Pollan y Ronald? WTF?

Ahora los personeros de ARA están circulando este artículo de Amanda Little que The New Yorker publicó el pasado mes de abril, titulado A JOURNALIST AND A SCIENTIST BREAK GROUND IN THE G.M.O. DEBATE:  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/a-civil-debate-over-genetically-modified-food.html

El artículo narra un supuesto debate civilizado entre el célebre autor y periodista de la agricultura y alimentos Michael Pollan y la científica Pamela Ronald, propagandista pro-transgénicos.

There was a trace of mischief in Michael Pollan’s smile as he took the stage of Wheeler Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, last week to introduce a lecture for a course that he co-teaches, with the activist Raj Patel, called Edible Education 101. The auditorium was crammed with seven hundred students, most looking as you might expect young Berkeley food activists to look: wholesome and bright-eyed, visibly eager to help make the global food system “more equitable, healthful and sustainable,” as the course mission states. This group constituted a kind of monoculture, and Pollan was about to introduce an invasive species.

Pamela Ronald, a prominent plant geneticist and a professor at U.C.-Davis, had come, at Pollan’s invitation, to present her perspective on the benefits of genetic engineering—even though Pollan himself has been avocal skeptic of G.M.O. foods. “If anyone can make the case for this technology, it’s Pam Ronald,” Pollan told the audience.

Tengamos claro que Pamela Ronald es un fraude. Sus supuestas investigaciones científicas no tienen ninguna credibilidad: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/

Este tipo Pollan va resbalando. Está figureando mucho en los medios, faranduleando y joceando la fama. Ya dos fuentes me han confirmado que cobra $10 mil por charla. El nunca estuvo enteramente de nuestro lado. A la misma vez que se ha asociado al "food movement" también ha pretendido quedar bien con todo el mundo, como todo un periodista "objetivo".

Pollan se ve obligado a "portarse bien" y asumir una especie de pendejismo centrista en el debate GMO ya que su patrono, la Escuela de Periodismo de la Universidad de California recinto de Berkeley, ha recibido millones y millone$ de la Fundación Bill Gates. En 2009 el profesor Ignacio Chapela le dio un bien merecido jalón de oreja a Pollan:  http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/2009/04/ignacio-chapela-on-pollan-and-gates.html

Pollan on Proposition 37

Michael Pollan comes out in support of Proposition 37! Read his New York Times column. 
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26403.cfm

Invasion of the Superweeds - Debate in the New York Times

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/invasion-of-the-superweeds/

Howard F. Schwartz/bugwood.org Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, is a particularly tenacious Roundup-resistant pest that has been known to damage harvesting equipment.

American farmers’ broad use of the weedkiller glyphosphate — particularly Roundup, which was originally made by Monsanto — has led to the rapid growth in recent years of herbicide-resistant weeds. To fight them, farmers are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.

Graphic: Where Weedkiller Won’t Work

What should farmers do about these superweeds? What does the problem mean for agriculture in the U.S.? Will it temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for genetically modified crops that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup?

• Michael Pollan, author, “Food Rules”
• Stephen Powles, plant biologist and grain farmer
• Blake Hurst, farmer
• Anna Lappé, Small Planet Institute
• Scott M. Swinton, agriculture economist
• Micheal D.K. Owen, professor of agronomy

Ignacio Chapela on Pollan and the Gates Foundation

Berkeley, April 1
To: Jim Thomas et al.
From: Ignacio Chapela
Re: Gates' Grant to Berkeley's Journalism School

In coincidence with Jim's friends at Berkeley (but independently of any of them), I composed an email to Michael Pollan, which I sent earlier today with copies to people I thought would be directly interested. Since this seems in fact to be taking a deservedly higher magnitude of interest, I am enclosing the text of that email for your information below.

I cannot pretend not to be concerned about these developments, even with Michael's reassurances as reported by Jim. As the corporate capture of all aspects of public life noose-knots tighter and faster, I think this is a very unfortunate step. Berkeley is, as we have shown multiple times over the decades, the weathervane for developments in the corporatization of public spaces and this, modest and independent as it seems, looks to me as a very important one. It was Berkeley, not least thanks to Michael's deft leadership and brilliant writing, which catalyzed the very successful and inspiring inroads of the organic and slow food movements in the last few years, developments which have had resonance around the world. And it is because of this influence that Berkeley continues to be a target of all kinds of discredited parties who want to gain credibility, not least BP, Novartis, the hordes of biotech boosters and now Gates.

