Monsanto Monitor: GE: Emerging Industry PR Strategies
Here is a revealing article on the P.R. strategies used by the
bio-engineering industry in Europe to promote GE frankenfood so as to make
it acceptable in the public's eye through distanciating itself as much as
possible from these patented genetically-perverted plants in the public's
perception through using scientists and "average" people (such as in the
successful strategy used in Switzerland where the industry won a 2:1
victory in a referendum recently) to convince the public that GE foods is
OK and cool.
See also Jennifer C Habib's opinion and pondering (below) of the general
human inequities and social discrimination that, according to her, cannot
be attributed to large multinational corporations - which in my humble view
are often (with some major exceptions of course) only exemplifying the
worst human failings in their overall greed-motivated activities.
Monsanto Monitor
Introductory Issue
January 1999
Feature
Surviving Monsanto
Emerging Industry PR Strategies
The strong public response to GM foods and genetic engineering has forced
industry and policy makers to rethink their communication strategies.
Industry is in crisis and corporations are having to rally together to find
ways in which to deal with the public's unwillingness to accept
biotechnology as an inevitable innovation. The advice that Burson-Marsteller
Government & Public Affairs Europe gave to EuropaBio (The European
Association for Bioindustries) in January 1997 is obviously only beginning
to sink in now: "Stay off the killing field: Public issues of environmental
and human health risk are communications killing fields for bioindustries in
Europe"[1]
Associations such as the EFB (European Federation of Biotechnology) are
working with industry and policy makers on public perception of genetic
engineering (GE). The EFB's Task Group on Public Perceptions of
Biotechnology organises meetings such as the recent Brussels conference on
"Public Perception and Public Policy" (15-16/12/98). This conference
provided industry and policy makers with an opportunity to plan out their
future public relations strategies.
The Monsanto Experience: A Lesson for Industry
Monsanto was the first company to aggressively sell the 'concept' of
biotechnology and its products to the European public. It is considered by
other industry members, scientists and policy makers to be partly if not
wholly responsible for negative public feeling against GM food. The
company's 1997-8 European PR campaign backfired as consumers reacted
strongly against the so-called 'benefits' to society and to the environment
that Monsanto was trying to sell them. Exposure has been particularly strong
in the UK although throughout Europe, suspicion of the genetechnologies and
of the multinational corporations behind them is high.
"They used the might of the conglomerate. They used bullying tactics,
really. Used their might to bulldoze it through" (a journalist when asked
about the 1998 UK Monsanto PR campaign) [2]
As a result of this, Monsanto and other industry members are now finding
themselves, together with policy makers, in the difficult position of having
to 'reverse' negative public perception towards food biotechnology.
"Our work in Britain is still trying to overcome the strong negative
reaction to the way Monsanto introduced this issue though there is some
growing recognition that Monsanto is handling this issue better" [2]
If Monsanto's disastrous PR campaign has in many ways helped to expose the
corporation as a profit and power hungry giant, a more subtle and more
'successful' media campaign by corporations who have learnt lessons from
Monsanto will be more difficult to deal with. It is vital for environmental,
consumer groups and citizens to be able to keep track of the new
communication strategies being worked on by industry so as to expose the
manipulation behind them.
MONSANTO VOTED AMONGST WORST CORPORATIONS - AGAIN
Monsanto was amongst
Multinational Monitor's 10 worst
corporations of 1998 for
"introducing genetically
engineered foods into the
foodstream without adequate
testing and labelling, thus
exposing consumers to unknown
risks".
Public Relations: A Convenient Solution to an Inconvenient Issue
Industry in particular is framing communication (PR, marketing,...) as the
root of the crisis facing genetic engineering perceptions. Although in
itself it is proving hard to deal with, it is nonetheless an infinitely
easier problem to solve than environmental and health concerns. Dealing with
such concerns would be highly likely to lead to moratoria - extremely bad
news both financially and competitively-speaking for the European genetech
industry. It is much easier to decide that citizens are against
biotechnology because they just don't know what it is.
One recent example of this was a statement by Philippe Gay of Novartis Seeds
at the EFB Brussels conference [3] that the recent Novartis Bt maize issue
in France was merely a "communication problem". The French Conseil D'Etat's
(France's highest court) decision against authorisation for the cultivation
of Novartis's Bt maize was based on the fact that Novartis's dossier on the
Bt maize was judged to be incomplete, especially concerning the antibiotic
resistance properties of this crop [4].
Policy makers and politicians, whilst very sensitive to public opinion, are
being led by the "competitiveness of Europe in the global markets" argument.
They too need to believe that communication and the way in which it is
presented to the public are the main barriers to be overcome.
Public Relation Disasters to have hit the Genetic Engineering Industry...
