by Mickey Huff
Leigh Phillips, “UK Fracking Safe but US Operations Marred by Poor Practices,” Nature, June 29, 2012, http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/06/fracking-safe-in-uk-but-us-home-to-poor-practices.html.
Student Researchers: Brody Schoen, Hunter Leaman, and Ashley Conard (DePauw University)
Faculty Evaluators: James Mills and Kevin Howley (DePauw University)
Can Fracking and Carbon Sequestration Coexist?
Christa Marshall, “Can Fracking and Carbon Sequestration Coexist?,” Scientific American, March 16, 2012, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-fracking-and-carbon-seques-tration-co-exist.
Student Researcher: Amanda McNulty (Sonoma State University)
Faculty Evaluator: Charles Thomsen (American River College)
Embracing Sustainability: Forsaking Meat and Chemical Agriculture
Colin Todhunter, “Embracing Sustainability: Forsaking Meat and Chemical Agriculture,” Global Research, September 18, 2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca/embracing-sustainability-forsaking-meat-and-chemical-agriculture/5305093.
Student Researcher: Dave Lan Franco (College of Marin)
Faculty Evaluator: Susan Rahman (College of Marin)
Global Food Insecurity: Fisheries Are Being Destroyed
“Rising Ocean Acid Levels Are ‘The Biggest Threat to Coral Reefs,’” Guardian, July 9, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/acid-threat-coral-reef.
Suzanne Goldenberg, “Report Warns of Global Food Insecurity as Climate Change Destroys Fisheries,” Guardian, September 24, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/24/food-climate-change-fisheries.
Student Researchers: Paige Henry and Sarah Crandall (DePauw University)
Faculty Evaluators: Vanessa Fox and Kevin Howley (DePauw University)
Global Food Crisis in the Making
Richard Anderson, “Food Price Crisis: What Crisis?” BBC News, October 15, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19715504.
Eric Darier, “Is The World Heading Towards Another Food Crisis?” Greenpeace, November 15, 2012, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/is-the-world-heading-towards-another-food-cri/blog/42999/.
Student Researcher: J. J. Sotomayor (Sonoma State University)
Faculty Evaluator: Rich Campbell (Sonoma State University)
Monsanto Changed Stance on GMO Labeling
Ethan A. Huff, “Monsanto Supported GMO Labeling in Europe, But Not in US,” Natural News, September 16, 2012, http://www.naturalnews.com/037222_GMO_labeling_Monsanto_Eu-rope.html.
James Corbett and Anthony Gucciardi, “GMO Foods: Science, PR, and Public Backlash,” Global Research TV, October 29, 2012, http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/10/gmo-foods-science-pr-and-public-backlash.
Student Researcher: Skye Pinney (Frostburg State University)
Faculty Evaluator: Andy Duncan (Frostburg State University)
Pesticides May Lead to Cancer and Autism in Children
Viji Sundaram, “Pesticides Harm Kids’ Health and Intelligence, Study Finds,” New American Media, October 10, 2012, http://newamericamedia.org/2012/10/pesticides-harm-kids-health-and-intelligence-study-finds.php.
Student Researcher: Joe Raspolich (Florida Atlantic University)
Faculty Evaluator: James Tracy (Florida Atlantic University)
INTRODUCTION
For several years now, a set of familiar topics have featured in Project Censored’s “Health and the Environment” news cluster. Radiation from wireless technology, hydraulic fracturing, and genetically modified food are big stories again this year. Independent journalists continue to research and report news on these topics beyond the boundaries of the corporate media’s limited coverage.
It is instructive to ask why corporate media turn a blind eye to these stories—or, when they do cover them, why they frame their coverage in ways that minimize the risks—and, in some cases, even suggest benefits. Understanding the financial connections among corporate media and pharmaceutical companies, the gas and oil industry, and Big Agriculture helps to answer these questions. Corporate media ignore or manipulate these stories to serve the interest of those in power, often by attempting to sway public opinion in favor of those corporations and their interests.
Government, including our elected representatives, plays a role too. When the revolving door between government (including Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], and the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) and companies like Monsanto is in full swing, it is hard to develop and enforce policies that hold corporations accountable, that prevent them from putting profits before people. For example, Hillary Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, and Clarence Thomas all have Monsanto connections, making it unlikely that they would ever hold the company to account when it violates environmental laws; in fact, they may use their political influence to cover up such offenses.1
A larger theme that Project Censored regularly covers is also evident in this cluster’s stories: a small number of people make decisions about what is best for the entire globe. Although we in the US espouse democracy and freedom as foundations of our society, corporate capture of regulatory processes, governmental compliance, and misleading propaganda constantly threaten those foundations. It is easy to be oblivious to these threats because corporate media—which ought to inform the public about them—is increasingly a tool used to maintain the status quo.
This is a recipe for the demise of the earth: Eventually even human life will not be sustainable if we continue on our current path.2 But this year’s Project Censored stories show that, with real changes in how we relate to the earth, we can turn things around. To do so, however, we must stop treating the earth like our garbage can.
