Truth in advertising?

Monsanto targets public radio to spread false biotech messages 30

Editor’s note: This post originally focused on NPR; but we’ve since found that the Monsanto ads run on Marketplace, produced by American Public Media, which isn’t directly affiliated with NPR. We regret the confusion.

————————

monsanto adMonsanto’s ad blitzFor years my alarm has been set to pubic radio so I can lie in bed for five minutes and have a grasp on the day’s news before I even get up. I, like many other Americans, rely on NPR and other public-radio shows for news that is what I deem to be as unbiased and fair as possible. But this morning my ears burned as I listened to an on the American Public Media show Marketplace sponsored by Monsanto, the world’s largest corporate agribusiness chemical firm, touting how its genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. It left me wondering, particularly in tough economic times, how do media ethics hold up? (The GMO seed giant has been bombarding liberal-minded publications with similar propaganda, see image to the right, for months.)

The Monsanto ads are quite simply false. The premise of the ad is more or less that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. All while the corporation made more than 11 billion dollars in 2008 amidst a world food crisis. The catch phrase, “Produce more, conserve more” even has its own website, which conveniently links directly to Monsanto’s website section on “sustainable agriculture”. But the reality of Monsanto’s seeds and the company’s ethics and commitment to fighting world hunger have nothing to do with producing more or conserving more.

 Let’s get a few facts on the table. Eighty-five percent of all GM seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance. Most of these crops are Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. What this tolerance means is that the plant can actually withstand significant amounts of pesticides being sprayed on it—in effect promoting pesticide use. In the past farmers were motivated to spray judiciously since their crops could be adversely affected. Farmers growing GM seeds don’t worry about this, and as a result there has been an increase in pesticide use in the United States since the introduction of GM seeds. The most comprehensive independent research done utilizing USDA data demonstrates that since the introduction of GM crops in the United States, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides were used. This seems to be a growing trend as well, as the active ingredient in Roundup Ready crops—glyphosate—s becoming less efficient and creating scores of resistant weeds, resulting in increased use.

 

In 2008 Monsanto’s total sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides was more than $4 billion—up 59 percent from 2007. Perhaps more importantly, its gross profit from such sales was nearly 2 billion dollars- up 131% from 2007. So, what is Monsanto conserving more of? Certainly not biodiversity, human health, wildlife, pollinators or the soil, which are all adversely affected by pesticide use.

 The claims of “producing more” that Monsanto touts in the NPR ads are also completely unfounded. Not a single GM crop has been commercially introduced that is intended to increase yield. Agronomists and plant scientists made far greater advances in yields through conventional breeding methods in the 20th century than they ever have with GM crops. In fact, there have been several studies which show that there are actually yield losses associated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans. What biotech companies have been effective at doing is crafting media messages that persuade the average person to believe that their crops increase yield and that without GM crops we simply couldn’t feed the world.

In fact, GM crops account for less than 3% of total agricultural acreage globally. Five countries in North and South America account for more than 90% of total global acreage, with the United States, Argentina and Brazil making up 80% of total global GM crop acreage. In Africa, only two countries-South Africa and Burkina Faso-allow the commercial planting of GM crops, which are minimally grown. Less than 3% of the cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, and in India most of that is cotton- not food. This leads me to my next point- four cash crops- soy, maize, cotton and canola make up almost 100% of GM crops planted worldwide. Of these commodity crops, most are used to make biofuels, processed foods, animal feed, and vegetable oils-they are not fed directly to people in their whole form. The bottom line? GM crops are not feeding the world, and they are not enabling us to produce more.

 Perhaps the most important consideration for Monsanto’s ads on Marketplace is the unethical implications behind their words. They want us to believe their crops are feeding hungry children in Africa and that they are allowing farmers to use fewer chemicals. But their actions demonstrate that their concern lies otherwise- in their profits. In 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) a global group of scientists, NGOs, private sector officials, and country governments initiated by the World Bank and the United Nations released its long awaited report, “Agriculture at a Crossroads”. The report painted a grim picture for food security and described the harsh reality of the challenges that agriculture and food systems must overcome to ensure food security in the future. What made the IAASTD report so groundbreaking was its unprecedented questioning of the role of GM crops to aid in food security and environmental improvement. IAASTD authors paraphrased the conclusions of the report in Science stating, “The assessment found GM crops appropriate in some contexts, unpromising in others, and unproven in many more. No conclusive evidence was found that GM crops have so far offered solutions to the broader socioeconomic dilemmas faced by developing countries.”

