-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com/dave Saturday 29 January 2000 Montreal Gazette The bio-battle of words Activists won the propaganda war with clever words and images. The serious-looking guys in suits never stood a chance MARK ABLEY The Gazette It was a classic David-vs.-Goliath battle. In one corner: a motley crew of activists and environmentalists from around the world, most of them crammed into a nondescript apartment hotel on Rene Levesque Blvd. In the other: businessmen and bureaucrats from the world's most powerful nation and a few of its close allies, most of them staying in the same hotel They had all come to Montreal to attend the contentious, drawn-out meetings that saw nearly 140 countries trying to hammer out a Biodiversity Protocol under the auspices of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity. The industry suits represented power and money; the activists represented public anxiety. David vs. Goliath, then. But as the week wore on, it became crystal-clear just who, in terms of media savvy and public perception, was the beleaguered underdog: the suits of the biotech industry. There were really two wars being fought in the meeting rooms of the Delta and the nearby International Civil Aviation Building. The first was over the terms of the Protocol: whether it would allow nations to say "no" to genetically modified products, and whether the agreement's prime goal would be to protect biodiversity or trade. The second was to win the consciousness of a North American public that has only begun to wake up to the urgency of the whole biotech debate. Forceful Stand In Europe, by contrast, the issue has been hot for years. Hot enough for European governments, nervous of an angry electorate, to take a surprisingly forceful stand this week against the pro-industry position of Canada, the U.S. and the four other grain-exporting countries in the "Miami Group." The battle for public consciousness was dominated by the activists. They played the media like a Stradivarius. All through the week, each day saw them come up with a new tactic, a startling new image. It might be Greenpeace's massive inflatable corncob, complete with fangs and bloodshot eyes, or its human butterflies with six-foot plywood wings - in each case, a graphic illustration of the doubts about transgenic food and its impact on nature. It might be Friends of the Earth's subversive menu of genetically modified food, given to the press a few hours before the politicians dined in the St. James Club, or their emerald-coloured poster asking citizens to locate Canada's environment minister, David Anderson, "who was last seen making excuses." It might be Biotech Action Montreal's candlelight vigil in sub-Arctic temperatures "to enlighten Canadian negotiators," or the march it helped to organize as the meetings began. Of course, the activists had no control over the way their demonstrations would be reported in the press. Last Saturday's march through the chilly streets, for example. Were there "more than 600" protesters, as The Gazette reported? Were there "about 1,000," as the Associated Press said? Or was it just a "troupe of 300," as a National Post columnist declared? However many they were, the demonstrators were pictured in newspapers as far away as Hong Kong and Madrid. They got their point across to the world: whatever compromise deal the bureaucrats were trying to cook up, large numbers of ordinary citizens wanted nothing to do with it. Admittedly, the industry did its best. To put their viewpoint across, their spokesmen were working hand-in-hand with National Public Relations, one of Canada's leading PR companies. Uphill Task John Wildgust, a former journalist and broadcaster, was among the NPR officials handling the file for the Global Industry Coalition. When a feature article appeared inThe Gazette on Jan. 20 that cast Canada's position into question, Wildgust drafted a letter-to-the-editor that reached the newspaper the same day and was published on Jan. 22. The front man for the coalition - and the official writer of that letter - was actually a woman: Joyce Groote. The executive director of BIOTECanada (an industry group with more than 100 member companies), she also headed the Global Industry Coalition, a lobby group for more than 2,200 firms worldwide. Despite NPR's efforts, however, the industry lobby often seemed a step behind the activists. Wildgust realized he was facing an uphill task. "It's a crappy idea, I know," he confided on Tuesday, "but I've been thinking about bringing in all those studies that prove the safety of genetically modified food, and stacking them in a 7-foot-high pile. It would show the weight of the scientific evidence." By Thursday, he had abandoned the notion. "The problem is," Wildgust said, "you guys in the media would want to read them all." Or take the case of the battling farmers. Early in the week, the Global Industry Coalition flew in four farmers from the North American Midwest - all of them white, earnest, middle-aged men in glasses and suits. One of them, a Manitoba wheat-grower, offered the stunning non-sequitur: "I get up in the morning and use the margarine on my toast, so there's no reason not to use Round-Up Ready canola in my fields." Next morning, Greenpeace countered. In co-operation with the Third World Network, it brought in "Farmers Against Genetic Pollution." There were five of them; they came from five countries on three continents, and spoke four mother tongues; but their pro-organic message was the same. To deadline-strapped journalists, here was a story already packaged and gift-wrapped. One PR professional, speaking from his Toronto office on condition of anonymity, agreed that Greenpeace is "extraordinarily good" at conducting an emotional debate. The opinion polls he has seen over the last few months show that Greenpeace and other interest groups, such as the Council of Canadians and the Sierra Club, have succeeded in weakening "the inherent trust that Canadians have in their food." A large and growing percentage of the public is now uneasy about the food it buys. This source - a former newspaperman - now advises major players in the biotechnology industry. He has trained many government scientists to deal with the media. But to his frustration, their pro-biotech message has not yet got across. Now the PR man is contemplating fresh tactics. "I've been urging my clients to use women as spokespeople," he said, "so I'm glad to see Joyce