American Public Media has been getting flogged recently by some of its listeners, the environmental website Grist, and others online for accepting underwriting from Monsanto, and for publicizing the agribusiness giant’s Produce More, Conserve More campaign in underwriting announcements. Count me among the critics who believe that those announcements, broadcast on stations that carry Marketplace, lend public radio’s credibility to a marketing campaign that is misleading, inaccurate and a prime form of greenwashing.

Here’s the language:

“Marketplace is supported by Monsanto, committed to sustainable agriculture, creating hybrid and biotech seeds designed to increase crop yield and conserve natural resources. Learn more at ProduceMoreConserveMore.com.”

On the details of Monsanto’s message, I’ll let the food-policy experts parse the nuances of genetically modified (GM) crop issues, starvation, billion-dollar profits, handcuffing and spying on Canadian farmers, and so on.

What I want to address is public radio underwriting itself. There happen to be these niggling FCC rules that govern how underwriters are represented in sponsorship ads and acknowledgments.

The rules prohibit commercial advertising, but they do allow an “underwriter announcement.” Such an announcement is not supposed to promote the company, products or services of a donor. Noncommercial broadcasters are allowed and expected to use “good faith judgment” in discerning whether their underwriters are providing funding solely for the purpose of promoting a product or company. There is no guidance on whether misleading or deceptive underwriting announcements that qualify as greenwash are prohibited.

So pile up your lawyers on either side to argue the finer points of commercial advertisement versus “underwriter announcement.”

Minnesota Public Radio (American Public Media’s regional subsidiary) describes its listeners, in its sponsorship link, as a “highly educated, affluent, well-traveled and culturally discriminating audience.” This could be seen as a come-hither for commercial advertising.

I would posit it’s difficult to find an underwriter announcement that hasn’t been touched by the typing fingers of corporate marketers. They are champing at the bit to promote their products or companies while still complying with the FCC rules.

Did Monsanto succeed? Judge for yourself. But I look forward to the day when innovative, sustainable companies make enough money that they, too, can underwrite APM and its affiliates using FCC-permissible underwriting announcements.

To be clear: I don’t think APM is greenwashing. In a cash-strapped world, organizations are forced to accept money from companies with questionable ethics. And if the underwriting guidelines don’t have an ethics or sustainability focus incorporated into them, then the only constraining factor is the commercial-promotion angle.

People feel very affectionate toward public radio because it’s one of the last places where you sense there is any balance, integrity or intelligence in investigative reporting. It’s possible that Monsanto is foolish enough to think that its underwriting status vis-a-vis APM/MPR can actually buff up its image. But it seems ludicrous to me.

Fuel economy and low emissions aren’t what Lamborghini, or “Lambo,” owners are typically after. They want (and apparently get) titillating, gut-twisting speed and sinuous turns from the “fighting bull” that make them feel alive — despite a laughable 10 mpg.

Still, Lamborghini has announced it is implementing some new environmental initiatives. The company says it plans to develop hybrid drivetrains and reduce its cars’ carbon dioxide emissions 35 percent by 2015. It also plans to reduce the CO2 emissions of its lone factory in Sant’Agata, Italy, 30 percent by 2010.

Some detractors think an electric engine would deliver better results than hybrid technology. Maybe Lamborghini just doesn’t want to look too much like the $100,000 electric Tesla which has been touted for its speed and acceleration — zero to 60 mph in four seconds.

It’s difficult for me to poke fun at Lamborghini’s plans to install a 56,000-square-foot solar array and other building envelope efficiencies. That’s because the company only has the one factory, it sells only about 2,500 cars a year (compared to the U.S. market of 9 million), and its customers put only an average of 3,100 miles a year on their cars (which probably spend more time getting long, waxy massages or being cloaked in velvet in heavily forested estates). My reticence to criticize may also be based on my love for all things Italian.

Compare the environmental impact of a Lamborghini — despite its horrendous gas mileage — to a typical American-made car. For example, a Ford (take your pick: Excursion, Explorer, F350) will be driven 13,000 miles a year on average, and will be involved in more accidents (we are not particularly skilled in driving big, cumbersome trucks and get too bold as we feel exceptionally powerful in these behemoths).

I’m not letting Lamborghini’s CEO Stephen Winkelmann completely off the hook. Last year he said the company would never, and could never, meet the European Union’s fuel efficiency standards. The funny thing, however, is that the E.U. directive has an exception for manufacturers of “specialty vehicles” (less than 10,000 manufactured a year). European Parliamentarian Guido Sacconi, president of the E.U. Commission on Climate Change, stated the exception was designed “to safeguard the DNA, history and technology of niche car manufacturers on a European level.”

It’s like the sinfulness of eating a runny, mellifluous cheese in France. You just have to enjoy it regardless of its impact.

And for today’s jeopardy: Who is the U.S Trade Representative to China and why did he meddle with Maryland’s proposed healthy toy bill? What percentage of Wal-Mart products are made in China? (hint: 70%) Why do we still believe that a little bit of toxins are ok for babies? Who would jettison baby health for a $700,000/hour market for a chemical? What does it mean to be “free” of something ? (in this case to be BPA free)?

In Washington State, we just botched a prime opportunity to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. BPA, an endocrine disruptor— the regulator for your entire body— is bad juju for pregnant women, babies in utero and infants… at teensy weensy levels measured in parts per billion. The bad juju is heart disease, diabetes, cancer and metabolic disorders. Both Wal-Mart and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) arrived in our mossy spring to just add a few “touch ups” to Washington’s now buried Safe Baby Bottle Bill.

Enter (tada….) doubt and uncertainty, the playing card which routinely kills good public health policy, and the black labyrinth called risk assessment where industry and independent scientists duke it out in a dizzying mosh pit.