Guest guest Posted May 11, 1999 Report Share Posted May 11, 1999 Subj: Wall Street Notes Monsanto Failure in Europe (Please Post) Date: 5/11/99 3:48:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: hansmi@... (Hansen, ) Front page of the Wall Street Journal > May 11, 1999 > > > Monsanto Fails Trying to Sell Europe on > Bioengineered Food > > By SCOTT KILMAN and HELENE COOPER > Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL > > LONDON -- Monsanto Co. has done something quite > remarkable for a U.S. company in Europe. It has gone from obscurity to > infamy in just a few years. > > In March, during a debate about the World Trade > Organization in the House of Commons, MP Norman Baker called the U.S. > crop-biotechnology company " Public Enemy No. 1. " Prince recently > vowed that Monsanto's biotech food would never pass his royal lips. > Former Beatle McCartney publicly spurned the company after it was > reported that his late wife 's line of vegetarian sausages contained > soybeans grown from Monsanto's seeds. > > Activists have torn up Monsanto test plots in the > United Kingdom. British newspapers call Monsanto the " enstein food > giant " and the " biotech bully boy " so routinely that some Monsanto > employees jokingly refer to their employer as " MonSatan. " > > " Many people here really hate Monsanto, " says > Isabelle Gineste, a member of the Townswomen's Guilds, a civic group. > " The rest of us are just scared. " > > Designer Beans > > Monsanto's sin? It genetically modifies > agricultural seeds, including those that produce many of the protein-rich > soybeans Britain imports from America to make a host of food products. > > American farmers love Monsanto's seeds; the seeds > make soybean, corn and cotton crops easier to grow. And American > consumers have barely noticed. > > But a public-relations campaign by Monsanto to > win over Europeans has backfired -- stoking environmental opposition, > riling media commentators and leading many U.K. food retailers, in > response, to bar genetically modified food. The British units of Unilever > NV and Nestle SA have pledged not to use any genetically modified foods in > their products in the future. Politicians from Dublin to Duesseldorf are > talking about a moratorium on such crops, a bleak prospect for American > farmers who already face depressed prices. > > Indeed, the fallout is beginning to be felt in > the U.S. The European Union already requires labels on food containing > those genetically modified crops whose import it has approved. And it is > so reluctant to approve the import of more that U.S. farmers have begun > avoiding several new seeds. The U.S. grain industry has nearly stopped > shipping corn to Europe for fear that European laboratory tests might > detect kernels from genetically modified crops not yet cleared by the EU. > What was a $200 million annual market for U.S. corn farmers is now all but > closed. > > The B List > > " This year, we've got the three B's with Europe, " > says U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. " Bananas, beef and > biotechnology. " Already this year, her office has levied or threatened > sanctions on the Europeans over bananas and beef. But those markets are > small compared with agricultural biotechnology. The European markets for > genetically modified crops and seed is potentially worth several billion > dollars a year. Says one official at the WTO in Geneva, where a trade war > over the issue would be fought if one broke out: " Biotech will make > bananas look like peanuts. " > > U.S. farm groups are itching for a fight, but > it's one the Clinton administration dreads, despite having the rules on > its side. The European Union doesn't have any scientific basis for > singling out food containing genetically modified crops; regulators on > both sides of the Atlantic say such crops are safe to eat. But European > public attitudes are a different issue. " It's not going to matter whether > we win " at the WTO, says a Clinton administration official. " These people > aren't going to touch anything that says Monsanto anyway. " > > One reason Monsanto feels so much heat is simply > that it is the furthest along in a science that inevitably raises > questions about man's control over nature. " We are the bow of a > technology that is making a lot of waves, " says Philip Angell, director of > corporate communications. > > Soy Bomb > > But another reason is Monsanto's brash and open > approach. It has ignored the go-slow advice of European companies that > work in agricultural biotechnology, such as Britain's Zeneca Group PLC and > Switzerland's Novartis AG. " Monsanto has just made things a lot worse, " > gripes P. Pragnell, head of the agrochemicals division at Zeneca. > > Skepticism about genetically modified food is > common not just in Europe, but also in Japan, Australia and New Zealand, > all of which are considering requiring that labels