New York Times and the US/EU Biotech War

In announcing the beginning of a biotech trade war with the European Union on the front page today, the New York Times claims that if the EU dropped its ban on biotech crops that "American companies would export $300 billion more in corn each year than they do now." That seems very unlikely since total U.S. exports of goods to the EU in 2001 totaled a mere $156 billion.

Comments

[Warren]

NYT bashing is getting fun. Is there any chance we can take it down? Are there anti-NYT groups organizing? There should be a march or something, take the protest to the streets. DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT!

[Cisco]

I don't know the exact numbers, but if the EU dropped it's anti-biotech stance American exports to Africa and Asia would increase dramatically. Many third world countries refuse to buy American GM grain out of fear that if any of it gets planted, the EU will never import grain from that country in the future.

[Kevin Carson]

Cisco:

On the other hand, if packagers and retailers were free to label food as being with or without GM content, consumption in this country would probably go down. Agribusiness is terrified at the prospect of a free market in information. That's why we have food libel laws, and FDA labelling requirements that *prohibit* including GM information.

And now the government is turning the publick skool complex into a consumer of GM foods through the school lunch program. How's that for sucking off the taxpayer?

[Preston]

"At a time when the New York Times is suffering from a serious and well-deserved credibility problem, to put a story with such a glaring factual mistake on the front page, and above the fold, is nothing short of negligent."

Negligent? Try brazen, or barefaced, or insolent -- especially in light of what our ex-radio man above said about those extra B's or M's.

I mean, after you've been called on the mat about your egregious misdeeds, wouldn't you tread with a lot more caution around the office, making sure you dot all your i's and cross all your t's?

That is, if your aim is to get back in the boss's good graces. (In this case, "the boss" being NYT's customers and advertisers.)

[Brad S]

Why does anyone believe anything that's in the NYTimes these days? The NYTimes has about the same credibility as the National Enquirer.

[joe]

A typesetter ads a zero, and people start in with the raving.

[pichuco]

It's supposed to be Million. $300 million. Just a typo. Move along.

What I'm surprised about is the size of the total export trade. I would have thought it was significantly bigger than $156 billion.

[Madog]

America's domesic market is basicly an entire continent, so we don't really need imports or exports much.

[Brad S]

Disagree, Joe. The tale that the story is trying to tell is that if the EU dropped its ban on biotech crops that American biotech farmers are suddenly going to have this huge windfall and start using their evil biotechnology more extensively than they do today. In this case, the story is largely centered around the statistic. Ergo, it is pretty important to double-check that the statistic is correct. If I'm an organic-food-loving-freak (which I'm not, but for sake of argument let's say I am), and I read this story, and I see that biotech (which I abhor) is going to have a new $300 billion market opened up to it, I'm probably going to be sent into a neo-hippie-panic about it. I may even try to mobilize all of my activist buddies and get them riled up about it. On the other hand, if I see $300 million, that may not rattle my cage as much.

Bottom line - yeah, it was probably an honest error, but it's also kind of an important error.

[grylliade]

Note that second paragraph, where the Americans are claming that the ban is "depriving agricultural businesses of hundreds of billions of dollars a year." So either the "millions/billions" typo is repeated here, or the $300 billion figure was accepted by the writer as correct. Or maybe the typo was in his source. Still, it doesn't seem to be a typo by the NY Times.

[Larry]

I checked the website for the source mentioned in the article and it talks about "nearly $1 billion" in lost biotech crop sales since 1998.

It's hard to be blase about the Times accidentally writing $300 billion for $300 million. The news media knows all about this common mistake, as it should.

In the past, when I had access to an AP feed for use by broadcasters, every mention of billion or million also included an extra (B) or (M) notation to help broadcasters avoid making precisely this error.

At a time when the New York Times is suffering from a serious and well-deserved credibility problem, to put a story with such a glaring factual mistake on the front page and above the fold is nothing short of negligent.

[Manwaring Jeff]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.enlargement-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/26/2004 02:02:09
Cultivated people foster what is good in others, not what is bad. Petty people do the opposite.