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."

Home