Written and researched by Nick Parker, Media Coordinator,
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy [1]
Introduction/Summary
This is the report of an investigation of possible bias concerning the issue of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods, on the opinion pages of some of the largest and most influential newspapers and weekly newsmagazines which circulate and are ‘opinion-leaders’ in the United States. A search was made to find all opinion pieces over a two-year period—from September 1999 through August 2001—in the The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle, Newsday (New York, NY), The Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, and The Economist. A total of 669 articles on genetically modified crops and foods were found. Of this total, 72 could be classified as ‘opinion’ rather than ‘news’ pieces. Of these, 32 were editorials and 38 were op-eds (opinion pieces by authors other than the editorial boards of the periodicals under consideration). We found a four to one (81.58% to 18.42 %) ratio of opinion pieces favoring genetically modified crops and foods compared to those opposing them or taking a generally critical stance. In the process of conducting the investigation we also categorized the editorial position of these publications, and found them to be uniformly supportive of GM crops and foods, and we examined the arguments they utilize to bolster their support.
We found that all of the arguments could be grouped into several general categories, as follows:
• GM crops are good for the environment, or biotech will create a world free of pesticides.
• We must accept GM crops and foods if we are to feed the poor in the Third World, because they offer the best way to boost the productivity of agriculture.
• There are no viable alternatives to GM crops and foods.
• GM crops are here to stay, so we should just accept them.
• The public already accepts GM, so what is all the fuss about?
• Trust scientists, they know best.
These in fact are, by and large, the same arguments used by the biotechnology industry in their advertising campaigns. We were very disturbed to find an overwhelming lack of attention to widely expressed doubts concerning these arguments. Such concerns include:
• GM crops in and of themselves may represent significant risks to the environment. In addition, the reduction of insecticide use in so-called ‘Bt-crops’ may be short-lived, and herbicide-tolerant crops are likely to lead to increased, rather than decreased use of pesticides.
• The productivity-enhancing potential of GM crops may be greatly overstated, in fact for some crops, like soybeans, there is evidence for depression of yields. Furthermore, GM crops may be unlikely to be appropriate for, adopted by, or useful for, poor farmers in the Third World.
• A significant body of research exists which demonstrates the proven potential—to boost productivity, protect the environment and address hunger—of alternatives in the realms of integrated pest management (IPM), sustainable agriculture, agroecology, policy reform, etc. This potential in many cases may be greater than that of GM crops and foods.
• There are potential health-risks of GM foods for consumers, which may not have been adequately evaluated before the approval of these products.
Summaries of these arguments may be found at: http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/ge/
Taken together, the results of this investigation lead us to a real concern that the news media is playing a biased role in opinion formation. Rather than taking a balanced view of facts and arguments for both pro- and con- positions on the issue of GM foods and crops, the media appears to follow the lead of industry advertising and public relations in a lock-step fashion.[2] This, we believe, is a significant disservice to the American public, who in the end, are the ones who must make the key decisions, through the democratic process, concerning the future of these controversial technologies.
Methodology
The searches were conducted on the LexisNexis database and used the terms “Biotech foods/ bioengineered foods/genetically modified foods/genetically engineered foods/ biotechnology.” The searches were then narrowed using the terms “opinion/ editorial/ op-ed /commentary.” Articles were then read, discarded if more ‘news items’ than ‘opinion pieces,’ and then classified according to pro- or con- position and arguments used.
Results
Of a total of 669 articles surveyed, 72 could be classified as ‘opinion’ rather than ‘news’ pieces. Of these, 32 were editorials and 38 were op-eds (opinion pieces by authors other than the editorial boards of the periodicals under consideration). We found a four to one ratio of pro genetically modified (GM) opinion editorials to those that oppose it. The results show 81.58 % pro and 18.42 % con. We also surveyed the editorial position of these papers, which are uniformly supportive of GM crops and foods, and examined arguments presented to support biotech foods in both op-eds and editorials.
The table below illustrates the position of the daily newspapers surveyed:
Newspaper editorial and op-ed bias on genetically modified foods
Unsigned Editorials on Pro Con Label Editorials labeling USA Today 2 2 0 4 1 opposing labeling Washington Post 6 0 0 4 Boston Globe 2 0 0 4 3 supporting labeling Chicago Tribune 2 1 0 2 Chicago Sun Times 3 0 0 2 1 supporting labeling Los Angeles Times 4 3 1 6 1 opposing labeling Houston Chronicle 2 0 0 1 Newsday (New York) 3 0 0 1 1 supporting labeling Wall Street Journal 5 0 0 7 New York Times 2 1 1 1 31 7 2 27
The New York Times
The New York Times only wrote one editorial on biotech foods, focusing on the new “super-salmon.” It featured two op-eds supporting biotech foods, one op-ed calling for labeling, and one op-ed opposing biotech crops and food.
The New York Times’s editorial Coping with Supersalmon, (May 14, 2000) cautions on the release of GM salmon to the market but skirts the issue of safety. “Regulators here and in Canada have two obligations—to see whether these fish pose a threat to the environment and, if they do, to ensure that they are properly regulated.” Nowhere in the editorial are safety issues for the consumers’ health brought up nor the question if this salmon should be marketed at all, but focuses on the question of when.
The editorial does seriously deal with the question of environmental safety such as the threat posed to native species. In answering this problem, The Times calls for protecting the Atlantic Salmon. But the overall tone is that the reality of biotech foods in our food chain is a foregone conclusion and only needs to be properly regulated.
The Times published two pro-biotech food op-eds, one written by regular columnist, Paul Krugman (Natural Born Killers, March 22, 2000) and the other written by Gregg Easterbrook, senior editor for The New Republic (Food for the Future, November 19, 1999).
In his column, Krugman contrasts the GM food scrap to the growth of health supplements. While well-tested biotech foods come under increasing scrutiny and criticism, he contends untested health supplements present a far greater danger and are welcomed by consumers. He compares opposition to biotech to concerns raised by anti-globalization protesters. Stating that biotech crops can help poor nations escape from starvation, he adds:
And what is the response of the supposed friends of the poor? The same as their response to the new opportunities for job and income-creating exports offered by growing global trade: horror at the thought of change, romantic rhapsodizing about the virtues of the traditional life.”
In other words, he denigrates opponents because of a supposed fear of technology.
Esterbrook sees the initial generation of GM foods as opening the door to even greater benefits for mankind, especially the poor. The benefits outweigh the risks. Golden rice, the beta-carotene fortified rice designed to boost vitamin A for the malnourished of the world is a perfect example. Never mind that some tests show that anyone eating it would have to eat more than 19 pounds per day to gain these benefits[3] or that a lack of vitamin A among a population suggests lack of a whole host of other important nutrients. But according to Esterbrook, “the important thing to keep in mind is that the transgenic crops in the news today are just the first manifestations of a fundamental new idea. Much better versions are coming.” So while biotech crops should be “carefully regulated,” they shouldn’t be snuffed out through “laws and boycotts,” because “it is the world’s poorest people who would have the most to loose.”
