US Media Serve Up Pro-Biotech Propaganda

Media File Volume 20 # 3
May / June 2001
<http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-3/index.html>

Do you want fries with that?

Media Serve Genetically Modified Food Industry
by Jane Akre and Steve Wilson

Sitting in his Baltimore office the other day, Charles Margulis,
Greenpeace's quiet and thoughtful anti-genetic engineering warrior,
seemed chagrined. Margulis is the one who virtually single handedly
prompted Gerber's recent decision to remove all genetically engineered
(GE) ingredients from its baby food. He is also the one who shamed
Kellogg into admitting that they exclude GE ingredients from their
European cereals but do nothing to keep them out of American breakfast
bowls.

What had Charles worried was an email news release he had received
from the folks behind the respected PBS Frontline series. In the foregoing
weeks, Margulis had spent much time and effort with the producers in putting
together a report about GE foods and now, here in his email, was the first
indication of what that report might look like.

"I was shocked to see what they wrote," he says. What shocked him the
most was the part that read, "In Africa, rice plants are genetically transformed
to produce vitamin A, preventing millions of African children from going
blind." Margulis had been quite clear in explaining to Frontline producer
Kathleen Boisvert: those were the very buzzwords and images used by the
biotechnology industry today to promote its technology and derail its
critics. The problem with that "save-the-world-while-making-a-buck"
statement? It is based on a lie.

Margulis hammered out a quick reply to the email. "Is this really from your
release? Is Frontline aware that there is no Vitamin A rice growing anywhere
outside of a few greenhouse plants, none of which are in Africa?" he asked.
Boisvert seemed surprised at first, but later, apparently after conferring
with senior producers, she replied: "Yes, you are viewing the official press
release for Harvest of Fear. The first paragraph lists examples that the
biotech industry is claiming as future applications/benefits of GE
technology."

Margulis almost couldn't believe it. He knew that if what was ultimately
broadcast reflected what the press release said, viewers would only be
misled about this new technology that was already being forced down
consumers' throats.

"I'm very surprised that Frontline would write such a misleading release,"
he responded, as tactfully as possible. "The release is written in the
present tense. Anyone reading it would certainly conclude that these
products already exist."

Apparently, the producers were no longer interested in the opinion of the
expert they had courted and relied upon earlier. They never even bothered to
write him back. So now, as is so often the case when anyone talks with a
reporter, Margulis is simply left to wonder. Has the industry that has so
effectively steered the reporting of this new technology succeeded in
feeding Frontline a fairy-tale version of the facts? Do the producers really
get it? What's even more troubling, do they still have the freedom to report
all the facts they find without the political or economic pressures that so
clearly influence what passes for journalism in the mainstream media these
days?

Massaging the Message

For those raising questions about genetic engineering and its possible
deleterious effects on humans and the environment, there is no shortage of
evidence that the industry itself has become the master of the message,
manipulating and massaging the facts wherever they must.

Consider the $50 million advertising campaign by the Council for
Biotechnology Information, the industry's Washington front group. Its
mission: "To create a public dialogue and share information about
biotechnology that is based on scientific research, expert opinion, and
published reports."

Maybe you've seen the Council's slick television commercial. Laughing,
attractive families frolicking through pristine fields filled with a
plentiful harvest. It's seductive enough to rival those feel-so-damn-good
Claritin ads. More importantly, it's enough to make you wonder, "Hey,
how do I get some of that stuff?"

At a recent conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists, the
Council sent its representatives to hand out glossy information packets to
any writer who wanted one. And for newspeople who might ever need a good
resource, the Council was there to offer that, too. A simple phone call from
a reporter, and the Council can serve up third-party "experts" who just
happen to advocate the industry line. The American Council on Science and
Health (ACSH) is such a group. In their book, Toxic Sludge is Good for You,
public relations watchdogs John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton call the ACSH "a
commonly used industry front group that produces PR ammunition for the food
processing and chemical industries."

Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association is more blunt. He calls
ACSH and other pro-industry voices, such as JunkScience.com promoter Steven
Milloy, "scaremongers." Nonetheless, he concludes that they and others like
them, are "a potent force," because they get their message out on the
influential op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times,
and other dailies in cities large and small.

Of course, there is nothing totally new about the genetic engineering
industry using paid flacks to put its best foot forward. Every industry and
product promoter has taken the same route. Automobiles, tobacco, nuclear
energy--the bigger the sell, the harder the push. But biotech has been
particularly effective in its behind-the-scenes work, earning itself
headlines that read: "Engineered Catfish Could Be Bigger, Healthier," and
"Scientists Can Produce GM Crops That Combat Disease." The "Golden Rice"
cover story in Time magazine last summer may be the industry's biggest coup
to date. Its headline blared "This Rice Could Save a Million Kids a Year."

"The golden rice story has been a lie repeated a thousand times," says
Cummins from his office in Little Marais, Minnesota--a long way from the
well-heeled headquarters of the Council for Biotech Information, which he
and his colleagues constantly challenge. Golden Rice, he says, has become
the poster child for genetic engineering. While the article in Time
trumpeted the virtues of bringing beta-carotene to children to help them
sharpen their eyesight and strengthen their resistance to infectious
diseases, the facts speak a much different story.

The real problems are poverty and inequality, says Peter Rossett of the
Institute for Food and Development Policy and co-author of World Hunger:
Twelve Myths. "Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is
available or lack land on which to grow it themselves." These are problems
that won't be solved with the use of genetic engineering, Rossett states in
a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times.

Marion Nestle, in the March 2000 issue of the Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, writes that rice engineered to deliver beta-carotene
is unlikely to alleviate vitamin A deficiency because many children with
this deficiency are malnourished. "Digestion, absorption, and transport of
beta-carotene require a functional digestive tract, adequate protein and fat
stores, and adequate energy, protein, and fat in the diet," she writes.

PR Flacks Trump Passionate Journalists

While corporate communications departments at companies today are stronger
and better financed than ever, the mainstream broadcast media has been bowed
and downsized by the bottom-line mentality of its corporate owners who see
the news as just another profit center, not entirely unlike, say, the light
bulb division.

Among the first casualties of corporate cost-cutting at news organizations
have been specialized reporting and investigative journalism, which give
journalists time to delve deeper and actually understand the facts. Older,
experienced journeymen reporters at the top of the pay scale are also being
shown the door, leaving the newsrooms populated with much less experienced
journalists to churn out more "product" in less time. Combine inexperience
and a lack of skepticism with a powerful PR voice, and you have the formula
for disaster.

When my partner Steve Wilson and I stood up for the truth in a story on
genetic engineering for Fox Television, the station's manager couldn't
believe we'd turn down a six-figure sum and no-show consulting jobs in
exchange for dropping our ethical objections. Monsanto, a big advertiser,
had threatened "dire consequences" if our stories were broadcast. "What's
with you guys?" asked Vice President David Boylan of Fox, incredulously.
"Why are you giving me such a hard time? I just want people who want to
be on TV!"

An inexperienced reporter who "just wants to be on TV" looks for a story
with good pictures and a simple message. Not only is there less time to do
extensive research, mid-level managers in many newsrooms don't want that
kind of story anyway. From researcher, to reporter, to producer, and on up
the ladder, the message has been heard: the fastest way to personal
advancement in the journalism business is to crank out stories that generate
a minimum of hassle. Nobody in management appreciates those threatening
phone calls from industry flacks and their lawyers, especially not these
days when lawsuits are so expensive to defend and advertisers so difficult
to replace.

Sadly, inside news organizations today, good reporters have learned that
dogged determination and a fire-in-the-belly passion to uncover the facts
are no longer the coin of the realm. Passionate reporters are now more
likely to be viewed by their editors as zealots pushing a personal agenda.
Not surprisingly, in such an environment, some of the smartest reporters
have turned into mouthpieces for corporate communications. This is
unquestionably the reason why an astounding two-thirds of the foods on
our supermarket shelves are laced with GE ingredients without a vast
majority of consumers even noticing it.

