Biotech Industry Ups Propaganda Efforts with Undercover Ambassadors?
February 17, 2013
Story at-a-glance
-
The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, is increasing their
propaganda efforts to reshape their public image, and sway your
opinion against the need to label genetically engineered foods
-
Part of this makeover program appears to be the recruitment of
seemingly independent “ambassadors” to covertly lobby the GE
agenda. The appearance of being an independent voice is
imperative for the role to be effective
-
One such “covert” agent appears to be Mark Lynas, an
environmentalist and writer, who claims to have “converted” to a
pro-GE stance after he “discovered science.” His claims of being
a mastermind of the anti-GE movement before he changed his mind
has been vehemently rebuffed by veterans in the movement, who
don’t recall him being involved in any meaningful way
-
The fight for GMO labeling has now moved to the state of
Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's
Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require
food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains
genetically engineered ingredients
By Dr. Mercola
For years now I’ve warned of the many potential dangers of
genetically engineered (GE) foods, pointing out that such crops
might have wholly unforeseen consequences.
In recent years, such suspicions have increasingly proven
correct, forcing the biotech industry to up the ante of their
propaganda campaign.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Monsanto:
Battered, Bruised, and Still Growing”1
sets the stage for the discussion that follows. The dark heart of
Monsanto has been exposed in recent years, and they’re in dire need
of an image makeover.
I bet they probably have the best and brightest propaganda
experts on speed dial these days. In the featured article, the
company is lauded for “fending off” California Proposition 37 last
November, as labeling foods containing genetically engineered
ingredients would be “befuddling” to consumers.
“I'd be up for the dialogue around labeling. Maybe we'll
look back and say [Prop 37] was the start of a more reasonable
debate. But it was a confusing proposition,” Monsanto Chief
Executive Hugh Grant tells the Wall Street Journal.
Grant goes on to talk about how the company is now going “back to
the basics of reconnecting” with their customers, and how
consistency in messaging and predictable pricing is helping
turn the tide that has threatened to engulf them over the past three
years.
Biotech Industry Ups Propaganda Efforts with Undercover Ambassadors
Part of this makeover program appears to be the recruitment of
seemingly independent “ambassadors” to covertly lobby the GE agenda.
The appearance of being an independent voice is imperative for the
role to be effective, SpinWatch2
said in a recent article.
According to an October 2011 article in the Guardian, leaked
emails from a PR company working with EuropaBio listed potential
candidates for the role3,
including Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford University and BBC Trust
chairman; Sir Bob Geldof; former Irish EU commissioner and attorney
general David Byrne; former UN secretary general Kofi Annan; and
Mark Lynas, an environmentalist and writer who claims to have helped
create the anti-GE movement back in the mid-1990’s. According to the
Guardian:
“The 10 or more ambassadors will not be paid directly,
but the lobbyists have offered to write, research and place
articles in their names, arrange interviews and speaking
engagements with the Financial Times and other international
media, and secure for them what could be lucrative speaking
slots at major conferences.
In addition, EuropaBio says it will introduce them to the
highest-level European bureaucrats and MEPs in order for them to
make the case for GM within EU institutions.”
In 2011, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas responded to the news by
saying:
"This brazen attempt by EuropaBio to recruit covert
'ambassadors' to 'change the debate' on GM is yet further proof
that the powerful GM lobby will stop at nothing to push its
hugely unpopular and unnecessary products onto European
citizens. We need far stronger regulation on corporate lobbyists
across the EU to prevent this kind of insidious
behind-the-scenes maneuvering from seriously undermining our
democratic system."
The Art of Spin, and the World of “War Craft”
When confronted, the above named candidates denied knowledge of
EuropaBio4,
known as “the voice for the biotech industry at the EU level.” Most,
including Mark Lynas, also claimed they’d reject the offer to peddle
GMO policy should they be asked.
What a difference a year makes. While Lynas suddenly began
writing about his “conversion” in 2010, he recently took to the
stage as a veritable born-again proselytizer of genetically
engineered crops at the January 3 Oxford Farming Conference5.
What better ambassador for the tattered and bruised Monsanto than
a “former foe” having “seen the light of science” and, of his own
free will (supposedly), deciding to mend his ways and right the
wrongs he’s done against the biotech industry?
“I want to start with some apologies,” Lynas says.
“For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent
several years ripping up genetically modified (GM) crops. I am
also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in
the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an
important technological option which can be used to benefit the
environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that
everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious
diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more
counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between
1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here
and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered
science, and in the process I hope I became a better
environmentalist.”
Gimme a break... If you believe the conversion of Lynas was based
on scientific enlightenment, I have a religion of my own you might
be interested in. To me, this has all the hallmarks of a carefully
crafted propaganda campaign. People have likened Lynas’ opening
statements to Martin Luther King apologizing for the civil rights
movement, or the Pope renouncing Catholicism. Indeed.
But while many choose to see his new stance as evidence that
concerns about genetically engineered foods have been unfounded and
overblown, all I see is someone who has sold their soul to the
proverbial Devil. You can tell that this is part of a spin
campaign for the sheer fact that Lynas goes to great lengths to take
as much credit as possible for founding and steering the anti-GM
movement. This way, his conversion becomes far more powerful.
Spin and Propaganda Techniques — Are You Still Deaf and Blind to
Them?