This was certainly not the golden ticket for GM crops that Monsanto hoped for from the IAASTD. So, what did they do? They bailed. The failure of biotech corporations to influence the IAASTD led Monsanto and Syngenta to withdraw from meetings and collaboration just a few months before the final release of their report. According to the journal Nature, which published a story on the issue titled “Deserting the Hungry?”, such actions resulted after drafts devoted more space to biotechnology’s risk than its benefits and failed to recognize that GM crops produced higher yields. In a year with unprecedented world hunger, Monsanto pulled out of the most comprehensive international attempts to examine the problems and solutions of the situation. And, they made 11 billion dollars the same year, mostly from their Roundup chemicals and biotech seeds-both which they increased in price at the height of a global food crisis. So, producing more and conserving more, or deserting the hungry?

I encourage American Public Media and all other news media services to think about their principles, ethics, and mission statements and consider applying these principles to the ads they are running.

 

Meredith Niles is coordinator of the Cool Foods campaign at the Center for Food Safety. The Cool Foods Campaign is a national public advocacy, education and policy campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our food and agriculture systems. The Campaign is working with a variety of organizations, businesses, schools, restaurants, city councils and individuals to help reduce “foodprints”. The Campaign is also working on climate change and agriculture policies that will promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial agriculture in our food system, and reward small-scale sustainable farmers for their positive contribution to climate change mitigation.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 8:57 am
    13 May 2009

    Meredith, this is a fantastic debunking of Monsanto's message. But the fact is that public radio and television have a long history of partnering with the corporate "bad guys" for funding. Historically, the biggest funders of public broadcasting have been the tobacco and oil companies.  They were motivated not by altruism, of course, but by a need to burnish their public image and to get out a more positive message. Obviously, Monsanto is no different. I should also point out that that other enemy of sustainability, ADM -- or as they refer to themselves in their NPR ID "supermarket to the world" -- has been a longtime sponsor of NPR's Morning Edition. Sadly, these companies have teams of lawyers vetting every word of their marketing claptrap to ensure the total unproveability of any claims they may make. In the end, especially when times are tight, public broadcasters will take the sponsers they have, not the sponsors they want or the sponsors they should have had.

    Permalink

  2. elizahleigh Posted 1:28 pm
    13 May 2009

    Hi Meredith,I really appreciate your thorough reporting on this agri-giant and honestly never would have had an opinion on the matter were it not for several informative eco-minded people that I engage with on www.greenwala.com. We literally had a discussion on this very topic just days ago and all of us are hungry for more clarification, so I will post a link to your article. Thanks so much.Is it stretching to say that Monsanto's perpetual use of GMO crops and liberal pesticide spraying is practically ensuring that citizens' personal efforts to live a more green lifestyle will always be trumped? I do not understand how they are not held accountable for their crimes against nature, wildlife species and man. If you can offer any feedback whatsoever (or join in on the chat that I've been having with community members at Greenwala), I'd TRULY appreciate it. We really need an expert like yourself to give it to us straight!  Please click here to view the dialogue we've exchanged so far.Thanks in advance for your assistance!
    Elizah Leigh 

    Permalink

    1. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 7:29 am
      14 May 2009

      Hi Eliza,Thanks for joining the conversation and I will be sure to check out the other conversation. You bring up some very good points- how do citizens avoid GMO crops if it is a system we have decided that we do not want to participate in? Whether your issue with GMO crops is about pesticide use, seed sovereignty and ownership, corporate control, or farmer rights, there are many reasons for people to avoid such products. Unfortunately in the United States we have not been given the "right to know". Unlike other countries including most in the European Union, Asia and most recently, South Africa, we do not label foods that contain GMO products. This makes it incredibly difficult for most consumers who want to avoid such products to do so.
      Fortunately there are many ways to be smart about GMOs and do your best to avoid them. First of all, the Center for Food Safety publishes a GMO shoppers guide which details the companies and products that do and do not contain GMOs. Second, organically certified products are not allowed to contain GMO products, although there are certainly issues with cross contamination in fields (very hard to control nature once the crops are out there!). Lastly, you can understand what big crops are cultivated in the U.S. that are likely GMO and avoid those products. In the United States four crops--corn, soy, cotton, and canola, are almost the entire market of GMO crops and seeds. So, most of these products wind up in our food through processed and packaged foods- i.e. high fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, canola oil, soybean oil, etc. As a result, it is estimated that 70% of all packaged foods in the grocery store contain GMOs. So, if you eat packaged foods, buy organic. But, fortunately conventional produce items for the most part with the exception of papaya are not GMO. So shop for the fresh stuff liberally.If you really want to be green about your food and you care about not buying GMO, then support organic and local and ask questions. More importantly, get politically active. Obama has publicly stated he would support a label for GMO foods. And, polls show that if GMO foods were labeled in the U.S. an overwhelming majority of people wouldnt buy them. So, sign up for our action alerts on our website at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org and be informed about bills that may be coming up that you can try to support to them. Kucinich introduces bills almost every year for labeling.Feel free to contact me if you have any more questions.