An op-ed by Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, (F.D.A. Chickens Out, May 8, 2000) argued for the labeling of GM foods, and is critical of GM foods. He points out that right now “those not using genetic engineering will be the ones who must certify, test and label their foods.” He also says there are health consequences with the voluntary labeling the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) presently allows. “Health professionals will not know if an allergic or other adverse reaction was the result of genetically engineered food. Consumers will also be deprived of the critical knowledge they need to hold food producers liable, should any of these novel foods prove to be hazardous.”
In this time period, one other sharply critical op-ed against GM foods was published (Why Genetically Altered Food Won’t Conquer Hunger, Dr. Peter Rosset, September 1, 1999). Dr. Rosset disputes the argument that GM foods and crops are needed to feed the hungry. This, he says, is based on two misconceptions. One being that “people are hungry because of high population density” and the second is that “genetic engineering is the best or only way to meet our future needs.” His argument is that “the real problems are poverty and inequality. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available or lack land on which to grow it.” Since biotechnology doesn’t begin to address these problems, focusing on it, therefore “may actually threaten agriculture and food security,” and would take us in the wrong direction.
(Disclosure: Dr. Peter Rosset is co-director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy).
USA Today
USA Today published eight editorials and opinion pieces on GM foods. On two occasions the paper published an opposing piece to appear the same day as their pro biotech food editorial.
One editorial, Don’t Misrepresent Biotechnology, (February 21, 2000), fretted over activist stockholders who are “inundating 18 major corporations with proposals to stop the development, marketing or selling of bioengineered foods.” It claimed that biotech is safe because of rigorous standards the FDA has put in place, an argument used by many newspaper editorials. The editorial also jabbed at critics who “always say biotech foods ‘may pose risks.’ What critics don’t concede is that all food may pose such risks.” (emphasis in original). USA Today’s editorial does admit that biotechnology can be abused, “But the slop that opponents are tossing into boardrooms both misrepresents the technology’s dangers and downplays its benefits.”
To its credit, USA Today allowed dissent alongside this editorial. Don’t Rush this Corn to Market (Ariane van Buren, February 21, 2000) describes a campaign coordinated by the organization Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility in which shareholders are asking companies to stop marketing biotech products “until long-term safety is assured” and points out the reason for doing so is because “shareholders are left holding the bag” if it spells trouble for corporate losses. This concern arises because “people unknowingly consume genetically engineered food, even though its safety has not been proved.” Therefore, she says, “Inevitably, food and product safety concerns become business issues.”
After the StarLink gene spill, USA Today published an editorial congratulating the FDA for its handling of the gene spill (FDA Quick to Cap Corn Scare, October 13, 2000). “Nothing’s apt to squash the promise of bioengineered food faster than public fears that dangerous products will be sold to unwary consumers,” it begins. “If their response to the ongoing StarLink corn scandal is any measure, however, federal regulators at least have the right approach.” The editorial forgot to mention that an independent laboratory, Genetic ID, hired by the civil society coalition Genetically Engineered Food Alert, discovered the gene spill, not federal regulators. But that doesn’t dampen their enthusiasm for biotech food nor for the present biotech regulating agencies. “The future of genetically modified foods is even more promising. …In (StarLink’s) case, that meant acting quickly and pre-emptively to keep bad corn out of good food.”
Again USA Today found room for an opposing point of view on its op-ed page when it published its Corn Scare editorial. In Don’t Ignore the Risks (October 13, 2000), author Jeremy Rifkin points out that GM foods are unlike their hybrid predecessors in gene-splicing. While traditional breeding techniques involve close relative plants, recombinant gene technology splices genes from totally unrelated plants “in ways that have never before been possible.” Furthermore, this new method could threaten ecosystems with “catastrophic genetic pollution.” Because of that threat, insurance companies won’t extend liability coverage “because no science exists by which to judge the potential risks.” So who will pay? he asks. Rifkin also cites the potential of allergenic and toxic reactions from consumption of biotech foods, which the FDA warns about in internal documents. The op-ed asks for mandatory labeling and “a ban on the introduction of all GM food crops into agricultural fields.”
Within two months after the StarLink gene spill, USA Today ran an editorial calling for the EPA to reject approval for Starlink corn for human consumption (Reject Gene-Altered Corn, December 7, 2000). This editorial does not question overall GM food safety but the potential “threat to public confidence in genetically modified foods.” The EPA’s rejection of StarLink should come about to protect “regulatory integrity.” USA Today’s own justification of GM food acceptance rests on 70% of the food on supermarket shelves being genetically modified. “Consumers accept these products because regulators impose rigorous standards,” ignoring that this “acceptance” results because consumers were never informed they were eating genetically modified foods in the first place.
In between the boardroom suite and the StarLink controversy, USA Today thought it prudent to discuss the ethics of biotech in food and medicine in its editorial Bioethical Brush Fires (May 5, 2000). This editorial takes aim at GM food opponents by comparing them to ignorant villagers. But ignorance must be bliss when it comes to consumers because USA Today also thinks labeling of GM foods would frighten them. “Those who would damn all gene-altered foods with the stigma of a label act no less paranoid than Mary Shelley’s villagers who also drove away a scientific miracle.” But opposing labeling just keeps consumers ignorant of the foods they eat and is therefore a tautology. And as for Frankenstein, apart from being a “scientific miracle,” he was both a monster and a work of fiction. This editorial also considers the debate on GM foods a lost cause because “Almost every food is gene-modified to some degree.”
The last op-ed USA Today ran within our timeframe was a piece on restaurant chefs and their food choices. (Chefs Cook Up Cuisine of Gloom, Greg Critser, April 19, 2001) This was in response to the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) new organic food labeling standards but took aim at all things natural and made the organic food industry out to be the 900 pound gorilla of the food industry. “The standards represent a victory for the $6 billion organic foods lobby and, perhaps more importantly, a codification of what might be called the Theology of the High Foodie,” which is the celebrity chef and his followers. And of course this chef “hates the very notion of GM. It’s unnatural. It’s a bummer.” But in the end, it’s the “ongoing boomer identity crisis” many of these chefs suffer and their wish to “be a part of this fictional landscape.”
Washington Post
The Washington Post ran six opinion pieces and four editorials, all of which supported the biotech industry, foods, and crops.
