From my favorite movies..

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Blistering performances.

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.

This is honestly one of the stupidest documentaries I've seen recently.The reporter makes it very clear that he doesn't understand the difference between GMO and organic foods, which is quite worrying when he is presenting his view on GM foods. He also seems to think that if a fish eats GM soy in a fish pellet then the fish itself is genetically modified.He constantly tells us that there are no peer reviewed studies on the safety of GMO foods - although there are, in fact, over 2,000 peer reviewed studies... none of which have found any evidence that GMOs are harmful in anyway to humans.We are told that modifying crops is something we have never done before and the reporter asks a farmer what he thinks God would make of this "new" technology. Leaving aside the God aspect, modifying food is nothing new at all - humans have been doing it since the beginning of agriculture. The only thing that is new is the techniques being used.At one point we are told of a single study that claims organic farming methods can produce higher crop yields than conventional methods, despite this result being contrary to every other piece of research and despite organic not being the same as GMO.This "documentary" is very one-sided and ignores great swathes of evidence. It's said that if all the world's experts agree on a topic then a layman should probably take their word for it. In the case of GMOs health groups across the world agree that GMOs are safe to eat and safe for the environment - this documentary is simple scaremongering.

Another piece of biased rubbish that ignores the scientific evidence. Of course, it is only those who are well off that are willing to remain ignorant, without realizing how their decision will affect the poor nations and future generations. There has been NO evidence of genetically engineered crops causing harm to humans or other animals. On top of that, the only genetically engineered crops that are actually sold on the market are soybeans, corn and cottonseed oil. Why? Because science is bloody expensive. Genetic modification through guessing games of selective breeding and other techniques has been taking place for roughly the past 10,000 years, which is more of a risk that directly targeting the acquired gene through genetic engineering.Over the last twenty years, we have been able to learn how to isolate any gene from any living organism, introduce the new gene into another organism, and get it to work there, and because genes work in almost the same way in all living organisms; it is incorrect to speak of a human gene, or a fish gene etc. The gene is a human gene because it is functioning in a human cell, not because there is anything about its structure or its chemistry that is basically different; an important point that lies behind some of the current confusion. Indeed genes from different organisms may be very similar to each other; the insulin genes, for example, only differ marginally between fish and humans.Currently there are near 2000 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds. Citations to 600+ of these published studies are provided at the GENERA Database. Type GENERA in google search and when you enter the website click on "view all studies" tab at the far right. You can see which ones are independent before you automatically dismiss it with your cognitive dissonance. This isn't about you, it's about the planet.

Some Possible Spoilers Ahead. This may be the most important documentary of the century, and every citizen of the world should watch it.Reviewers who say this film spews "propaganda" are obviously hired by (or personally invested in) the biotech industry--either that, or they are sadly ignorant to the multi-million-dollar effort of companies like Monsanto to use their own propaganda to make GMOs seem normal, even invisible or unknown to Americans, despite their lack of peer-reviewed or longitudinal studies, let alone their absence of tests on humans. The admirable aspect of this documentary is that Seifert begins his investigation into GMOs with open-minded questions designed to learn the truth because he admits that he knows nothing about the subject. This is why he interviews people with contrary views and even seeks the rationale behind why GMOs are used. This approach hardly identifies a man on a mission to discover only one conclusion--one that, incidentally, would have to make him admit that he's feeding his children harmful foods. Any parent would prefer to learn that his family's food is safe.Actually, we see Seifert feed his kids GMOs as he struggles with his lack of knowledge, not wanting to deprive his children of the pleasure of ice cream or Halloween candy, for example, until he knows more information. As his research progresses and his knowledge base grows, though, he becomes increasingly uncomfortable with the POSSIBLE health risks and KNOWN environmental and economic impacts of GMOs. In the end, his film suggests that we temporarily use the precautionary principle in science, which--in this case--is that we not proceed with an altered organism, food product, or edible chemical UNTIL we know its effects. Seifert suggests that we properly study GMOs and label them in food so that consumers can make choices. This is prudent and reasonable, not fanatical.The study on the link between GMOs and cancer is alarming, and that Monsanto refused to speak to Seifert at all about GMOs implies that it isn't proud of its product and that it may have something to hide. Monsanto's silence is deafening, and the revolving doors and economic interests belied by the film are huge, revealing the biotech industry's lack of credibility for providing trustworthy information about its seeds and pesticides. OMG GMO! does a great job of letting the facts present the truth on their own. This film is disturbing and powerful, and I highly recommend it.P.S. Another reviewer on here mocks when Seifert says that the GMO-laden food is making his kids violent, but um, that moment in the film was a joke. The reviewer seems to have missed the humor.