      Permalink

  3. shaun haney Posted 8:11 pm
    13 May 2009

    You need to do a better job of checking your facts.  With the evolution of herbicide tolerant traits farmers are actually using less herbicides than with conventional traits.  Conventional canola requires a multitude of passes of different herbicides to adequately achieve weed control so that yield is not affected.  Glyphosate tolerant (GT) canola requires one pass of glyphosate to achieve that same control.   As a retailer of conventional and GT trait canola and corn varieties I can tell you farmers demand the GT traits.  Farmers view GT traits as superior to conventional varieties in terms of yield and weed control.  It is quite easy to argue that GT traits are better for the environment because they have reduced the amount of herbicide applied to soybeans, canola , and corn.  Please do a better job of checking your facts and not run on assumptions to sensationalize your agenda.  Thanks.  Shaun Haney  http://www.realagriculture.com

    Permalink

    1. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 7:18 am
      14 May 2009

      Shaun,Thanks for your comments and your contribution to the conversation. I can assure you that I do check my facts and the Center for Food Safety, as well as myself, prides itself on issuing reports, fact sheets and writings that are based on peer-reviewed science and government data- NOT the industry statistics reflected in the ISAAA. The Center for Food Safety is an organization with a reputation for doing so, and I believe you will realize that if you take a closer look at our website and our research. One of the great problems that we have with being accurate about the data on pesticide use associated with GMO crops is that in many cases there simply is not data available. For years the USDA has had a program on chemical usage where it has outlined the types of pesticides used within the United States and not only the amount of pesticides sprayed but the intensity at which they are sprayed- a crucial point as we begin to see resistant weeds.
      Unfortunately, the chemical usage reporting program was not funded last year meaning that there are only industry statistics to rely on, which often do not sample a large size of people or target certain areas. But we just received word that the new budget does reinstate the program- something we should truly thank the Obama administration for. However, I would encourage you to look at several reports that do not utilize the industry's data published in the ISAAA reports, but instead uses USDA data. The first is a report by Dr. Chuck Benbrook, the former head of the National Academy of Sciences Agriculture Division. Dr. Benbrook has a Ph.D. and has done exhaustive research in this area. He has published his analysis at:http://www.biotechinfo.net/technicalpaper7.html As well, Weed Science has published an excellent piece detailing the number of resistant weeds that have sprung up in the past few years as a result of glyphosate crops- now more than 20 states report real and difficult problems with glyphosate resistant weeds. This piece is available at: http://www.biotechinfo.net/technicalpaper7.html.Furthermore, our own analysis, which were presented at the USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture in 2007, show an increase in the intensity of herbicides being used since the introduction of GMO crops. Utilizing the USDA data from the chemical usage program, we found that there was a 2.5 fold increase in pounds per acre used on Roundup Ready soybeans in the United States between 1994 and 2006. This document and others which very extensively detail our data and other scientific support are available on our website. The United States Climate Change Science Program has further noted in their assessment report that glyphosate will lose its efficacy in the face of climate change impacts, and as such could result in increased pesticide use.
      Furthermore, there is evidence in the United States that actually farmers are turning away from GMO crops, who have used them in the past. This is especially true for soybeans in the Southeast of the United States and there have been several articles written on the topic.I'd also like to not detract from the broader message of my piece which is truly the ethics of the company and their message vs. their reality. I am actually very surprised that farmers throughout the United States and Canada who are growing GMO crops were not outraged at the significant increase in cost of both roundup and the seeds marketed by Monsanto at the height of a food crisis, when the company made record profits. This is an issue of a corporation exploiting the farmers and the people who use their products at a time when none of us can afford to be taken advantage of.