The most recent editorial blasts the European Union for requiring the labeling of biotech foods (Biotech Panderers, August 5, 2001). Framing the issue of GM foods’ potential ability to feed the growing world’s population while arable land is lost, the Post blasts the Europeans for proposing a “labeling regime (that) will be the most burdensome in the world” and threatens to impede free trade, cheap food, and decrease incentives for biotech research because “Europe’s policymakers are responding to irrational consumer fears.”
Another editorial, Really Big Fish, May 19, 2001, considers genetically altered supersalmon in light of the present regulatory environment. It, like The New York Times, never questions the necessity of biotech fish except to say that “consumers can benefit hugely from these products but only if whatever needs checking is being checked.” Any concern for the safety of consuming such fish is brushed aside in one sentence: “No significant health issues have been raised about humans eating the fish.” The Post’s main concern lies with consumer confidence. And that can be addressed through a streamlined regulatory agency, which was part of a proposed bill in the Congress at the time of the editorial.
Two earlier editorials discuss biotech’s troubles both in the European Union and in the marketplace. In Golden Rice and Superbugs, (January 22, 2000), the assumed promise of “golden rice” is contrasted with the “increasingly anti-biotech European Union” who want to alter trade rules so they may restrict import of biotech foods. Genetically Modified Confusion, (September 17, 1999), attacks Europe for forcing Archer Daniels Midland, the giant corn commodities buyer, to ask farmers to separate biotech corn from non-biotech corn. Also, companies such as Gerber are refusing to buy biotech food for their products. This, the editorial says, is a market acting “irrationally” and might “derail biotechnology’s larger promise” from “lowering pesticide use to cutting Third World malnutrition.” All debate and concerns of biotech’s safety should work to “preserve confidence” and “enhance its acceptance.”
This pro GM food bias is evident on the Washington Post op-ed page as well. All six op-eds published within our timeframe support biotech foods. One op ed written by The Post’s editorial writer Sebastian Mallaby (Food Fight, July 9, 2001), attacks GM food protesters and specifically Greenpeace for spreading “murderous nonsense” in their fight against GM foods. His belief is biotech offers relief from the impending population explosion by increasing yields and saving the environment from the effects of over farming and deforestation. He cites the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) report released in July 2001 as primary evidence backing this claim. Mallaby grants that biotech companies “have patented a disturbing chunk of this new field,” which could lead to ignoring poor countries that cannot pay for the technology. He argues that when scientists in Third World countries do modify their country’s crops, they could get sued for using the patented gene-transferring techniques. This, he says, is “something for activists to worry about.”
The remaining five op-eds were by guest writers. An op-ed by Per-Pinstrup Anderson, the director general of the pro GM food and crop think tank, International Food Policy Research Institute (Biotech and the Poor, October 27, 1999), agrees to an earlier Post editorial (Genetically Modified Confusion). Anderson discusses the “misguided nature of much of the debate over agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified foods,” and adds that “a big part of the equation” is the necessity of biotech to feed a hungry and growing population in the developing world. This, however, is being impeded by rich countries’ debates and moratoriums of biotech foods. “Condemning biotechnology for its potential risks without considering the alternative risks of prolonging the human misery caused by hunger, malnutrition and child death is as unwise and unethical as blindly pursuing this technology without the necessary biosafety,” he concludes.
Food Fears (October 31, 2000), written by Christopher Klose, a senior partner at John Adams and Associates, a public relations firm in Washington DC specializing in emerging scientific and technical issues, particularly in the areas of biotechnology, (www.worldcomgroup.com/profile.cfm?ID=44), is as much a warning to biotech companies not to overlook the importance of public scrutiny in the acceptance of biotech foods as it is a personal testimony on the necessity of biotech foods. Before working in public relations, Klose served with the Peace Corps in India where he met a starving child who later died. Because of that, he “became a lifelong proponent of science in service to mankind through agriculture.” While he acknowledges that India produces “more than enough (food) to feed itself,” he still thinks biotech is important to India’s future and that of other developing countries. “But the benefits of biotechnology can be fully realized only if the public has confidence in the process of its invention, approval and use.”
Several biotech researchers also batted for biotech. Martina McGloughlin, director of Biotechnology Program at the University of California at Davis wrote Biotech Crops: Rely on the Science, (June 14, 2000), suggesting that the federal regulatory agencies in charge of oversight have everything under control and in fact have accurately predicted the outcomes of many biotech concerns, especially that of the monarch butterfly. She points to the National Academy of Sciences report which has been cited in many pro-biotech editorials, stating “the consensus among scientists was that no evidence exists that biotech foods are unsafe.” In the next paragraph, she concludes: “Because without any doubt the biggest problem with our robust, logical, science-based regulatory system is that not enough people understand how it works.” This op-ed was written before the StarLink gene spill controversy.
The other biotech researcher stepping up to make the case for GM foods is Florence Wambugu, a native Kenyan, plant geneticist, and the director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application–AfriCenter (ISAAA). Her op-ed, Taking the Food Out of Our Mouths (August 26, 2001), refers to her childhood as the prime influence for her support of GM food and crops. Growing up in a family of nine in Kenya, she “learned firsthand” of the challenges in breaking out of the cycle of poverty. Since then, she has “made it (her) mission to alert others to the urgent need for new technology.” That technology is biotech. But biotech is not available in Africa to the extent she would like and she blames the “critics who claim that Africa has no chance to benefit from biotechnology and that our people will be exploited by multinationals.” These critics, she feels, “are content to keep Africa dependent on food aid from industrialized nations while mass starvation occurs.”
Hassan Adamu, former Minister of Agriculture of Nigeria, also had an op-ed in the Post. In We’ll Feed Our People As We See Fit (September 11, 2000), Adamu blasts critics of biotech as “eco-terrorists” and “privileged” while arguing for biotech as a way to feed the hungry of his nation. To deny them that alternative “presume(s) to know what is best for them is not only paternalistic but morally wrong.” He ends with a threat: “The harsh reality is that, without the help of agricultural biotechnology, many will not live.” He also quotes Ms. Wambugu, cited above, in this piece.
Considering this overwhelming support for GM food and crops, one would think the Post would make room for one dissenting opinion. They did not, except for some letters to the editor.
The Boston Globe
On the editorial and op-ed pages, The Boston Globe is similar to The Washington Post. They failed to print any dissenting opinion on either page.
Of the four editorials, one offered outright support for biotech foods while the other three focused on the labeling issue. Biotech’s Benefits (March 26, 2000) likens biotech opponents to those who opposed smallpox vaccinations: “Today a similar wave of fearful but equally unscientific protest is rising over the genetic altering of crops.” Protesters “have little evidence to back up their fears,” while they apparently are not able “to appreciate the careful testing to which genetically altered crops are subjected by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture.” It ignores the well-documented revolving door policy of regulatory to industry job jumping that undermines any appreciation of that testing. This melodramatic theme of ignorance is echoed throughout the editorial and parallels Globe’s own melodrama: that the ignorant protesters could “stop the genetic altering of food (and eventually) would deprive mankind of a benefit that may become necessary to save the world.”
