The topic of genetic modification has sparked outrage by many government and non-government organisations and is now a battle argument between many huge transnational corporations such as the biotechnological corporation:Genetically modified/engineered foods
Examine:
Source: Genome Report - Dec. 1998 – DTI
In this essay I shall assess how different media have portrayed the GM issue and how this in turn has affected the businesses involved in biotechnology. Also, I shall look at how the media works in determining the level of exposure given to a topic. Different media such as television, newspapers and the internet will be focused upon and how these media work differently but together with a universal aim of supplying the correct product to the target audience. Finally, I will identify both the merits of different media and the possibilities of media coverage in the future.
I would like to first explain exactly what genetically modified foods are, what is involved in creating them and discussing some of the issues which have arisen from the development of ‘Frankenstein’ foods.
DNA is often described as a blueprint which contains all the essential information needed for the structure and function of an organism, and genes are described as the individual messages which make up the blueprint, each gene coding for a particular characteristic. No gene works in isolation.
Genes are sequences of DNA which operate in complex networks that are tightly regulated to enable processes to happen in the right place and at the right time. This intricate network is informed and influenced by environmental feedback in relationships that have been evolving over millions of years.
Source: Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/index.html
Genetic modification started in the United States within selected universities to deal with the issue of increased productivity of crops such as Maize and Soya. Strains of these crops were produced which can be engineered to cultivate in previously incapable environmental conditions.
Many plants defend themselves through the production of toxins. Through selective breeding and conventional methods of farming, we have plants and vegetables that are less toxic than previously. However, due to rare genetic accidents, genes which have lay dormant for a long time can suddenly produce a great amount of toxins.
The topic of genetic modification has sparked outrage by many government and non-government organisations and is now a battle argument between many huge transnational corporations such as the biotechnological corporation:
Monsanto was the brainchild of John Francis Queeny in 1901 in St. Louis, USA. Monsanto’s aim was to provide pharmaceutical and agricultural products for America. Monsanto acquired many businesses both in the same industry and for example through diversification, spreading their assets and risk, Acquired the Swann Corp., taking Monsanto into the soap and detergents industry with phosphorus and phosphate chemistry.
Monsanto’s first product was saccharin; in 1903 and 1905 the entire output was sent to a soft drinks company in Georgia called Coca-Cola.
Source: Monsanto statistics – monsanto.com
Since then the company has invested and taken over many businesses in the agricultural and biomedical sectors, giving rise to a multinational agri-biomed-business. A business such as Monsanto with a turnover of $1,890m in 1999 has a great deal of power. Power in terms of through the workforce employing over 30,000 in 100 different countries world-wide, power to control what food we eat, power to control what medicines and pharmaceutical goods we consume, power to change rules and laws by pressing the government and so finally power within the media.
Source: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
Previously, media has been thought of like propaganda in certain instances. Biotechnology businesses have a significant amount of influence and power within controlled conventional media such as television and recognised newspapers. However since the beginning of the information revolution, and not just the internet, information, opinions, views and feelings about the actions of a businesses like Monsanto are far easier to locate, and so brings a perspective which Monsanto cannot control but would do anything to stop.
The information revolution has therefore benefited the non-government organisations such as Greenpeace because their views can be expressed globally with no control.
One of the main problems with media is that it survives on basically disasters. For instance, the death of the Princess of Wales brought an astounding amount of media attention. When there is no emergency situation to report on somewhere in the world, we see the media frenzy trying to find something to report on, something for people to watch, read or listen to.
Which brings us to GM food again. The media created the image of ‘Frankenstein foods’ so they could report on an issue which would concern everyone and so everyone would be interested in what was to be said, more newspapers bought, radio programmes listen to, web sites read, more money.
The action of very influential media created panic amongst the British public. On one hand we have many scientists and businesses claiming that the food is safe and that gene technology will carry us through the twenty first century, eradicating world hunger and boosting crop productivity levels. On the other hand, biologists claim that tampering with the genetic make-up of plants can bring long-term effects on life, never seen before. For instance, a genetically altered crop may survive untroubled by nature for the first 15 years, but after that when nature catches up, a super-weed is born that is resistant to all herbicides and pesticides, because it’s genes have been changed by nature (species evolution) unlike the engineered crop. Even if we don’t want to eat the stuff it’s in 70% of processed food (E.U. figure Easter 1999) in shops in the most popular form of GM food, maize and soya.