      Permalink

    2. Erik Hoffner's avatar

      Erik Hoffner Posted 7:31 am
      14 May 2009

      Thanks, Meredith, that's been annoying me too, including the little top of the hour underwriting announcements about how green Monsanto's biotech crops are. Even tho I hardly listen to NPR, I invariably hear these spots lately when I tune in.Shaun, your beliefs can't be borne out in fact. It's understandable that as a retailer of such products you want to believe it's a better product. But Roundup Ready (RR) crops are leading to increased application and decreased efficacy of Roundup (glyphosate) due to the rapid rise of superweeds that have already adapted or appropriated the RR gene, which can still be killed by the glyphosate but at much higher application concentrations. Those higher concentrations are an environmental ill and will lead to more superweeds, too.See the 'rise of the superweeds' section here:http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_ControversyThat loss of glyphosate would be a serious blow to conventional farming worldwide. But besides the higher app rates of the stuff, its waning efficacy encourages growers to use additional herbicides on their RR crops, negating any benefit, from the link above:"As their quandry escalates farmers in the RR system are now having to
      rely on other, more toxic herbicides in an attempt to control the
      weeds, "highly toxic herbicides, some of them banned in other
      countries, which glyphosate was supposed to replace, have had to be
      brought back in use in addition to glyphosate. These include 2,4D,
      2,4DB, Atrazine, Paraquat, Metsulphuron Methyl, Imazethapyr      ."Erik, Orion Grassroots Network

      Permalink

  4. Chris McMasters's avatar

    Chris McMasters Posted 8:33 pm
    13 May 2009

    NPR is pretty good about reading listener comments. I encourage anyone who disagrees with their advertising sponsors to contact them and express their concern. I have done so on many occasions as their website has posted BP, Fiji Water, Cargill, etc. This Monsanto ad goes too far, especially based on the type of reporting NPR prides themselves in.Be sure to direct donations to Grist, not NPR, in the future.

    Permalink

    1. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 7:19 am
      14 May 2009

      Thanks Chris for pointing this out to people, I appreciate your efforts to show how and where people can voice their opinion.

      Permalink

  5. nhammond Posted 11:53 am
    14 May 2009

    A clarification--Marketplace is produced by American Public Media, not National Public Radio.  They are competitors--not all public radio is NPR.  NPR certainly has its share of dubious corporate sponsors (and Monsanto may be one of them, can't remember) but if you want to protest a sponsor of Marketplace, direct your protest to APM.

    Permalink

    1. Chris McMasters's avatar

      Chris McMasters Posted 12:53 pm
      14 May 2009

      Got it - there is a difference between APM and NPR. This is an important clarification and protests need to be directed to the proper place. I appreciate the reply. I suppose it's more important to protest Monsanto themselves, not just stations that broadcast their ads.

      Permalink

    2. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 12:59 pm
      14 May 2009

      Thanks NHammond. I guess my message to NPR here (which I note at the end of the article) is that they should hold their partners and advertisers to the same standards as they hold themselves. So, if they are willing to broadcast American Public Media programs, I would hope they believe that APM has the same level of journalistic excellence, and as such, that their advertisers should too. And, in general, I hope that all news reporting services, including newspapers like the New York Times, which have also lately been running Monsanto's ads, will consider the truth or lack there of behind certain types of corporate advertising.

      Permalink

      1. Chris McMasters's avatar

        Chris McMasters Posted 1:16 pm
        14 May 2009

        Despite the distinction between NPR and APM, this is a very important piece, Meredith. Monsanto's ad is completely bogus and should be examined by NYT, APM, NPR, etc. I believe it taints their journalism by accepting these types of sponsors. I'm glad Grist is calling them out.

        Permalink

  6. jvanhoy Posted 1:28 pm
    14 May 2009

    I heard this advertisement while I was driving yesterday, and I was a bit taken aback (and disappointed to hear it on public radio).  Good to see that I wasn't the only one.

    Permalink

  7. Eileen2 Posted 7:11 pm
    14 May 2009

    Wait a minute--if they only account for 3% of world acreage, how can you hold the global food crisis at the feet of GMOs?  Wouldn't you think the other 97% of the world dropped the ball? And I was reading in Science about much reduced pesticide use and decreased energy and water use.  I support all of those things.  Here's the link and a bit of the text:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/112/4"The analysis, led by agronomist Stewart Ramsey of the consulting firm
    Global Insight, also finds that the amount of energy spent on farming
    has fallen by 40% to 60%, probably because farmers who plant
    genetically modified crops are driving tractors less frequently to
    spray pesticides and herbicides. Irrigated water use dropped by 20% to
    50%, the report found, and carbon emissions fell by about 30%."But I don't have access to that report.  Is there an alternative analysis of that data?  