Gates' move on Berkeley is interesting because it comes from a "charity", an organization which could be naïvely believed to be free of vested interests and because it targets an institutional player who is not clearly identified with direct interventionist goals as a technical research lab would be. So it is not the usual "BP Pays Energy Researchers to do its Work" kind of headline (as it is, no regular news outlet seems to have picked up the story, but that is another story), and Gates is as free to claim independence from vested interests as the J School is free to claim freedom to research. Naively, then, we should pack this conversation and move on to another (for example, watch the nice video at one my ex student's comment on youth bloggers against clean coal here: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090331/media-savvy-youth-are-blogging-coal-death ). But the reality is not so simple, not these days of Government by Monsanto, BP, Lockheed and Goldman Sachs.

As Jim probably pointed out to Michael, Gates is bereft of ideas on what to do with their billions as they seek to save the poor (from whom?), and they have -naively or not, I don't know- loaded their ship with well-known agents of the capsizing nave of agricultural biotech. If there is anything in which the Gates people seem to believe, it is the unavoidability nay the morality of technical solutions to all problems, and the one tired thing left in the magician's hat of technology for environmental interventions is transgenesis, or at least they seem to believe so. Most importantly, Gates' dominant voice and policy enforcer continues to be one of the most notorious activists for the transgenization of Africa, Robert Horsch (a UC R alumnus and Monsanto's main strategist on the very matter). Given the dismal record of transgenic agriculture in general, and in particular in Africa, can we possibly believe that Gates would want to attract real, probing journalism to their (basically, Monsanto's) agricultural works in the troubled continent? Horsch must know very well what Burston-Marsteller was telling Monsanto already in 1998, namely that the battle over GMOs was not technical, but one of PR dominance. I use the word "Monsanto" here because of Dr Horsch, but also to refer to this particularly interesting beast of the 21st Century corporate state as much as to a metonymy for the rest of the known list of commercial, environmental transgenecists such as Syngenta, Amyris or LS9.

Ever since, and despite all signs of financial, ecological and public rejection of their plans, Monsanto and allies have continued a campaign to enforce the use of GMOs wherever possible. "Africa" has been in their designs at least since their catastrophic collapse of 2000 (largely unreported as such), mostly as a strategic -and mostly rhetorical- location. It appears that Gates may have naively run into its role as the new, new lease on life to Monsanto's designs after the evaporation first of real industrial money (1999), then of venture capital (2002) and now of governmental subsidies. Along this long trek of failures, it has been interesting to note also the move on Monsanto's part from trying to support their own scientists (early 1990s) to getting hired, subsidized ones (in academia and government mid- to late 1990s), to altogether giving up on them and dedicating themselves to two main things: PR and litigation.

I am sure I would offend many at the J School by even suggesting that they could possibly be participating in anyone's PR campaign, but I cannot avoid the conclusion that this grant is intended to weigh the academic balance in that direction. Nevertheless, we the Academic Senate of the Berkeley campus re-wrote the meaning of Academic Freedom in 2007, on the occasion of the BP half-billion cannonade, to mean the freedom to receive money from any source we wish without being questioned about it, so it may be close to impossible (and for me even a breach of basic academic rules) to even ask questions about it. Gates must be well advised about this nice, business-friendly novelty at the Berkeley campus, since the chair of the Senate at the time and a fierce promoter of the idea was the Journalism School's locally influential William Drummond.

Whether Michael (Pollan) takes money from them or not is in fact a consideration, but one that in the dumb light of PR campaigns represents a minor one in comparison with the brightness of the well-honed power of our campus' PR machine and of course those of Gates and their subjacent interested parties. Already in the press release about the grant, Michael is the subject of about 1/6 of the text, certainly the only one with anything to say about how this makes any sense, and there is definitely the impression that he is a central player in the grant. This image is irretrievable. Did he mean to play this role? Apparently not, but this subtlety will remain hidden from the outsider.

By staying on as a faculty member on the Berkeley campus of BP, I am myself confronted with the very same quandary, knowing that the very work I may do on my side of the biotech debates is always prone to be used as a demonstration of the "balance" and even "radicalism" of the campus, no matter how marginal my position may be. It is a sad National situation when I have to be proud that there are no quotes of me on the campus' news website (the ugly mugs with one of my quotes in the Free Speech Movement Café are also gone), or that my Chair would have called me in to tell me that I was tarnishing the image of the Department by my statements. I do not wish this status on Michael, who had managed to keep -together with some of his colleagues- a notably sane environment in the J School, and wish him well on managing what I believe to be unmanageable.

