Corporate Spies Claim OCA and other Public Interest
Groups are Defeating the Gene Giants

The following is a memo from a pro-biotech public relations firm which is
trying to gather information on the OCA and other US public interest groups
who oppose genetically engineered foods and crops. The basic assumption in
this memo is that the "little guys" are defeating the biotech corporations
because we are utilizing more efficient, economical, and flexible
communications, coalition-building, and mobilization strategies and tactics.

$100,000 VS $50-MILLION COMPETING BIOTECH PR CAMPAIGNS:
THE LITTLE GUY HAS THE UPPER HAND

April 2000
ePublic Relations
http://www.epublicrelations.org/Gean.html

On the surface it appears to be a battle of the big guys versus the little
guys in the war for public opinion of biotechnology and genetically modified
food. When you look a little deeper, however, it becomes apparent that the
little guys, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are the superior
force and will defeat multi-national biotech corporations in what may be one
of the most significant discussions of the 21st century.
This month, April 2000, biotech biggies Aventis CropScience, BASF, Dow
Chemical, Dupont, Monsanto, Novartis, and Zeneca Ag Products, in conjunction
with their trade association, launched at $50-million, multi-year, North
American PR campaign to improve public understanding and acceptance of
biotechnology, particularly genetically modified foods. Coincidentally, over
the past several months a number of social activist non-governmental
organizations have been discussing a proposal which requires $100,000 to
support a new group called the Genetic Engineering Action Network, USA
(GEAN, USA). GEAN is describe as "an important catalyst in the fight against
genetic engineering." If GEAN, USA gets its funding, it will be a formidable
power despite its apparent cash weakness. It will be effective because it
will be structured to reflect the new reality of the information age, while
the industry campaign reflects pre-information age strategies and tactics.

Controller vs catalyst
The industry campaign relies heavily on centralized communications vehicles
such as TV advertising, brochures, a toll-free consumer phone line, and a
website. These tactics are typical of traditional PR practitioners who say
in effect: "We're under attack. We must take control of the situation by
setting up a centralized command post from which we¼ll control information
which goes out. Everything in our campaign must be controlled by us. To lose
control is to lose the war."

GEAN, USA is vastly different. GEAN, USA is described as a "catalyst." Its
organizers say in effect: "We won't do the work ourselves but we¼ll make it
possible for others to do it. How? We'll use the internet and other
communications vehicles to distribute information in support of our cause
and empower our network associates to use it as they see fit. We know we
can¼t control our associates but we trust them to do right." That
illustrates some of the essential difference between the two campaigns.
Industry is following a centralized structured, hierarchical model while
GEAN, USA is following a distributed, network model. The differences in
these organizational structures have a direct impact on their effectiveness
in the information age.

A report on conflict prepared by RAND, the U.S. military think tank, notes:
"organization is as crucial as technology in understanding the information
revolution; this revolution is giving rise to network forms of organization;
and the rise of networks will continue to accrue power to nonstate actors,
more than to states, until states adapt to remold their hierarchies in
hybrids that incorporate network design elements."

With a slight rewriting this passage has an important message for corporate
PR folks:
" the rise of networks will continue to accrue power to social activists,
more than to businesses, until businesses adapt to remold their hierarchies
in hybrids that incorporate network design elements."
The message to corporate PR advisors: reorganize like a network. (This is
the idea behind ePublic RelationsÅ.)

Businesses have failed to learn
According futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler, businesses need to restructure
to be effective in the information age which has seen power dispersed to any
one who has access to information. They also note that centralized,
command-and-control structures loose their usefulness in an information rich
society.
They write:

"Most businesses have not yet learned that to get the most out of the
information technology requires substantial reconceptualization and
reorganization of the work to be done ‚ that Third Wave tools applied to
Second Wave organizations deliver only a fraction of their potential the
new media of the Third Wave include powerful new technologies that
'de-massify' audiences and permit one-to-one customized communications. They
also put cheap diffusion power in the hands of anyone with access to the
internet The further a country advances toward Third Wave economic and
social systems, the less likely central censorship or control will work."
GEAN, USA incorporates the features of an information age network. The
project proposal outlining GEAN, USA states:

"The member groups of GEAN, USA will drive forward the individual campaigns
designed to achieve each of the demands laid out a Bolinas. (Added note:
More than 30 activist groups met in Bolinas, California, in July 1999, and
agreed to four demands which are to form the essence of their anti-biotech
efforts.) The central GEAN coalition staff, as distinct from the member
groups, will serve its constituency as a clearinghouse and secretariat,
providing organizational backup and support for these groups executing the
campaigns All of this work developing the network of organizations and
individuals will done in the context of promoting and supporting existing
programmatic work of GEAN member groups."

A few key network concepts illustrated here are:
1. There is no centralized command. The individual member groups are
responsible for the campaigns, not GEAN.
2. Member groups continue their own activities. They are not controlled by
GEAN.
3. There will be a several campaigns. As a result, it will appear that
biotechnology is under attack on several fronts.
4. Distribution of information is an important part of the structure.
To do the job, the GEAN, USA project proposal suggests one person be hired
for $50,000. The largest single operating cost identified in the GEAN budget
is $10,000 for web communications. This internet activity will be the heart
of GEAN, USA.

A broad, deep and diffuse network
The GEAN, USA steering committee brings together a number of well organized
organizations which will give GEAN a presence and influence in virtually
every community. Here¼s a list of the steering committee members and what
they bring to GEAN, USA from a network perspective:

National Family Farm Coalition: 33 farm, resource conservation and rural
advocacy groups from 33 states,
Council for Responsible Genetics: The council is a member of the Institute
for Global Communications (IGC) whose mission is "to advance the work of
progressive organizations and individuals for peace, justice, economic
opportunity, human rights, democracy and environmental sustainability
through strategic use of online technologies."
(The Environmental Grantmakers Association, which has been described as the
"most important money and power center in the entire environmental" and the
"cartel of eco-money," is also a member of the IGC. EGA has approximately
150 corporate and foundation members. This connection is point out to
highlight the far-reaching networks into which groups such as GEAN can tap.)
State Public Interest Research Groups: 24 state and 17 Canadian PIRGs have a
long history of social activism.
Organic Consumers Association: OCA and a group called Biodemocracy operate a
major website dealing with organic agricultural and sustainability.
Friends of the Earth: With affiliates in 63 countries, FoE has global access
to expertise and information. It has extensive experience with grassroots
networking.
Environment Media Services: EMS is the media/public relations arm for much
of the North American environmental movement. It was offices in Seattle, San
Francisco, and Washington, DC.
Center for Food Safety: Among its stated goals is to educate "the public on
the hazards of industrial agriculture." Its website boasts of "landmark
legal actions" it has taken to support its goals.
Consumers Union: Publishes the respected Consumer Reports. Bills itself as
"a comprehensive source of unbiased advice about products and services."
Mothers for Natural Law: Program of the Natural Law Party which ran 142
candidates in 24 states and captured 1.2 million votes in the 1996 American
election. The party states: "Genetic engineering is the largest food
experiment in the history of the world. We are all the guinea pigs."
As a group of distinct, autonomous organizations, these activists bring a
vast array of experiences, knowledge and resources to GEAN, USA. Through
this network, GEAN, with a mere $100,000, will be active in virtual in any
community at any time. It will have tremendously flexibility and
responsiveness that cannot be matched by the centrally controlled,
$50-million biotech industry PR campaign. What GEAN lacks in financial
resources will more than recover through networks.