    Permalink

    1. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 7:14 am
      15 May 2009

      Hi Eileen,Thanks for your comments. I also cant access that report, but am working on it. I wonder how much of it is devoted to GMO crops, vs. conventional breeding which has really made amazing strides in the 20th and 21st century with regards to yield, drought tolerance, etc. I dont know anything about Global Insight, but from their website it appears that they would have produced the report for a company or an agency. I would be curious to find out who paid for the production of the report and see a copy of it, but I am guessing we wouldn't have access to it.With regards to the 3% hunger point- I agree with you. My point is, when GMO crops are only 3% of the total global acreage, how can they be claiming that their products are feeding the world? Certainly the solutions to hunger are complicated and do not necessarily even involve scaling up production so much as dealing with distribution, control, and access issues. My point was, that with only 3% of total global acreage, it is clear that GMO crops are not doing anything to make a dent in the food supply for hungry people.

      Permalink

      1. Eileen2 Posted 7:29 am
        15 May 2009

        It just seems there's a lot of drama around this for 3%.  From what I hear on the intertubes you'd think that no one can get any seeds that aren't GMOs. 
        You refer to this "The most comprehensive independent research done utilizing USDA data " report--can you give me a citation for that?  I'd like to know what that was and have a look.Thanks.

        Permalink

  8. Teuthis Posted 8:02 pm
    14 May 2009

    I'm curious about how journalism's "Chinese Wall" between advertising and news/feature coverage fits in here. Sponsors are not supposed to influence coverage (though some manage to) and I'll be much more miffed if NPR reporters begin praising GMOs selectively.  But how much do the "rules" of journalism allow a news source's values to influence its choice of ads, and how much flak does it have to take for not doing so?  More than an intro journalism course has led me to believe?

    Permalink

  9. justlou Posted 5:38 am
    15 May 2009

    For many years, ADM, a sponsor of the NewsHour on PBS, was allowed by PBS to broadcast their "drive on corn forever" advertisement.  This grossly stretched the bounds of credulity , but any protestations on my part to PBS were met by silence.  The ethical bar for sponsorship in these cash strapped public enterprises seems to be set high enough to permit this propaganda. Without getting into the high weeds of statistical "proof", I'll just add some general observations from the corn and bean industrial complex.  There is no doubt that on some crops, especially soybeans, fewer herbicides are being applied than in the pre RR (Roundup Ready) days.  With one timely application of glyphosate, many farmers growing soybeans in narrow rows can effectively manage their existing weed populations.   This depends greatly on ideal weather conditions which ain't happening this year in parts of the Midwest that have received 16 inches of rain since March 1, exploding weed growth and requiring burn down applications of Roundup and 2,4-D before field tillage and/or planting can occur.  I mention 2,4-D because some weeds are difficult to kill with Roundup alone once they exceed susceptible growth stages which happens with rain delays. (And I might add with intense chagrin, that very windy conditions often accompany the spraying of these fields when the farm chemical companies can get back into the fields --- GGGGRRRR!)In areas where glyphosate resistant weed populations are developing, alternative GM traits offering resistance to other herbicides are being tested and promoted.  Unfortunatly these include resistance to some of the old post emergently applied herbicides like Banvel that caused major drift and and plant injury problems due to the volatility of the chemical.  So, just an example of how "techno ratcheting" may not be leading to greener pastures.On the corn front, again without looking up the numbers, a large percentage of the acreage is now being planted to RR corn and being sprayed post emergence with glyphosate.  But much of this is also being treated with other herbicides like Atrazine.  Also, much of the corn has insect resistant GM traits like BT that have reduced the application of insecticides.  But, the development of insect pest resistance to these GM traits is predictable particularly in a system that relies on the voluntary planting of enough non resistant corn to reduce the selection pressure for developing resistant insect populations. Also on corn, reductions in chemical applications on the weed or insect front have been met by greatly increased aerial application of foliar fungicides to add a few additional bushels of yield per acre. Once a system is in place that has allowed the big farmers to become enormous farmers and interdependent with the big consortium of farm input, financing and commodity marketing firms  then it is very difficult for other modes of production to be imagined by the big players.  A treadmill has been established that keeps these guys reaching for higher yields, higher inputs, and higher prices for both inputs and commodity prices.  And this reaches all the way to DC in such forms as the current petition for waivers to raise the blend wall from 10% to 15% of ethanol in gasoline.  Techno ratcheting requires policy ratcheting with no sight toward the long term implications of whether or not any of this is actually sustainable, which of course it is not and is growing less so. It is very difficult to imagine how all the hype of reducing hunger with GMOs by enabling higher yields can be credible considering the dependence of such scenarios on the continued and increasing applications of finite resources of fossil fuels, fertilizers, etc. especially in a world with such open loops of resource utilization where the geographic divide between producers and consumers grows on such a vast scale.  To what end?  Hell hole megalopolises?  Dead seas?  Depleted aquifers?  Salinized lands? To what end?   

