How much corn do we eat in a day? The answer is elusive, at best. For the past 2+ decades, the corn industry has been taking over our food supply. At first it was seen as a cheap and viable way to produce the things we eat. Recently, corn has entered almost everything we eat and changed from an additive to a main ingredient. In addition, the corn industry is unlikely to be holding the reins of government and food production as much as it did 20 years ago. Today, that job sits squarely on the large food production companies. Sure, the corn industry still receives massive (I mean MASSIVE) subsidies to grow its crop. In fact it would probably be a money-leaking crop without the help of our tax dollars. But the fact that corn is in absolutely everything we eat and involved in every step of the process to “create” food, tells you of its continued importance. The companies that produce the vast majority of our food now hold more power than perhaps the defense industry… Think about the effect this might have on you and your family…

This past weekend, NOW on PBS aired an interview with the director of a new food documentary entitled, “Food, Inc.“. Robert Kenner made for a good interview subject and I’m looking forward to watching his film (you can watch the interview below). However, seeing this interview reminded me yet again of how little has changed. In 2003, Peter Jennings reported in an hour-long investigative piece on the food industry. “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying” was an incredible look into the food industry and how, without public knowledge or consent, the industry has hijacked our food supply, as well as the lawmakers and regulators who are supposed to watch our backs. Towards the end of Jennings’ piece, he asks if something can be done to change the legislative atmosphere that allows for so much of this insidious behavior to go on…

If you care about what you are putting into your body and about the future for your children, then I would suggest watching three films:

1) “Food, Inc.” – Although I have yet to see it, I’m sure from this interview with Robert Kenner, that it will be worthwhile and factually correct.

2) The ABC/Peter Jennings’ report, “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying” is probably the most in-depth and insightful look at food I’ve seen yet. It superbly explores the politics, money, marketing and public health aspects of what we eat. I have included the report below.

3) “Food Matters” – Another in-depth documentary on food, as well as the pharmaceutical industry, to scare the crap out of you (and there is plenty of it in this film), the points made and the facts discussed are very worthy of discussion.

After reviewing these latest reports on the food industry (Food, Inc. and Food Matters), let’s revisit Peter Jennings’ question about change. Has anything changed since 2003 when he first reported on this subject? Perhaps, but I doubt it has changed for the betterment of our health.

Here is the NOW interview with Robert Kenner, of Food, Inc.

Here is Peter Jennings’ report entitled, “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying,” broken up into five parts.

“Science is not politics. You can’t just get two opposing viewpoints and think you’ve done due diligence. You’ve got to cover the multiple views and the relative credibility of each view.”

Dr. Stephen Schneider is an expert in climate change from both a scientific and policy perspective. Therefore, when he says something like the above quote, you should take its importance to heart. He knows what he’s talking about… Yesterday we discussed Bryan Walsh’s interview with Eric Pooley about the importance of accurate reporting and not just balanced reporting. In the podcast, Pooley gives a good idea of the situation from a journalist’s perspective. Schneider goes into greater depth about the importance of proper science writing, this time from the scientist’s point of view. Schneider spoke earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago, about the importance of proper reporting on the subject of climate change. (Thanks to the Stanford U News Service for the heads-up and the quotes.) One of the issues Schneider talked about was CNN’s recent decision to eliminate its science team. Not that CNN can be trusted anyway, knowing that it fakes its transcripts and injects false video clips into stories. But at least it was trying to report on science issues… As Schneider asked,

“The problem is CNN just fired their science team. Why didn’t they fire their economics team or their sports team? Why don’t they send their general assignment reporters out to cover the Super Bowl?”

A source in the business of reporting gave me the perfect response to Schneider’s rhetorical question,

“I think CNN and the other networks would keep their science reporters if they could find the scientific counterpart of their “money honeys” that seem to dominate all broadcast business coverage. Or the ranters and yellers on the economy that make for such compelling —- yet non-informative —- TV viewing.”

We’ve discussed the bimbos who mascarade as journalists on TV before (and a personal note to Charles Gibson from ABC: I’m not just referring to women when I use the word bimbo).

But back to the issue of reporting on climate change and the challenge both reporters and scientists face in getting this right… Schneider has coined a great term to describe what happens in reporting on climate change: Mediarology. On his website, he has written an enormous amount on Mediarology and I would encourage you to read more there, but his introduction to the subject follows.

“In reporting political, legal, or other advocacy-dominated stories, it is both natural and appropriate for honest journalists to report “both sides” of an issue. Got the Democrat? Better get the Republican!

“In science, it’s different. There are rarely just two polar opposite sides, but rather a spectrum of potential outcomes, oftentimes accompanied by a considerable history of scientific assessment of the relative credibility of these many possibilities. A climate scientist faced with a reporter locked into the “get both sides” mindset risks getting his or her views stuffed into one of two boxed storylines: “we’re worried” or “it will all be OK.” And sometimes, these two “boxes” are misrepresentative; a mainstream, well-established consensus may be “balanced” against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.”

This is where Schneider hits it on the head: “…to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.” This is why accurate reporting and not just trying for a semblance of balance is so necessary. The two biggest things business and special interest groups have done to harm the environment in the public debate are:

A) They changed the term from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’ Warming is bad, change is just different.

B) By injecting doubt into the world of hard science, they have allowed the lazy reporters to merely transcribe the false drivel, instead of questioning its accuracy.

Last night, Walter Isaacson continued his campaign to charge for the news by appearing on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Again, Isaacson used some really bad examples (the iTunes comparison) to defend the use of micro-payments for newspaper content. However, he did bring up one good point and that is how will foreign correspondents be paid if the news is always free? Watch the interview below and then come back for more:

You can see the discussion that has again bubbled to the surface because of Isaacson’s article, and I think that is the most positive thing to come out of all of this. At least people are talking about how to save the news. But the biggest problem, that we eluded to on Friday, still remains: The newspaper industry is simply too big to support itself in its current form. (Read more about who actually owns the news here.)

If they want to start charging for content, let them try it and see where it leads them. People will find a way around it and alternative sources will rise in popularity AND quality. Pretty soon the community newspaper with its fleet of five part-time reporters might be able to afford sending one of them to Baghdad to report. Then again, I learned more about the situation in Iraq from the Iraqi doctor walking around filming his daily work then I did from the past six years of coverage from CBS, NBC and ABC combined! If one person in Baghdad can make that much of a difference in the video world, who’s to say one person can’t accomplish the same in the print media.

Props to ABC News and Gretchen Peters for reporting on the DoD contracts given out to a Saudi millionaire, who also happens to be an old business colleague of President Bush (from his failed energy company days). Oh, and Ghaith Pharaon happens to be on the FBI list of bad people they want to speak with and France and Italy are searching for him as well. The DoD, after working with Pharaon last year to the tune of $40 million, this year has awarded an $80 million contract to provide oil to the US base in Afghanistan. This man has been involved with the failure of more than one international bank and allegedly profits from money laundering activities by terrorists and others… Somehow the United States Department of Defense, while allegedly searching for terrorists in Afghanistan, thinks he is a worthy recipient of oil contracts even though our own Department of Justice wants to speak to him.

“Ghaith Pharaon is an FBI fugitive indicted in both the BCCI and CENTRUST case,” said Richard Kolko, a spokesman for the FBI. “If anyone has information on his location, they are requested to contact the FBI or the US Embassy.”

Perhaps the DoD will pay Pharaon to make a combat suit as well…