Action has been taken and there is now a public view of near hatred of GM food. Is that justified? Vitamin A deficiency claimed more than 400m children's lives in the third world in 1998. One of the problems in attempting to get vitamins to the children who need them is not only the cost of pills and injections but also the physical and manpower constraints of distributing the drugs to the people who need them. However if, through genetic engineering, vitamin A was added to rice, the only staple food that these children eat then many millions of lives could be saved each year.
‘Media’ consists of Television, the Internet, Radio, Newspapers and any other way of communicating ‘news and views’. If one estimates the number of businesses and corporations throughout London, Europe, Asia, America involved in the media, the total income of these would amount to many millions of dollars. Media companies survive on the key eleven elements of successful media coverage:
1. Keep it short. Strip your message to the bare bones. Remember people hardly have time to read these days. Put your detailed information in a `fact page' at the end.
2. Think headlines. If the crux of your message cannot be expressed in a few words (maybe a sentence) it's unlikely to be successful.
3. Use a consistent slogan and logo. This is the best way to make your campaign instantly recognisable, especially over an extended period.
4. Do it regularly. Regular communication is essential to build a loyal and expectant constituency.
5. Be positive. Don't have a message which is totally negative. Offer a practical solution to the problem. This can inspire people. Litanies of disaster simply depress your audience and ruin the motivation.
6. Set the agenda. Redefine the problem to fit your solution.
7. Be visual. Pictures are much more effective than words. Pictures should reinforce emotions. Forget the intellectual high ground.
8. Appeal to emotions in news stories e.g. conflict, fear, triumph over adversity (David & Goliath).
9. Entertain. Think of the media as theatre; it is primarily for entertainment.
10. Match the medium. Tailor the message to fit the different types of media.
11. Limit the campaign. Keep campaign segments to less than three months, otherwise everyone forgets the message, people lose interest and the campaign loses momentum.
Source: Social Change – see no.7 bibliography
If we look at these points carefully and apply them into the GM food topic, we see that there exists the possibility for extensive, exhaustive media coverage of GM issues. There are many topics such as safety, possible risks/threats, advantages of, applications of GM, the future of biotechnology which can be used as worthy media and so there is a great deal of media coverage on GM food.
The following is an article about the aforementioned company Monsanto from the NewsUnlimited group (newsunlimited.co.uk) important sections are in bold.
Monday November 22, 1999
Three years ago, genetics firm Monsanto was the darling of Wall Street, an all-powerful behemoth poised to transform life itself. Today, its future looks far from rosy. Julian Borger unravels the remarkable tale of how Europe's environmental activists humbled the American giant.
The confrontation between the biotechnology industry and the environmental lobby is one of the most surprising and telling cultural struggles of the late 20th century. It is decidedly not over but the first round has gone - against all expectations - to the greens.
The story of how that battle was won says a lot about the state of the earth at the cusp of a new century. The forward drive of technological innovation no longer looks quite so irresistible, and the subversive potential of the internet has emerged as a powerful brake on the advance of globalism.
It all looked very different in 1996, when the European Union first approved the import of genetically modified (GM) foods. The huge US biotechnology companies, Monsanto and DuPont, had already conquered America. The complaints of the professional ecologists, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, seemed puny and marginal, they were seen as cranky luddites against the sheer corporate muscle of the industry.
The respected US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had given its approval to the marketing of GM crops, while US environmental groups could only mutter in disapproval, obliged to acknowledge it was unable to prove that genetically engineered food was at all harmful.
US farms were well on the way towards a total swing to biotech agriculture. By last year, over half of all soybean acreage planted was GM, as were a third of all the country's cornfields. Although most of the population was oblivious or indifferent or both, just about every processed food that Americans consumed contained GM ingredients.
This silent revolution made the market leader, Monsanto, the most profitable agri-industrial corporation on the planet, with enough money to hire former senior members of the Clinton administration to smooth its way through Washington. The $8bn company had - so it appeared - realised the dream of its president, Robert Shapiro, of creating a totally new form of industry: life sciences. It was an industry of the future, which would use its mastery of genetics to mould new generations of crops, drugs, chemicals and industrial materials to suit the needs of the world's burgeoning population.
