The documentary film Food Evolution provides a fresh,
scientific look at the technology of crop genetic engineering and some
situations it has, or could, help solve problems for farmers.  It shows the ugly politics and distortions
that have maligned a useful technology that has served farmers well for twenty
years, worldwide.

Response to the film has been quite polarized.  Many that have seen it report an even-handed science-based evaluation of a technology. 
Still others, including some prominent academics, claim the film is
simply propaganda, paid for by the “agrichemical industry”, and serving
corporate interests.

A letter was posted last week, signed by 45 scholars and
researchers denouncing the work as “a piece of propaganda”.  The list includes prominent journalist
Michael Pollan, and similar sentiments have been stated by Dr. Marion Nestle of
New York University.

This is a very important accusation.  The film itself features academics like Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam, Dr. Pam Ronald, Dr. Dennis Gonsalves, among others.  So to describe the movie as “propaganda”
suggests that these researchers are being dishonest or were manipulated into
statements that are untrue. 

So this question must be presented: Is this film a true reflection of a technology and its
applications in a charged climate, or is it misleading propaganda as the letter's signatories state?

I do not want to out-of-hand dismiss the concerns of
forty-five scholars.  Certainly we should
listen to why they feel this film is propaganda. Maybe they see something I have
missed.

I invite any of the forty five scholars signing the letter,
Dr. Nestle, or other activist dissenters like Stacy Malkan to join me on the
Talking Biotech Podcast.  My hope is that
they can reveal to a science-interested audience the factual errors and
scientific inaccuracies shown in the film. 
My honest intent is to understand why this film is being criticized as propaganda,
whereas other films presenting information inconsistent with the scientific literature like Food Inc, GMO OMG, and others
did not raise their ire—apparently these were accepted as good representations
of science and technology and not propaganda.

Invitations will go out today, and in the interest of fair
and balanced discussion we will understand their criticisms that led them to
the conclusion of “propaganda”.  

As someone that has seen and appreciated the film, I really want to know if I'm just in an echo chamber, and am missing something important. 

Maybe they will illuminate where the film and the scientists
are being dishonest in the name of placating agrichemical industry
sponsors. 

Or maybe they will realize the tactical mistake of signing a strong conclusion that criticizes something that have not seen or perhaps do not understand, and impugns the integrity of scientists that participated in telling the film's scientific story. 

In the latter case there is irony.  Is it possible that a letter signed by forty-five scholars
about a scientific film is the real propaganda?  

Stay tuned.