The Boston Globe supports labeling biotech foods. But they do so because they believe it will enhance consumer confidence for the product. In Labeling GM Food (March 28, 2000), the editorial opens with: “This page supports genetic modification of crops as a service to mankind and believes that most of the protest against it is unscientific and wrong.” Biotech foods should be labeled because “the public has a right to know what goes into its corn flakes.” This premise is carried through in two other editorials, Labeling Engineered Food (August 21, 2000) and Knowing What We Eat (December 27, 2000). In all these editorials the idea behind labeling is to instill confidence in the consumer. But potential dangers of biotech foods are only hinted at when they acknowledge findings of the National Academy of Sciences report that said health and environmental questions remain (Labeling Engineered Food), a tacit nod to the critics they disparage.
The two op-eds provide interesting bookends to the Globe’s series of editorials. Both strongly support GM food and crops. In an op-ed that originally appeared in The Los Angeles Times just a few days before, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Jack Kemp blasts opponents (Poorest Nations Lose in Attacks on Bioengineered Food, December 10, 1999), accusing them of “superstition and sheer misunderstanding” which is being used to browbeat the public against biotechnology “which the world needs to feed its growing population, improve nutrition, and head off famine.”
This same theme was repeated by Hans Kornberg, Boston University biology professor, almost two years later (Food Fights Can’t Feed the Hungry, August 8, 2001). This op-ed couches much of its argument in the UNDP report released in July, 2001 that claimed developing nations will be unable to feed their population without biotechnology. While Mr. Kornberg suggests that industrialized nations conduct “a robust, open and ongoing discussion of biotechnology,” he doesn’t hesitate to support the premise of the UNDP report, despite that most genetically engineered foods are produced and consumed in industrialized nations, not poor ones.
Chicago Tribune
The Tribune had two editorials and three op-eds discussing GM food and crops. The two editorials supported GM food and crops. Of the three op-eds, two were in support of GM crops and one was critical.
The Tribune repeats the nostrum that if biotech companies and the government regulating agencies were more forthcoming with information, including labeling, this will bolster consumer confidence and promote biotech food acceptance. In the editorial On Mad Cows and Bio-fears (January 24, 2001), The Tribune compares the real threat of mad cow disease to the “ephemeral” fears toward biotech food. “The danger posed by genetically modified foods … has yet to be scientifically demonstrated,” and continues, “More information in the public arena about the nature of such foods will increase consumer understanding and lessen concerns about their safety.”
In an earlier editorial (Fear and Ignorance and Biotech, January 31, 2000), The Tribune fully supports the biotech industry and considers criticism a result of fear and ignorance. They blame this on a vacuum of information “primarily because marketing was aimed at farmers. Educating the public about the potential benefits and risks wasn’t considered necessary.” This must change because “it would be a travesty if the U.S. allows fear and ignorance to crowd out crucial public education about biotechnology’s potential.”
The op-eds appearing over this two year span were somewhat more varied in argument, if only because the Tribune published an opposing view. That op-ed, Feasting on the Unknown (September 3, 2000) by Martha K. Herbert, discusses the safety considerations ignored by many proponents while manufacturers make and market their GM food. This, she says, adds up to “one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.” The questions she brings up are absent in any of the pro biotech editorials throughout this survey, specifically “Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant’s developing nervous system?” These are questions that would come naturally to her. She is a pediatric neurologist.
Herbert continues: “Without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.” Only “complete, thorough, long-term and independent evaluation of all of these novel organisms” will suffice, as well as labeling of biotech foods after the testing is done.
This op-ed was picked up by The Tribune from the New York Times News Service and the writer is from Boston. The Boston Globe is owned by The New York Times Company, publishers of The New York Times yet neither paper ran this op-ed.
The two pro biotech op-eds considered the GM controversy from distinct angles. Unnecessary Setback for Biotech (November 26, 2000), written by Dennis T. Avery from the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis, takes aim at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to aggressively support biotech foods and bungling the StarLink gene spill. According to him, “Too much of the EPA’s leadership has an organic mindset.” Avery believes that biotech crops are “one of the key strategies for preserving wildlands in the 21st Century,” and that “spreading fear about biotech foods is directly contrary to the EPA’s major responsibility–protecting the environment.” This last bit has be one of the most creative, if not convoluted, arguments promoting the use of GM food.
Resistance is Dropping Toward Biotech Foods (August 25, 2000) by Jack Kemp celebrates the continuing popularity of GM crops among the nation’s farmers while still enjoying the scientific community’s support, “in spite of an ill-conceived, anti-progress publicity campaign from the left wing self-appointed consumer and environmental groups.” Kemp’s panegyric continues: “Science, technological innovation, and economic freedom will in the end win the war for a Second Green Revolution,” despite the “few well-publicized voices (that) continue to stir up unfounded fears.” The fact that various pro-biotech lobbying groups have far outspent critics by hundreds of millions of dollars is ignored by Kemp.
Chicago Sun-Times
The Sun-Times and its op-ed writers blasted away the opponents of GM food with more vigor than its cross-town competitor but failed to publish any differing opinion. This practice was not unusual. What was unusual was the contempt for biotech’s opponents. While many papers and their guest writers brushed aside or belittled concerns, only the Wall Street Journal exceeded this paper’s vitriol.
Two editorials and three op-eds appeared in the Sun-Times over the two year period.
Of the two Sun-Times editorials, one called for labeling (We Know What We Eat, May 5, 2000). “Genetically engineered foods are nothing to be afraid of. Indeed, they offer many health-related positives: Farmers can grow them using fewer pesticides, and they often have a longer shelf life.” Ignoring the lack of disclosure of biotech crops and foods by the industry, the editorial continued: “Americans, by and large, have been more open than Europeans to these foods.” They also took a jab at industry saying, “the public would have been better served if the food industry had tried harder to promote the safety of modified foods rather than enlisting the government to help them escape the work.”
Another brief editorial appearing over a year later (Don’t They See? June 28, 2001) denounces detractors of vitamin A rice as “Luddites” who prefer death and blindness “to life and sight saved by a capitalistic enterprise.”
