Attack of the Killer Labels

http://www.v-fluence.com/news/killerlabels.html Attack of Killer Labels Words like 'Frankenfoods' and 'genetic engineering' scare consumers and deny them the facts about agricultural technology and food safety, the author writes By Jay Byrne (As published in PR Reporter: Tactics & Tips, September 2003) It's official and now we're stuck with it. "Frankenfoods" has made it to the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. Does it matter? As students are returning to school this fall, purchasing new books, dictionaries included, will this one trivial mention matter? My children love to say "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Poppycock. Language matters. It defines how we approach and process issues influencing areas of our lives, both intellectually and emotionally. The use of powerfully negative words like "Frankenfoods" in media coverage and our language regarding the regulation and labeling of foods derived from biotech crops is a prime example. The words chosen by the media and others in their coverage of biotechnology in agriculture and the ways currently being debated over how to provide consumers informed choice in the labeling of foods are a striking case study in how propaganda often trumps science and manipulates public opinion, even on such important issues as food production and food safety. How did we get here? Despite claims by European green activists or U.K. supermarket retailers who first exploited the term for profit in the late 1990s, the word Frankenfoods did not originate in Europe. In June 1992, a Boston College professor and opponent of biotechnology wrote a letter-to-the-editor of The New York Times in response to an opinion piece supporting FDA oversight of biotechnology-produced foods.i In the letter, Professor Paul Lewis coined the term "Frankenfoods." Within two weeks, The New York Times-not the sensational and often baudy British tabloids-used the term in a front-page headline, and a recent news search reveals more than 6,000 media references to this phrase since The Times' banner headline.ii Why did the venerable New York Times opt to place such a loaded term in a Page One headline? Times food writer Molly O'Neill told the Boston Globe simply, "I love the term. It's got such wonderfully chilling connotations."iii Biotechnology vs. 'genetic engineering' Chilling indeed. A study by the London School of Economics found that the media's use of "Frankenfood" headlines and other metaphors for foods produced using agricultural biotechnology helped create and fuel public fears.iv Numerous published polls show a majority of consumers support foods derived from "biotechnology," yet other polls show these same consumers oppose "genetic engineering" of food.v Clearly language choice matters. The two phrases describe the same thing, but they are perceived quite differently, and that fact is not lost on interest groups that benefit from these fears. Activists and other industry groups with a vested financial interest have labeled conventional and biotech-as opposed to organic-farming as "nonorganic," "chemical-laden" and even "toxin-laden." A 1999 Internet memo from an organic industry advertising executive directed to "activists" and "journalists" gives a glimpse into the depth of manipulation behind anti-biotechnology propaganda. Moreover, it shows the success that such groups have had in co-opting a media often poorly trained in science. "GE Euphemisms and More-Accurate Alternative Power Words to Use: Controlling the Language," distributed by groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and various organic agriculture lobbying interests, provides a glossary of alternatives to the accepted, more accurate, science-based language descriptions for biotechnology applications in agriculture. The author counseled activists and journalists that "biology" and "biotechnology" are words "we should never use... ." Other terms to eschew: "food scientists," "biotechnology companies" and "biotechnologists." "Make them use our words," writes Peter Michael Ligotti, architect of several Internet propaganda campaigns in marketing organic foods. "Look how successful the 'terminator' seed term was. At first, that was a term only used by activists. And congratulations on the success of the term 'Frankenstein food.' I am suggesting an extension of those two great successes," adds Ligotti.vi His glossary proposed alternative terms, including "genetic engineering industry," "genetically engineered foods," "Frankenfood," "test-tube food" and "mutated food." A search of articles from the first six months of 1993 (the year the first biotech crops were approved for commercial use) compared with the first six months of 2003 shows the success of those seeking to change the language used by opinion leaders and the media: There was a 100-fold increase in the media's use of the more inflammatory and emotional words such as "genetic," "manipulation," and "altered" over the benign, but accurate terms "biotechnology" or "bioengineered." Another outspoken nonorganic food critic from India has sought, for example, to recast the Rockefeller Foundation Vitamin A enhanced rice project dubbed "Golden Rice" as "Jaundiced Rice." The Golden Rice project is designed to help alleviate blindness, malnutrition and related childhood mortality rates, yet language such as jaundiced rice is now creating confusion, particularly among developing world stakeholders, where adoption and integration into local diets could do the most good.vii Dr. Steven B. Katz, an associate