    Permalink

    1. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 7:06 am
      15 May 2009

      JustLou- thanks for your extensive comments. Just one thing I'd like to further comment on with regards to hunger. You touched on a very important point- even if GMO crops were engineered with increased nutritional content, they would still require the fundamental pesticides and synthetic fertilizers necessary to grow the crops currently. Such external inputs are out of the economic reach of most farmers being affected by hunger. Further- the cost of GMO seeds are just not possible for most farmers, and since many companies, particularly Monsanto are raising the cost of those seeds, it seems even less likely.  Solutions to hunger require methods that are both accessible and affordable to those most affected by hunger- small scale farmers in developing countries.You also mention the spraying of additional pesticides to counter the resistance we are beginning to see in glyphosate- a fantastic point. Unfortunately, many of these pesticides are far more toxic than glyphosate and Roundup. Atrazine, one of the top corn pesticides in the U.S. is banned in Europe because of its demonstrated human health impacts as a carcinogen. So, its certainly an important point, thanks for mentioning.

      Permalink

  10. justlou Posted 8:45 am
    15 May 2009

    Meredith, thank you. I think we can draw some parallels between our food production system and our health care system.  Both seem to be adaptations to a system which has undermined the health of humans, land and local communiites.  Hard to trace back to the original sin here, but there seem to be some common bonds between human health and hunger, the dimininishment and erosion of ecological services, and breakup of local communities.  And the "fix" seems to be determined by the flow of capital to businesses and institutions that attempt to substitute for those losses with the application of dense energy and capital flows that are increasingly costly and unsustainable.  And there are negative feedback loops generated by these interests that further undermine health, land and local communities.  A sustainability threshold is surpassed, natural wealth is discounted, and maintaining capital flow (to the elites) and growth become the overriding concern.  This is very paradoxical indeed, since in a world starving for employing the masses, the greatest potential contributor for job creation would be in the restoration of natural communities and ecological services that are primarily self maintaining and not dependent on the heavy and continued application of fossil fuel input and technological ratcheting.  It all depends on what we define as wealth.  We got it so damn assbackwards.  As we said back in the 60s -- we are so far ahead we are losing. 

    Permalink

  11. Storm Dragon Posted 2:56 pm
    15 May 2009

    NPR may not be underwritten by Monsanto, but, as regular listeners like myself can testify, they are underwritten by Archer-Daniels-Midland, and also by the Department of Homeland Security.  Now, that last one is the one that really worries me!

    Permalink

  12. Blake Posted 11:16 am
    16 May 2009

    After hearing recently that Monsanto was the underwriter for Marketplace Money, just yesterday I heard on 91.1 in St. Paul that Monsanto was the underwriter for a local program on MPR, I believe it was the Morning Show or Midmorning with Kerri Miller.  Did anyone else hear this? How would I find out?

    Permalink

  13. amazingdrx Posted 8:17 am
    20 May 2009

    Usually those who write headlines do not read the articles, as seems to be the case here. Meredith specified the ofensive network.Local/organic ag is at around a 50% demand level and under a 10% supply level.  That's why walmart is taking notice and carefully gtreenwashing their image.When supply of local organic food begins to rise, prices will drop and we are off to the races.  Since over 50% of human caused GHG is due to chemical agribizz,  it's a race to sabe the climate too.  Plus a waste stream recycling organic fertilizer system also supplies clean backup biogas/fuel cell cogeneration energy for a 100% renewable solar/wind/water powered grid.http://twitter.com/amazingdrx

