Jimmy's+GM+Food+Fight

Katelyn Kelly

Annotation #10, GM crops

11/15/12

Word Count: 1481


 * Title:** Jimmy’s GM Food Fight


 * Director:** Jimmy Doherty

The main narrative of the film is given by director Jimmy Doherty, a traditional farmer in Suffolk, England. Jamie’s main concern is the shared world view that as a population we need to double our production in the next fifty years to sustain the world’s population. The main argument that he makes is that the most recent movement in technology has been geared towards genetically modified, or GM, foods and crops has been an unfair one. This film is his investigation on how the world perceives both the good and bad sides of GM crops. Jimmy makes his case by focusing on two ends of the spectrum; the first being soy bean production in Argentina and the different technologies available behind growing crops with genetically modified strands to visiting protestors in Europe that seem to be vehemently against GM crops based on information they received from the media or from prejudices of others. The first place Jimmy visits are the mass soy fields of Argentina where there has been a revolution in farming; eighty percent of soy plants produced by Argentina are now GM, which means to Jimmy that the farmers know it’s working, furthermore, this production has officially made Argentina the soy bean capital of the world. Genetically modifying soy beans in this case have been extremely helpful to farmers. In an interview with an Argentinian researcher, if you take two soy crops, one GM and one non GM, and expose them to the Argentinian atmosphere, the non-GM crop is affected by lack of pesticide and dies quicker, therefore the GM soy plant means there is less herbicide used per crop field. Now that Jimmy has affirmed his side of the argument on the pro-side for GM crops, he goes to other areas of the world to see how other people view GM crops. First, he takes to the streets and offers the population sausages cooked in GM and non GM oil. They all immediately said they would prefer the GM-free sausage because of prejudices; GM foods are practically nonexistent in UK supermarkets due to political opposition. Their main view was that if farmers hadn’t been messing around with crops genetically, then why start now. However, when Jimmy brought up the advantages of GM crops such as resistance to pesticides, their views began to change. This led Jimmy to a very interesting point; the crops we have grown up until this time have been selected by farmers based on what works and doesn’t, and none of those crops could survive outside of a farmer’s fence. This coined phrase is known as selective breeding; for example broccoli, brussel sprouts, and cauliflower are all bred from wild cabbage but were all selected based on their success in being grown by farmers. These plants would never survive in the wild without protection. He then visits a research facility where scientists are using a natural bacteria to transfer certain DNA strands to plants for a desired effect. In this particular case, Jimmy assists in making barley resistant to drought by removing the embryo from a barley seed and applying bacteria with drought-resistant gene. The embryo is then set aside and is allowed to germinate and plants began to grow with some of the embryos, these then become the test crops for GM foods. Jimmy then goes to listing the pros of GM crops such as antioxidants to prevent cancer, cardiovascular disease and then points out that even with this natural transformation, GM crops still under go huge scrutiny by the populace. Jimmy then peruses the negative side of GM crops. First, he visits Germany where protestors (local farmers and beekeepers) are aiming to remove GM crops, despite police response and protection of the crops. Due to this threat of sabotage in Europe farmers and people are afraid to plant test GM crops due to lack of acceptance of crops. Therefore it’s almost impossible to know the complete affect or success of the GM crops if the experimental crops are being pulled by protestors. Lastly, Jimmy visits the US where there is opposition to using GM crops because there is an unknown in that there is hesitation with using GM crops because of the unknown affect the crops will have on the soil and animals. For example, pollen for pesticide GM crops could transfer to a different plant that may rely on insects for their survival. This film draws on technological sustainability issues in that there is quite the opposition to GM crops when they could be real beneficial to the environment in terms of spraying fewer pesticides and herbicides and producing plants that are drought free in order to increase production. Culturally, there is an opposition to this new technology due to the farmers and scientists “messing with the genes” of crops that have been untouched but selectively bred for about the past century. Also, politically there is a substantial influence in what goes into supermarkets. For example, in the UK supermarkets, there are scarcely any GM foods due to opposition to them by the populace and therefore political opposition as well. I found it compelling that we have been using selective breeding for about a century and people are still opposed to it. Also, when Jimmy goes to visit the US, he focuses partly on the Amish farmers in Pennsylvania, where certain Amish farmers are growing GM crops. The farmer interviewed in this film states that GM crops are tools just like pesticides to stop pests, especially around horses. Thinks that people who say GM foods are a natural disaster are misinformed; if he hadn’t used GM crops he would have to use pesticides and would be harming the environment in order to save his crops from insects that hang around the horses naturally. Jimmy states he wants to see both sides but heavily focuses on the positive side of GM crops. He also swaps out the term GM crops with GM foods when talking about the opposition to GM foods, but there have been known cases of negative impacts of hormones on animals, which is considered genetic modification. The film does shed light on the rarely visited positive side of GM crops, but it also seems to be cleverly playing towards a one-sided argument. This film best addresses anyone who may be purchasing groceries or who has prejudices of misconceptions about GM crops. The film focuses mainly on the good of the GM crops and lists a variety of advantages to growing and harvesting GM crops. It would do good for the average consumer to have this film as a tool to make a wiser or more informed decision when at the grocery store. There was no attention given to GM foods, which was loosely swapped out with GM crops throughout the film. There have been known negative effects on animals and humans in regard to hormone injecting, such as the accidental creation of superhuman virus strands and extra hormones humans are exposed to through livestock. Therefore, in order for Jimmy to understand both sides of the argument fully, as he states is his intention in the beginning of the film, he should shed more light on the opposition rather than playing it off as a misinformed and misconceived side of the argument. Jimmy plays devil’s advocate with his film that is so heavily geared towards the positives of GM crops and shows protestors in Europe pulling out experimental GM crops, however this is portrayed as a very negative point of intervention. The film itself could be considered a point of intervention on the recent move to eliminate GM crops as a whole by informing the general population on the good that GM crops could do for the environment. This film intrigued me to look on what policies are in play regarding GM crops for different countries and to shed more light on the negative impacts of GM foods in humans. [|http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2236&context=bclr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dpolicies%2Bregarding%2BGM%2Bcrops%26oq%3Dpolicies%2Bregarding%2BGM%2Bcrops%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D15%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22policies%20regarding%20GM%20crops%22] []
 * Release Year:** 2008
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**
 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**