Secret Ingredients
An Advocacy and Story-Driven Approach
Secret Ingredients follows the story of a mother, Kathleen DiChiara, who—after her family experienced numerous chronic health conditions—began investigating what she came to call the “secret ingredients” in food. Her inquiry centered primarily on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and pesticides such as Roundup (glyphosate), and whether their presence in the modern food system might be contributing to unexplained health struggles.
The film documents this personal journey while widening the lens to include other families, clinicians, and experts who share similar concerns. Through personal testimonies and expert commentary, Secret Ingredients argues that eliminating GMOs and certain herbicides from the diet may lead to significant health improvements for some individuals facing chronic conditions.
This approach is intentional.
Secret Ingredients is not a laboratory study or a regulatory review. It is a documentary rooted in lived experience. Advocacy in documentary storytelling does not mean disregarding science; it means exploring whether prevailing systems deserve deeper scrutiny. It means amplifying voices that feel unheard. It means asking difficult questions about the relationship between food production, environmental exposure, and chronic disease.
Rather than presenting a detached or strictly neutral stance, the film acknowledges its positioned viewpoint. It invites viewers into a community of families who made dietary changes and experienced shifts in their health. The film questions conventional assumptions about agricultural chemicals and long-term exposure and by doing so, it is transparent about its lens This is a story told from within the search for answers.
Personal testimony plays a central role. Anecdotal evidence is often debated in scientific discourse, but in documentary storytelling it serves a different purpose. Stories build empathy. In this case, they translate complex agricultural and regulatory discussions into lived reality and illuminate patterns that may warrant further investigation. While individual experiences do not replace scientific consensus, they can surface questions that data alone may not fully capture.
Secret Ingredients does not claim to be the final word on complex debates surrounding GMOs or glyphosate. Instead, it contributes to a broader public conversation about transparency, food systems, environmental exposures, and personal agency in health decisions.
Documentaries have long shaped cultural dialogue by raising questions that invite deeper inquiry. In that tradition, Secret Ingredients encourages its audience to think critically, engage respectfully, and reflect on how the food system intersects with family health.
Why We Created a 30-Minute Version of Secret Ingredients
The original 80-minute feature documentary, completed in 2018, explores how certain GMOs and pesticides—particularly glyphosate—might be linked to a wide range of health concerns. The film was released at a pivotal moment in public dialogue: the same year Bayer acquired Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, while more than 177,000 lawsuits related to glyphosate exposure had been filed. Monsanto later paid $2.1 billion in damages in a case connecting a plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to glyphosate exposure.
The film received national recognition, including the Green Planet Award at the Rhode Island International Film Festival, and reached a worldwide audience, sparking meaningful conversations about food systems, environmental exposure, and regulatory oversight.
From the outset, our goal was not to offer a definitive scientific conclusion, but to raise questions about transparency, accountability, and how large-scale agricultural systems intersect with individual health experiences. I recognize that the broader scientific community does not currently consider glyphosate or approved GMOs to be direct drivers of the full spectrum of illnesses explored in the film. At the same time, scientific understanding evolves—and it depends on independence, disclosure, and ethical rigor.
Recently, a widely cited study claiming glyphosate was safe for human health was formally retracted after the journal determined there were “serious ethical concerns,” including undisclosed involvement by Monsanto scientists in shaping the paper. This development underscores a larger systems issue: when corporate influence intersects with research, it raises legitimate concerns about conflict of interest and regulatory capture. Trust in science depends not only on data, but on transparency.
There remains a body of research examining potential links between glyphosate exposure and cancer across multiple studies. In complex environmental health questions, the precautionary principle—acting thoughtfully in the face of uncertainty—deserves consideration, particularly when exposures are widespread and long-term.
One of the most common responses I received from other mothers in our live audiences was, “That’s our story too.” This speaks to something larger than anecdote; it reflects patterns—shared experiences that raise systemic questions about food production, chemical oversight, and consumer awareness.
In the years following its release, however, I became aware that the film was being used by others as a marketing tool to promote supplements and products—uses that were never part of our agreement or intent. This commercialization conflicted with the ethical foundation of the project.
While I cannot control how others act, I can exercise stewardship over how our story is shared. For that reason, I partnered with award-winning film producer Amy Hart to create a 30-minute version of Secret Ingredients. This short film protects the integrity of the work and ensures it remains an educational and advocacy-driven resource—not a vehicle for commercial promotion, predatory behavior, or misinformation.
The 30-minute version allows the conversation to continue while reinforcing the principles that guided the film from the beginning: transparency, accountability, and responsible storytelling within complex systems.
News Update: Glyphosate Safety Study Retracted
On January 8, 2026, a prominent scientific journal formally retracted a widely cited study that had concluded glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—was safe for human health. The retraction followed concerns raised by independent scientists urging the journal to re-examine the paper. After review, the editor in chief cited “serious ethical concerns,” including the discovery that Monsanto scientists played a significant role in developing and influencing the study without appropriate transparency.
The decision renews ongoing public and scientific debate surrounding glyphosate exposure. While regulatory agencies continue to assess risk, substantial research examining potential links between glyphosate and cancer remains part of the broader scientific literature. The retraction highlights the importance of transparency, independent oversight, and rigorous ethical standards in research that informs public health policy.
This development reflects the broader questions explored in Secret Ingredients about transparency in food systems and the evolving science surrounding chemical exposure and human health.