identify such food. In > India, farm activists, upset about work on a gene that would stop them > from keeping some of their harvest for seed, have destroyed Monsanto > cotton fields. > > Foes argue that whatever regulators say, such > food hasn't been proved safe. They also worry that a gene such as one > that conveys resistance to herbicide could escape into the wild and make > other species resistant, or that gene splicing might transfer not just the > desired trait but, for instance, another that triggers allergies. > > And some are concerned with broader, cultural > issues, from America's growing economic power to the impact of technology > on Britain's beloved countryside. " There is a feeling that interfering > with nature on this scale is unethical and immoral, " says Bell, > director of a group called the Freeze Alliance. > > In America, such concerns are much fainter. > Foods ranging from TV dinners to french fries regularly contain > genetically modified produce. Some potatoes, for instance, contain a gene > -- added by Monsanto -- that repels insects. U.S. regulators haven't seen > a need for such alteration to be mentioned on food labels, since the > technology has a clean bill of health. Partly for that reason, > agricultural biotech hasn't caught on as a hot issue in the U.S. > > The biggest crop-biotech venture from St. > Louis-based Monsanto, which also produces drugs, involves soybeans. The > company has inserted a gene into soybean seeds that enables the resulting > plants to tolerate a potent herbicide called Roundup -- also sold by > Monsanto. This makes it cheaper and less labor-intensive for soybean > farmers to keep weeds out of their fields. Roughly half of U.S. soybeans > grown this year will be from gene-modified seeds, sold by Monsanto or by > seed companies using its technology. > > The EU cleared such soybeans -- indistinguishable > except by laboratory test from any other soybeans -- for import in March > 1996. The first bushel hit the docks at Liverpool a few months after. > > Mad Cow > > The timing was terrible. Britain was in full > panic mode over " mad-cow disease " after scientists said beef from > affected cattle was the likely source of a fatal brain-wasting disease in > some Britons. The announcement crushed public confidence in regulatory > and scientific communities that had long given assurances that the disease > ravaging British dairy herds wasn't a human threat. > > And, because mad-cow was thought to be spread by > the practice of using dead livestock as a protein source for cattle, the > whole issue caused many to wonder about the sanity of modern agricultural > methods. " The mad-cow disease seems to many people to be the result of > not observing the law of nature, " says Vasella, chairman of > Novartis. > > The credibility of environmental activists soared > in Britain because many had prophesied a deadly link between mad-cow > disease and people. Now they took one look at genetically modified food > and went on a campaign. This time, they had a ready audience: Britain's > freewheeling press. British newspapers had largely ignored the > environmentalists before; they weren't going to do so again. > > The fallout spread across the Continent, which > had dined on British beef. Antibiotech attitudes hardened in Germany and > France. Austria and Luxembourg banned genetically modified crops, > flouting EU rules. > > To counter mad-cow madness, Monsanto tapped Tom > McDermott from its public-relations staff and a senior vice president, > Engelberg. They decided Monsanto would nip the antibiotech > movement in the bud. Mr. McDermott, feeling that " we weren't getting a > fair shake in the British media, " lobbied his bosses for a campaign aimed > directly at consumers. > > Chief Executive Shapiro endorsed the idea > and invited his European counterparts to join in campaigns in Britain and > France. Zeneca and Novartis wanted no part of it. Corporate-backed issue > campaigns aren't the European way, and Europeans tend to be a lot more > mistrustful of big companies than Americans. " In the States, P.R. works, " > says Shepherd, director of the Consumers Association, a watchdog > group. " Over here, it's seen as a species of corporate lying. " > > Mr. Shapiro decided to go it alone. He had > successfully ignored conventional marketing wisdom before. Early in his > career, he figured out how to brand what was thought to be unbrandable, a > food ingredient -- NutraSweet. > > Number to Call > > Monsanto picked ad agency Bartle Bogle Hegarty, a > London shop known for sexy ads for Dockers pants. Bartle's plan: Show > Monsanto wasn't afraid of debate. > > The ads had their debut in British Sunday > newspapers last June. " Food Biotechnology is a matter of opinions, " said > one. " Monsanto believes > you should hear all of them. " Included were phone numbers of critics, > including Greenpeace and > Friends of the Earth. > > One