Secret Ingredients (film)

Secret Ingredients is a feature-length documentary directed by filmmaker Amy Hart and Jeffrey M. Smith.[1] The film was released on October 18, 2018. The movie received Green Planet Award at Rhode Island International Film Festival[2][3] Award Of Excellence from Impact DOCS[4] and Impact Award at Illuminate Film Festival in the same year.[5][6]

Secret Ingredients
Secret Ingredients Poster
Directed byJeffrey M. Smith
Amy Hart
Written byJeffrey M. Smith
Amy Hart
Produced byButterflies & Bees Productions
StarringMichael L. Baum
Kathleen DiChiara
David Perlmutter
Michelle Perro
Marcia Schaeffer
Zen Honeycutt
Release date
  • 18 October 2018 (2018-10-18)
Running time
80 minutes
CountryUSA

There is a scientific consensus[7][8] [9][10] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[11][12][13][14][15] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[16][17][18] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[19][20][21][22]

No reports of ill effects from GM food have been documented in the human population.[23][24][25]

Cast


Plot and Themes

The film is developed with the central theme of how food intakes with GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) diet have affected peoples and how a change of diet, pruning out GMO foods have improved general health. The film depicts the condition of Kathleen DiChiara and her family, who have been suffering from numerous chronic illnesses and diseases. When the family adopted an organic diet, they experienced improved health conditions as a family. DiChiara, after experiencing the benefits of an organic diet, later became a functional diagnostic nutrition practitioner.[26][27][28] The documentary also narrates the personal experiences of a number of individuals other than that of DiChiara's, who have been suffering from different diseases including cancer, obesity, anxiety, brain fog, allergies, digestive problems, fatigue, skin conditions, infertility, autism, gluten sensitivity, etc. The narration explains and claims how opting for an organic diet without GMO-based foods yielded helpful consequences in their day-to-day living. The film also combines the expert opinions and views of the scientists and physicians like David Perlmutter, Anthony Samsel, etc. in the form of interviews about their personal experiences to support such claims and explanations. With the portrayal of the 'personal experiences' of different group of people suffering from severe health conditions and their consequent holistic 'benefit' from the change in food habit by eliminating GMO based products, the film essentially tries to conclude that for most of the major known illness, ailments and physical diseases that people suffer, the "duo of GMOs and Roundup" are the responsible 'ingredients' as the title 'secret ingredients' indicates.[29]

  • Michael L. Baum
  • Kathleen DiChiara
  • Stephen DiChiara
  • David Perlmutter
  • Anthony Samsel
  • Patricia Escoto
  • Elizabeth Forde-Proffitt
  • Linda Gioscia
  • Mike Gioscia
  • Todd E. Handel

Receptions

Critical Reception

The film received a range of reception including praise, for questioning the facts regarding GMO and Roundup and trying to address those. The criticism was mostly for not considering additional factors other than GMO based food products, while concluding GMO and Roundup as the sole origin for the chronic diseases. Neuropathologist Michelle Gariari stated about the film “The personal stories shared in Secret Ingredients are compelling, truly inspiring and self-empowering for anyone who seeks to heal and regain their health!”.[30][31][32][33] Raine Saunders from Agriculture Society remarked while reviewing the film "Although the many individual experiences shared in this film are heart-wrenching, its main takeaway is convincingly clear and encouraging: Consumers have the power through knowledge, buying habits, and dietary choices to make lasting, positive change – not only for their own health but for that of future generations and the planet as a whole".[34]

Tim Durham of AG Daily whose family operates Deer Run Farm, while subjectively describing the film to be one of the "anti-ag “shockumentaries”" questioned the usage and "positioning of doctors" and states "We have a motley crew of legitimate doctors working outside their area of expertise, as well as a chiropractor and naturopath". He also questioned the selection of the "duo of GMOs and Roundup" as the sole responsible agents for severe ailments.[35][36] In June 2021, Monsanto agreed to pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits filed by the individuals who suffered from usage of Monsanto's herbicide product Roundup (one of the main accused 'ingredients' of the documentary) while leaving more than 4000 lawsuits on the same ground unsettled as in March 2021.[37][38][39]

Festivals
Award/Festival Year Category Won/Screened
Rhode Island International Film Festival[40] 2018 Green Planet Award[41] Won
Impact DOCS Award[4] 2018 Award Of Excellence Won
Illuminate Film Festival[42] 2018 Impact Award[5][43] Won
Long Beach International Film Festival[44] 2018 Honorable Mention[45][46] Screened
Colorado Environmental Film Festival[47] 2018 Official Selection[48] Screened

