How to win the GM food PR game
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Easy, look at how Greenpeace did it this week. Tests they had done found trace amounts of GM material in an infant baby formula. To get this issue noticed they used the classic formula to kill two birds with the single stone: They got front and centre in the media their Greenpeace brand (always good for booting the donation coffers), and their cause for that day which was their opposition to GM foods.
The result
The following, including the lead paragraph, are sentences from the Daily Telegraph report on the Greenpeace protest against the S-26 baby formula:
GENETICALLY modified baby formula is being sold in Australia without warning labels. Health authorities have effectively given baby-food manufacturers the green light to include the contentious ingredients in their products.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that tests of one of the most popular baby formulas on the market – S-26 Soy – show it contains genetically altered ingredients.
Labelling laws allow a one per cent “unintentional” presence of GM, and a maker will not be prosecuted if it can prove it ordered non-GM foods from suppliers.
But an ongoing Russian study had found they could damage liver, kidney and reproductive function in rats and hamsters and make them grow hair on their tongues, Greenpeace spokeswoman Julie Macken said.
“I reckon most mums are going to hit the roof when they find out how they’ve been hoodwinked with this stuff,” she said.
“Transnational companies such as Pfizer and others love Australia, because we’ve got labelling laws you can drive a truck through, which is great for their bottom line and bad for our babies.”
The visuals in TV versions were better because they had the protesters in Greenpeace attire standing in the supermarket aisles with giant Greenpeace “contaminated” labels draped over the infant formula. I dare say they mothers were given a stern warning about the product as they approached the display as well.
Dramatic, emotive stuff, especially if you are a mother. What Greenpeace has done is create an element of uncertainty in the minds of those most vulnerable to their message (ie, mothers), and frame it to focus on the risk and uncertainty of the product. And they did it well. What mother with minimal knowledge about GM foods is going to look at this story and make the judgement that there is no risk to my baby? And most mothers that I am aware of go to great lengths to avoid any risk – real or perceived.
Toward the end of the article the manufacturer stated that they take the quality of their products very seriously and are complying with all Australian labeling laws. Most news reports also squeezed in that the amount of GM material discovered was significantly less than the 1% allowed by law. (FSANZ says the proportion of GM soy and corn was actually about 0.2% of the total soy or corn in the product). The naturally risk-averse mother reading or hearing this is going to take about as much notice of that information as her child. Facts, depending on how and where they are used, often have sod all affect, as has been suggested in a previous post.
Getting your message across
There are many differences in how the PR machines of NGO groups such as Greenpeace work compared to the more corporate entities – namely that NGOs can have many heads all operating independently, whereas corporate PR usually has to go through and be approved by one head and the one head must stick to the corporate message. That one head is also often the only person allowed to speak to the media. But in this instance, the key elements are simple: find a dramatic way to create any level of uncertainty (real or not) and steer clear of the factual stuff. Framing is all important – find a vulnerable target for your message and stick to the emotive angles – such as endangering your child’s health, unknown long-term health risks, deception…and so on. In this case, a target and message of mothers unknowingly putting babies at risk is a winner.
Some context
Yes, alright, the facts don’t matter, the emotion is missing and my framing will be out of whack, but I am obliged to try, if for no other reason than context is something the media don’t generally worry about. Certainly not in this case anyway, which is another reason this stunt succeeds for Greenpeace.
In this case Greenpeace did try and introduce an element of factual science, with the Russian study, but then used emotive language to describe it – organ damage and hair growing on your tongue.
But as far as I can find out this Russian research has yet to be peer-reviewed; the scientist behind the research, Alexei Surov, has never had anything published in a peer-reviewed journal and no-one has been able to get hold of the raw data to try and repeat the results or analyse the methodology. Additionally, I understand that your bog-standard hamster (guinea pig) food from the pet shop has soy and corn in it, and I would bet that a lot of that will be the GM variety considering the majority of US soy and corn is genetically modified. In which case, I suspect that if there were problems with hamsters eating GM corn and soy, we would have seen lots of hairy-mouthed, reproductively-compromised, sick hamsters running around. We haven’t.
I have however, fallen in the same trap as many anti-GM claims in that I am making a claim here without any robust evidence to back it. Regardless, although we can’t dismiss the research, we can’t exactly hold it up as gospel either.
One point Greenpeace make is correct: there have been no long-term studies done on the health affects of GM foods. Nor have there been any long-term health effects of conventional foods. In fact there has been, relative to the safety testing on GM food, almost no testing of
any sort on conventional food. Soy naturally contains allergens. In fact about 2% of people are allergic to soy. It is probable that via conventional breeding practices the genes responsible for these allergens could mutate, become up-regulated (work more efficiently) to make the soy plant produce more of the allergen. If it did we would be none the wiser. Each year we bring out loads of new varieties or strains of cereals and other food crops. No safety testing has been done on them, short or long-term.
The level, of the genetically modified soy and corn was about 0.2% according to Food Standards Australian New Zealand. That, is in every gram of soy or corn used in the formula, 0.2% of it was genetically modified soy or corn. So the company wasn’t breaking any labeling laws, nor any food safety laws as the soy and corn has been deemed safe by FSANZ. Yes such a tiny amount among all the other ingredients used is unlikely to be harmful even if there were issues with using GM ingredients, not that this fact will be of any consolation to mothers
A good point
The one valid argument Greenpeace make is about the labeling, which was actually one of their key messages. At the moment they want the ingredients label to state if the product contains any product containing even trace amounts GM material, which in this case is right on the detectable limits for standard instrumentation. They also want any GM food processing agents such as enzymes that may or may not end up in the final product to be on the label, along with oils and other refined products that are exempt under existing guidelines.
Whether practical, realistic or justified is unimportant. Their rationale is simply about choice, the right to know what is in our food. Fair enough.
Offline – on leave
I will be taking a holiday and not thinking about work until mid-November, so there will be a lull in blog activity until my return. News stories will still be posted and there will likely be some new publications uploaded, so still keep an eye out or subscribe through the RSS feed.