US Biotech Companies Panic, Launch Major Propaganda Effort

The New York Times

November 12, 1999

Biotech Companies Take On Critics of Gene-Altered Food

By DAVID BARBOZA

CHICAGO -- Worried about growing resistance to genetically
modified foods, some of the world's biggest biotechnology
companies are mounting a huge lobbying and marketing
campaign to counter their critics and combat what they call
a rising wave of anti-biotech hysteria.

Makers of genetically modified seeds have taken a beating
this year in
Europe, where critics have sabotaged test plots of altered
crops and have fostered widespread distrust of what they
call Frankenstein foods.

Now that concern is beginning to grow in the United States.
Environmental groups are stoking opposition through lobbying
and full-page advertisements; federal lawmakers on Wednesday
introduced legislation that would require labeling of food
made with genetically modified crops, and regulators are
re-evaluating everything from food safety to the effects
bioengineered crops may have on the monarch butterfly.

At stake in this contest for American public opinion are
billions of dollars in investments by the biotechnology
industry and American farmers who have rapidly adopted
products like corn, potatoes and soybeans that have been
engineered to resist pests or producer higher yields.

Until recently, the leading biotechnology companies were
reluctant to
respond to criticism in this country for fear of making the
novel foods an issue. But some biotech executives now say
that there is a sense that the tide may be turning against
genetically modified foods and that urgent action is needed.

And so in recent months, the Monsanto Company, Du Pont,
Novartiscoei A.G. and other biotech companies have formed a
series of industry-wide alliances and have set aside tens of
millions of dollars to fight what they view as an ugly
campaign that has vilified the companies -- calling
Monsanto, for example, "Monsatan" and "Mutanto," -- and has
misrepresented their products.

"The protest industry has gone too far," Edward Shonsey,
chief executive at Novartis Seeds Inc., said in an
interview. "They've crossed the boundaries of
reasonableness, and now it's up to us to protect and defend
biotechnology. As a result there's a combined effort to get
the facts out there."

Members of the alliances are financing scientific research,
organizing
educational forums, lobbying legislators, regulators and
farm organizations, and using their own Web sites to promote
the benefits of genetically modified, or G.M., products. The
members have also retained three major public relations
concerns in recent weeks. And many are pooling their
resources and preparing a global advertising and public
relations campaign.

"All these forces are coming to bear where we're going to
have a really big battle," said Todd Duvick, a food industry
analyst at Bank of America. "We already have huge quantities
of G.M. foods and there are companies that want labeling and
companies that don't want them; it's creating a logistical
nightmare. Meanwhile, all the biotechnology companies are
trying to protect themselves."

The debate centers on a technology that can borrow a genetic
code from
plants or animals and transfer it to a plant to give it a
desired trait.
This year, 20 to 45 percent of American corn and soybeans
were grown from seed engineered to produce its own
insecticidal toxin, and those crops have found their way
into many processed foods. Backers say biotechnology may
eventually lead to crops that have extra nutrition or can
thrive in adverse weather.

But some consumer advocates and scientists, particularly in
Europe, say that not enough research has been done to prove
that food made from genetically altered crops is safe to
eat. In response, federal regulators say that no studies
have proven that food made from genetically modified
products is harmful to eat, and that all biotech products
now on the market have been deemed safe.

Another concern is the possible effect such crops might have
on the
environment. An increasing number of studies suggest that
genetically
modified plants could interact with the environment in
hazardous ways, like creating a hard to eradicate super
weed, and that regulators are not demanding the proper
studies to assess the risks.

With critics gaining ground in the United States, the
biotechnology
companies feel they need to act. But their campaign is not
unified.
Monsanto, whose aggressive efforts to gain acceptance for
its genetically modified products backfired in Europe,
recently retained Burson-Marsteller, a global public
relations firm, at an annual cost of millions of dollars,
according to people who reviewed the deal.

Monsanto, whose stock price has suffered over the past year
because of
growing concern about the viability and profitability of its
biotechnology division, is now trying a two-pronged effort
to educate consumers and reach out to its critics.

"We look at this as a much more positive, pro-active
dialogue with the
public, which has the right to know more about the benefits
of
biotechnology," said Nick Rosa, a senior vice president at
Monsanto in St. Louis. "We are not interested in a guerrilla
response. There are many coalitions interested in
communicating on biotech and in many instances we are
working with them. We believe that the benefits of
biotechnology need to be told."

Monsanto is even meeting with some of its most vocal
opponents. A month ago, the company's chief executive,
Robert B. Shapiro, addressed a gathering of the
environmental group Greenpeace. And top executives at
Monsanto, including Shapiro, are planning to meet soon with
Jeremy Rifkin, an influential commentator on science and
technology to whom biotechnology is a "Faustian bargain."
The meeting was arranged by Ralph Nader, the consumer
advocate. Du Pont is taking a conciliatory approach.

"Public concern has been aggravated by the perception that
we in industry have often acted as though public fears are
not legitimate and are the result of ignorance," Charles O.
Holliday Jr, the chief executive at Du Pont, said in a
speech last September. "Unfortunately, many in the industry
have been reluctant to address concerns about the risks of
biotechnology. But we have to listen to the people who are
now raising alarms. We don't have all the answers and to
pretend we do, or to brush off concern as unfounded, is to
be arrogant and reckless."

