"The real problem with the Monsanto ads is that they are not “honest or accurate,” but rather 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."
2 comments:
NPR is very conscious of our non-commercial mission, and is not accepting money from, nor has been approached by Monsanto. What you heard on air may have been an underwriting credit from American Public Media, which produces Marketplace, and is running corporate underwriting spots from Monsanto. Local station WAMU has also accepted sponsorship money from Monsanto. But neither of these spots are affiliated with NPR.
The relationship between local radio station and NPR is an unusual one, and therefore listeners often assume their local station is NPR-run because it broadcasts public radio staples: Morning Edition and All Things Considered, however NPR does not own any radio stations. If you’d like to read more about this issue on the Ombudsman’s column, you may do so at NPR’s webpage. (http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/npr_is_not_running_monsanto_sp_1.html)
NPR is an independent, nonprofit organization that carries no on-air advertising. One way NPR funds programming and general operations is through underwriting from corporations and philanthropic support from foundations and individuals. This support provides most of NPR's contributed income.
Thanks,
Alicia Shepard
NPR Ombudsman
Alice, I don't believe a word your wrote. Just last week NPR devoted a whole program to Pedro Sanchez of Columbia University, whose views mirror the corporate strategies of Monsanto for feeding the world—i.e., rejecting organic farming and heirloom crops in favor of large-scale agribusiness: fertilizers, pesticides and GMO crops. Monsanto sponsored NPR's Marketplace (no matter how you attempt to spin it). NPR hack...
Post a Comment