June 1997: Burson-Marsteller's proposal for a communication strategy for
the GE industry, commissioned by EuropaBio, is leaked. The report talks of
Health and Environmental issues as "communication killing fields" for the
GE industry.[1]
Summer 1998: Monsanto launches its European advertising campaign on
biotechnology and GM foods. This campaign is aimed at the AB
socio-economic sectors of society. The PR campaign is disastrous and
unleashes strong negative public reactions, especially in the UK and
Germany. This acts as the final nail in industry's coffin and leads
industry into its current crisis. [2]
Autumn 1998: Marketing research reports analysing Monsanto's failed UK and
Germany PR campaigns are leaked. [2]
1998: Journalists sue Fox TV after attempted suppression of Monsanto BST
report.
The EFB Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology (see article) and
other such organisations play an important role here: whilst apparently
organising conferences on public perception to find ways to help the public
reach 'informed decisions', they are in fact providing industry, scientists
and policy makers with the opportunity to co-operate on communication
strategies that will lead Europe's consumers to believe that biotechnology
is the way forward.
Industry Strategy and New Communication Tools
Public Relations and marketing are being developed in 4 main areas: industry
'dialogue' initiatives; the transparency of Governmental Institutions;
coalitions including direct action by scientists; and informing and
educating the public to reach 'informed decisions'.
Transparency and Dialogue
Policy makers see transparency as a strategic tool in re-establishing
"trust". Whilst transparency is important, it is often used selectively and
as a PR tool which enables the more important issues of public opinion on
legislation to be sidelined.
"The lay public does not have the knowledge to evaluate scientific and
technical issues with regard to modern biotechnology. People realise that
potential risks of biotechnology must be investigated and controlled by
third parties: producers and authorities. As citizens can not evaluate the
technology, they will evaluate the regulators. However, public surveys
indicate that many citizens in Europe do not believe that biotechnology is
regulated very well. Moreover, public institutions are not well trusted.
This situation may affect the acceptance of the use of biotechnology in food
production." [5]
Dialogue is yet again seen as a handy PR tool whilst enabling potentially
unwanted legislation to be avoided: "Parties with opposing opinions can
choose between two general strategies in dealing with the contentious issues
surrounding biotechnology - conflict and dialogue. [...] Eventually, the
conflict may result in political decision, for example in new legislation.
With the uncertain and ambivalent attitude of the general public and even
politicians in the biotechnology area, it is often very difficult to predict
the outcome of such conflict." [6]
A Success Story: Coalition and Local Direct Action by Scientists
The Swiss Referendum on genetic engineering, which took place on June 7,
1998, was a victory for industry, National Government and other genetic
engineering proponents. At this referendum, a 2:1 majority voted not to ban
genetic engineering in Switzerland. In strategic terms, the idea of
coalition was found to be effective by the genetic engineering proponents:
by having as many different people/groups as possible arguing for genetic
engineering, the big corporations and politicians took a back seat as
'everyday' people went out into pubs, markets and shopping streets to give
their views for genetic engineering. According to the EFB's briefing paper 8
on the Swiss Referendum, "Coalitions are essential for bringing about
political change [...] It helped [..] to have a majority of medical, patient
and farming organisations on their side, in addition to virtually all
laboratory scientists as well as the government and its agencies" [7].
According to Professor Richard Braun, Vice-Chairman of the EFB Task Group on
Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, one of the most important events in the
build up to the referendum was the mobilisation of scientists, especially
young ones, as an interface with the public: pro-biotech demonstrations as
well as direct communication with the public were organised.
It would appear therefore that this is seen by industry as a new strategic
tool: local action that could directly include scientists, thus enabling a
certain distance to be established between genetic engineering and
multinational corporations. This would ensure an intense but apparently (to
the public) informal communication campaign to be carried out by research
scientists from academic institutions in whom the public have more trust
than in industry or government. Whilst advertising techniques are not to be
totally sidelined, the emphasis is to be placed on explaining genetic
engineering and promoting dialogue.
Education and Information: Towards 'Informed Decision' or Propaganda?
'Informed decision' is a communication concept developed by industry and
policy makers to suggest that citizens' current fears are unfounded and are
simply negative reactions to inevitable change. Surveys such as the
Eurobarometer 46.1 serve to back up this notion with questions aimed at
showing how little the public know about genetic engineering. Programmes for
'educating and informing' the public are the 'tools' behind such a concept.
[8]
Biotechnology Teaching in Schools: the EIBE [3]
The European Initiative for Biotechnology Education (EIBE) is a European
Commission funded project that was set up in 1991 by CUBE (Concertation Unit
for Biotech in Europe) and covers 17 EU and Eastern European countries. It
works with biotechnology education initiatives and helps to develop them by
training teachers, providing educational materials, etc. Its aims are to
'reflect current issues' in biotechnology.
