1.Monsanto's unethical and irresponsible advertising
2.Every trick in the book
3.Trade wars and media campaigns
GM WATCH COMMENT: Yesterday we brought you our choice of the best article of 2006 - Palagummi Sainath's powerful expose of the tragic consequences for farmers in Maharashtra of the gap between illusion and reality when it comes to Bt cotton.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7430
Today we turn to our choice of the best report of 2006, which is:
Who benefits from GM crops?
Monsanto and the corporate-driven genetically modified crop revolutionhttp://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2006full.pdf
This report from Friends of the Earth International looks at the first 10 years of GM crops and systematically takes apart the hype and spin used by Monsanto and its supporters, showing how:
"The hype about the advantages that GM crops provide to the environment, consumers, and farmers is... predominantly the result of propaganda by the biotech industry and industry sponsored organizations including the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). ISAAA's annual reports, published at the beginning of every year since the late 1990s, have misrepresented the performance of GM crops. They have lauded the benefits that have accompanied the introduction of GM crops everywhere, and have ignored the negative impacts and other problems. In fact, as this report shows, the reality of GM crops has been strikingly different from Monsanto and ISAAA's claims."
Amongst much else, this report helps to explain the tragedy unfolding in places like Maharashtra:
"Ultimately, the story of the introduction of Bt cotton in India shows that when a big corporation decides to push a product, it will take extraordinary measures to conquer markets. The marketing blitz of seed companies like Mahyco-Monsanto has succeeded in convincing many farmers to switch over to Bt cotton, and such false promises and aggressive claims continue to this day."
As part of its exposure of the biotech industry's use of hype, "Who benefits from GM crops?" draws on two important earlier reports, and we have telling extracts from all three.
One of these reports is Aaron de Grassi's seminal 2003 analysis of the use of GM hype in Africa and beyond - "Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa; an assessment of current evidence".
http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/00010161.html
The other appeared just a few months before "Who benefits from GM crops?" It was a report based on research into how BT cotton was being marketed throughout India. These investigations were coordinated by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and Greenpeace India. "The Marketing of Bt Cotton in India" showed in startling detail how Monsanto's Indian subsidiary, Monsanto-Mahyco, and its sub-licensee Bt Cotton seed companies, had been pulling every dirty trick in the PR book in order to lure India's struggling farmers into using GM cotton.
We start with an extract from "Who benefits from GM crops?" The 75-page report looks at the gap between hype and reality right around the globe. The short extract we've chosen looks at Monsanto's unethical and irresponsible advertising campaigns and in particular its use of farmers as "the new biotech pawns". This leads on to extracts from the two earlier reports that add remarkable detail on the biotech industry's PR exploitation of farmers.
---
1.Monsanto's unethical and irresponsible advertising taken from Who benefits from GM crops?
Monsanto and the corporate-driven genetically modified crop revolutionhttp://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2006full.pdf
Monsanto has used unethical and irresponsible media and advertisement campaigns to gain the confidence of farmers.
The National Commission of Indian Farmers has reprimanded biotech companies for their "aggressive advertisement". Intensive marketing through local newspapers, local meetings and television advertisements, using popular actors in some cases, has been undertaken in several Indian states. In Brazil, Monsanto launched an educational program in schools in April 2005, which was eventually halted by the Minister of Culture following public opposition.
Monsanto and pro-biotech organizations are renowned for using so-called 'small farmers' to attest to the success of GM crops. One of the best known is Buthelezi, who is promoted around the world as a poor farmer but in reality appears to be a [relatively] wealthy South African farmer from the Makhatini Flats. Buthelezi even made an appearance at the launch of the US complaint against the EU at the World Trade Organization in 2003.
ISAAA has used similar 'grassroots' strategies: they supported the work of the so-called Asian Regional Farmers' Network (ASFARNET), which claimed to be a network of farmers from India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam. A background check on these 'farmers' cast some doubt on their professions: Dr. Banpot, the 'farmer' from Thailand, is a high-profile pro-GMO scientist from a public research institution in Thailand, and the 'farmer' from the Philippines, Edwin Paraluman, heads a local irrigators' association in General Santos City but does not appear to belong to any farmers' organization.394
---
2.EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK
information taken and summarised by GM Watch from THE MARKETING OF BT COTTON IN INDIA
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741
In Madhya Pradesh”¦
FAKE FARMERS
Posters appeared in many places in Madhya Pradesh before sowing time, featuring a person who claimed to have gained great benefits from using Bt Cotton seed. These advertisements urged other farmers to benefit similarly from the use of Bt Cotton.