Echoing this editorial slant, Sun-Times columnist Dennis Byrne wrote two columns in support for biotech foods. In Sour Grapes Yield a Barren Harvest (May 14, 2000), he also likens biotech’s opposition to “Luddites” who are engaged “in the mindless campaign against biotechnology.” This opposition has even subverted “top chefs” who are also critical of biotech foods. According to Byrne, opponents argue that “if you can’t prove that the food won’t turn your mother into Godzilla, then the food is unsafe.” The chefs, he suggests, should go to poor countries to feed the people without the help of biotech.
In another column, Turning Over Old Leaf (April 9, 2000), Byrne slaps around protesters at a biotechnology conference in Boston. “Luddites” can’t tolerate biotech’s advances, despite the positive findings in the report released by the National Academy of Sciences. He claims this report proves biotech food’s safety, “but none of this continuing evidence seems to have had much of an impact on the thinking of knee-jerk, anti-technology, anti-corporate militants.” They would rather agriculture went back to poisoning the environment and let “people in developing countries … go hungry.”
In Planting the Seeds of Misinformation (November 15, 1999) Abagail Salyers, a Microbiologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, keeps the ad hominem rhetoric to a minimum but charges that fears of genetically engineered (GE) foods have “been fueled by the distortions and misinformation spread by anti-biotechnology activists.” To allay those fears, she describes genetic engineering as nothing more than “a refinement” of what nature has been doing all along. Genetically engineered food in fact could be considered safer because it “removes most of the uncertainty.” Furthermore, “genetically engineered plants have been growing for more than ten years, and none of the disasters predicted by the opponents has materialized.” But the anti-GE campaign has caused damage, particularly to farmers. “Already battered by low prices, farmers who embraced the new breeds as a means of improving yields are now being penalized for behavior that normally would be rewarded.” There are, of course, many reasons why small farmers are losing their farms (as well documented by Food First over the last 26 years), none of which have anything to do with biotech food’s acceptance. But to discuss those reasons might invalidate her point. It is therefore best to obfuscate.
Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times was the most even-handed in covering the GM issue on their op-ed page. Of the ten op-eds published, four op-eds supported GM foods and crops and four were in opposition. However, one of the opposing op-eds only appeared in the Ventura County edition of the paper and did not get the audience of the Los Angeles County edition.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial page was no less prolific on the subject with six editorials over two years.
In the course of this survey, the Los Angeles Times also became a strong advocate for more governmental oversight, regulation, and testing. Oddly, however, the Times does not support labeling biotech foods, an apparent contradiction.
The editorial Turn Down Heat in Food Feud (October 11, 1999), the Los Angeles Times contends that the GM food debate is getting out of hand and states that “The U.S. government has tested (GM) crops extensively and found GM food to be as good as any food.” Given the controversy in Europe and growing awareness in the United States, they call for both sides to start talking because this “is a science that all agree has huge benefits to offer,” and calls for all sides, “independent scientists, environmentalists and consumers” to be included in regulatory review.
In the next editorial, Biotech Foods: Second Thoughts (December 9, 1999), the editors admit there are more legitimate questions raised with GM foods and criticize the biotech industry for fighting the opposition through lobbying. “The industry hopes to ward off regulatory action with more lobbying; that’s a mistake,” and continues: “The questions about what has become known as GM food must be answered, not shoved aside.” While this is a departure from other papers that refuse to even acknowledge potential problems with biotech, as has been demonstrated, the purpose remains the same: “The industry … should concentrate on trying to build public confidence in the new technology.”
But confidence in safety does not include labeling. The Los Angeles Times does not think labeling biotech foods is necessary and in fact is wrong. Food Gene Label Unneeded (February 1, 2000) concerns itself with legislation written by former State Senator Tom Hayden and Byron Sher (D-Stanford) that would require labeling of biotech foods. The editorial agrees with regulators’ decision not to label because it considers “the vast majority of GM food no different from conventional food.” The paper adds: “Unless it is shown otherwise, labeling could be misleading.” Anyway, according to the editorial, “American consumers have known little, and cared little, about transplanted genes in much of their food.”
The StarLink gene spill changed their editorial view, to a small degree. Each of the next three editorials call on the government to tighten regulation and oversight of GM foods. Of the first two, Sharper Oversight for Biofoods (September 25, 2000) pointed out the cost of the recall should prompt “sharper oversight of the rapidly growing but virtually unregulated genetically modified food industry.” That they would call the industry “unregulated” less than a year after stating the government tested these crops “extensively” (Turn Down Heat in Food Feud, October 11, 1999) is one example of contradictory statements used in supporting GM crops. The intent, however, of tightening these regulations is once again not so much for consumer safety as it is for consumer confidence. “The Kraft recall is one illustration of the need to establish public confidence.” It is also a matter of economics. “The economic cost alone means the state and federal officials can no longer afford to watch the growth of the genetically modified food industry from the sidelines.”
The Times’ reporter Aaron Zitner, in an article a week before entitled Gene-altered Catfish Raise Environmental, Legal Issues (January 2, 2001), inspired another editorial on tighter regulations for the GM food industry when he reported that the outgoing Clinton Administration admitted that the federal government didn’t know if GM crops, animals, and food are harming the environment in “unforeseen ways.” In Tighten the Reins on Biofoods, (January 7, 2001), the Times considers this report as a warning to the incoming administration and suggests naming a regulatory leader because of “the muddled regulatory scheme … giving oversight of so-called GM plants and animals to three federal agencies,” a scheme which should share the blame for the StarLink gene spill. Fixing this muddle is necessary not because of the unforeseen dangers, but once again because “the market will never robustly develop without consumer confidence.”
The discovery of the ubiquitous Starlink corn in vegetarian corn dogs inspired another editorial calling for tighter controls on biotech crops and food. Modify Biotech’s Sales Pitch Too (March 9, 2001) notes that biotech corn not approved for human consumption has once again made it into the human food chain. This should not only prompt the Bush administration to tighten biotech food segregation rules but “the mix-ups show why better regulation of so-called ‘GM foods,’ and more honest discussion of their likely risks and benefits, are needed to protect consumer confidence.” The biotech industry should accept these new regulations because “greater awareness of (biotech foods) would likely lead to more support for them than exists now” and anyway, the “lack of information will lead to hostility.” Nevertheless labels are still not part of the package.
The Los Angeles Times allowed space for opposing views on their op-ed pages.
In Engineered Crops Yield Many Fears (April 2, 2000), Farmer Jim Churchill picks apart the “expensive propaganda” campaign by the agricultural biotech industry. Aiming at several of the arguments promoted by the proponents of GM crops, Churchill knocks off each one, charging that “genetically engineered crops are not a continuation of the plant and animal breeding that farmers have always done,” but are splices done “across species boundaries,” for example inserting human genes into salmon. Further, “the world’s poor are hungry not because of the absence of food but because of the absence of money to buy the food.” And that GM crops “lead to more, not less, pesticide use.” As an example, he points to Roundup Ready soybeans that can tolerate the Roundup pesticide. Because of this trait, farmers are encouraged to spray more pesticide on both the crop and the weeds. This op-ed only appeared in the Ventura County edition.
