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.
This anti-biotech group is a big percentage of the total membership of the Prop 37 Right to Know campaign organization. And I reported last week, the campaign leadership decided to use a completely flawed fake science French study that claimed rats feed biotech corn developed exceedingly high rates of cancer tumors. The Right to Know campaign widely claimed this showed that biotech food are extremely dangerous to children and the general population. Scientists worldwide have denounced the study, conducted by an anti-biotech scientist.
So, using false information is a tactic, and those anti-biotech pro-Proposition 37 food labeling people are proud of how well they are spreading lies. They are extremely proud to hang their hat on false science that sounds reasonable to a normal mother and the general population. The false message sounds so good that the Right to Know campaign has announced it is using the message in television advertising.
Lies about food and agriculture seem to convert more and more of what we think of as an educated people, against conventional agriculture in the U.S.
One of the main groups trying to counter falsities is the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance by mainly conducting Food Dialogues where real farmers and ranchers take questions and explain the truth about U.S. agriculture. Maybe this can help, but it is for sure that green messages from the activists grab attention without question that the message is truthful.