Investigations revealed that this "farmer" was actually a paan dabbahwala (the owner of a little shop selling betel leaves and cigarettes) who is not even a farmer, let alone a Bt Cotton farmer!!!
FAKE CLAIMS
In the same state, other posters showed real farmers claiming very good yields from growing Bt Cotton. For instance, Ravinder Narain Patidaar of Sarangi village, Jhabua is shown in one poster as having obtained a yield of 20 quintals per acre of Bt Cotton.
In reality, Ravinder Narain, obtained only 25 quintals from all the five acres of Bt Cotton he'd sown (ie 5 rather than 20 quintals per acre!!). He is disgusted that the company is misusing the photos they took of him in this manner.
A farmer called Pyarelal Patidaar (from Jamli village) is also unhappy with the fact that his photo appears on posters which extol the virtues of Bt Cotton - "I said do not put my photo because I do not think that Bt Cotton is better than other varieties - however, they did not listen to me", he explains.
In Tamil Nadu”¦
MORE FAKE ADVERTISING
A farmer called S Palanisamy s/o Chellapa Gounder Agarathodai of Vellaiyur of Salem district appeared proudly displaying a tractor on a poster that suggested that he had bought it after using Bt Cotton.
We went to investigate. At the beginning of this season, Mr Palanisamy was approached by a company representative who urged the farmer to register for a contest that could take him to Mumbai. That is when the company took a picture of Mr Palanisamy in front of a tractor. However, what the poster does not reveal is that the farmer was not informed that this photo was for an advertisement for Bollgard (the Monsanto Bt cotton) or that the tractor was in fact obtained by the farmer with a private loan! The farmer says that with the yields he got from Bt Cotton, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tyres"!
This episode inevitably appears on a poster called "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON"!
In Punjab”¦.
STATE SUBSIDY AND DANCING GIRLS
The state government has helped Monsanto by running big promotionals for Bt cotton in a series of different newspapers. Meanwhile, Monsanto's Bt promotional tours around Punjabi villages have included enticing dancing girls performing to music relayed over the public address system!
In Andhra Pradesh”¦
EAT, DRINK AND BE FLEECED
The company launched its product in 2002 by giving a big feast for farmers in many villages.
Chinnapu Reddy reports on his experience:
"There was 95 kilos of non-vegetarian food cooked that day and there was biryani and chicken fry. On that very day, bookings for the season's seed supply were made by the dealers and the company representatives. When parties like that are thrown, farmers like me tend to think that there must be something to what they are saying and we agreed to buy the seed. The seeds have now brought farmers nearer to the gates of suicide deaths again."
Other farmers tell the same story. One farmer in Mallapuram said that after having eaten the food of the company, a farmer cannot refuse the seed ("after having eaten from their hand, can we refuse their seed?")
OTHER "FREEBIES"
In states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Monsanto is also known to have distributed free pesticides with its Bt Cotton seed!!
And in the 2005 sales season in the Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh, free bags were on offer to people who participated in village level publicity meetings.
VIRAL MARKETING: SPREADING THE WORD
There is also a wide network of informal agents placed at the village level - farmers who earn commission on sales that they bring about by promoting the Bt seed to fellow farmers.
In Maharashtra”¦
BOLLYWOOD BOOSTER
Many of the above practices are used to sell Bt Cotton in Maharashtra too. In addition, Nana Patekar, a Bollywood star, who has been used by the company in its prime time television advertisements and posters in several states, was engaged to address farmers meetings in several places in Maharashtra, urging them to use Bt Cotton.
MORE CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT!
Maharashtra also has other kinds of opinion-leaders promoting Bt Cotton. For instance, a religious leader called Saint Satyapal Maharaj is known to urge his followers to adopt Bt Cotton in places like Akola. It is not clear how the Saint, who is not a farmer, is vouching for the product!
To sum up”¦.
Unabashed by what science has been disclosing about the ineffectiveness of the Bt technology, Monsanto's Indian subsidiary Monsanto-Mahyco and its sub-licensee Bt Cotton seed companies have been busy aggressively hyping GM seeds to India's poor farmers by all kinds of dubious and dishonest means.