References
  1. "Secret Ingredients - Ein Film über geheime Inhaltsstoffe • Haus des Heilens". Haus des Heilens (in German). 2019-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  2. "Rhode Island International Film Festival 2018 - Providence, RI". www.americantowns.com. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  3. "RIIFF Program Guide 2018" (PDF). Rhode Island International Film Festival.
  4. Globa347_wp. "Winners July 2018". Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  5. "Illuminate Film Festival It's a Wrap breaking records". www.filmfestivals.com. 2018-06-07. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  6. "2018 Illuminate Film Festival Awards: STAY HUMAN And THE PUSH Tie to Win Audience Award". VIMOOZ. 2018-06-07. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  7. Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D (March 2014). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. S2CID 9836802. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.
  8. "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
  9. Ronald P (May 2011). "Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).

  10. But see also:

    Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J (May 2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants". Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

    Krimsky S (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. S2CID 40855100. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

    And contrast:

    Panchin AY, Tuzhikov AI (March 2017). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. PMID 26767435. S2CID 11786594. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

    and

    Yang YT, Chen B (April 2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (6): 1851–5. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.
  11. "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 20 October 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2019. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

    Pinholster G (25 October 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  12. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research (2010). A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  13. "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved 30 August 2019. "A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.

    "Featured CSA Report, Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (I-00) Full Text". American Medical Association. Archived from the original on 10 June 2001."REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 September 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.
  14. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. 30 June 2015. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
  15. National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering; Division on Earth Life Studies; Board on Agriculture Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). p. 149. doi:10.17226/23395. ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. PMID 28230933. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
  16. "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.
  17. Haslberger AG (July 2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21 (7): 739–41. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. S2CID 2533628. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
  18. Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:

    "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 March 2020. Retrieved 30 August 2019. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
  19. Funk C, Rainie L (29 January 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 30 August 2019. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.
  20. Marris C (July 2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public?". EMBO Reports. 2 (7): 545–8. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.
  21. Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Archived from the original on 25 May 2017. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  22. Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P (May 2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–24. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. S2CID 261060.
  23. "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 September 2012.
  24. United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/10977. ISBN 978-0-309-09209-8. See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food.
  25. Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (June 2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMC 2408621. PMID 18515776.
  26. Dawson, Mackenzie (2015-06-17). "The miracle that cured my son's autism was in our kitchen". New York Post. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  27. "Could Balancing Our Gut Bacteria Be the Key to Unlocking RA?". Healthline. 2015-01-27. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  28. "Kathleen DiChiara". Secret Ingredients Movie. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  29. "Secret Ingredients That Make Us Sick With Jeffrey Smith". The Weston A. Price Foundation. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  30. "Write your subject line here. Keep it under 50 characters and add a personal touch!". responsibletechnology.salsalabs.org. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  31. "Secret Ingredients". filmsfortheplanet.com. Retrieved 2021-05-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  32. "Organic and Non-GMO is the Way to Go". Brattleboro Food Co-op. 2020-01-16. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  33. "Cheap Health Revolution, London (2021)". www.gleauty.com. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  34. "Film Review: Secret Ingredients". Price-Pottenger. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  35. "'Secret Ingredients' review: A menu of deceit". AGDAILY. 2018-11-14. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  36. "'Secret Ingredients': Expert says the latest anti-GMO 'shockumentary' is clever, provocative—and wrong". Genetic Literacy Project. 2018-11-16. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  37. "News: Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to... (The New York Times) - Behind the headlines - NLM". NCBI. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  38. Cohen, Patricia (2020-06-24). "Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  39. "Over 40,000 Roundup Lawsuit Claims Still Unresolved". Gerling Law. 2021-05-04. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  40. DiNobile, Gabriela. "FLICKERS' RHODE ISLAND INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL CELEBRATES ITS 22nd SEASON WITH OVER 290 FILMS" (PDF). Flickers' 36th Anniversary Celebration.
  41. "Rhode Island International Film Festival". FilmsWalls. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  42. "Secret Ingredients 2018 Program Lineup | ILLUMINATE Film Festival | Sedona, Arizona". illuminatefilmfestival.com. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  43. "Secret Ingredients". FilmFreeway. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  44. "Long Beach International Film Festival announces diverse 2018 line-up". Film-News.co.uk. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  45. BWW News Desk. "LONG BEACH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL 7TH Anniversary-A Great Success". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  46. "Long Beach Film Festival Raises $10,000 For Charity". Long Beach, NY Patch. 2018-08-14. Retrieved 2021-05-11.
  47. "12th Annual Colorado Environmental Film Festival" (PDF).
  48. "February | 2012 | RockyFlatsFacts.com". Retrieved 2021-05-11.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.