It is currently Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:00 am
Posts: 514
Location: Dallas,Texas
If you listen to NPR, (which is fine, so long as you don’t miss Howard on your local affiliate) you might have been surprised to hear a story that ran last week on the program Marketplace that sounded as if it were written by Monsanto itself.

The report, entitled "The Non-Organic Future," claimed that the only way to feed the world is to give poor farmers fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified seeds.

Pedro Sanchez, a proponent of industrial agriculture who works as a soil scientist at Columbia University, is the mouthpiece for the absurd proposition that soil is "like a bank account, you've got to have a positive balance, and if you deposit only organics, you're going to go broke."

In a comment posted at Marketplace's website, Anna Lappé, author of Diet for a Hot Planet, pointed to a gaping hole in their reporting: the failure to acknowledge the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Report, a joint project of the U.N. and the World Bank, among other agencies. Here's Anna's apt description of the report:

"The groundbreaking study brought together 400 experts who worked for 4.5 years to explore the most efficient, productive, and sustainable strategy for feeding the world. The conclusion - quite the opposite of the one reached by those quoted in this segment - stated in no uncertain terms that we must move away from chemical- and fossil[-fuel]-dependent agriculture, which by the way includes biotech.

"Business as usual is not an option, was the radical consensus. Instead, small-scale and mid-scale agroecological farming holds our best hope for feeding the world safe, healthy food, all without undermining our natural capital."

As the IAASTD report shows, Sanchez's view is hardly the only or even the dominant view among development experts about how to "feed the world." Indeed, if there is a consensus, Sanchez's views are in the minority.

Listeners might chalk the whole thing up to sloppy reporting, if it weren't for the fact that over the last couple of years, Marketplace has been underwritten by Monsanto, and the program's been running ads that tout Monsanto as a sustainable agriculture innovator! Rather than being sloppy, it turns out that the reporting is actually a carefully constructed thank-you gift for a prized advertiser!

If you find this type of corporate influence and media bias unacceptable, please ask American Public Media, producers of Marketplace, to stop spreading Monsanto's lies.

DIRT, May 2011


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:40 pm
Posts: 195
I belive this same report was on www.prisonplanet .com and www.infowars.com awhile back.This should also be on 20/20 and 60 minutes and every channel on T,V :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:56 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:45 pm
Posts: 2884
Location: San Antonio,TEXAS
Technically, Market Place is produced by American Public Media, not National Public Radio. They are different companies in the same business.

_________________
David Hall
Moderator
Dirt Doctor Lawns Forum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 55
Location: Hill Country
Well, we'll have to go back to the days of horse drawn carriages, and horse drawn plows, before our agriculture could be considered Non-fossil-fuel based.

Fossil fuel makes the plows, the planting equipment, the tractors, & the garden tillers. It also makes the equipment necessary for harvest of wind and solar energy. There too, we couldn't get all that heavy stuff transported with out fossil fuels.

Nor could we get the fish emulsions, composts, corn meals, rock phosphates and other minerals harvested and transported without those fossil fuels.

All I am saying, is that we could not continue as any type of advanced society, if we were truly independent of fossil fuels. We would have to return to a pastoral lifestyle, which would be fine by me... but I don't think much of the population is willing to give up their I-phones, t.v, motor vehicles, or elaborate homes.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by eWeblife