It is our duty as an informed citizenry to speak for the planet. The citizens of Iceland did so when they affirmed the commons in their proposed constitution.3 As Dr. Seuss wrote, “I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees.” The independent journalists and news organizations that Project Censored highlights in this news cluster do, too. We hope that the following reports encourage you to raise your voice on behalf of human health and the environment as our most fundamental commons.
“SMART GRIDS” AREN’T SO SMART AFTER ALL
Wireless technology has been linked to potentially dangerous radiation exposure. Phones are sold with warnings—albeit obscure ones— about not holding them too close to your head for too long, due to electromagnetic radiation’s impact on the brain.4 The increased use of these technologies in our environment creates cumulative exposure levels higher than we may imagine. As consumers, we ought to know what the potential risks are so we can make informed decisions. Instead, industry-sponsored studies often minimize the risks.5
Censored story #14, James F. Tracy’s “Wireless Technology a Looming Health Crisis,” examined “smart grids” and their potential risks. As a multitude of hazardous wireless technologies are deployed in homes, schools, and workplaces, government officials and industry representatives continue to insist on their safety despite growing evidence to the contrary. The deployment of “smart grid” technology hastens what Tracy describes as a “looming health crisis.”6
By now, many residents in the US and Canada have smart meters installed on their dwellings. Each meter is equipped with an electronic cellular transmitter that uses powerful bursts of electromagnetic radio frequency (RF) radiation to communicate with nearby meters. Together they form an interlocking network that transfers detailed information on residents’ electrical usage back to the utility. Smart grid technology is being sold to the public as a way to “empower” individual energy consumers by allowing them to access information on their energy us-age. This way, consumers may eventually save money by programming “smart” (i.e., wireless-enabled) home appliances and equipment that will coordinate with the smart meter in order to run when electrical rates are lowest. However, the same technology may prepare the way for a tiered rate system for electricity consumpt
ion, set by utility companies, to which customers will have no choice but to conform.
Lack of choice for consumers in terms of from whom to buy is already prevalent. Increasingly, mergers make it harder to do business with companies that do business ethically. Opting out of smart grid technology requires the consumer to pay more per month on their bill—an option that is not possible for all consumers. For now, being informed and willing to pay a premium allows some people to opt out of this particular technology; but as smart grid technology becomes standardized, doing so will become increasingly difficult. In a time of fewer job opportunities, the resulting loss of meter reader jobs is also noteworthy.
WHAT THE FRACK?
Hydraulic fracturing is the controversial practice of injecting water, sand, and chemicals under extreme pressure into wells, which fractures shale so that previously inaccessible natural gas can flow to the surface. In the past six decades, this method has delivered 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to American consumers, but at a high cost. Operations in the United States seem risky at best. Practices in the United Kingdom call for mandatory risk assessment across the entire life cycle of gas extraction to prevent tremors and water contamination. Companies in the UK are required to disclose chemical mixtures put into the ground, whereas companies in the US claim this information is proprietary.7
Censored story #18 story, Elizabeth Royte’s “Fracking Our Food Supply,” revealed that chemicals used in the fracking process contaminate surrounding land, water, and air. As Royte reported, ranchers in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Louisiana, and New Mexico report health problems, and incidents of dead and tainted livestock, due to elevated levels of contaminants from nearby wells.8
Although no long-term research on the effects of fracking on humans, livestock, or plants exists, a peer-reviewed study by Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald linked fracking to illness in animals.9 They believe chemicals leaking from fracking sites could start appearing in human food supplies, due to lack of regulation and testing.
Along with the potential dangers to both animals and humans, fracking also releases greenhouse gases that have been shown to contribute to climate change. “Carbon sequestration” refers to the long-term storage of carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon in order to mitigate climate change. It has been proposed as a way to slow the atmospheric and marine accumulation of greenhouse gases, which are released by burning fossil fuels.10 As Christa Marshall reported, natural gas production and carbon sequestration may be headed for an underground collision course: shale-gas extraction involves fracturing rock that could be needed as an impenetrable cover to hold CO2 underground permanently, without it leaking back into the atmosphere. There is an obvious conflict between fracking and carbon sequestration.
OUR ENVIRONMENT, OUR FOOD SUPPLY
On a global scale, the world’s food supply is fragile. Censored story #15, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed’s “Food Riots: The New Normal?,” and a set of supporting validated independent news stories, address the connections between the world’s food supply and our environment.11
Global food prices have been consistently higher than in preceding decades leading to dramatic price increases in staple foods and triggering food riots across the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, Ahmed reported. The crux of this global phenomenon is climate change: severe natural disasters including drought, flood, heat waves, and monsoons have affected major regional food baskets. By mid-century it is estimated that world crop yields could fall as much as 20 to 40 percent because of climate change alone.12 Industrial agricultural methods that disrupt soil also contribute to impending food shortages. As a result, global land productivity has dropped significantly, from 2.1 percent, 1950–1990, to 1.2 percent, 1990–2007.13
To contrast this, corporate media coverage of food insecurity tends to treat it as a local and episodic problem. For example, an April 2008 story in the Los Angeles Times covered food riots in Haiti, which resulted in three deaths.14 Similarly, a March 2013 New York Times piece addressed how loss of farmland and farm labor to urbanization contributes to rising food costs in China.15 Corporate media have not connected the dots to analyze how intensifying inequality, debt, climate change, and consumption of fossil fuels contribute to the potential for a global food crisis in the near future.
