you look up Prof Seralini, he is a highly controversial figure in the scientific community. Why were no other scientists interviewed? Could it be that the director only wanted to interview people who supported his point of view?This is basically just a bunch of ignorant, ill-informed, anti-science scaremongering and it makes me disgusted to think that there might be people out there who actually think this is a valid presentation of the GMO debate.
ruenobel
The concerning aspect of genetically modified organisms in food is examined in this surprisingly sweet documentary. Pesticides, herbicides and frankenfoods are unpleasant subjects, but this film softens the blow of bad news about what we eat by using the narrative thread of a father out to find answers about what's in the food he feeds his kids. It was news to me that countries as non-citizen-loving as Russia and China require labeling on GMO food products, while the US does not. With anti-Monsanto marches happening around the country, this film provides a good capsule of information about the GMO issue. The dry science is offset by a range of easy-on-the-eye locations such as Haiti, Norway and France.
