Palm Oil, The Times and Journalistic Integrity
Go to: Previous Article Next Article
The Times, the venerable British newspaper with the monosyllabic name has often been called "the Thunderer" (and sometimes "the Blunderer") for good reason. Often wont to jump into the issues of the day and take up editorial positions without fear or favour, the Times has, in times past, earned a reputation as the leading journal of Europe.
In recent times, the paper has shown signs of slipping. Forced to convert to a tabloid format in late 2003 to combat falling circulation and dropping revenues, The Times has sadly appeared, of late, to compromise their admirable and long held standards of journalistic exactitude and evenhandedness.
How else can we reconcile the mid May article by its columnist, Camilla Cavendish entitled "A renewable force meets an irreplaceable object." Writing on the Neste Oil's foundation stone ceremony to officiate the construction of its NExBTL renewable diesel plant in Singapore on May 11th, 2009, a plant that promises to produce biodiesel that can halve emissions from diesel cars, Cavendish writes: "Right now, however, its wonder ingredient is Malaysian palm oil. And that is a problem. European demand for palm oil has led to widespread destruction of rainforests in Malaysia and Indonesia, to make way for plantations."
"In Indonesia, the amount of land devoted to growing palm oil has more than doubled in ten years, mainly to supply ingredients for Western food and cosmetics. If the market for diesel from palm oil takes off, spurred by EU subsidies, even more rainforest will be destroyed to create more plantations," she continues.
It behooves one to ask whether Cavendish had done any fact checking before she wrote her column.
It is well established that one of the main tenets of journalism ethics requires even-handedness in handling any story, a natural dictate, shall we say, to present both sides of a story, being fair to both.
In the view of the Palm Oil Truth Foundation, this injunction Cavendish has sadly and recklessly violated and failed to fulfill.
To tar Malaysian palm oil with the same brush as Indonesian palm oil with scant regard for the very different planting environment in both countries is, to put kindly, journalism that has yet to meet the lofty standards of a 221 year old paper.
Is Miss Cavendish even aware that Malaysian palm oil has erstwhile been the world leader in palm oil and the crop has been planted in the country for more than a hundred years? Yet, the country today still has forest cover of more than 55% which is close to 3 times that of the United Kingdom? What facts can be evinced and deduced from this?
Fact One: Palm oil is clearly the most sustainable of ALL the oilseed crops on account of its inherently high productivity with a yield of 4,000-5,000 tons of edible per hectare of plantation. This yield dwarfs the average 500 tons typical of its closest competitors such as soy, sunflower and rapeseed.
Fact Two: Because of the small footprint that palm oil requires in terms of land use, palm oil plantations, in Malaysia at least, have largely been set up in legitimate agricultural land, replanted on old palm oil or rubber estates or on previously logged over areas. In fact, the total area planted with palm oil in Malaysia only constitutes 0.09% of total world agricultural area. To suggest that 0.09% of the total world planted area is responsible for "widespread destruction of rainforests in Malaysia and Indonesia" which "accounts for (wait for this) almost 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," is grim testimony to the propensity of environmental types for factual magnification and misrepresentation. Miss Cavendish's penchant for hyperbole is given due vent when she alleges (in our view, most facetiously) that the greenhouse gas emissions released are "more than is produced by every single car, ship, truck and aircraft on the planet," which is surely a stretch, by any measure! It should be observed that she studiously avoids mention of "factories" in that long list of diversionary stats.
Fact Three: The oil palm tree, as a full grown tree, has a high leaf index and a productive life of 20-30 years, dispensing with the requirement for annual tilling and replanting that renders it remarkably effective in sequestering CO2 and supporting biodiversity when compared to its closest competitors and other oilseed crops. For example, olive farms are notorious for using too much water or need irrigation; prone to desertification and soil erosion by wind with almost no biodiversity, and thus contribute minimally in combating global warming. The olive plantations are so inferior in environmental sustainability compared to oil palm plantations in Malaysia. Thus it is indeed baffling why palm oil has been singled out for criticism!
Fact Four: The recent announcement by Sime Darby and various other stakeholders in the Malaysian palm oil industry that they have successfully sequenced the genome for palm oil augurs well, not only for the industry, but for the environment as well for such a development can only mean even higher yields. This will translate to even greater sustainability and even less land use as some have predicted a doubling in the yield of palm oil once the newly developed strains are planted.
We could go on, but suffice it to say that these criticisms were conspicuously muted and absent when the British established and owned the oil palm plantations in Malaysia right up to the 60s and 70s! The Palm Oil Truth Foundation is compelled to ask whether such criticism would have been just as loud and vociferous if the British had continued their ownership of the said Malaysian palm oil plantations. THE END.
Article Source: Articlelogy.com
- Credit Cards A big selection of Cards in all flavors: Bad Credit Cards, Secured Cards, Prepaid Cards, Credit Cards for Canada, Low Interest Cards, etc -
Word Count: 982
Reduce Your Debts Without Bankruptcy. See How Much You Can Save. Free Debt Analysis