Du Pont recently released a series of television commercials
about the
future, featuring the company's "to do list," which included
research to
"find food that helps prevent breast cancer."

Novartis Seeds U.S.A., however, is publicly acknowledging a
spirited
campaign to balance the flow of public information about
biotechnology.

"I'm in four or five different working groups on this
issue," said Shonsey, the chief executive at Novartis Seeds.
"We're holding in-depth sessions with members of Congress,
with universities and trade associations, the grocery
manufacturers and food associations. Strategy is taking
place to do that, you may even see TV and radio ads, even
scientific conferences. We want a consistent message out
there. We want a more balanced discussion."

Food industry trade groups are also rallying and recently
formed the
Alliance for Better Foods, whose Web site betterfoods.org,
is devoted to
promoting the benefits of biotech foods.

The organization, which is supported by groups like the
Grocery
Manufacturers of America, says it wants consumers to know
not only that
bioengineered crops resists pests and increases crop yields,
but that the technology holds out the promise of creating
more nutritious foods and perhaps even foods that could
serve to prevent or treat medical ailments.

"You've seen the shrill statements and outrageous tactics by
people who are attacking biotech foods," said Gene
Grabowski, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of
America and the Alliance for Better Foods. "Our site is
intended to be based on fact; it's decidely pro-biotech but
it's not intended to be strident."

The companies have reviewed their stunning public relations
loss in Europe and now acknowledge that there were a number
of missteps. "I think there was a certain naïveté in our
initial approaches to the European market," Shapiro said in
an interview. "We had been operating on a model that had
been used in the U.S. If the question is have we learned
anything in recent months in the sociology, the media
orientation, yes we have learned something."

In many cases, the trade groups and other coalitions are
expected to take the visible lead in the months to come.
"There's a feeling that some of the companies have been
vilified, and so it's more credible if scientists and
academics and farmers stand up on the issue," said Carl
Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization in Washington, which is lobbying on behalf of
Monsanto and others. "If it's the company people say, 'Well,
it's got a commercial interest.' So it's better this way."

Some of the leading environmental groups, however, say they
believe the new campaign will backfire because it will raise
even more questions about biotech foods.

"They are under the misguided assumption that the more
information they put out the more light at the end of the
tunnel," said Rifkin, who is president of the Foundation on
Economic Trends, an environmental group. "But the more
information they put out the more questions people have
about G.M. foods." He asserted that the products were
dangerous and said, "They think it's public relations
disaster but it's more than that."

Environmental groups in the United States pounced on the
issue last May,
when a Cornell University study showed that pollen from corn
producing the insecticidal toxin Bt could stunt the
development of monarch caterpillars in the laboratory. Since
then there has been growing coverage by the news media of
the concerns about the safety of genetically modified crops.

On Wednesday in Washington, a bipartisan group of 20 members
of Congress
introduced legislation that would require labeling of
genetically engineered food products because of concerns
about food safety.

In the coming weeks, the F.D.A. is planning to hold a series
of forums on biotechnology, largely to solicit public
opinion, and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman is expected
to name a panel of experts to advise him on biotechnology
issues; the Environmental Protection Agency is also expected
to announce in the coming weeks how biotech corn can be
planted, a decision that may be influenced by the recent
restudies on the monarch butterfly.

In the scramble to influence this debate, a group of public
relations
officials apparently jumped the gun last week at a
scientific conference
here.

The conference, which was financed by the large
biotechnology companies,
invited representatives of the news media. Yet before the
deliberations
began, conference staff members issued a news release
announcing that the meeting was expected to show that
genetically engineered corn did not harm monarch
butterflies, even though no scientists later polled by a
reporter said they could draw such a conclusion and most of
them acknowledged that their research was far from complete.

The conference and about half the studies presented were
financed by the
biotechnology industry. But the public relations officials
insisted the
meeting was strictly scientific.

"You can quibble with it but I think it was a low-key press
release," said Libby Mikesell, a spokeswoman for the
Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Working Group, a
trade group financed by big biotechnology companies. "This
just said: 'This is what we expect them to say, please tune
in. There wasn't any interest in trying to spin it.' "

Several scientists, however, say they were told the
conference could help influence the decision by the E.P. A.
on biotech corn. "It's my
understanding that they wanted to give some partial data to
the E.P.A. by this date," said John Foster, a professor of
entomology at the University of Nebraska.

The scientists say part of the reason they chose to release
preliminary
data, some of the studies with as little as 10 percent of
the work complete, was pressure from farmers seeking more
information.

Indeed, much of the debate about biotechnology is coalescing
around seed
sales to farmers. The nation's leading seed and
biotechnology companies are trying to convince farmers of
the viability of their products.

"They're doing a lot more hand holding," John Hawkins, a
spokesman for the Illinois Farm Bureau. "Farmers are upset
with low prices and now you have this technology with
potential to lower their costs but foreign countries are
saying 'we're not going to buy it or we'll have to label
it.' "

And if farmers turn against them, the big biotechnology
companies could face huge losses.

"Clearly everyone in the biotech industry is concerned,"
said Frank Mitsch, an industry analyst at Deutsche Banc
Alex. Brown, a brokerage firm. "To some extent the year 2000
is going to be a lost year for them, and we're trying to see
the order of magnitude."