It has not quite worked out like that. Monsanto's fall has been as sudden as Shapiro's dream was lofty. Its stock price has slumped and there were reports last week that the company could be broken up or sold off by the end of the year. European consumers proved far less willing than their American counterparts to trust in the wisdom of the authorities, especially in the wake of the mad cow disease outbreaks and a string of other food scares. Newspaper coverage in Europe has also been far less reverent than in America, where many science correspondents had been converted by industry lobbyists. The European coverage of GM, by contrast, varied from cautious questioning to frenzied panic over "Frankenstein Foods".
Meanwhile, the guerrilla activism of the radical environmental groups, whose destructive forays into experimental GM plantations became an almost weekly event, received front page treatment, whereas American protesters had been rejected as an insignificant crank minority. The consumer backlash made itself felt in supermarkets in Britain which began voluntarily labelling GM produce and promoting organic lines. But while it dramatically altered the political climate around the issue, all this sound and fury left GM growers in the US and Monsanto's shareholders relatively unperturbed. The really decisive blow would come from France, out of the maelstrom of Parisian politics.
The tide turned on the GM industry in the space of a few months this year - so quickly that its executives did not see it coming. Monsanto's rivals, including DuPont and Switzerland's Novartis, have begun laying off workers in their agricultural divisions. Meanwhile, at Monsanto headquarters - an imposing ziggurat of greenhouses and tunnels in St Louis, Missouri - the erstwhile king of life sciences was "shattered", according to one of the company's former consultants.
Last month, a pale and humbled Shapiro went before his arch-foes in Greenpeace to apologise for his vaulting ambitions. "Our confidence in this technology and our enthusiasm for it has, I think, been widely seen - and understandably so - as condescension or indeed arrogance," he confessed.
Earlier this year, Shapiro had confidently believed Europe was ripe for the picking, and Europe in turn would be the gateway to the British Commonwealth and the rest of the Third World.
It was clear that Europe would prove a tougher nut to crack than the US market. Consumer suspicions had been raised by the British mad-cow fiasco, and the import or cultivation of GM foods without more comprehensive testing was under fire.
The stage was set for a showdown at a meeting of European environment ministers in Brussels in June, amid speculation that the European Union might reverse course and suspend imports of GM foods. But Monsanto was confident that the European gate could be kept open.
In Britain, Tony Blair and Jack Cunningham were seen as staunch supporters, anxious to absorb GM technology to get British industry a place in the vanguard of the revolution. Germany, Austria and Spain were also receptive. Resistance in Greece and Italy was viewed as an obstacle, but not an insurmountable one.
In the run-up to the June meeting, events began to run against the GM industry. A study carried out by Cornell university found that the pollen produced by GM corn was lethal to the caterpillar of the popular Monarch butterfly.
It was the first evidence that GM crops could have a long-term impact on biodiversity, which could not be foreseen in an FDA laboratory, and it had a serious impact on the debate.
European blockade had immediate knock-on effects around the world. Over the summer, Japanese brewers and the main producer of corn tortillas in Mexico also declared they would not buy non-GM corn. In the US, Cargill Inc, a huge grain trading combine, announced it would pay a premium for corn and soya which could be guaranteed non-GM. Another agri-industrial giant, Archer Daniels Midland, also called for grain silos to be segregated between GM and non-GM crops, a difficult and costly undertaking. American farmers revolted, complaining they had been misled, and vowed to reduce their GM acreage.
Monsanto is currently holding a series of meetings with critics such as Rifkin to ask what it has to do to regain its credibility. Meanwhile, after insisting for years that labelling was unnecessary as GM food was "substantially equivalent" to unmodified produce, the FDA is holding a series of public consultations on whether to reverse that policy.
For the time being, the rush towards a genetically modified diet has been slowed to a more cautious pace. It has been, Rifkin argues, a cultural victory for Europe, where food, cuisine and culture are intertwined, over America, where food is just another commodity.
"This was seen as an attack on cultural diversity," he said. "Cultural and bio-diversity is converging into one issue. Food is the last thing people feel they can control."
The information that we read in newspapers, hear on the radio and browse through on the internet relating to the GM issue will be screened like propaganda material to ensure that once the finished article is published, it appeals exactly to the person at which the media is aimed.