After all, what are the options? In my case, and now it appears in Michael's, too, the alternative doors are closing for the moment. For me the prospect of receiving funds from BP or Monsanto is untenable, but even looking elsewhere the panorama is not much broader for the critical thinker: I do not seem able to find a federally-funded program that has even two degrees of separation from BP's Department of Energy, Monsanto's Department of Agriculture, Lilly's NIH and so on. It is not a coincidence that Gates itself would have hit a brilliant, $48 million strategic alliance with the last uninfected (perhaps) agency, the NSF: not two days ago, the announcement was made that Gates was pouring $24 million into the perversely named BREAD initiative, whereby NSF will administer Gates' money to entice scientists to perform promotional work in ag biotech. In a world where journalism has passed from the kneeling to the supine position, the Seattle Times appears to be the only independent source of this news and far from implying any interest in influencing scientist's attention, the homie reporter highlights Gates' generosity in "sharing" the decision: "Staff from NSF and the Gates Foundation will jointly make the final cut." I would have called that jaw-dropping arrogance, glaring censorship and meddling in the work of science. And of course I can easily imagine the fate of one of my proposals to this generous program.

No doubt, we must keep the feet of the J School and the Gates Foundation on the fire of critical thinking and analysis, and I am thankful that there are so many out there who are paying attention. Please keep pushing, please keep questioning.

With all best from a Berkeley buffeted by a long tide of corporate cooptation that does not relent,

Ignacio


Dear Michael,

I just read news about the big Gates grant to the Journalism School to draw your attention and efforts to Africa's agriculture: What a great idea, what a scary reality! I just want to wish you luck in dealing with this, loaded as it is with the intervention of Gates, Henry and Zilberman (those few I could figure out from the PR on the press release at http://journalism.berkeley.edu/press/africa_reporting/, among the many chefs that I imagine will be wanting to help with the menu); I can see there will be involvement of the Beahrs Poverty Center, too.

I hear from good sources that Gates may be honest about trying to find out the consequences of their extremely clumsy moves on Africa, and they will have to conclude sooner or later that they have been acting like an ignorant goat in a concert hall. But will they be so open as to allow serious journalism being done about themselves? No doubt AGRA will have to be part of any English-language reporting on Africa's agricultures, perhaps the most important part, and it is hard not to conclude from all they do in their "Fourth Generation" AGRA program that Gates are clear in a propagandistic intent.

How to avoid the conclusion that the J School is now burdened with as heavy a conflict of interest as there can be in the field? Not even Monsanto has such a desperate need for inspired and credible propagandizing (check out their Monsanto blog, which they present as if it was their maiden trip into internet-driven opinion-shaping, as if nobody knew about their millions invested over the many years in every possible PR strategy, including the questionable "viral marketing" from its earliest days) - and Gates has in fact much more financial muscle to push their weight around than Monsanto. Gates (and AGRA) cannot claim independence from Monsanto, with whom they have strategic alliances, at least through Monsanto's Danforth Center. Perhaps it will be useful to hear what Paul Rabinow has to say about such deals since he has gained experience trying to infuse the BP deal with a streak of Bioethics, a similar quandary as the one you are presented today.

I do look forward to the internationalization of the food-related work and the J School, and keep my fingers crossed.

With all best,

Ignacio

FYI

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Awards Two-Year GrantTo J-School for Africa Agriculture Reporting Program

