Chiquita's Death Squads Kills And Tortures People

I read last thursday in Metro about some of Chiquita's activities in Colombia.

A number of colombian families have sued Chiquita because the company's death squads(!) have murdered and tortured their relatives.

The victims were killed and tortured by at least one of the infamous colombian paramilitary groups, the AUC, which receive funds(!) from Chiquita. Other victims have sued Chiquita because they might have been funding paramilitary groups since the 90's. Chiquita have also armed these groups with the goal to retain control over the areas where they cultivate bananas.

Chiquita have admitted that they have funded the AUC.

If you want to read more about the protection payments to paramilitary groups be sure to read the wikipedia article. If Chiquita have admitted that they have funded paramilitary groups then there is some truth to these claims.

Is Ecological Food Healthier Than Conventional Food?

I believe that ecological food is better for myself and the environment, but it is another thing to prove it. I am not a scientist nor do I have the expertise to read scientific material concerning ecological food. Where do I turn to get information? I turn to the media.

Now, the media are not obliged to report the truth. They report about what make money for them. How do I best interpret information I read in the media? What are my strategies to deal with texts in the media?

My initial stance is often critical, but not always. I read an article about ecological food today and I found myself liking what I just had read. Ecological food was claimed to be healthier than conventional food. I thought, ok, I believe that this might be the case. However, how exactly does the media present the information?

The articles I am concerned about were published by DN (Swedish newspaper) (concerning ecological food) & (concerning toxics in food.

How can I look at these articles with a more critical eye? I have started to read public blogs about what they say about the articles. I believe that it is a good idea to experiment a bit with your pressupositions and beliefs, to rock the boat a little. Thought experiments can be good when you want to get into other systems of belief. It might even make you more critical about something you otherwise find sound.

The problem I have with these articles is that it does not make any sense to publish information about preliminary results even if they are scientifical. Another thing that might be the case is that the European Union did not fund this research. Some even think that it might be a lame interpretation/translation taken from a press release. I find this to be very interesting when other people than the media question that which is published. I do not want the media to get away with shady journalism. I do not want to be tricked into believing things or to shape my expectations and stance with false information.

I recommend that you all try to find other posts and articles about that which has been published in the media environment. It is important that you try and shape your way of thinking about what you read in the media or anywhere else. I believe that this view on the matter evolves your thought.

So, even if you like ecological food, you ought to look at the scientific material that is rewritten in the media and search for the right source and find the right approach to interpret the new information.

Green Dreams

Have you seen National Geographic's article "Biofuels: Green Dreams"? I read it in the paper version of the magazine. However, I think that the same article can be found here.


"Producing fuel from corn and other crops could be good for the planet–if only the process didn't take a significant environmental toll. New breakthroughs could make a difference."