agriculture

The global increase in grain prices may make the meat supply less safe. The European Union is considering a relaxation of feed bans that prohibit animal by-products being used as feed for other animals in the human food chain. The proposal would "allow pig remains to be used to feed poultry" and would be the EU's first exception made to strict regulations enacted to respond to the BSE, or mad cow disease, crisis of a decade ago. Feeding pigs to pigs, cows and chickens is widespread and legal in the United States, which has had mad cow disease since the 1990s and is covering up its extent. But the European plan is facing opposition from a wide range of parties, including consumer groups, animal rights activists, and Muslim organizations. With nutritionists predicting that "there will be such a backlash from consumers that the idea would have to be dropped," some grocery outlets are already going on record as not being willing to carry the pork-fed poultry. The EU's Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that it could "only support it if we were fully satisfied that appropriate and effective testing had taken place to control the use of such proteins in poultry feed." Meanwhile, the Korean government's decision to sell US beef in that country has led to massive street protests in the capital. CMD staffers John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton wrote about the issue of feeding animals to other animals in their 1997 book "Mad Cow USA."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been criticized for not totally banning "downer" cows -- animals "too sick or hurt to stand for slaughter" -- from the food supply. So "when a coalition of major industry groups reversed their position and joined animal advocates and several lawmakers in calling for an absolute ban," why wouldn't the USDA agree? Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer hasn't responded to the new stance of the American Meat Institute and other industry groups. So, industry leaders are encouraging meat producers to institute their own voluntary ban. But the Humane Society of the United States says a total ban is needed and "the USDA should take immediate action." The limited regulation of downer cows was instituted after mad cow disease was found in the U.S. and Canada. CMD staffers John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton wrote about the issue in their 1997 book "Mad Cow USA."

Listen to this week's edition of the "Weekly Radio Spin," the Center for Media and Democracy's audio report on the stories behind the news. This week, we look at the Pentagon's pundits, a stealth campaign on Wikipedia, and how Monsanto's not feeding the world. In "Six Degrees of Spin and Fakin'," does Torie Clarke really believe it's a post-spin world? The Weekly Radio Spin is freely available for personal and broadcast use. Podcasters can subscribe to the XML feed on www.prwatch.org/audio or via iTunes. If you air the Weekly Radio Spin on your radio station, please email us at editor@prwatch.org to let us know. Thanks!

Soybean plantThe biotechnology industry has invoked the need for genetically modified (GM) crops to meet the growing global food crisis. For example, Archer Daniels Midland called itself the "supermarket to the world" in its ads. But a recent study carried out on soybeans in Kansas found that GM crops produced significantly less food than their conventional counterparts. A GM soybean from Monsanto produced 70 bushels per acre, compared to 77 per acre for a virtually identical unaltered soybeans. Even after adding extra nutrients that Monsanto's weedkiller, Roundup, seems to block, production was only brought up to the same level as the non-engineered plants. An earlier study in Nebraska found similar results. Monsanto said "it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped. It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would." Others are skeptical. Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, said that "the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be achieved." The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development has also "concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger." And, "when asked if GM could solve world hunger," the chief scientist at the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Professor Bob Watson, said, "The simple answer is no."

"A pair of agriculture groups has temporarily suspended about $1.5 million in grants to the University of Minnesota to protest a controversial study by U scientists earlier this month about biofuels and global warming," reports Tom Meersman. The Minnesota Soybean Growers Association and the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council, which funds university research into soybean use, cut off the funds after university scientist David Tilman published a study that found that dedicating huge amounts of land to grow corn, soybeans, sugarcane and other food crops for fuel could drastically change the landscape and worsen global warming. "The university hurt the farmers' feelings, OK? That's probably the best way to say it," said Jim Palmer, executive director of the two soybean groups.

A new "grassroots" farmers' group with close ties to Monsanto has been formed to outlaw labels that would notify consumers they are buying milk from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Monsanto genetically engineers rBGH, called Posilac, which is injected into cows, forcing them to produce more milk. The front group American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT), which receives funding from Monsanto, was organized by Osborne & Barr, an agri-marketing firm started by two former Monsanto employees in 1988. The founding client of Osborne & Barr was Monsanto. Consultant Monty G. Miller of Estes Park, Colorado, also helped organize AFACT, which was formally launched in California in February 2008. The only contact information AFACT lists on its website is a fax number listed as belonging to "Outer Office." Outer Office provides secretarial and operational support (such as scheduling, newsletters and message-taking) to small consulting businesses. A call to Outer Office seeking the address and telephone contact information for AFACT was not returned.