Groote playing a prominent role in Montreal. Women spokespeople have more credibility with the people who actually buy groceries: other women. "The industry should also collaborate more - part of the trouble with the pro-GM side is that lots of people have been coming at the issue from different directions. And they need to give the TV people something to show on the screens other than just Greenpeace ranting and blowing up inflatable ears of corn." On Thursday, a sign of the industry's frustration mysteriously appeared on a table in the atrium of the ICAO Building. The table featured the usual barrage of statements and press releases from environmental groups and official delegations (the European Union took the unofficial prize for Most Boring Communique of the Week thanks to a statement titled "Commissioner Wallstrom urges all parties to do their utmost.") But that morning, there were also multiple copies of a yellow sheet titled "The Growing Consensus: Greenpeace Values Rhetoric Over Real Progress on Environmental Issues." Call it anonymous agitprop from the biotech side: the page of anti-Greenpeace diatribes came with no attribution. Industry officials denied all knowledge of the matter. Beyond the clear bitterness of the diatribe, you can see it as a backhanded tribute to the protesters' success. The authorized information coming from the industry side was often dull as ditchwater. Compare the prose in these two handouts offered to the media, one called "Capacity Building: The Biotechnology Industry Perspective," the other called "Warning: Unsafe Trade Partners on the Loose in Montreal." - "Identification of priority status, determined through the application of appropriate criteria, and economic impact assessments should be performed prior to initiation of projects. As well, certain basic elements are required to facilitate biotechnology development such as institutional procedures and government policies." (source: BIOTECanada) - "The passionate and strong defence of the precautionary principle taken by the European delegation is very welcome. The position of countries like America and Canada is inexcusable, isolated and untenable. People throughout the world have the right to protect their environment and be safe rather than sorry." (source: Friends of the Earth International) The activists were fast as well as smart. On Thursday afternoon, Friends of the Earth were passing out a press statement, printed on their trademark green paper, less than 10 minutes after the chairman of the meetings, Colombia's Juan Mayr, had adjourned a plenary session in visible dismay at the tactics of the Miami Group - led, or at least represented, by Canada. But the effectiveness of the protest movement went beyond rapid response, crisp prose and visually arresting devices like the huge corncob and the human butterflies. For the protesters at Montreal also included groups with a proven scientific track record. Their presence made it hard for the biotech industry to claim with any conviction that this was a battle between science on the one hand and superstition on the other. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, issued a long report called "GM Technology in the Forest Sector." It pointed out that while at least 116 field trials have taken place around the world on genetically modified trees, little research has been done on the overall environmental impact of the technology. Pine pollen has been shown to travel as far as 600 kilometres, making genetic threats to the wild environment more than merely theoretical. A corn plant lasts but a summer; trees endure for years. From Britain, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds weighed in with a draft discussion paper, aimed squarely at delegates to the conference, demolishing the arguments in favour of a "savings clause" that Canada and its few allies had made. Such a clause would leave the entire protocol at the mercy of World Trade Organization panels that could override the efforts of individual nations to decide against genetically modified products. Yet it was Greenpeace, for better or worse, that symbolized the fight against the biotech industry. Greenpeace has branches in at least 30 countries, many of which sent a representative to Montreal - so that delegates from the Czech Republic or Argentina, say, could be pressured by activists from back home. Steve Shallhorn, the campaign director of Greenpeace Canada, admitted that winning a strong protocol was only one of his three goals in Montreal: "We also want to let consumers know what biotechnology has in store for them. And we want to expose the close relationship between the Canadian government and the biotech industry. "One of the Canadian delegates admitted that they foresee a future in which regular food will be sold at a premium to a niche market, while the masses will be eating genetically modified food. I think that shows an incredible arrogance toward the public he's paid to represent." Just as the biotech industry is unwilling to admit that the proliferation of genetically modified organisms has any dangers, Greenpeace is unwilling to admit that biotechnology has any real benefits. It's rare to find an environmental issue on which the positions are not only so harsh but so opposed. Common ground? Forget it. "The public attention to what's going on here has had an enormous influence," said Michael Khoo, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. "The sustained consumer interest in what a bunch of bureaucrats have been doing all week - this is something unique." But in the end, the debate wasn't just about trade or science. It was also about values. Joyce Groote of BIOTECanada admitted as much when she said, "It comes down to something fundamental. We're in business to be accountable; the other side is not. And there's a very high ethical culture in the industry." Greenpeace's Khoo was happy to talk about science. But he also wanted to evoke "a silent, moral majority, made up of people from all walks of life, that's running in our favour. There's a general moral feeling that it's not right to cross the species boundary." Both sides insist that in the assessment of risk, impartial science is on their side. For a layman, it's hard to assess the rival claims. Yet if the question comes down to ethics, the biotech industry may have good reason to be running scared. To reach reporter Mark Abley, call (514) 987-2555 or send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
