Commentary: Lies and fake science winning
When the environmental activists distribute their version of reality, which blames the conventional agricultural industry with the support by farmers and ranchers for destroying the environment, the messages are accepted as complete truth by the general population.
With such a small percentage of people in the U.S. and the world actually involved in farming and ranching, the green message can be made to sound so truthful, even if there isn’t one ounce of truth to any of the environmentalists’ “facts.”
Another example just came to my attention this week when Worldwatch Institute widely distributed its “Soil to Sky” poster/infographic of “Agroecology vs. Industrial Agriculture.” The claim was that this infographic and the facts behind it were developed with support of the Christensen Fund.
“Industrial agriculture has failed to feed the planet, destroyed local ecosystems and exacerbated the climate crisis. In contrast, agroecology—a discipline that combines ecology with farmers' knowledge of their local environment—reduces agriculture's impact on the climate and enables ecosystems to produce abundant, sustainable food,” claimed an announcement looking for supportive media.
Industrial agriculture includes all the non-organic farmers and ranchers of the nation, according to the comparison. Some of the agroecology versus industrial agriculture notes on the infographic, with agroecology first, include:
“Captures and retains carbon dioxide in system vs. Contributes one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
“Involves local communities in the growing process from seed to mouth vs. Relies on mechanization and labor-saving policies, consolidates land and resources into fewer hands.
“Increases nutritional diversity crucial for women and children vs. Causes malnutrition, heart disease and obesity.
“Improves farmers’ ability to respond to climate change vs. Puts global food systems at greater risk to extreme weather events.
“Reintegrates livestock, crops, pollinators, fish, tree and water for integrated nutrient and pest management vs. Relies on increasing amounts of external chemical inputs to boost unsustainable yields, killing soils worldwide.”
You can check out the infographic by clicking here.
There is no necessity for the truth in what activists use to advance their causes, and a second example happened this week. The anti-biotech activists that want biotech foods off the market are trying to put their toe in the door by demanding that California require biotech foods or foods that might contain biotech ingredients be labeled as such.
- Adequate rhizobia populations help protect soybean yields
- In-season imagery helps farmers grow and protect healthy crops
- Ag markets proved rather volatile Wednesday afternoon
- Farm Bill enables record USDA investments in rural water systems
- Ag markets diverged Wednesday morning
- Do soybeans need N fertilizer?
- Commentary: Blame anti-GMO groups for deaths
- Julie Borlaug says biotech is necessary in fight against hunger
- What does “sustainable” food and agriculture really mean?
- Ohio bill to require certification to apply fertilizer
- FCC aims to offer high-speed internet to rural America
- Carbon-dioxide hurts nitrogen assimilation by plants