There's a striking contrast between the lavish nature of Monsanto's brash promotional campaigns in India and its flat refusal to pay any compensation to the farmers who have suffered often terrible losses as a result of cultivating its GM seeds.
---
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?ArcId=1006
taken from:
Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence Aaron deGrassihttp://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/00010161.html
EXTRACT
...Under threat in an industry that depends on a positive popular image, minimal and friendly regulations, and generous public financing, biotechnology corporations joined together to devote $50 million dollars to a publicity campaign.380 Corporations have bussed in pro-GM protestors, invented fictitious front people to level slander, and turned towards Africa as proof that genetic modification is essential to end world hunger.381
Finding African "Representatives"
To bolster its claims about the benefits of biotech crops, Monsanto has funded T.J. Buthelezi, a clean-shaven, middle-aged black farmer from Makhathini, to act as an African representative. He has told of his positive experiences with Bt cotton (in terms suspiciously similar to Monsanto press releases) at conferences and events around the world.382 In October 2001, Buthelezi met US Congress members and attended a Summit by the US Corporate Council on Africa. Several months later, Monsanto paid for him to have lunch with US Trade Secretary Robert Zoellick at the company's office near Pretoria.383 In August of last year, Buthelezi and Monsanto organized pro-biotech booths, interviews and rallies at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Buthelezi's name and face now commonly appear on the internet and briefings for policy makers.384 In May 2003, Buthelezi was by Zoellick's side when the Trade Secretary formally announced a US WTO case against EU restrictions on GM imports. A month later, the Administrator of USAID, Andrew Natsios, described Buthelezi before a Congressional panel on plant biotechnology in Africa.
However, Buthelezi's experience may be unique. The Council for Biotechnology Information calls him a "small farmer," and others describe his life as "hand-to-mouth existence." Administrator Natsios called described him as a "small farmer . struggling just at the subsistence level." However, independent reporters have revealed that, with two wives and more than 66 acres, he is one of the largest farmers in Makhathini and chairs the area's farmers' federation encompassing 48 farmers' associations.385
For Monsanto, Buthelezi and his stories are part of the firm's declared strategy of "gaining global acceptance of biotechnology."386 Just before President Bush's May 2003 speech claiming that Europe's import restrictions exacerbate African hunger, Monsanto flew four black South African GM crop farmers to London, where they spoke at a private conference hosted by the Commonwealth Business Council, before heading on to Denmark and Germany. Like Buthelezi, these "representative farmers" read statements carefully scripted by Monsanto and own dozens of acres of land. Several actually spend most of their time working at their day jobs as school administrators. Others pro-biotech campaigners have caught on: CropGen, for instance, celebrates another South African farmer, Mbongeni Nxumalo.387
These South African farmers - whom representatives of Monsanto and other businesses call "basically representative farmers" and "representatives of the African smallholding community" - are plucked from South Africa, wined and dined, and given scripted statements about the benefits of GM.388 In an area where most farmers cultivate just a few hectares, and only half the population can read, Monsanto's "representative" farmers are school administrators and agricultural college graduates, owning dozens of hectares of land.389 Monsanto has been criticized for using these farmers as a part of a deliberate attempt to distort public debate on biotechnology.390 Critics have coined the nickname "Bt Buthelezi," to illustrate this farmer's unconditional support to Bt cotton: during a trip to Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis, Buthelezi was quoted as saying, "I wouldn't care if it were from the devil himself."391
For several years, Monsanto has attempted to cement the adoption of GMOs in Africa. In 1998, the company bought out Cargill's seed operations in Africa.392 A year later, Monsanto attempted to purchase a majority share in Zimbabwe's main cotton company in order to produce GM cotton seeds for Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Egypt.393 After being turned down in Zimbabwe, Monsanto unsuccessfully tried Zambia and Tanzania. It has since worked its way in to Kenya and Uganda and is attempting to introduce transgenic cotton there during the next growing season.394 Monsanto has pursed similar strategies with biotech maize in Uganda and South Africa.395
But Monsanto's activities in Africa make better public relations than actual business. The impoverished continent accounts for only small percent of Monsanto's sales (company representatives would not say how small). But Africa is fruitful for the firm's lobbying. In addition to establishing a newsletter and website for African biotechnology issues, Monsanto has recently paid journalists to visit Makhathini to "admire the virtues of Bt cotton."396 It has also tried to convince Zimbabweans now considering Bt cotton through videos, field trips, and presentations.397 Adds in magazines tout the experience, and at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, Monsanto organized the presence of Makhathini farmers at the conference for pro-biotech rallies and dinner outings.398
