America's Food Giants Fight Back
to Stop the Growing Movement Against GE Foods

Posted: Sunday, January 9, 2000 | 6:25 a.m.

WINDOW ON WASHINGTON : Fight against labeling of biotech
products may only delay its requirement
By Bill Lambrecht
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

WASHINGTON - From cake mix to Spam, the Grocery
Manufacturers of America keeps the goods of its members
displayed behind glass at its Georgetown headquarters like
artifacts in the Smithsonian.

In 2000, the goal of the trade association -- made up of
giants like Kellogg's and General Mills -- is to beat back
efforts to require labels on the packaging of genetically
modified food. A lot of what we eat, especially fast food
and processed food, has ingredients from gene-altered
soybeans and corn.

>From his office overlooking the Potomac River, the trade
group's Gene Grabowski spends 75 percent of his time
combating anti-genetic engineering efforts by consumer
groups and environmental activists. Grabowski brings a
pugnacious tone to his task, fitting for a cousin of
football great Jim Grabowski, whose career as a running back
took him from the University of Illinois to the Green Bay
Packers.

Gene Grabowski described December as a month of conflict
with genetic engineering's opponents. "They hit us with
everything they had, and they couldn't put us down," said
Grabowski, 45. "Now, we strike back."

Grabowski was referring to the protests against modified
food that took place at the World Trade Organization talks
in Seattle and to hearings sponsored by the Food and Drug
Administration that concluded last month. The food industry
had feared, he said, that the demonstrations might be even
more effective than they were.

At the World Trade Organization, the message of anti-biotech
protesters got lost amid the cacophony of broader
environmental and worker protests, the industry thinking
goes. And nothing emerged at the FDA sessions to prompt the
government to change its rules about labeling -- so far,
anyway.

As for striking back, what Grabowski meant was a coordinated
industry offensive, anchored by advertising campaigns by St.
Louis' Monsanto Co. and others.

A broad campaign could be risky, if mishandled, and
expensive -- in the tens of millions of dollars. Those who
have viewed some of Monsanto's prospective ads, featuring
farmers and scientists speaking eagerly of biotechnology's
promise, say they are effective.

But some of Monsanto's image-building efforts have
backfired, as recently as last month. At an FDA hearing in
Washington, a public relations company hired by the company
paid people to stage a pro-biotech protest and wave
signs that read, "Biotech equals jobs."

Monsanto denounced the practice and said it would
investigate. Last week, Monsanto spokeswoman Lori Fisher
said the episode had caused Monsanto to curtail work that
the company, Burson Marsteller, was doing on its behalf.

Meanwhile, other companies are jumping into the fray.
Novartis, Monsanto's Swiss-based rival, scorned Monsanto's
early and aggressive approaches in Europe. Now, Novartis is
sending out "We Back Biotech" caps and asserting on its Web
site: "The pro-biotech voice has barely been heard above the
din. We want that to change."

Agribusiness companies and groups like Grabowski's want to
buy time until the day when gene-tinkering produces
healthier foods, which presumably would blunt the critics'
attacks.

"The longer span of time we have before a rush to judgment,
the better off we are," Grabowski said.

Buying that time could be challenging. Last week, the
nation's two leading natural food retailers, Whole Foods
Market and Wild Oats Market, announced plans to rid their
shelves of private-labeled foods that contain gene-altered
ingredients.

That declaration contributes to suspicion about modified
foods, even if it is nothing more than smart marketing.

As far as labeling goes, marketing may be why mainstream
grocers and biotechnology companies give in. Even as the
industry publicly opposes labeling, privately its
representatives discuss how to move to a system that is
voluntary, doesn't scare shoppers and avoids giving
advantages to competitors.

Sooner, rather than later, those goods in the trade group's
glass case and any other genetically modified food that
doesn't tell consumers where it comes from may, indeed, be
museum pieces.