You can always count on the UK Guardian to be a sturdy proponent of Left wing bias and a recent article the paper published on pesticides demonstrates this.
The Guardian took it upon itself to print a news story in light of the EPA’s recent decision not to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used in defending crops from insect attacks. Despite the EPA’s refusal to outlaw the insecticide, environmentalists are litigating the issue in hopes of obtaining a court declaration that chlorpyrifos is a danger to human health in order to force the EPA to ban it.
The Guardian piece profiles a number of Hispanic residents located in California’s Central Valley where the majority of the state’s crops are grown and in which usage of chlorpyrifos was banned for residential use in the Golden State during 2000.
What is concerning is Guardian story makes a questionable claims using race. For exmaple, as opposed to white kids, the report alleges Hispanic children are over 90 percent more likely to attend schools located in areas where heavy pesticide use is common, the report points to a number of instances where adults allege they and their kids were adversely affected by pesticide use.
Toward the end in an act of generosity and to seem like they were seeking to be objective and probably knowing people would not read the story in its entirety, the Guardian was kind enough to set aside a small segment to report the other side:
Bob Blakely, vice-president of California Citrus Mutual, a Tulare County industry group that supports chlorpyrifos, said growers were dependent on the chemical and claimed that its application is highly controlled in the state. “We’re very heavily regulated. I’d be more concerned about children not eating fresh fruits and vegetables.”
Dow AgroSciences, which manufactures the pesticide under the name Lorsban, has consistently argued that studies raising concerns are flawed and that the science is inconclusive.
“Farmers in about 100 countries rely on the effectiveness of chlorpyrifos to protect more than 50 crops,” the company said in a statement to the Guardian, claiming that “authorized uses” of the chemical offer “wide margins of protection for human health and safety”.
Carol Burns, a Dow epidemiology consultant, criticized the UC and Columbia studies in an email, claiming that other research suggests there are “no significant associations between possible exposure to chlorpyrifos and any health effects in the children”.
The entire news story is obviously slanted/ The Guardian reporter relies on subjective, unproven allegations using studies to support the claims in which the majority of the report is weighted in favor of not only making chlorpyrifos look bad but also embarassing President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to not ban it. The article’s author also purports a conspiracy theory that moneyed interests are more interested in protecting their profits than the welfare of people.
The Guardian‘s intent is clear if one understands the context of its activity with regard to chlorpyrifos. Use a widely read publication to publish a story lying about a pesticide in hopes of it getting reported in the press and then use the publicity as a means to scare the pubic into supporting banning it. The consequence of fewer is less effective means for people to fight off insect attacks on agricultural crop yields. This, in turn, results in not only reduced crop production for farms that will mean less food in circulation to feed humans resulting in death by starvation.