    Permalink

  14. Mary Gilbert Posted 2:23 pm
    20 May 2009

    A commentor above mentioned that Monsanto pulled out of the IAASDT process shortly before the report was finalized, because they didn't like the (correct) data indicating their GMO Roundup-Ready products didn't look good.I just attended the meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development at the UN in NY earlier this month.  Most of you will be surprised and disheartened to hear that the IAASDT report was not even referred to in any negotiating sessions, although its head spoke on the next to the last day.  By that time negotiations were almost completed and no material was being added. There was, however, lots of discussion on the New Green Revolution, which is being promoted by UNEP (The UN Environmental Programme) and had GMO crops at its heart.  One idea is to bring in GMO food crops that will be successful in dryland areas.  There is also a GMO variety of corn that can be grown using no-till agriculture, now being touted as a way to keep carbon in the soil.  First you lay down a heavy dose of herbicide/pesticide and wait until all the weeds are dead.  Then you plant.  One woman from Third World Network, a very esteemed Asian NGO, said she has seen this corn in terraced plantings where corn could not have been grown before. One funny thing was that the US and Canada were insisting that the phrase "sustainable agriculture" be inserted everywhere possible in the Outcome Document.  And the "Group of 77," which is composed of 138 (not 77) smaller and less powerful countries, was insisting that that phrase be replaced in ever instance with "agriculture for sustainable development."  Many of us were confused.It turned out that Monsanto and the rest of the club had had a meeting in Colorado in February where they devised a definition of "sustainable agriculture" that they could live with, as it included everything they planned to do.  With this in place the US was able to insist on the phrase, and UNEP was able to say that the New Green Revolution is based on sustainable agriculture.Please, in whatever ways you can, use the IAASDT report as the basis of your opinions, not the Monsanto-developed phrase "sustainable agriculture," which no longer means what we thought it meant.  The head of IAASDT (not remembering his name at the moment - tired-looking Englishman) said. "Can we feed Africa with the knowledge and technology we have now?  Absolutely!  Will we need GMO crops in the future?  That could be possible, but we really don't need them now."Mary       

    Permalink

  15. Steve77 Posted 11:45 pm
    20 May 2009

    Greetings Meredith,Sigh. When I think of Monsanto it makes me hope that one day there will be a crimes against nature tribunal where corporations like Monsanto will be tried and held accountable for their actions.

    Permalink

  16. camilo Posted 10:40 pm
    25 May 2009

    Some of you might remember that these offensive ads (yes, AMD and Monsanto are offensive when heard on NPR) really increased after the funding cuts perpetrated by the last administration.  There was a big push to keep the public in public radio, but obviously not big enough.  Some of my friends quit listening, some quit contributing, saying NPR has gone "commercial," and the new underwriting spots really do sound like commercials.  But refusing to contribute is counter-productive.  NPR and the others will just have to solicit and accept more commercial money.  What we need to do is push for more public funding -- no more needless, trumped-up wars and the associated defense spending (waste) and no more corporate giveaways that enable them to spend millions on propoganda.We can afford it; we probably can't afford to not fund public radio, and PBS as well.I like the idea of a crimes against nature tribunal; and it is not solely US corporations that are guilty, but perhaps we might someday have enough support to rein them in a bit.  

    Permalink

  17. JPAP Posted 9:05 am
    27 May 2009

    Greetings!As I read the original posts and the comments, I am struck by several POV's. One that i think is missing is the current state of food production globally and how we are going to try and meet the demand for food production globally in 10 years. The UN predicts that the world’s population will grow by 25% by 2050. USDA reports that over 1 million agricultural acres are being developed and taken out of production each year and that rate is growing. In short, every year we ask the industry of agriculture to grow more, higher quality food on less land with fewer inputs. As Americans we are very spoiled when it comes to food supply. We throw away food because of minor quality issues like bruises or minor insect damage because we want all our proverbial apples to be perfect when we buy them. We throw away food that safe to nutritiuos and safe because of our demand for high quality. Also, when was the last time anyone experienced any food shortage at any grocery store inside the US for any reason except a major storm or act of Mother Nature?  We are spoiled because we expect an endless supply of perfect quality food cheap. yet, when agriculture explores new technology to try and meet the demand of the US consumer and the world, all they get is criticism w/o any offer of viable alternatives. Could the US farmer produce crops w/o pesticides and fertilizers? Sure but are the US consumers ready to pay for what that food will cost? NO! According to the USDA, American's spend less the 10% of their disposable income on food, the lowest of any country in the world! Is the Amrican consumer geardy for that number to raise to 50% or higher? I am neither defending nor attacking Monsanto and their advertizing, the origin of this string. I am simply asking folks to take a step back and look at the facts of American agriculture. For years, farmers have been America's political whipping post. When was the last time anyone who posted or reads these posts actually thanked a farmer or an agriculture company for the cheap, nutritious meal they just enjoyed? Have you ever thought about how important American agriculture is to our security and sovereignty? If we cannot feed ourselves, then who will control us? Folks, here is reality, we must figure out ways to grow more food on less land with less inputs. Anyone have an idea on how we do that? Challenging authority and voicing opinions is the backbone of America. We need to continue that. but when complaining about agriculture, let's do so by offering alternatives and ideas, God knows we need it if we are to meet the challenges of the future. Lastly, if you do complain about American agriculture, please don't do it with your mouth full.       