The case of Pierre Meneton is fueling demands for legal protections for whistleblowers in France. Meneton is a researcher for the National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Health and Medical Research. He is going to court on January 31, 2008, to face charges of defamation. Several industrial salt producers are suing Meneton for a comment he made during an interview in March 2006. "The lobbying of salt producers and agribusiness is very active. It misinforms health professionals and the media." While the negative effects of salt on health are no secret, it was not until Meneton went public with claims of unethical practices in the research analysis of the French Authority for Food Safety and of the consistent meddling of the salt industry that it was widely publicized. Environmental health researcher Andre Cicolella says that while Meneton may not be a whistleblower by all definitions, his case would benefit from the same types of protections that are lacking for those that do qualify. For instance, Veronique Lapides is a resident of the Paris suburb of Vincennes. She raised the alert about a high rate of childhood cancer in the area and pushed for environmental clean up. Now she is being sued for defamation by the mayor of Vincennes. Cicolella said that this case shows "absent laws to prtect whistleblowers, this type of pressure can be exerted not only on scientists, but on citizens as well." In the U.S., the Senate just passed a bill to reinforce whistleblower protections for U.S. government workers, but it needs to be reconciled with a stronger bill passed by the House in March 2007.

The Center for Media and Democracy has never been shy about criticizing the public relations industry. That's what we do, and we're proud of it. You'd think that this would give PR people second thoughts before sending us their drivel. Unfortunately, they can't seem to help themselves -- even when that means that they end up tipping us off to their own efforts at sneaking product placements into TV shows such as American Idol.

A few months ago my email address was apparently "discovered" by a bunch of PR flacks. On an almost daily basis now, I receive emails -- often with a large picture file that slows down my email download -- excitedly heralding the latest two-bit client contract won by some PR firm in which I have no interest, and whose information I have certainly never requested. At first I just deleted them, but since they have become more frequent -- and therefore, more annoying -- I have started responding to them with a request to be taken off their list.

The irony of PR firms sending us news releases hit a new high, or low, this week. I received an unsolicited, but also "embargoed" news release, containing more than five megabytes of photo attachments, from Jennifer Windrum of the Swanson Russell Associates PR firm. An embargoed press release is one that is sent out to media outlets before the sender actually wants it to be released to the public. The purpose is to generate media interest and solicit pre-interviews so that when the story is ready to break, reporters are lined up to cover the story. Of course, the premise relies on the recipient having an interest in honoring the embargo. Reporters will honor these sorts of requests if they want to avoid getting on the bad side of the sender so that they can keep receiving additional news releases in the future.

José Bové is a leading French activist against biotechnologyThe government of President Nicolas Sarkozy wants the French people to be able to opt for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), not just to opt against them. A proposed law governing GMOs and defining several broad principles has been forwarded to the Conseil d'Etat (the French equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court) and the executive branch hopes that it will be passed by Parliament by February 2008. Some passages appear positive, like "GMOs cannot be commercialized, cultivated or used except in a manner that is respectful to the environment and public health, and with complete transparency." But these are followed by obvious nods to GMO producers, such as a revision from the right to choose freely to produce and consume "without GMOs" to "the liberty to consume and produce with or without" GMOs. Arnaud Apoteker of Greenpeace said that he is disappointed. "The project doesn't give priority to non-GMO cultivation. It gives the impression that coexistence is possible, whereas the dissemination of GMOs is inevitable." GMO proponents don't see the proposed legislation as completely positive either. A spokesman for seed producers said that the articles that assign responsibility to the GMO users and the seed distributor for any damages caused to neighboring fields due to seed drift, and the need to register usage of GMO seed stock at a more local level than expected "are problematic."

Listen to this week's edition of the "Weekly Radio Spin," the Center for Media and Democracy's audio report on the stories behind the news. This week, we cover greenwashing the Olympics, when a Nobel prize doesn't count for much, and why human waste by any other name is still ... you know. In "Six Degrees of Spin and Fakin'," we tell you how many steps it takes to get from a corporate apologist to a perennial thorn in industry's side. The Weekly Radio Spin is freely available for personal and broadcast use. Podcasters can subscribe to the XML feed on www.prwatch.org/audio or via iTunes. If you air the Weekly Radio Spin on your radio station, please email us at editor@prwatch.org to let us know. Thanks!