For instance, the Sun newspaper carried many headlines with the Frankenstein Food slogan, with many pictures of GM activists, GM fields and articles very much against GM foods. Being the most popular newspaper in the UK with a circulation of 1.3 million newspapers per day, may be the only source through which many people get their news. If so, then the readers are fed like machines only the information which this particular media believe will keep the readers interested, informed and most importantly will make you buy the newspaper again.
This type of media exposure is often associated with newspapers because many still rely heavily on the sale of a newspaper through the bold headline, sparking interest in the paper and hopefully the purchase of the paper.
Television and radio coverage of such issues will depend like the newspapers on who the indented audience is, unlike the newspapers which are daily, where the soaking up of information can be spread out throughout the day as the paper may be read or glanced at through periods of the day, television must report the issue most important at the time.
One of the key aspects to media success is the ability to convey one’s point in as fewer words as possible (see point 1 of Social Change above) and so news coverage of the GM issue on television may only be limited to what may appear interesting topics such as any guerrilla actions against GM companies or fresh evidence to support the claims against GM foods in the UK. A more in depth perspective into the GM issue which may uncover some of the scientific background to support for GM food, may only be found through special programmes such as Horizon which many people may avoid because of their particular viewing preferences and an inertia to change their views once decided.
Source: Environmental Issues – about.com
The first group assumes that current biotechnology methods are similar to another widely accepted agricultural practice, plant breeding. Plant breeding involves the haphazard and wholesale transfer of gene sequences between similar species, biotechnology techniques are best characterised by their precision. Genetic modification in the laboratory transfers one particular gene trait to the seed. Unlike traditional plant breeding practices, genetic modification also involves cross species breeding practices that do not and can not occur in nature.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) uses a term "substantially equivalent" to define the practice of biotechnology.
In order to demonstrate that GM food is substantially equivalent to its organic counterpart, OECD produced a report named Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (see report link in Bibliography)
In the policy world, supporters of the "substantial equivalence" position are commonly challenged by proponents of novelty or difference arguments. Practically speaking, the "difference" position assumes that as much as current biotechnology and plant breeding techniques share similar characteristics, they also differ. Whereas, plant breeding involves the haphazard and wholesale transfer of gene sequences between similar species, biotechnology techniques are best characterised by their precision. Genetic modification in the laboratory transfers one particular gene trait to the seed. Unlike traditional plant breeding practices, genetic modification also involves cross species breeding practices that do not and can not occur in nature.
Taken together, supporters of the "differences" position view the research of the "substantially equivalent" school with scepticism. If there are differences in the types of foods produced by the two different techniques, then past research in the environment and health risks with traditional plant breeding is not a not a sufficient and sound scientific record for the purpose of policy making. Adherents to the differences school differ only in their views on the degree of confidence policy makers can place in past research. In policy terms the issue boils down to questions of the duration and number of necessary new studies.
Although the Internet is merely mentioned as another type of media above, the internet itself has revolutionised the way that users can access information. For instance, during the middle 1980’s when the main environmental issues were being covered by the conventional media such as television and newspapers, they could control what access people had to non-governmental controlled media related articles. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and other such environmental groups have huge web-sites with very detailed information, links to other sites, and most importantly have information displayed as they want, accessible by anyone with connection anywhere in the world.
Although many claim that internet sites may contain un-official statements and inaccurate data, well known and increasingly less well known organisations exist on their web-sites containing the most accurate information available detailing their views on the issue.
The relative merits of conventional media coverage (e.g. television, radio and newspapers) although controlling what we read still offer the possibility to read about in either great depth or in simple short format; depending on what they target audience wants to read. The information revolution has affected the way in which we, the target audience receive our information from different media. The Internet allows everybody an equal opportunity to make their views public, and so can either help other people and organisations, including pro and anti GM lobbies, groups, statistics, newspaper articles and content for another web-site.
Most industry observers believe that GM food's time will come again, after a pause for more rigorous testing. Experts believe that by the year 2025 genetically engineered agriculture will exist throughout Europe, the developed world and increasingly benefiting the third world. Media in this time may exist on a different level to the present, with their coverage of issues being presented differently; in different ways. The combination of the TV, the Internet and personal communication into a single device, or area of the household, gives us access to a vast cornucopia of information and the most important ingredient of learning and understanding a topic, the truth.
Word count: 3,900
NTD.
Bibliography