The University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism has received a two-year grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop an intensive training program designed to promote high quality media coverage of agricultural development issues in Africa.
"We are thrilled," said Professor and Dean Neil Henry, a former Africa correspondent for the Washington Post. "There are so many untold stories from Africa about this subject in the U.S. and international media. We're delighted and honored to be able to play an important reporting role on the continent at a very critical time."
Today, more than a billion people live on less than $1 a day, and nearly 1 billion live in hunger. A majority of these people rely on agriculture for their food and incomes. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, agriculture accounts for about two-thirds of employment. Building public awareness of hunger and the issues that surround it can provide political leaders with the mandate and support to take action.
Berkeley's $767,800 grant will support extensive work in the U.S. and Africa by groups of reporters, including the School's graduate students and select visiting scholars from Africa and other regions of the globe.
Michael Pollan, the University's Knight Professor of Science and Environmental Journalism, and the author of best-selling books about food and agriculture including the The Omnivore's Dilemma, The Botany of Desire, and In Defense of Food, will lecture in a yearlong intensive seminar examining food issues on the continent.
"How will Africa feed itself? is one of the most important food stories of our time," Pollan said, "and this grant will help make it possible for our students to cover it."
According to Professor Henry, the project's chief goal is to produce compelling narratives in all media formats about the roles of small farmers in Africa --most of whom are women-- for publication and broadcast to general audiences in the U.S., Africa, and around the world.
The project will feature teaching collaborations between the journalism school, the University's Center for African Studies, and researchers in departments including Agricultural and Resource Economics and the Center of Evaluation for Global Action.
A yearlong intensive background course will explore topics ranging from the effects of western aid and trade policies on African development, to the role of genetically modified food in addressing global hunger and poverty, to the geopolitical factors contributing to hunger.
"We believe that meaningful, original, and independent works of journalism about these issues can translate into a far more enlightened and engaged public, and hopefully better decision-making by government leaders," said Professor Henry. "It's a very valuable initiative especially at a time when so many mainstream media organizations are cutting back on foreign coverage."
This grant is part of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Development Program, which works to increase opportunities for people in developing countries to overcome hunger and poverty. The program's Policy and Advocacy initiative supports efforts to increase awareness of global development issues, identify and promote powerful solutions, and advocate for more and better investments, helping to accelerate progress against the world's most acute hunger and poverty.

SOURCE: http://journalism.berkeley.edu/press/africa_reporting/

Michael Pollan and Monsanto CEO at Google on YouTube

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

BOOK TOUR | REVIEWS
SIGN UP FOR NEWS OF EVENTS

Buy this book at: Amazon Cody's Barnes & Noble

Food. There's plenty of it around, and we all love to eat it. So why should anyone need to defend it?

Because most of what we're consuming today is not food, and how we're consuming it -- in the car, in front of the TV, and increasingly alone -- is not really eating. Instead of food, we're consuming "edible foodlike substances" -- no longer the products of nature but of food science. Many of them come packaged with health claims that should be our first clue they are anything but healthy. In the so-called Western diet, food has been replaced by nutrients, and common sense by confusion. The result is what Michael Pollan calls the American paradox: The more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become.

But if real food -- the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food -- stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals.

Pollan proposes a new (and very old) answer to the question of what we should eat that comes down to seven simple but liberating words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By urging us to once again eat food, he challenges the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach -- what he calls nutritionism -- and proposes an alternative way of eating that is informed by the traditions and ecology of real, well-grown, unprocessed food. Our personal health, he argues, cannot be divorced from the health of the food chains of which we are part.

In Defense of Food shows us how, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, we can escape the Western diet and, by doing so, most of the chronic diseases that diet causes. We can relearn which foods are healthy, develop simple ways to moderate our appetites, and return eating to its proper context -- out of the car and back to the table. Michael Pollan's bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we can start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives, enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy, and bring pleasure back to eating.

Pollan's last book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, launched a national conversation about the American way of eating; now In Defense of Food shows us how to change it, one meal at a time.

Read the introduction to
In Defense of Food (PDF)

Advance praise for
IN DEFENSE OF FOOD

Michael Pollan. Penguin Press, $21.95 (232p) ISBN 978-1-59420-145-5

In his hugely influential treatise The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan traced a direct line between the industrialization of our food supply and the degradation of the environment. His new book takes up where the previous work left off. Examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of health, this powerfully argued, thoroughly researched and elegant manifesto cuts straight to the chase with a maxim that is deceptively simple: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.a^?? But as Pollan explains, "food" in a country that is driven by "a thirty-two billion-dollar marketing machinea^?? is both a loaded term and, in its purest sense, a holy grail. The first section of his three-part essay refutes the authority of the diet bullies, pointing up the confluence of interests among manufacturers of processed foods, marketers and nutritional scientists -- a cabal whose nutritional advice has given rise to "a notably unhealthy preoccupation with nutrition and diet and the idea of eating healthily." The second portion vivisects the Western diet, questioning, among other sacred cows, the idea that dietary fat leads to chronic illness. A writer of great subtlety, Pollan doesn't preach to the choir; in fact, rarely does he preach at all, preferring to lets the facts speak for themselves. (Jan.)