ad, invoking hungry Third World children, > said: " While we'd never claim to have solved world hunger at a stroke, > biotechnology provides one means to feed the world more effectively. " > > The ads irked some commentators, who slammed > Monsanto for exploiting the plight of starving children. And they angered > environmentalists, who said publishing their phone numbers was a cynical > attempt to stage-manage debate. > > They did raise Monsanto's profile; polls showed > that twice as many Britons knew its name as Novartis's. But the surveys > also showed that people were mainly identifying Monsanto, not Novartis or > Zeneca, with genetically engineered food. > > That wasn't good. Before the U.K. ad campaign, > 44% of British consumers surveyed for Monsanto said they had negative > feelings about genetically modified food. By the time the campaign was > over last September, that number had swelled to 51%. Says Neal Verlander, > a Friends of the Earth activist: " Monsanto has helped us enormously with > their blundering. " > > The ad agency didn't return calls seeking > comment. Monsanto denies its initiative made things worse in Britain but > concedes it achieved less than hoped. " There hadn't been much controversy > in the United States. Our problem is we looked at it too much through a > U.S. lens, " says Mr. > Engelberg, the vice president. Communications > Director Mr. Angell says: " Maybe we weren't aggressive enough... . When > you fight a forest fire, sometimes you have to light another fire. " > > Monsanto is happier with the results of a > simultaneous ad campaign in France, where the press wasn't as hostile or > the public as suspicious. Its surveys show the French campaign resonated > with high-income readers and opinion leaders; those who saw the ads were > almost twice as likely to say genetically engineered food was acceptable > as those who didn't see them. But among all the French, the number who > said they wouldn't buy food containing genetically modified ingredients > rose to 55% after the campaign from 51% before. > > Meet the Press > > Monsanto executives also decided to take on the > news media directly. They met with reporters and editors from London's > Guardian, which had run a map of Monsanto test plots. Whether as a result > or not, three plots later were destroyed. > > The meeting went badly. " They came in here > thumping the table and accusing us of being bad journalists, " says > Vidal, the Guardian's environmental editor. " We just coalesced against > them. " Making things worse, Monsanto filed a complaint against the > Guardian with Britain's Press Complaints Board, and lost. > > Some in the media seemed ready to pounce. A > biochemist at Scotland's prestigious Rowett Research Institute told a TV > show that his lab rats had their immune systems damaged by eating > genetically modified potatoes, which some reporters seized on as evidence > that genetic engineering might make a plant toxic. But the institute > repudiated his conclusions after reviewing his work. The potatoes, which > were used for research purposes only, weren't cleared for human > consumption. The government-supported institute dropped the scientist, > Arpad Pusztai. > > He promptly became a martyr in part of the > British press. " I Would Blow Whistle Again Says Professor, " said a > headline in the Express. > > Dr. Pusztai defends his research but says he > doesn't know what in the potatoes harmed his rats or whether it had > anything to do with gene splicing. " What I'm saying is we need to look at > it more, " he says. > > Wrongful Mowing > > Monsanto couldn't seem to get a break. In > February, it was fined $28,000 in a magistrate's court in the tiny village > of Caistor for what the media called " safety lapses " at a test plot. The > reality was slightly more benign: A subcontractor mistakenly mowed down > plants that were part of a barrier separating the plot. > > That was enough to engender a carnival scene > outside Caistor's court. About 100 activists and reporters descended on > the hamlet. Among them was " enstein, " a costumed environmentalist > also seen outside groceries warning that " enstein Food " was sold > inside. > > His warnings worked. Over the past two months, > many of Britain's major food retailers have pledged to stay free of > genetically modified foods. One, J. Sainsbury, says it got 12,000 phone > calls in a single month from worried shoppers. > > Surprisingly, one Monsanto foe does find > something to appreciate about the American company: its candor. " Zeneca > and Novartis have just kept quiet -- that's the European way, " says Mr. > Vidal, the Guardian environmental editor. > > " I far prefer the Monsanto way, " he says. " Their > up-frontness is a rather wonderful thing. The fact that their vision > might be warped is another thing, but it creates a public debate, which we > need. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.