professor of English at North Carolina State University, studies the linkage between language and public perceptions of risk. "The important role that language plays in the public's perception and reception of scientific data and risk assessment is often neglected by scientists," says Katz. He singles out issues that have been slowed or completely halted by public concerns driven by language-including biotechnology. Katz notes that such "public resistance has been traced to communication problems-flawed rhetorical choices and faulty assumptions by scientists about the role of language, emotion and values in communicating with the media and public."viii No killer tomatoes To be accurate, virtually all foods are genetically altered or manipulated. Foods from apples to wheat did not exist in their current form before man began to alter and cross their genetic makeup-including organic crops. In addition, thousands of crop varieties today, many used in organic agriculture, were developed through chemical and nuclear mutagenesis-haphazardly exposing seeds and plants to gene mutating radiation or chemicals to alter their genetic structures. This genetic mutation clearly altered the genetic structures of plants, yet required none of the similar regulatory safety testing of the more precise biotechnology engineered breeding programs. Yet these foods make up a significant portion of the breeding stock for the so-called natural, unadulterated and organic food crops promoted as alternatives to the mislabeled "Frankenfoods." Modern biotechnology tools are changing the way farmers grow crops making them pest- and disease-resistant or able to grow in harsher climates, but are altering the actual foods we eat less than most conventional and organic cross-breeding programs and with significant knowledge and precision lacking in crop varieties derived through random mutagenesis. Yet many journalists use language and certain unscrupulous food companies use labels and advertising that mislead us to believe there is a vast and potentially dangerous shift in the physical makeup, nutrition or safety of the foods we eat. In fact, simple biotechnology breeding techniques-moving one or more well- known and researched set of beneficial genes into a plant-typically undergoes years of highly-regulated testing guidelines to ensure its safety prior to commercial release. In a recently published book funded by the Rockefeller Foundation titled Food, Inc. author Peter Pringle writes that biotech food products are not Frankenfoods, noting: "The changes are not inherently unsafe, nor are the companies that produce them inherently evil." Pringle suggests that biotech opponent campaigns, many heavily funded by the multibillion dollar organic food industry, have raised "awareness beyond its usefulness and turned it into scaremongering."ix The truth about agricultural biotechnology is far more benign than the image of a mutant killer tomato would indicate or a food label warning "may contain GMOs." Time magazine reported, "By over-reacting to fears fanned by well-fed consumers in the industrialized world, food producers might uproot an industry that could someday provide billions of people in the rest of the world with crops they desperately need."x The Wall Street Journal notes that the media and special interest groups are preying on overblown and growing irrational fears, like food biotechnology. The Journal wrote: "People who study fear have never seen a period in which rational sources of it were in such short supply."xi Mary Shelly's gothic horror story was written in 1816 as a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of scientists playing God but more so was an even greater admonition against public overreaction to science. The choice for consumers, dictionary authors and responsible journalists should be clear: Get your information and select your words carefully from the scientists-not the wordsmiths. Language counts. Labels will only have meaning if they are driven by facts, not fears. Jay Byrne is president of v-Fluence Interactive Public Relations and counsels companies and groups on issues management and risk communication. Byrne is the author of numerous journal and communication trade articles on public affairs issues and strategy. ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- i Lewis, Paul, "Mutant Foods Create Risks We Can't Yet Guess," The New York Times, June 16, 1992. ii O'Neil, Molly, "Geneticists' Latest Discovery: Public Fear of 'Frankenfood,'" The New York Times, June 28, 1992. iii Muru, Mark, "Wayward words," The Boston Globe, June 29, 1992. iv "Frankenfood headlines scare public, study shows," Reuters, July 16, 1999 v IFIC, "Support for Food Biotechnology Holds (71% support)...", IFIC Backgrounder, Sept. 23, 2002, http: www.ific.org & "Majority oppose GM Foods (70% oppose)," Farmers Guardian, Dec. 28, 2001. vi Ligotti, Peter, "For Activists/Journalists - GE Power Words to Use: Controlling the Language," Ban GE e-mail listserv, May 17, 1999 vii Shiva, Vandana, Biodevastation 2000 Speech, Boston, MA, July 2000. viii Katz, Steven B., Language and Persuasion: The Communication of Biotechnology with the Public" NC State University Feb. 18, 2001, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting ix Nestle, Marion, "Eat Drink and be Wary," The Washington Post, July 6, 2003. x "Who's afraid of Frankenfood?" Time magazine, Nov. 22, 1999 xi Eig, Jonathan, "Analyze this, as good times roll what are American worried about now," The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 9, 2000.