EIBE is a perfect example of the much repeated idea of 'informed decision'
whereby young people are taught by their teachers, who themselves have the
possibility of being trained by the EIBE, about biotechnology.
"New areas of development and technologies like biotechnology arouse
suspicion in the minds of many people because they do not really know what
it is about" [9]
It specifically targets 16 to 19 years olds, stating in the conference
abstract,
"The up-and-coming generation are however more amenable to change, and
students of school and college age represent a target group that is
potentially receptive to the development of an ability to understand the
principles underpinning the new biotechnology and to assess the implications
of current and future developments" [9]
One may ask how it is possible for the European Commission -who sees
biotechnology as an important innovative technology which will have
important commercial implications for the EU- is able to be objective and to
present teenagers with all the issues surrounding biotechnology. The idea of
perceiving teenagers as a "target group" is worrying since 16-19 years olds
represent a vulnerable age group still growing up and coming to terms with
many aspects of life. Being at school or college, they are still very much
in the 'learning what you're told to' state of mind, and so being taught
about biotechnology is likely to influence them rather than enable balanced
decision making.
Monsanto & Co. target German Teenagers
Monsanto Germany, Novartis Germany and AgrEvo are targeting teenagers in
Germany. In 1998, an issue of the Teen 'Zine, Bravo Girly, carried a
pullout supplement, Gen Food that seeks to make GE cool. Features of the
supplement include:
* teen interviews with the genetic engineer, Hans Olaf Warning ("He
doesn't look like Frankenstein. He seems like a really good guy")
* a visit to 17 year-old Lisa's farm, where her father is growing GE
crops (during which time young visitor, Sven, falls in love with Lisa).
* a quiz to test your knowledge of genetic engineering (and win wrist
watches or packets of genetic biscuits)
* a question/answer forum: teen questions on the benefits and safety of
genetic engineering are answered by an unidentified columnist
Teen readers with further questions can call the hotline (+49 130 914
606).
Teen Zines provide a particularly malleable audience for GE promotion: the
readership is typically a narrow social group (predominantly teenagers and
below) with limited exposure to non-establishment political views or
analysis. There is little or no scope for peer opposition to genetic
engineering in such a forum, so a pro-GE analysis is likely to go
unchallenged.
Science Centres and Museums across Europe [3]
A Science, Industry and Technology initiative partially funded by the
European Commission's DGXII to create travelling biotechnology exhibitions
is underway with a 'Future Foods' exhibition travelling between London's
Science Museum, Lisbon in Portugal and Lille in France. Another exhibition
'Gene Worlds' is organised for Spain and Greece.
These are "hands on" exhibitions, another attempt at informing the public.
They travel around European museums but have also been in shopping malls, so
as to reach a wider audience than the museum public.
Yet again, balanced information for a public with often limited scientific
knowledge is managed and financed by groups who have themselves taken a
position on biotechnology. Such communication tools are very powerful since
they have the appearance of being educational whilst presenting a one-sided
view that biotechnology is the way forward, and that the public must simply
be taught the 'right' way of thinking.
Access Excellence: Industry-Sponsored High School Teaching
Education programmes have already been developed over the last few years in
the US. One example of this is Access Excellence, a programme funded by
Genentech, a medical biotechnology company, which provides high school
teachers with new scientific information and enables the exchange of
teaching methods via the Web. For more information: http://www.gene.com/ae.
Conclusion
New industry PR tactics are becoming subtler and therefore harder to pin
down. Corporations have understood that they must distance themselves from
issues surrounding GM foods. Even more importantly, they have realised that
health and environmental concerns need to be 'dropped' and therefore shown
to be annex to genetic engineering. Convincing the public that everybody has
been wrong about GE is the basic aim of their strategy. 'Dialogue',
'Informed Decision', 'Education' and a publicly active heterogeneous
pro-genetech group (scientists, farmers, medical workers, young people,...)
are the new industry tools that have already proved themselves effective.
References:
1. Leaked report: 'Communications Programmes for EuropaBio' January 1997,
Burson-Marstellar Government & Public Affairs
2. Leaked Monsanto Marketing Research Report: 'The British Test, the Fall
1998 Research', Greenberg Research
3. The European Biotechnology Forum on Public Perception and Public Policy,
organised by the EFB, Brussels, 15-16/12/98
4. Friends of the Earth International
5. EFB conference abstract 'A Taste of Needs, Wants and Demands: Monitoring
consumers' wishes', Kees de Winter, Praaning Meines Consultancy Group,
Brussels
6. 'Dialogue in Biotechnology', Briefing Paper 7, November 1997, European
Federation of Biotechnology
7. 'Lessons from the Swiss Referendum', Briefing Paper 8, August 1998,
European Federation of Biotechnology
8. EFB conference abstract "European Initiative for Biotechnology Education
- Understanding through teaching', Dr. Wilbert Garvin, Queens University
Belfast.