Drawing on figures from the United Nations and the USDA, the BBC’s Richard Anderson reported that we will need to produce 70 percent more food by 2050 to feed the world’s expanding population; yet global corn stocks have dropped by 50 percent since 1998; more than 100 million more people across the world suffer from hunger due to recent increases in food price rises; and globally, one in eight people do not have enough food.16
One partial solution to the looming food crisis is to reduce food waste. The US alone wastes about 40 percent of the food it produc-es.17 Consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa.18 Jeremy Seifert’s documentary film, Dive!, offers a personal perspective on the problem of food waste.19
Although cutting back on food waste is definitely part of the solution, we must also reevaluate different types of food production and their comparative effects on the environment and world hunger. Thus, in “Embracing Sustainability: Forsaking Meat and Chemical Agriculture,” Colin Todhunter reported that, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock accounts for nearly 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.20 Since 1965, the number of animals slaughtered each year has increased from ten billion to fifty-five billion. This in turn means that 9 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, 37 percent of methane emissions, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions come from livestock alone. Livestock also occupy 26 percent of the earth’s usable land.21
Livestock is not the only issue; modern food production techniques also harm the global environment. In the industrial age, farming relies heavily on fossil fuels, pesticides, and hormones, which not only harm consumers but also the earth’s soils and atmosphere. A shift from these practices to more sustainable, organic farming is necessary to reduce the impacts of cars and industry on the global environmental.22
The human need for food impacts our oceans as well.23 As the Guardian reported, rising acid levels in our oceans now threaten coral reefs to an extent that poses dangers for global food security.24 Scientists claimed nearly one billion people in the world depend on seafood as their main source of protein. The high acidity levels are due to the oceans absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Gradual climate change in conjunction with the increase in ocean acidification presents many problematic issues for marine life and the food supply.25
According to Jane Lubchenco, chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), oceanic acid levels are increasing quicker than originally predicted, making acidification climate change’s “equally evil twin.”26 For example, higher acid levels slow the growth rate of oyster shells and the formation of coral skeletons, and impairs the sense of smell of clown fish and salmon.27
As Suzanne Goldenberg reported, “The Gulf, Libya, and Pakistan are at high risk of food insecurity in the coming decades because climate change and ocean acidification are destroying fisheries.”28 In these and other countries characterized by high rates of population growth and malnutrition, Goldenberg reported, fisheries provide crucial sources of protein and economic livelihood. However, a report released by Oceana, titled Ocean-Based Food Security Threatened in a High CO2 World, indicated that many such countries will lose up to 40 percent of their fish catch by 2050, while the Gulf is estimated to lose over 50 percent of its fisheries.29 The Oceana report predicted that the US will lose 12 percent of its catch by 2050.
Not only are our oceans in peril, but our freshwater sources are increasingly at risk. As Richard Anderson reported in his article, “Global Food Crisis in the Making,” without water, crops cannot grow and the world cannot eat.30 And in 2012, wasn’t enough water. The US has seen its worst drought in
more than fifty years, vast swathes of Russia have been left parched by lack of rain, India has had a dry monsoon season, while rainfall in South America early in the year fell well below expectations. As a direct result, harvests of many crops have been decimated, forcing the price of some cereals back up toward levels last seen four years ago—a time when high prices sparked riots in twelve countries across the world and forced the United Nations to call a food price crisis summit.31 In May 2013, a global summit involving 500 of the world’s leading water scientists concluded that without major reforms, within two generations a majority of the world’s population will “be living under the handicap of severe pressure on fresh water.”32
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS TO THE RESCUE?
Advocates of genetically modified (GM) crops have touted them as a technological solution to the problem of food supplies in a world characterized by human growth and limited natural resources. However, as one of the most powerful producers of GM crops, Monsanto has been anything but a champion in terms of feeding the world’s hungry. As shown by Censored story #21, “Monsanto and India’s ‘Suicide Economy,’” and story #24, “Did Monsanto Plant GMOs Before USDA Approval?,” Monsanto is focused on profits over people.
Jason Overdorf of the GlobalPost and Belen Fernandez of Al Jazeera reported on Monsanto’s impact on farmers in India.33 Since 1995, an estimated 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide due to massive debt.34 Vandana Shiva and other critics have concluded that Monsanto’s profit-driven policies have led to a “suicide economy” in India.35 Monsanto has argued that these suicides have no single cause. But evidence involving the corporation’s pest-resistant Bt cotton implicates Monsanto, according to Shiva. She noted, “The price per kilogram of cotton seeds [has gone] from 7 to 17,000 rupees. . . . Monsanto sells its GMO seeds on fraudulent claims of yields of 1500 kg/year when farmers harvest 300–400 kg/year on an average.”36 Although Overdorf avoided directly blaming Monsanto, he identified India’s financial system, characterized by high interest rates and predatory lending practices, as a contributing factor to the despair of India’s farmers.37