For one of the best examples of the media's corporate cheerleading, we need
look no further than NBC's coverage of the human genome project story last
year.

First, Robert Bazell praised the innovation and parroted its proponents'
promise of groundbreaking medical advancements to follow. Then financial
correspondent Mike Jensen touted the investment advantages of biotech.
Omitted was any mention of the millions of American children who don't even
have basic health care, much less any chance to be on the receiving end of
this so-called "designer medicine." Omitted, too, was any mention of the
frightening prospect of human cloning.

John Stossel, widely viewed as an apologist and cheerleader for big industry
in many fields, is presently working on a series on genetic engineering. His
producer has put out the word that they want someone "fiery" to represent
the anti-genetic engineering side. "You know what that means," sighs
Margulis of Greenpeace. "They want someone who is going to look like they
are out of control."

Stossel, you may recall, is the reporter recently caught deliberately misleading
Americans about organic foods. My husband, Steve Wilson, worked
alongside Stossel at a CBS-owned station in New York in the late '70s when
Stossel was a consumer crusader and champion for the underdog. When they
saw each other again a few years ago, Steve asked Stossel about the dramatic
change in his reporting--how he went from skeptic to corporate cheerleader,
someone who now questions the legitimacy of people who challenge big
corporations and the status quo. Stossel explained that when he began making
"real" money--he now enjoys a seven-figure income at ABC--"I started to see
things much differently."

The term "media elite" is often thrown at reporters who seem to spend more
time worrying about their 401K plans and their Lexuses than about serving
the public interest. From my own experience, I must admit that that
perception is not too far off the mark these days, especially as it relates
to television reporters covering the biotech story.

Cummins calls it the "snotty attitude" of the major, mainstream media.
Recently, his Organic Consumer's Association led a national boycott of
Starbucks coffee shops to protest the company's use of GE milk and other
ingredients in baked goods. The action led to a pledge from Starbucks to
offer non-GE alternatives in all its stores as soon as possible. Cummins
says that the breakthrough did not attract any of the national media, except
for an ABC crew, which claimed to be shooting for an unidentified upcoming
special. Cummins wonders if he'll soon be watching Stossel poking fun at
Organic Consumers and whining his trademark, "Gimme A Break!"

Industry Setbacks

Ironically, it's the "business" of biotech that has caused an increase in
news coverage about GE foods. The discovery of "Starlink" corn--approved
for animals but not humans--in the food served at Taco Bell made front-page
headlines. The concerns of American farmers about whether they'll be able to
export this year's crop to Japan has also made it to mainstream news.

Marion Nestle, a professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU who
regularly follows the New York Times coverage of these issues, says that
the media is becoming more critical of biotech. "I see the industry in retreat,"
she says, predicting that Monsanto will eventually have to sell off its
biotech division.

She notes that a series of articles in the New York Times by respected
writer Michael Pollan are another sign of GE industry troubles. His latest,
about vitamin A rice (titled The Great Yellow Hype), quoted the president of
the Rockefeller Foundation as saying, "The public relations uses of golden
rice have gone too far," while asking whether "golden rice will ever offer
as much to malnourished children as it does to beleaguered biotech
companies."

Nestle believes that factors such as the Greenpeace campaigns, the Seattle
WTO protests, Internet lists of GE foods, the USDA effort to have GE foods
come under the Organic Standards Act, and other grassroots generated
pressure may be forcing the media's hand.

Gary Webb, the Pulitzer prize winner caught up in the firestorm that
followed his San Jose Mercury News reports about U.S. government involvement
in the Central American drug trade, was recently asked to name the biggest
problem with the mainstream media today. "Cowardice and laziness," was his
response.

I tend to lean toward Webb's assessment of the attitudes that flourish in
most newsrooms today. I can only hope that the small increase in the amount
of genuinely objective coverage of issues related to genetic engineering
seen in the mainstream media lately will continue to grow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------