Why Does the BBC Do This?

Imagine doing a story focused on the release of a new study and not once mentioning the authors or institution who produced the study. That would seem to be journalism at its worst, and yet the BBC does just that with surprising regularity.

For example, here’s a short article the BBC published on Friday about a study of genetically modified cotton in India,

‘Indian GM cotton a failure’

A new study in India says that 71% of farmers who tried out a genetically modified pest-resistant variety of cotton suffered an average decrease in crop yield of 35%, compared with farms where traditional coton was grown.

The study says it also found that the new variety failed to live up to claims that it needed significantly less pesticide treatment, and that its cultivation was cheaper.

However, a spokesman for Monsanto, the biotech company which introduced the new cotton seeds, disputed the study’s findings, and said that the lower yield could be due to drought.

From the newsroom of the BBC World Service

Who were the authors of the study? Which institutions do they work at? Where was the study published?

These are all essential things to know in evaluating such information, but the BBC story is written as if the study simply burst into existence in the middle of its newsroom.

Source:

‘Indian GM cotton a failure’. The BBC, June 6, 2003.

Killing Malaria by Starving It

Researchers at St George’s Hospital Medical School have come up with a novel way to attack the malaria parasite — starve it of the sugar it needs.

The malaria parasite uses large amounts of glucose. The St. George’s researchers were the first to prove that the parasite uses a special transport protein to absorb the glucose. The importance of this finding is that if a way can be found to block that transport protein, the malaria parasite can be effectively starved.

St. George’s researcher Sanjeev Krishna said of the discovery,

This discovery proves for the first time that it is worth going after transport proteins of the malaria parasite and that parasites cannot live without this transporter working properly.

. . .

We are very excited about this research, as this new information gives us the potential to design new drugs against malaria.

The research of Dr. Krishna and his colleagues was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Sources:

Scientists starve malaria parasite. The BBC, June 4, 2003.

Parasite’s sweet tooth may provide malaria cure. Ananova, June 3, 2003.

Is GM Cotton a Failure in India?

Back in February of this year American and German researchers released a study showing that Monsanto’s genetically modified Bt cotton almost doubled crop yields while requiring less pesticides. But a new study of Bt cotton claims that most Indian farmers who used the GM cotton saw a decline in crop yields by about 35 percent. What gives?

The February study looked at 157 farms that used Bt cotton. The cotton is designed to be especially resistant to the boll weevil which traditionally causes significant crop loss. GM cotton has been used successfully in China, resulting in a 70 percent decline in pesticide use, but India has a far more severe pest problem. That study found that even though Bt cotton was more expensive, farmers who used it still managed to increase their income five-fold.

But the latest study — which the BBC did not bother to identify the source — says that 71 percent of farmers who used the GM cotton found that their yields declined an average of 35 percent compared to farmers who used traditional crop varieties.

The BBC reports that a Monsanto spokesperson ascribed the decline in crop yields to a drought, which would still seem to imply that if the GM cotton is more pest resistant, it might be more sensitive to drought.

Sources:

‘Indian GM cotton a failure’. The BBC, June 6, 2003.

GM cotton doubles yield in India trials. Tim Radford, The Guardian, February 7, 2003.

It’s Amazing What a Country Can Accomplish Without War

Sri Lanka announced this month that its 2002-03 rice crop will hit a record high of 1.93 million metric tons, representing an increase in output of 15 percent over 2001-2002’s rice crop.

Why the huge increase in rice production? Largely because of a cease fire between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers. Without having to worry about becoming victims in the war between the groups, farmers were able to put into cultivation rice paddys that had lain unused for 20 years.

According to Sri Lanka’s Agricultural Ministry, the total amount of land devoted to rice cultivation increased by 20 percent in just a single year. More than 100,000 hectares of farm land are believed to have been made available by the cessation of hostilities.

It’s amazing what can be accomplished when peace prevails.

Source:

‘Record rice harvest’ for Sri Lanka. The BBC, June 4, 2003.

Judge Rules on Final Makeup of McDonald's Settlement

Cook County Circuit Judge Richard Siebel ruled in late May that 24 groups would divide a $10 million McDonald’s settlement. The settlement was agreed to by McDonald’s to settle lawsuits that it used a beef extract for the flavoring in its french fries after telling consumers that the french fries were vegetarian.

In April, Siebel removed The National Ramah Commission, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha America, and The Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from the original list of 26 groups due to conflicts of interest with each of those groups. In his final ruling Siebel added the Hillel Jewish campus organization to the settlement.

McDona’ds attorney Peter Hecker was pleased with the ruling, but Jeff Nelson and other opponents of the settlement were left steaming mad. Nelson and others are angered that some of the settlement monies will go to groups that are not sufficiently vegetarian.

In a commentary on the decision, Nelson wrote,

As part of the settlement McDonald’s issued an apology and promised to donate $6 million to “vegetarian organizations” that are “dedicat[ed]” to the “values” of
“vegetarianism.” Instead, working in league with plaintiff attorneys who were supposed to represent vegetarians, McDonald’s made recommendations that much of the settlement money should go to non-vegetarian groups, or to groups which are in fact hostile to vegetarianism.

In documents filed last week in the case, McDonald’s and plaintiff attorneys argued to the court that many vegetarians “eat fish and fowl.” They argued that for the purpose of giving away settlement money, a “vegetarian organization” could be an organization that promotes meat and has a longstanding financial relationship with McDonald’s, so long as that organization promised to use settlement money to “benefit vegetarians.”

. . .

Many in the vegetarian community are outraged that McDonald’s (in league with plaintiff lawyers, who seem to be more eager to collect huge legal fees than properly represent their clients) has succeeded in duping the judge into believing non-veg groups are veg ones.

Of course Nelson conveniently forgets that many animal rights groups lump meat eaters in along with true vegetarians when it fits their propaganda purposes. PETA, for example, routinely maintains that there are about 10 million vegetarians in the United States. That figure is based on a poll conducted by Time Magazine. The problem, of course, is that 6 million of those “vegetarians” in fact had eaten meat, poultry or seafood in the previous 24 hours.

Other groups often included much higher inflated figures that also included “vegetarians” who are really meat eaters. So if PETA and others are willing to include meat eaters in their classification of vegetarians, why shouldn’t a Circuit Court Judge do so as well?

Nelson concludes his article, however, by suggesting that further litigation is in the offing, writing that, “It seems likely that vegetarians concerned about justice will appeal this verdict, and at a minimum make a final effort to stop McDonald’s from once again defrauding the vegetarian community.”

Hey, don’t let us stop you from enriching your lawyers.

Sources:

Ten groups to split settlement. Associated Press, May 2003.

McDonald’s Case: Final Chapter? Jeff Nelson, VegSource.Com, May 22, 2003.