IFCNR's Weekly Blog - Autumn 2009

In a recent blog posted on IFCNR's biotechnology site, we commented upon an article by British Journalist Fred Pearce taking Monsanto to task for what Pearce claims is the corporation hogging the majority of irrigation water on Hawaii's Molokai Island.

Pearce staked his reputation as an award-winning journalist and author of numerous books and articles on environmental issues such as water consumption. Monsanto, a concern with a pride in its service in feeding the world, issued its own compelling refutation of Pearce's claims. The push-and-shove battle of words left readers, and this one in specific, wondering wherein lays the truth with all personal and professional biases set aside.

IFCNR suggested this and similar media duels might be settled via an IFCNR-produced reality TV show we called "FACT CHECK: Whos Telling the Truth?" where claims and counters together with the principal characters from each side are taken to the site of the conflict. There before the cameras the world would see which claims are facts and which fall short.

Within a matter of hours scanning news items dealing with Nature's resources, other examples that just might be fodder for the show appeared.

First in the spotlight is The New York Times versus the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council. At issue is the Times' story on New Zealand hoki fishery written by William Broad and published September 9th. The deep-water dwelling, white fleshed fish is a staple of fast food restaurant fish sandwiches and not long ago earned the Marine Stewardship Councils stamp of environmental sustainability. The Times article claims the hoki fishery falls quite a bit short of being sustainable.

The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council fired off its rebuttal. A striking similarity to the Monsanto incident is the claim that the Times' writer interviewed four different environmental groups but failed to contact the Council, failed to interview fishermen on the fishing practices they employ, or MSC. The Council claimed that out-of-date data on hoki provided by environmental groups was used versus current scientific information and that he ignored government measures managing hoki stocks. The Times, of course, stood by its story.

Two groups guaranteed to keep the camera crews travelling are Greenpeace and the U.S. based National Fisheries Institute (NFI). NFI has taken to the prize fight ring to slug it out with Greenpeace over a variety of marine issues. The most recent is Greenpeaces warning that Alaskan Pollock populations may be approaching a dangerous decline in numbers. NFI countered that Greenpeaces facts about pollock stocks did not jibe with those of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Who is right? Who is wrong?

Think about it. In the world of agricultural biotechnology, media campaigns about claiming horrible results to the environment if farmers grow genetically engineered crops absolutely lends itself to episode upon episode of FACT CHECK TV. The same can be said of claims against farmed seafood. Are longline fishermen the Cossacks of the sea slaughtering leatherback turtles at will? One side claims organic food is more nutritious. The other says some organic practices foster health threatening parasites and fungi. Are claims of sustainability by global traders real or, as critics claim, just so much "greenwash"? What about global warming and climate change and their effects on wildlife? It might be interesting to trace exotic wood to their source and find out if they are truly from sustainable forests or illegally logged. If the latter is true, how would the logging, milling, and retail companies respond on camera?

Any one or all of the incidents could be excellent TV.

Speaking of Climate Change what's going on in Europe? Remember the constant drumbeat of condemnation of President George Bush for refusing to join Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, Australia and the European Union in the global lament over climate change?

President Bush is gone from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in downtown Washington DC. His successor, President Barack Obama promised change. And on this issue he's delivered.

During the World Climate Conference in Geneva, the Obama Administration sent a 41 person delegation headed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and including representatives from eight federal agencies, the White House and Congress.

Curiously, absent were the Bush-bashing nations. The EU sent no one. According to reporters covering the event, neither did Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Canada or Australia. In fact, the press release touting the WCC Declaration establishing a global climate services framework noted it was supported by 150 nations but named only such world powers as Ethiopia, Monaco, Mozambique, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Niue, Bangladesh and the Cook Islands. Oh, yes. and China.

Were those allied nations too busy to attend? Or, are they trying to tell the U.S. something?

The missing European nations claim they will attend a later conference slated for Copenhagen to discuss ways to mitigate greenhouse gases.