Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Monsanto targets public radio to spread false biotech messages

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Monsanto targets public radio to spread false biotech messages
  • Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:44:24 -0600


Monsanto targets public radio to spread false biotech messages
http://www.grist.org/article/national-public-propaganda/piece
13 May 2009

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.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page