    Permalink

    1. Mary Gilbert Posted 10:09 am
      27 May 2009

      JPAP is right in some ways, but whenever we are talking about agriculture it's important to distinguish between different scales of agriculture.  There is agribusiness, which is dominant, and which produces most of the food available to buy here in the US.  Then there are the small, usually family farms that agribusiness is plowing under.  (I do a newsletter for a family farm CSA and thank the farmer often for his terriffic produce.) At this point Monsanto and the rest of the club are into greenwashing.  They had a meeting in Colorado in February and agreed on a definition of "Sustainable Agriculture" that includes GMOs and lots of chemicals.  MOnsanto now has a corn that can be planted without tilling the soil, already in use in Asia.  Since "no-till" agriculture is now understood to help keep carbon in the ground, they are ready to promote no-till.  You do first need to treat the ground with an herbicide that kills everything, includiing helpful microbes, before you plant, but you definitely don't have to till. Agribusiness and the chokehold it has on our food consumption are very harmful, not only in the reduced nutritional value we receive, and the now substantiated health problems associated with GMO crops, but in the damage it does to soil structure, the loss of topsoil, the desperate problem we will soon be in due to irresponsible water mining from aquifers that don't recharge, and the pollution of waterways including the ocean with carbon-based fertilizers and pesticides. Additionally agribusiness and the scramble for profits is currently fueling a major land-grab in third-world countries (or more correctly, majority countries)not only to grow food crops for export (those cheap foods from all over that we get in the market) but now to grow monocrop plantations of biofuels sources.  Traditional land rights are becoming worthless, and poverty is on the big-time increase.The agriculture to encourage is the kind where you DO get to thank the farmer, because you know her or him.  Maybe you've even walked the fields.  Soon it will be pea season in the northeast, where I live, and I will take my grandson, who is three, out into the sunny rows where we will pick safe peas and pop them into our mouths, still warm. If you can become part of a network that is sustainable, not only for the land but also for the small farmer, DO IT.       

      Permalink

  18. camilo Posted 11:38 am
    27 May 2009

    I have read that the two favorite vegetables in America are french fries and ketchup.  Restaurants throw out as much food as they sell.  I have worked in a lot of restaurants and helped do this.  I have gone out to the dumpster after work to pull out what I put in while on duty -- bins and bins of hot barbecue; now many are locked to keep the homeless out.  I worked for a boss who would take me out to eat and correct me on my plate-cleaning ways.  He told me he was raised to leave food on his plate because it was low-class to eat it all.  He would over-order to keep this from happening to him.More food on less land with less input is not even a pipe dream.  Ingrained habits must change drastically before any substantive changes are made.  Our way-of life is not sustainable -- do you even know what that means?Disposable income means you make too much money and can afford to put it in the dumpster.  Much of what we do now will be laughable in the years to come; right now it's a crying shame.We (or at least I) am not complaining about agriculture, but complaining about agri-business.  Did you miss the (still on-going) flap about the disappearance of the American farmer?  The mega-farms are killing the land and the water.  The Gulf fisheries are dying from the fertilizer run-off down the Mississippi.  Look up where your shrimp is coming from.I shop at farmer's markets; luckily in my area we have many, and many organic small farmers.  We hope that spreads throughout the nation.  Because even those Americans that aren't hungry are suffering, most just don't realize it yet.Tomatos from the grocery stores are basically inedible unless they're canned or made into ketchup.  Red delicious apples have turned into a perfect skin (albeit rather leathery) and a mealy pulp inside.  Did anybody notice when the bananas changed - maybe ten years ago?  The rationale for GMO food is a perfect appearance at the store; they don't care if you over-buy and throw half away.  They don't care if the food makes you sick -- big Pharma will step in.Re-read Mary's post -- it is spot-on.  Oh, yeah, Wal-Mart stocks Chinese groceries -- how's that for sovereignty?  Or security?

    Permalink

  19. DavidCOG Posted 9:54 am
    06 Jun 2009

    > For years my alarm has been set to pubic radio...
    I'd be alarmed listening to 'pubic' radio.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement