Stephan Neidenbach
Jul 13, 2017 · 3 min read

A Berkeley University PHD candidate wrote a widely publicized letter attacking the science documentary Food Evolution last month (signed by more than 40 other academics) at the behest of the very groups exposed in the film, without disclosing her connection, emails released on show.

These groups (Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, Small Planet Institute, and Friends of the Earth) all collaborated with Maywa Montenegro on the drafting of this letter and promoting its dissemination afterwards. These organizations share close ties with the organic industry (according to both Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s) with a vested interest in the continued demonization of biotech crops.

The film had been previewed by members of the Pesticide Action Network in preparation for a panel debate, but Maywa Montenegro appears to not have seen the movie herself.

One Berkeley professor who signed the letter, Miguel Altieri (one of the few to have seen the film), makes it clear in an email that his intent is to silence any information that does not fit the anti-GMO narrative.

Maya the question is not more conversations and clarifications about GMOs….. The issue is to take a more radical position like Via Campesina , SOCLA and others of total rejection of the technology….

Another, University Vermont Professor Ernesto Mendez, imagines a 100% independently developed transgenic crop resistant to drought conditions. He insinuates that such a crop should not be developed in case “powerful corporate interests” appropriated the technology.

UC Davis Professor Alison Van Eenennaam appeared at length in the film and was disappointed in the letter. She described it in a blog post as “the actual definition of confirmation bias”.

As academics, shouldn’t you see/analyze something before you offer a detailed critique? I have not yet seen your movie but I offer the following criticisms…..

Molecular Biology Professor Kevin Folta from the University of Florida is concerned about how the letter makes his academic colleagues look.

As a university administrator, I really have to question the judgment of these folks. Would you sign your name to a public document that says climate change is a hoax? Would you sign your name to a public document that says vaccines cause autism? Here they are trashing a technology that the National Academies clearly states has more benefit than risk by far, is not harmful to health and has important, manageable environmental impacts we need to address.

The majority of academics appear to be aware that the letter in question was co-authored by these activist groups as the email from the Pesticide Action Network was shared on many of the email listservs they are a part of. None have shared public concern over the incorrect promotion of the letter being authored solely by a Berkeley PHD candidate.

They were, however, warned by Carnegie Mellon Professor John Soluri about being “intellectually lazy and strategically silly” for not having evaluated the film by actually watching it.

Neither Ms. Montenegro, nor the Pesticide Action Network, have responded to my request for comment.

Please hit the heart and help others on Medium discover this!

For more on Food Evolution read Why the documentary “Food Evolution” speaks to science moms

I don’t get paid to write, but if you would like to support my classroom you can donate here:

The Method

Promoting sustainable technology and exposing those who demonize it.

Stephan Neidenbach

Written by

Middle School Teacher, Father, Blogger &Twitter @welovegv. Email: COI Statement —

The Method

Promoting sustainable technology and exposing those who demonize it.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade