[Scott Hamilton] Kennedy goes deep here with his answers to Salon’s questions, judiciously explaining what others might consider blasphemy. … Kennedy sure does sound reasonable and level-headed (which is reflected in the film) in the following answers. Also, check out the filmmakers’ statement regarding the IFT.
The exclusive clip below (which actually didn’t make it to the final cut of the film), in which anti-GMO scholar and activist Vandana Shiva equates writer Mark Lynas’ pro-GMO stance with being pro-rape, clearly indicates the issue has become way too muddied.
How did you maintain objectivity?
Curiosity, skepticism, seemingly endless research, and data, data, data. We tried to never take someone’s word for something, check their data and check it again. And a great rule we learned from the wonderful science journalist Tamar Haspel: Talk to the smartest people on both sides of any argument.
Is it fair to call you and the film “pro-GMO”?
I can see why some people would call the film pro-GMO, but we always saw it as pro-science, pro-data, pro-scientific method to help all of us make the best decisions we can. And the GMO controversy was just a metaphor for what can happen if people allow their ideologies to lead their decision making over using the scientific method.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Science, if used correctly, has no political affiliation: director Scott Hamilton Kennedy on the new documentary “Food Evolution”