Florence Wambugu, the Kenyan sweet potato scientists, has become an influential advocate for the biotechnology industry. After her work with Monsanto and KARI, she headed ISAAA's Africa office, before establishing her own A Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International. Wambugu recognizes however, that "it [the modified sweet potato] has no commercial value to Monsanto, except as PR."399
ISAAA has created a Knowledge Center in Kenya with the primary purpose to "facilitate a knowledge-based, better informed public debate."400 The group has also spun off a number of innocuously named pro-biotech NGOs, such as the African Biotechnology Stakeholders' Forum and African Biotechnology Trust.401 Pro-biotech Western aid agencies have joined with theses organizations to quietly conduct one-sided conferences at up-scale venues around the continent, such as Kenya's Windsor Golf and Country Club, aimed to swing high-level officials in favor of GM.402
But critics charge these forums are facades for large corporations.403 The NGOs consist of a website and a few staff, they charge. They also point out that ISAAA is funded by Agro-Evo, Bayer, Cargill, Dow, Monsanto, Novartis, Pioneer, Syngenta, in addition to a dozen Western governmental aid agencies. The Board of Directors likewise has contained top biotech company executives, such as Wally Beversdorf, head of R&D at Novartis (now Syngenta). ISAAA, however, has no representatives from African farmer organizations.404
"There's a lot of propaganda," said Tewolde Egziabher, head of Ethiopia's Environmental Protection Authority in an interview with Greenpeace, "but there's absolutely no proof that these [transgenic] plants are more prolific."405 In 2000, Egzhiaber issued a joint letter by groups in Africa criticizing the "misleading simplification" of a British documentary, which, he argued, used "the image of the poor and the hungry from our countries" in order to "push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us."406
After publicity of Iraq War subsided, the Bush administration renewed its campaign against regulations on GM. President Bush argued that EU's policies are harming poor African countries. The US Senate simultaneously passed a bill prohibiting financial aid for combating HIV/AIDS to those countries that decline GM food aid.407 Consequently, the Bush Administration has been accused of using the name of the poor ("poor-washing"), particularly Africans, in order to put a positive spin on its efforts to increase American exports.408
The Consequences
The result of these high-profile media campaigns is that actual empirical analysis of GM crops in Africa suffers. The link between EU regulations and African hunger was quickly criticized as far-fetched and misleading.409 There is little empirical evidence to support the claim that EU measures have "caused many African nations to avoid investing in biotechnologies, for fear their products will be shut out of European markets."410 African countries export neither maize nor sweet potatoes to Europe. The only potentially affected crop would be GM cotton, but South Africa does not export cotton to the EU; in fact, it imports cotton because it cannot meet domestic demand.411 Countries have not adopted biotechnologies not because of EU restrictions, but rather for other reasons, such as lack of suitable technologies, and lack of regulatory laws and capacity. Consequently, no sub-Saharan African nation joined the US's challenge to Europe's ban, and even Egypt withdrew from the complaint.412 In contrast, 20 African countries have filed petitions against the United State's own cotton subsidies.413
Another surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is C.S. Prakash, the influential biotechnology advocate who has advised the US Trade Representative. Prakash has repeatedly cited sweet potatoes as a positive example of the benefits of GM for African countries, but has confessed to having no knowledge of the results of scientific trials in Kenya.414
Also demonstrating the lack of empirical analysis, a major report on biotechnology by the UN Economic Commission for Africa drew its conclusions based primarily on hypothetical benefits and risks.415 During writing, the report was reviewed by numerous institutions in the United States, such as the World Bank and Harvard University, but not by a single organization in Africa, let alone representatives of poor farmers.416
Academics have not generally been as illuminating as one would hope. On the one hand, applied researchers involved with biotechnology do not have access to outside critical information, or fear it may jeopardize future funding or research. On the other hand, the whims of academia mean that non-project scholars focus on developing new theories and summarizing others' debates, rather than detailed, empirical evaluations. One consequence is the aforementioned overemphasis on novel risks in lieu of the more standard measures utilized in this report.417