Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

NPR Gets It Wrong on the Food Crisis

By Frances Moore Lappe, Huffington Post. Posted August 18, 2008.


Morning Edition's recent series on the food crisis reinforces dangerous myths that actually block us from seeing the real solutions to hunger.
Advertisement

Too bad.

I depend a lot on NPR, so my heart sank as I listened to Morning Edition's recent series on the world hunger crisis. Using Honduras as its case study, the four-part series reinforces dangerous myths that actually block us from seeing the real solutions to hunger all around us.

We're told that "across the globe .... [f]ood is expensive and there's not enough food to feed empty stomachs." No. In fact the world produces enough to make us all plump. True, today an estimated 100 million additional people are, or will soon be, facing hunger as food prices exceed their budgets, but the deeper lack they're experiencing is not food itself. It is power.

Drawing the distinction between lack of food -- a symptom -- and lack of power -- a cause -- is essential to seeing solutions. Yet this series portrays as progress examples that do nothing to correct, and in fact worsen, the underlying power imbalances at the heart of hunger.

In the broadcast, we hear that Wal-Mart is a solution because it provides a market for poor Honduran farmers who otherwise would have no way to sell their produce. But if access to a market is, in itself, farmers' salvation, here at home each year more than 10,000 farmers would not be going under. The question is who controls a market: Where the answer is a few monopsony buyers -- what Wal-Mart represents in the NPR case study -- power remains with them. They set the terms and they decide whether to stay or to leave.

Fortunately, in Latin America and elsewhere some rural communities are beginning to free themselves from distant, monopoly power. Imagine this: In what may be the pesticide capital of the world, the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, pests developed insecticide resistance and genetically modified (GM) cotton failed to live up to Monsanto's promises. Farmers faced catastrophic losses, triggering thousands of suicides, and many then began to move in another direction. Now, almost two thousand villages are embracing community-managed sustainable farming using natural pest controls, not purchased chemicals, and are enjoying improved incomes and health.

Yet, the NPR series ignores such hopeful examples. It notes gloomily that most small Honduran farmers will cut back on production this year, despite higher prices for their crops, because "prices for fertilizer and pesticides have gone up even more than food prices."

In a disturbing disconnect, the series still promote as solutions not only purchased farm chemicals but genetically modified seeds; yet the cost of these seeds puts them out of reach of many poor farmers, as acknowledged at the tail end of the second piece in the series. Worse, and not acknowledged, are the documented, serious environmental and health risks linked to GM seeds.

NPR misses the real story: On every continent one can find empowered rural communities developing GM-free, agro-ecological farming systems. They're succeeding: The largest overview study, looking at farmers transitioning to sustainable practices in 57 countries, involving almost 13 million small farmers on almost 100 million acres, found after four years that average yields were up 79 percent.

NPR chose to reinforce the myth that the only hope for poor rural people is dependency on concentrated economic power when, all over the world, poor farming communities are discovering their own power to work with each other and with nature to build healthier, more secure, and more democratic lives.

What a lost opportunity.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, hunger, farms, poverty, biotech, sustainable agriculture

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank you for the straight talk about world agribusiness.
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 18, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no personal experience to add. I do have a longstanding regard for Lappe.

I hope that NPR will present this critique on air. I won't hold my breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Feed The World
Posted by: Mac Geek on Aug 18, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We Feed The World

"Every day in Vienna the amount of unsold bread sent back to be disposed of is enough to supply Austria's second-largest city, Graz. Around 350,000 hectares of agricultural land, above all in Latin America, are dedicated to the cultivation of soybeans to feed Austria's livestock while one quarter of the local population starves. Every European eats ten kilograms a year of artificially irrigated greenhouse vegetables from southern Spain, with water shortages the result.

In WE FEED THE WORLD, Austrian filmmaker Erwin Wagenhofer traces the origins of the food we eat. His journey takes him to France, Spain, Romania, Switzerland, Brazil and back to Austria.

Leading us through the film is an interview with Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

WE FEED THE WORLD is a film about food and globalisation, fishermen and farmers, long-distance lorry drivers and high-powered corporate executives, the flow of goods and cash flow–a film about scarcity amid plenty. With its unforgettable images, the film provides insight into the production of our food and answers the question what world hunger has to do with us .

Interviewed are not only fishermen, farmers, agronomists, biologists and the UN's Jean Ziegler, but also the director of production at Pioneer, the world's largest seed company, as well as Peter Brabeck, Chairman and CEO of Nestlé International, the largest food company in the world."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR has become a tool of Corporate America
Posted by: PaulC on Aug 19, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently tuned in "All Things Considered" to learn that the topic of the day would be "Guys who love their pickup trucks". I am not kidding!

As a teaser, they played some young man with a serious drawl who proceeded to explain that "Ah got me a Chevy [blah-blah-blah] with 48 inch tahrs that put fawr feet uh rubber on the road", trailing off as the music swells, stay tuned!

Their moderators snicker at enviro topics or proposed solutions, adopting corporate talking points as given assumptions, and so on.

I don't know why anyone who cared about truthfulness and honesty would listen to that garbage anymore. It is an insult that they are paying for corporate airtime with taxpayers' dollars.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR: National Praeternatural Radio
Posted by: Jim Swanson on Aug 19, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is more than a decade past the time that progressive and even moderate Americans should have taken back NPR or refused to fund it's right wing propaganda. A recent PEW study found NPR more likely to interview conservatives than liberals and to be considerably to the right of the Wall Street Journal in this regard. NPR consistently represents corporate America's desired "view" of the world. When one criticizes NPR enough they have the nerve to ask you to stop donating, not to assist in reform. Case in point: by August of 2004 I had donated over $4,000 to local affiliate WBEZ in that calendar year. After I criticized their failure to realize that astrology is not a science similar to astronomy and their persistent use of the term "crack babies" although the scientific community had concluded almost a decade before that "crack babies" is a racist myth with absolutely NO basis in reality the senior staff requested that I stop donating, canceled my monthly automatic contribution and removed me from their mailing/call lists. Why? "So that we can ignore your criticisms."
It is time for a replacement such as Pacifica. NPR is steadily leading Americans to the right by their heavily biased and ill informed reporting. Do not patronize this FOX NEWS clone. PERIOD

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I No Longer Listen to NPR
Posted by: wireup on Aug 20, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I listened to NPR since the late 1970s when I first discovered it.

But I stopped listening to it almost 2 years ago because I became very very uncomfortable with them after the theft of the 2000 election by Bush & Co.

I sensed something different about NPR at that time. I could never put my finger on just what it was, but it was not comfortable. More and more they seemed to slant to the right.

Since then, that has been confirmed. And this article put the last nail in the coffin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stating the obvious
Posted by: PeaceLove on Aug 20, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I depend a lot on NPR...

Well now, there's your problem right there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Article
Posted by: winchelenator on Aug 20, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember an article in Mother Earth News claiming the planet produces 200/ton of human consumable vegetable matter every second of everyday, 24/7. This doesn't take into effect what humans produce, just nature's bounty.Can anybody confirm or dispute that figure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Article Posted by: mgmyers79