Label Genetically Altered Food (Marc Lappe and Tom Hayden, April 9, 2000) agrees with many editorials on labeling GM foods. “The biotech industry need not worry about consumer preference if its products are actually as good as they say they are.” It does not consider the labeling issue as a way to build consumer confidence in biotech but as one of providing choice for the consumer. It also brings up some troubling information behind the popular National Academy of Sciences report, so often mentioned in pro-biotech food op-eds. “The leader of the study left midway to go work for the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and four researchers received funding from Monsanto.”
Marc Lappé co wrote another op-ed, this time with medical writer Barbara Keeler (Some Food for FDA Regulation, January 7, 2001) that focused on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) refusal “to require genetically modified food seeds be safe for consumption before their release into the food supply,” and its utter inability to deal with biotech food labeling. They argue “the flaw in this policy is that the presumption of equivalence does not rest on a substantial body of research comparing genetically modified and conventional foods.” To prove this point, the writers cite a report by Monsanto, “Combined data from the study’s three experiments showed significant differences in fat, carbohydrates, ash and some fatty acids. Also, the brain-boosting vitamin choline was 29% lower” in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans. Other differences include a higher level of the allergen trypsin inhibitor in the soybeans which could interfere “with protein digestion and has been associated with enlarged cells in rat pancreases.”
The argument that GM food will feed the world is dismantled by Frances Moore Lappé in her op-ed People, Not Technology, are the Key to Ending Hunger (June 27, 2001). From her life-long work as a researcher and writer, she points out that hunger is “the result of economic ‘givens’ that we ourselves have created, assumptions and structures that actively generate scarcity from plenty.” But the debate around biotechnology “is a tragic distraction our planet cannot afford” because the wrong question—how best to produce food—is being asked. The question that should be asked is: “How do we build communities in tune with nature’s wisdom in which no one, anywhere, has to worry about putting food—safe, healthy food—on the table?” This, Lappé says, takes us to the heart of democracy and only citizens can answer it “through public debate and the resulting accountable institutions that come from our engagement.” She levels criticism on government institutions for being more beholden to biotech corporations than to its citizens, especially with biotechnology, “whether it’s the approval or patenting of biotech seeds and foods without public input or the rejection of mandatory labeling of biotech foods despite broad public demand for it.” She concludes that hunger “can never be solved by new technologies … it can only be solved as citizens build democracies in which government is accountable to them, not private corporate entities.”
(Disclosure: Frances Moore Lappé is the co-founder of Food First).
Proponents for GM foods got more then equal footing in the pages of The Los Angeles Times. The prolific Jack Kemp was welcome here, as he was on the Globe and Tribune op-ed pages, to tout the benefits of GM food for the poor. Be Not Afraid, Use Genetics to Feed the World’s Hungry (December 3, 1999) was also published a few days later in The Boston Globe (Poorest Nations Lose in Attacks on Bioengineered Foods, December 10, 1999). The title was changed, but the content was the same.
The theme of feeding the hungry with biotech is a staple of biotech’s proponents. In Biotech Isn’t a Luxury in Some Nations (April 10, 2000), Jennifer A. Thompson and Zhang-Liang Chen, both of whom work extensively in farming and biotech in their respective countries, South Africa and China, consider the debates over biotech foods a superfluous luxury poor nations cannot afford. The writers have little patience with detractors of biotech, considering the tone of urgency they lace throughout the piece. While rich countries can argue “about real or imagined risks, … the rest of the world needs to focus on a rigorous risk-benefit analysis” of GM foods which are “urgently needed today and indispensable tomorrow.” They point to their own studies that amply demonstrate the potential of biotech foods and conclude, “Given the socioeconomic realities and needs in countries like South Africa and China, it is almost trivial to discuss whether they should use a technology that already has shown its benefits.”
Proponents frequently accuse critics of creating a paralysis in research and implementation of GM crops and food. How to Turn a Chaotic Food Fight into a Reasoned Discussion (Stephen L. Cohen, July 2, 2000) considers the controversy spreading from Europe to the United States as a threat to reason. Fearing a “Luddite approach” will prevent researchers from doing their work and “finding the answers we need,” this op-ed calls for discussion based on science. “Though the evidence to date shows no indication that engineered foods are dangerous, further studies are needed to clarify the potential for such problems as allergic reactions to transgenic crops.” But what’s not needed is “emotional hand wringing.” It all comes down to “easing the public’s fears” toward biotech crops. The National Academy of Science report is mentioned to strengthen his argument for more research. Cohen overlooks or ignores the fact that regulating bodies often rely on industry for testing and industry is hardly an advocate of openness. Industry’s constant and vigorous opposition to labeling and the compromised objectivity of the writers of the report who left to work in the industry, testify to that.
The Los Angeles Times stance against labeling has an ally in the Hoover Institution’s Henry Miller, who authored Biotech Food Labeling is Regulatory Overkill (October 27, 2000). Miller likens the difference in GM foods to the fermentation of beer “done in steel or wood tanks.” No one would think of labeling beer based on this criteria, he says. Why should they therefore label GM foods? In fact labels would “imply incorrectly that the buyer needs to be warned of unspecified dangers, vastly inflate costs and reduce profits to everyone in the distribution pathway.” Nevertheless labeling what he calls “‘warning’ labels” scares people, especially manufacturers. “Britain’s new mandatory-labeling law … sparked a stampede by food producers, retailers and restaurant chains to rid their products of all gene-spliced ingredients.” His solution is to rely on the market to produce “niche markets” for “people who want to avoid gene-spliced food.”
The Los Angeles Times also ran an op-ed written by former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman calling on both sides of GM food debate to be heard and announcing a series of meetings throughout the country to discuss GM food and crop issues (End the Biotech Food Fight, April 2, 2000). This only appeared in the Ventura County edition.
The Houston Chronicle
The Houston Chronicle ran one editorial and two op-eds on GM foods. The op-eds only appeared on the business page, penned by business columnist, Jim Barlow.
Their editorial, Indigestion (November 24, 2000), advocates labeling of GM foods, keeping in step with most other papers surveyed and uses the same consumer confidence–instilling reasons. StarLink also encouraged their decision. The mass recall of taco shells revealed “two-thirds of foods on grocery shelves contain ingredients made from genetically modified corn, soybeans, potatoes or other crops.” But industry has prevented labeling, citing fears of consumer backlash. The Chronicle considers “such protests insulting to Americans ability to make reasonable choices.” While they acknowledge labels would not have made a difference with StarLink, as no one knew the corn was in the shells, they are harshly critical that the corn’s producer, Aventis, could not account for all the suspect corn, which is an example of an “astounding lax industry and government oversight.” But this is not to say The Chronicle doesn’t like biotech foods. Just that these technological advances should be met with advances in regulation and oversight.