9. "Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook" (1998), Eds.
Durant,J.; Bauer, M.; Gaskell, G.
From: "jennyhabib"
To: "jean hudon"
Subject: Global Economy
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:31:53 -0000
You are quite right about aspartame and genetic manipulation. These seem to
be the products of a very small but immensely rich group of companies. Yes
they are bad because they have not been properly researched. What is wrong
is the attitude to research and scientific inventions. The scientists will
not acknowledge the depth of their ignorance. They promote products with
too short a time of research and too little knowledge of their long term
effects. However the companies are not deliberate murderers, they should
not be entirely blamed for the extraordinary confidence of laboratory
scientists in the correctness of their tests. The damaging effects have
been discovered only after the products have been marketed for some time
and the public have found out the hard way. This has already happened with
thalidomide, pesticides, some artificial fertilisers, some food
preservatives, some antibiotics and is liable to happen with genetically
altered plants. We need to study the effects of new medicines and new
science in far more detail for much longer periods. Food and medicine are
the only really dangerous growth industry!
It is all very well to object to the G8 Conference but the international
companies do not oppress the poor workers in underdeveloped countries any
more than their own employers do. I have lived in Pakistan for 35 years and
seen that the really poor workers and child labourers are first oppressed
by the slightly richer members of their own nation long before the pressure
from abroad actually affects them. What is needed very badly is a universal
acknowledgement of the value of human life together with a real respect for
and understanding of nature.
In Pakistan the multi-national companies paid their workers better than
local employers and gave medical benefits, paid leave and travel allowances
which were not given by local companies for the same work. I am sure many
other countries have a similar situation. The international companies
exploit perhaps but they do not create the poor attitudes towards human
beings that are endemic in the Indian sub-continent. The caste system has
forced the sweeper classes in India for the last 1000 years to keep even
their shadows away from the upper class Brahmins. Their whole society is
riddled with unfair privileges.
In Karachi I had a cleaner who came to clean my floors. He always walked at
the edges of the rooms with his head down, and bent to sweep the floor with
a besom broom. I gave him a nice cup for his tea and a new long handled
broom and tried to encourage him to walk tall. He would not use the broom
at first but gradually got used to it. The tea cup was broken in 3 days.
Again I bought him a cup similar to ours and the one used by the man who
did the cooking. This was also broken by the cook although his cup
survived. This happened three times! I finally realised that the cook
refused to make tea for the cleaner in the same kind of cup as his own. He
always served the cleaner with tea in an old bean can! This is the attitude
which has maintained the deliberate oppression of the poor for centuries. A
world wide protest against class distinction in the third world would be
very useful. To degrade international meetings which do try to achieve a
balance between the poor and the rich countries is likely to be counter
productive. Could we not demonstrate for equality and respect for human
life everywhere?
The third world could not survive without their vital exports. Modern
medicine has reduced deaths from disease but has not reduced child birth.
Most of the poor women bear more than 7 children! They cannot feed or
educate them. There are not enough schools or teachers. In Karachi alone
there are about 200.000 children born every year for whom there is no place
in any school. This is not just from lack of money, this is total lack of
teachers as well!
Birth control would be a great blessing to those poor mothers but the
religious leaders preach against birth control. Should the medicine
companies stop saving lives or should the number of babies born be reduced?
How can we stop the exploitation of child labour when working is the only
way these children can eat? I tried to found a charity to use mobile
schools on trucks using video teaching to allow more children access to
knowledge. I failed, I could not find a local person willing to take the
lead in a job which would have got too much opposition from the local rich!
The government would not register a charity with a British national as
leader. I could not run a bank account for an unregistered charity this was
illegal. I had to return the money I had raised before I left the country.
All I did was raise awareness but this is not enough.
Who are the bad guys? Not an easy question to answer.
Light of understanding and love of human life to you all
Jenny
AND THERE IS ALSO THIS TO CHECK:
February 21, 1999
Healing Our World: Weekly Comment
By Jackie Giuliano, Ph.D.
It's What We Don't See That Will Hurt Us
In a little known action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
shocked the environmental world by approving the use of genetically
engineered
crops by the Monsanto Company and Novartis, among others, in 1995. Today,
after a few years of the use of these plants in commercial agriculture, an
environmental calamity may be in progress. The genie is out of the
bottle, and there may be no way to stop it. (Full article at
http://www.ens.lycos.com/ens/feb99/1999L-02-21g.html )
