Felix Salmon smackdown watch, organic farming edition — Foreign Policy
My (not so) excellent Chez Panisse adventure — Berkeleyside
Gaby Darbyshire stands up to the California police — Gizmodo
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Strange, neither the phrase “genetically modified, nor the names “Monsanto” and “Dow Agrosciences” appear in the Foreign Policy article.
Weatherhead Center, go back to playing your wargames you freaks.
Huh, turns out the 27 percent poverty rate for ‘rural’ India in 2004 was actually for the entire country, and has increased to 37.2 since 2004. I bring this up because he uses this figure to disprove any success of the “Green Revolution” to reduce hunger. That was the first and only point I researched and he misused a statistic. Credibility!
http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/ne wdelhi/100-million-more-Indians-now-livi ng-in-poverty/Article1-533202.aspx
The poverty rate in India has NOT increased from 27 to 37 percent. Instead, India has recently changed the definition of poverty, making more people eligible for food security programs. The article simonak cites misreports this revised definition as if it were a real increase, but the article is just wrong.
In fact, no new data on poverty has been released, so we don’t know for sure if it’s fallen or risen since 2004. Since poverty has been falling so rapidly in India over the last several decades, it’s a pretty good guess that poverty has fallen some more over the last 5 years.
A somewhat better article:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/37.2-p er-cent-of-population-bpl-10-crore-famil ies-to-get-food-security/607963/