The two business op-eds attack the precautionary principle while trumpeting biotech’s potential for feeding the world. In Barlow’s first column, Bioengineering is a Worthy Risk (September 23, 1999), he considers the GM food and crop controversy as a “more sorry than safe” angle whereby the caution critics maintain, could cause many to starve and make the world sorry for not taking advantage of this technology. It is a matter of cost versus benefit. As an example, he describes Peru’s decision to remove the carcinogen chlorine from the water. But a cholera outbreak killed more people “then were ever at risk from chlorine-induced cancer.” The benefits of GM foods therefore outweigh any of the risks, however unforeseen.
In Zinging Both Sides in Altered Food Tiff, (October 8, 2000), Barlow reports on the monarch butterfly study done by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which concluded that the butterflies are at little risk from GM crops. This, he says, will not satisfy the critics. “They will reply that somehow, somewhere, there might be evidence that we don’t know about. And surely sometime in the future, we will have a disaster.” Thus he slams the precautionary principle. Being careful and the “cost of not acting” weigh heavily on his mind. Especially with Golden Rice which he believes will end suffering for “400 million people.” But “we won’t really know that someone might have a unique allergy the rice could set off until it is in general use. So we must weigh the costs and come to a decision.” He compares those who advocate the precautionary principle to the flat earthers of Columbus’s time, standing in the way of progress. But he does agree with labeling of GM foods, consistent with the paper.
Newsday (New York, NY)
Newsday was similar to many papers surveyed in that it offered no room for dissenting opinion. The closest it got was an op-ed criticizing the food industry’s disregard for consumers’ health choices. Otherwise, in two op-eds and one editorial, biotech foods got the nod of approval, even if they gently chastised the biotech industry for refusing to label its foods.
The only editorial on biotech foods, Designer Genes (February 12, 2000), supports labeling biotech foods, citing the completed Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety stating that nations must be notified before GM products are shipped into their countries as a good reason for the United States to label biotech foods. The reason: “full and open disclosure will speed acceptance of genetically modified foods.”
The op-ed Bio-tech Seeds Can Sow a World of Good (October 13, 1999), focuses on golden rice, which is no surprise considering the writer, Gordon Conway, is the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, funder for research on golden rice. Fully supporting the rice and other GM foods for their potential, Conway nevertheless acknowledges the concerns biotech critics have with GM foods and the intransigent behavior of biotech corporations. “There are some genuine concerns about corporate ethics and potential impacts on health and the environment.” These fears are, however, immediately belittled. “But many of the fears are imaginary or misplaced.” The decision of Monsanto to shelve terminator technology “is a welcome step toward assuaging some of these concerns.” In order to continue assuaging these fears of corporate misdoings and malfeasance, he proposes some concessions. Biotechnology companies must “share their technologies and genetic information with public plant breeders working for poor farmers. They should also agree to conform to the plant variety protection system, rather than resort to restrictive patents.” Accepting some of his own advice, golden rice, Conway writes, “will be made freely available for use by poor farmers in rice-eating regions within several years.” If GM foods are not supported, then he fears “by the year 2020 the number of undernourished could exceed a billion people.”
Fear makes another showing in Fears Aside, Biotech Crops Can Flourish in New York (September 19, 2000). The two writers, Matthew Carolan and Raymond J. Keating, blast a state bill to place a five-year moratorium on planting biotech crops in New York. Calling GM food critics “the Luddite left,” the op-ed accused the legislation of falling “for many scare tactics used by biotechnology’s harshest critics,” and “included some wild declarations … including ‘the development of insect and weed resistance to pesticides; injury or death of nontarget species; crop loss from seeds that do not yield as expected or that produce crops with unexpected characteristics; and allergenicity, toxicity, or decreased nutritional value of genetically engineered crops.” They have not seen Monsanto’s own report, as mentioned above, for it too cites some of these problems. They also cite and quote the National Academy of Sciences report, “that overall reaffirmed the safety of biotech crops and foods currently on the market.” This moratorium threatens to affect the biotech industry and the financial community that supports it. They hope that “sound science and smart economics (will) prevail for a change, and agricultural biotechnology can flourish in the Empire State.”
This Meal May Be Hazardous to Your Health (April 5, 2001). Jill McCluskey who is an assistant professor in the Department of Agriculture Economics at Washington State University, takes an interesting approach to the GM food debate. While tacitly critical of GM foods, her true aim is to chide companies that manufacture GM foods for not taking into consideration consumer’s health concerns, not concerns about the safety of such food, but concerns for foods with genetically enhanced health benefits. Food fears are discussed, but this has more to do with markets and business then with food safety. “The public’s beliefs about health risks are often very different from those of the experts, … the publics’ perception of risks, rather than scientifically proven risks, directly affects markets.” But the writer chides biotech companies because “they have been negligent when it comes to consumers. … If the biotech companies were considering consumers, they would have worked to develop products with qualities that consumers want, rather than food products that lower production costs.”
Wall Street Journal
Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal had nothing good to say about the detractors of the GM food industry while they stacked the deck for the proponents of GM foods. A total of twelve pro- genetically modified crops op-eds and editorials were published over the two years studied, exceeding all other papers by a wide margin. The message is clear: Biotech has a friend with the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.
Attacking critics of GM foods by linking them with eco-terrorists (Bombing Biotech, June 1, 2001) or causing a “plague of plaintiffs lawyers” (Seeds of Trouble, September 15, 1999), to simply brushing aside their concerns (Fear of the Future, February 10, 2000), the Journal’s seven editorials leave little in their rhetorical arsenal unused. Greenpeace is a common target, appearing in two editorials. They are accused of promoting irrational fears “based on less than nothing” (No Green Peace, February 21, 2001) and may have influenced McDonalds’ refusal to buy genetically altered potatoes (Biotech in Hot Oil, May 2, 2000). While on the one hand the Wall Street Journal brushes aside or “pooh-poohs” criticisms of GM food (Fear of the Future), they also accuse opponents of waging scare campaigns (Asides: Drop the Chalupa, September 19, 2000).
Columnists and op-ed writers played a supporting role with five commentaries on GM foods. Two were written by Wall Street Journal business columnist Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. In Fun Facts to Know and Tell about Biotechnology (November 17, 1999), GM food’s potential benefits outweigh any risks from tampering with nature. The StarLink gene spill inspired another. Eek! Attack of the Perfectly Harmless Taco (October 4, 2000) considers the gene spill as much ado about nothing and claims “we’re talking about corn being contaminated by corn.”