As SpinWatch points out in its revealing article6,
concerns about genetically engineered foods began decades before
Lynas entered the scene. Crediting him as “the mastermind of the
anti-biotechnology campaign” is PR talk. It’s the jargon of
propaganda. And it has one sole purpose — to build up Lynas as a
trustworthy independent voice on issues relating to genetically
engineered foods.
“... while Lynas says he co-founded the anti-GM movement
in 1995, the first wave of resistance to the possible uses of
genetic engineering in food and farming began two decades
earlier in the mid-1970s,” SpinWatch notes.
“By the early 1980s concerned US scientists and academics
had founded the Council for Responsible Genetics, and by the
late 1980s a US network called the Biotechnology Working Group
was meeting regularly to plan joint strategies and actions
regarding the new technology. It was composed of approximately
20 national and local NGOs, and included regular participation
by representatives of the European Greens and an Australian NGO,
GenEthics. By the early 1990s the Consumers Union and the Union
of Concerned Scientists were also on the case.
Concern over GMOs had also begun to appear on the
international policy agenda in the years running up to the 1992
Rio Earth Summit, which called for the establishment of a
Biosafety Protocol. It was also at Rio that the first
international workshop on GMOs took place. Among those
addressing it was Vandana Shiva. This is worth noting because
Lynas implies in his speech that it was the movement that he
supposedly co-founded in the UK in 1995 which "exported" GM
opposition worldwide. In reality, concerns over GM in food and
farming were already well established on the world stage.”
... After hearing how Lynas was portraying himself, Sue
Mayer contacted him7
to say, 'I think I can lay claim to having been one of the
leaders of the campaign in the UK thoughout the 1990s and until
2007 when I left GeneWatch. It's strange that although we did
speak on the phone once in the late 90s we never met and I
missed the fact that you helped start the anti-GM movement!!'
Mayer added, 'I think this is a very misleading claim and you
should feel ashamed of yourself. I wouldn't normally worry about
people puffing themselves up like this but I am concerned that
you are letting this be used to promote yourself and the biotech
industry.'
Mayer is not alone. Nobody we have spoken to among the
many leading figures of the 1990s counts Lynas as either a
founder or a leader. Indeed, if he was even involved in the
grassroots actions of 1995-1996, then nobody we spoke to
remembers it.
Beware: Front Groups with an Aim to Mislead You
Now that Washington State has been confirmed with enough
signatures to allow voters to take a stand on GMO labeling, Monsanto
and their henchmen are revving up their propaganda campaign, which
also includes friendly-sounding front groups8
paid to spead misleading information and industry propaganda, while
pretending to serve you.
“We think labeling is really intended to frighten people
away from a technology,” said Healther Hansen of
Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. “It’s implying that
there is something wrong with the food and we think that’s
misleading to the consumer,” Komo News writes9.
Who is Heather Hansen? She’s a contract lobbyist from the
William Ruckelshaus Center at WSU10.
And, William Ruckelshaus11
was a board member for — you guessed it — Monsanto...
Why GE Crops are NOT the “Most Tested” Product in the World
Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are
“the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he
doesn’t tell you is that:
- Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of
the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific
reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When
industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be
positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to
replicate and thus verify results
- The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90
days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In
the world’s first independently funded
lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in
during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and
cancer
- Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow
independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing
the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence
independent research is extremely difficult to conduct
- There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in
question has been approved, not a single country on earth is
actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health
effects
All in all, if their genetically altered seeds have something
wrong with them that potentially could cause consumer illness,
Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through
independent research, nor through a simple little label that would
allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to
take them on their word.
Why don’t they want labeling? Because you might sue them for
putting your health in danger! Doesn’t this remind you of the
public health debate that went on for decades over another
multi-billion dollar industry -- cigarettes?
For decades the companies producing this cancer-causing product
denied they caused any harm, denied nicotine was addictive, and even
ran advertisements featuring doctors claiming cigarettes
were good for your cough. They produced study after
study by their own scientists claiming there was no
health threat whatsoever from cigarettes. Executives from every
major cigarette company even lied to Congress under oath, claiming
they had no knowledge cigarettes were addictive, when in fact they
did know — they even manipulated the nicotine content12
of cigarettes to keep you hooked! Bet you didn’t know that, did you?
Genetically engineered foods are just another wolf in the same
old sheep’s clothing. The propaganda and the fraud have worked so
well for so long, why bother changing something that works so well?
Don’t fall for the same old scheme! Instead, read what the
few independent researchers are really saying about the science
behind genetically engineered foods. You can find all previous
articles on this topic on my dedicated
GMO News page.
Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very
narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The
field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the
people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically
Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be
labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated
on LabelWA.org:
"Calorie and nutritional information were not always
required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and
most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin
labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of
foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these
labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know
with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or
frozen concentrate.
Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods
containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or
animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered
foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the
market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The
research we have is raising serious questions about the impact
to human health and the environment.
I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522
will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply
would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers
change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any
significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to
conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue
enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice,
but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or
consumers."
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like
YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply
because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns
created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food
companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and
mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in
California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any
way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
- No matter where you live in the United States, please donate
money to these labeling efforts through the
Organic Consumers Fund.
- If you live in Washington State, please
sign the I-522 petition. You can also
volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
- For timely updates on issues relating to these and other
labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers
Association on
Facebook, or follow them on
Twitter.
- Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to
actively support the Washington initiative.
© Copyright 1997-2013 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/17/biotech-industry-increases-propaganda-plans.aspx?e_cid=20130217_SNL_Art_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130217
|