Guest op-eds weighed in with similar arguments, citing benefits of GM crops and should not be dismissed, that can feed a hungry world, or critics’ claims are simply wrong. In Consumer Groups Shouldn’t Reject Biotech (January 25, 2001), Michael F. Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest believes both agriculture biotechnology and GM foods “should not be rejected cavalierly.” Texas A&M agriculture professor Norman Borlaug argues in We Need Biotech to Feed the World (December 6, 2000), that GM foods and crops can help feed a growing world population. And former Washington Times legal writer and Reason magazine science correspondent, Michael Fumento lashes out at the “fear-mongering environmentalists” who are to blame for Europeans’ “baseless” safety concerns of GM foods (Why Europe Fears Biotech Food, January 14, 2000).
News Magazines
The three news magazines surveyed were chosen because of their stature as sources of information and their wide circulation. The magazines, two published in the United States and one published in the United Kingdom, were Newsweek, Time, and The Economist.
There were only two commentaries on GM foods in Time or Newsweek, one in each magazine. Reflecting the opinions of the newspapers in this survey, both supported GM foods.
No commentaries were found in The Economist.
All the magazines extensively covered the biotech industry and GM food and within the body of those articles lies the biases, subtle or not.
Time
The one commentary Time did run was Will Frankenfood Feed the World? (June 19, 2000) written by Bill Gates of Microsoft. It centers on the need for GM foods because arable land is expected to decrease “by half over the next 50 years,” and “100 million children suffer from vitamin A deficiency,” among other nutritional disorders. Golden rice is framed as an example of biotech’s ability but Gates departs from the common arguments of biotech’s safety and hope by pointing out that biotech “is far from being the whole answer.” Surprisingly, he co-opts Food First’s long-standing argument that poverty, not lack of food, is the cause of hunger:
“Poverty plays the largest role. Today more than 1 billion people around the globe live on less than $1 a day. Making genetically modified crops available will not reduce hunger if farmers cannot afford to grow them or if the local population cannot afford to buy the food those farmers produce.”
This astonishing revelation from the richest man in the world doesn’t stop there. He repeats one of Food First’s primary facts, published in numerous Food First books: “Taken as a whole, the world produces enough food to feed everyone. … but much of it is simply in the wrong place.” He understands that “biotech firms have a strong financial incentive to target rich markets first in order to … recoup the high costs of product development,” but problems of distribution, he says, can be overcome by a combination of good will and collaboration between biotech companies and government agencies, especially with the help of organizations such as the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).
Probably the best known piece that Time ran was Grains of Hope (July 30, 2000). This was an extensive article on GM foods framed around golden rice, the vitamin A fortified rice admired by Bill Gates a month before. The article may present itself as balanced but when one considers the sources of quotes and information, a subtle bias seeps in. The story quoted six proponents of biotech foods and one opponent. Two other quotes simply called on more testing but didn’t question the intent of either GM foods or biotech companies.
Newsweek
Fareed Zakaria’s “World View” column entitled Some Real Street Smarts (July 30, 2001) aimed at the protesters of Italy’s G-7 conference of July, 2001, criticizing them for their opposition to technology. Using the UNDP report, which supported GM food, he cites and quotes Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the UN Human Development Project (UNHDP) throughout the column: “Malloch Brown argues that genetically modified staples–rice, millet, cassava–have 50 percent higher yields, mature 30 to 50 days earlier, are much richer in protein and resist disease, drought, pests and weeds. ‘Not one person anywhere has died by eating genetically modified food,’ (Malloch Brown) says. ‘on the other hand, malnutrition kills millions every year.’” It is interesting to note that before Malloch Brown headed the UNHDP, he worked for the World Trade Organization and prior to that, the advertising firm, The Sawyer Miller Group, which recently merged with Weber Shandwick, the current ad agency for the Council for Information on Biotechnology and their $50 million ad campaign promoting biotech foods.
Newsweek, like Time, also allows its bias to bleed into its reporting. A business article, Another Bitter Harvest (July 31, 2000) looks at a ban on GM crops in Brazil. Three proponents for GM crops are quoted while the only quote from an opponent amounted to two brief sentences from a speech by Jose Hermeto, Rio Grande do Sul’s agriculture secretary at the Forum on Globalization.
The Economist
The Economist, based in the United Kingdom, ran no commentaries or opinion pieces on GM foods. They did, however, admit their bias in favor of the technology. In Perfect? (April 14, 2001), the magazine stated: “The Economist, by and large, has been on the side of science. In agriculture, we have defended genetically modified food as a source of cheaper, better nutrition.” This article centers on human health and biotechnology, but they found it an opportunity to support biotech foods as well.
They also discussed the UNDP report and its advocacy that all types of technology should be used to help poor and developing countries, discussing issues such as schooling and private versus public investment. But the article, Let Them Eat More (July 14, 2001) pulled no punches in its support of GM foods, considering the title, or its disdain for biotech food opponents. “In the meantime, the report should make well-off protesters who vandalise plantations of genetically modified maize think twice about whether they are actually helping the poor.”
Many of the editorials and op-eds call for a trust in the science and the testing that has been done. There’s very little regard for questions surrounding possible long term effects, unless one considers the ten years or so GM foods and crops snuck onto the market as proof of safety. But, as Dr. Martha K. Herbert, the pediatric neurologist from Boston, pointed out, proponents ignore babies and children who would eat biotech foods in their baby formula. Gerber decided not to wait that long. It has pledged not to use biotech foods in its baby foods.
Note.
Jack Kemp, former Secretary of Education under George Herbert Walker Bush, has become a darling of the op-ed page. Numerous editorials signed by him appeared on all sorts of topics, ranging from social problems (The Golden Rule) to George Walker Bush’s presidential aspirations (What George Bush Should Do). Biotech foods were also a hot topic for him, with two editorials promoting the stuff within an eight month time period. One of those two editorials was published in at least two major newspapers.
Note:
Also many of biotech’s proponents spend much energy discussing the potential GM foods will have in feeding the poor, but neglect the fact that all of the biotech crops available today have nothing to do with helping the hungry and everything to do with helping corporations grow, store, transport, and sell their GM crops.
Footnotes
[1] Editorial support by Peter Rosset and Anuradha Mittal
[2] See http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/ge/pegmos.html
[3]“A woman would need to consume 3750 grams (3,75 kilos) of GE rice per day i.e. around 9 kilograms of cooked rice, …” (9 kilos x 2.2 lbs = 19.8 lbs) Greenpeace briefing paper "Vitamin A: Natural Sources vs Golden Rice" and "The false promise of GE rice" are available at http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |