this came through my email and i thought you might enjoy
it...kate
Missing from the following account is any mention of how
corporate mea
culpas and 'reaching out' to critics have become the lastest new
tactic in
the PR world. According to PR Watch, a consultant named Peter
Sandman has
been traveling widely thoughout corporate America advocating
this approach.
Brian.
>Guardian Specials on GM
>
>How Monsanto's mind was changed
>
>In spring the US giant was sure its GM technology was
unbeatable. Then one
>man convinced the organization that the game was up
>
>GM food: special report
>
>John Vidal
>Guardian (London) Saturday October 9, 1999
>
>On July 14 a group of powerful Americans met secretly at the
Willard hotel
>near the White House to listen to an English academic who had
spent much
>of his life working in developing countries with peasant
farmers.
>
>The nine members of the Monsanto board of directors have
serious political
>clout. Apart from Robert Shapiro, the visionary head of the
$12bn a year
>corporation, and senior bankers and Harvard academics, it
includes Mickey
>Kantor, former head of the US commerce department, and the
former heads of
>the US social security department and the US environmental
protection
>agency.
>
>They were there to meet Gordon Conway, the president of the
Rockefeller
>Foundation in New York, whose remit is to help the world's
disadvantaged.
>Mr Shapiro, who vows he is working for the world's poor with GM
foods, had
>invited Professor Conway, formerly vice chancellor of Sussex
university,
>to address the board as part of the corporation's commitment to
consult
>more widely following the GM furore in Europe sparked by the
so-called
>Terminator gene.
>
>Because Rockefeller had put more than $100m into public
research into GM
>crops, Prof Conway was thought to be an ally; he was expected
to make a
>friendly, gentlemanly speech, perhaps with some mild advice,
that would go
>no further than the four walls of the Willard.
>
>But privately, Prof Conway, along with increasing sections of
the US
>intellectual community, deplored the corporation's style and
global
>strategy.
>
>Meltdown of confidence
>
>In Europe it had alienated millions, he believed, and was
threatening a
>trade war and long term damage to the prospects of the poor.
The
>corporation with a reputation for arrogance and secrecy was
seen to be
>responsible for a meltdown of confidence in science and big
business and a
>backlash against US agriculture. Moreover, Monsanto's effective
ownership
>of Terminator technology would allow the corporation, the
second biggest
>agribusiness in the world, to develop plants that bore sterile
seeds - a
>move that had angered farmers in the developing world.
>
>Prof Conway had given Monsanto little warning, even when he had
visited
>the company's St Louis HQ a few weeks earlier. But at the
Willard he went
>straight for Monsanto's guts. For more than a hour, the
professor lectured
>the board: change tack, or bring the wrath of the scientific,
political,
>and global community down on them.
>
>"Admit that you do not have all the answers," he said. "Commit
yourselves
>to prompt, full, and honest sharing of data. This is not the
time for a
>new PR offensive but for a new relationship based on honesty,
full
>disclosure, and a very uncertain shared future."
>
>Prof Conway argued that the possible adverse consequences for
billions of
>developing world farmers outweighed any social benefits in
protecting the
>Terminator technology. What the Terminator gene did, he said,
was
>effectively kill the process that let farmers sow their own
seeds, and
>subsistence farmers were too poor to buy new seed. The possible
>consequences were terrible. In short, he told them, Monsanto
was socially
>irresponsible and the public was alienated. He urged a "global
public
>dialogue" that would air all sides of the issues.
>
>Terse statement The board were shocked. But they did not
suspect that Prof
>Conway had warned the press what he intended to say. Within
hours
>Rockefeller had issued seven challenges to Monsanto. "It was
like a boil
>had been lanced, a milestone," said one person who was party
to the
>talks. "Someone in authority had for the first time held this
monolithic
>corporation up to public accountability." Monsanto was furious,
and issued
>a terse statement: "The meeting was frank and productive. We
will continue
>to reach out to people like Prof Conway to discuss the
challenges and
>opportunities of biotechnology applications in agriculture."
>
>The Conway meeting was seminal. Until then, about the only
genuine
>"reaching out" the company had done was to its lawyers,
publicists,
>lobbyists, and friends in governments. It had dismissed the
social and
>ethical critiques of environment, church, and consumers groups,
and in
>July was hoping to ride out the storm. Mr Shapiro was
confident: for the
>six months of 1999, the company earned $476m, up 5% on 1998,
and its
>income had grown 28%. In particular, it had no intention of
backing down
>on Terminator. Its only retreat was to admit it had
misunderstood European
>sensibilities and been "naive" in trying to win fast approval.
>
>Until the spring Monsanto had broad support in the US. Wall
Street and the
>White House still favoured the company, whose shares were
priced at $47
>each, and analysts were saying it was primed for success. Mr
Shapiro could
>tell shareholders that the flooding of the US market with GM
crops had
>been the most "successful launch of any technology ever,
including the
>plough". He anticipated a 300% expansion in the two years to a
staggering
>183m acres. Nor was Europe a problem: "Eventually, scientific
proof
>should win over reluctant and skeptical consumers," he said.
But, since
>the spring, little had gone right. In April a manufacturer of
veggie
>burgers stopped using GM soybeans. The Wall Street Journal then
reported
>that the GM controversy was "beginning to be felt in the US".
Some farmers
>started to avoid GM crops, and the powerful US grain industry
was saying
>it had nearly stopped shipping to Europe - a $200m market .
>
>By the summer, the first GM crops were being destroyed by US
activists and
>the press had begun to widely report global disillusionment.
Europe was
>deteriorating even further, with supermarkets disavowing GM
products and
>activists digging up crops. Meanwhile, the Clinton
administration was
>reportedly "dreading starting a trade war over GM because
public sentiment
>is so strongly against".
>
>And in poor countries, Terminator was becoming a political
issue. India
>and Zimbabwe had effectively banned the use of the technology,
and the
>world's largest group of agricultural research organisations
had condemned
>it. By May, observers noted a definite cooling by Dan Glickman,
the US
>agriculture secretary, who was warning of "profound
consequences" if the
>GM situation did not improve. For the first time, he encouraged
US firms
>to voluntarily label products. Monsanto was reportedly furious.
>
>Told to keep quiet
>
>Mr Glickman then upped the stakes, warning GM could hurt small
farmers. He
>reportedly said that Mr Shapiro should keep quiet "because
every time he
>opens his mouth, US agriculture loses millions more bushels of
agriculture
>exports".
>
>By the summer, US corn exports to the EU were reported to have
dropped 96%
>in a year. To Monsanto's horror, farmers were beginning to
choose
>traditional seeds rather than risk the new. One giant processor
announced
>it would pay extra for traditional soybeans. Within weeks,
Monsanto was
>further exposed: the British AstraZeneca GM company said it
would not
>commercialise its own Terminator-type technology.
>
>By August Mr Shapiro was on the ropes. Mr Glickman said he
would
>investigate whether the US agriculture department was too close
to
>companies like Monsanto, and the message was picked up on Wall
Street.
>Deutsche, the largest European bank, had in May recommended
institutional
>investors to sell Monsanto shares - within days the price had
dropped;
>when Deutsche repeated the advice in September, other analysts
joined in.
>Monsanto stock had lost 35% of its value in a year, while Wall
Street as a
>whole went up 30%.
>
>The Conway message finally got through. After heated debate in
the
>company, Monsanto's president, Hendrik Ver faillie, went 10
days ago to
>the US senate to say that it "would now act to meet concerns".
He then
>travelled secretly to Britain to talk to the Soil Association
and others,
>promising to help farmers with traditional cross-breeding.
>
>On Monday, Mr Shapiro wrote to Prof Conway to say the company
would no
>longer pursue research into the Terminator technology. On
Tuesday he was
>due in Britain at the Greenpeace business conference but pulled
out. But
>his interactive video link showed how much Mr Shapiro had
changed. Instead
>of a beam and a twinkle, the screen showed a pale and drawn
man: "We
>forgot to listen", he said. "We have irritated and antagonised
more people
>than we have persuaded our confidence in biotechnology has been
widely
>seen as arogance and condecension." He promised wide
consultation and to
>listen carefully. The questions remain, but, said Prof Conway,
"it's a
>start".
>===================
>
>We forgot to listen, says Monsanto
>
>GM company chief takes blame for public relations failures and
pledges to
>answer safety concerns
>
>GM food: special report
>
>John Vidal
>Guardian (London) Thursday October 7, 1999
>
>Bob Shapiro, head of the embattled GM company Monsanto,
yesterday took
>personal blame for the meltdown in global public opinion over
>biotechnology and promised a new dialogue with society.
>
>Looking drawn and troubled, with an important meeting with
reportedly
>upset shareholders ahead of him, Mr Shapiro was conciliatory:
"We started
>with the conviction that biotechnology was useful and valuable
but we have
>tended to see it as our task to convince people that we were
right and
>that people with different points of view were wrong", he told
the
>Greenpeace business conference in London, attended by captains
of
>industry, other GM companies and eco-activists.
>
>"We have irritated and antagonised more people than we have
persuaded. Our
>confidence in biotechnology has been widely seen as arrogance
and
>condescension because we thought it was our job to persuade.
But too often
>we forgot to listen."
>
>Mr Shapiro said Monsanto did not have the answers to the
public's concerns
>about safety, genetic pollution, ethics and the power of
corporations, but
>was now committed to engaging in dialogue with society to find
solutions.
>He said: "None of these concerns is trivial. Each is valid and
needs
>examination. We want to participate constructively in the
process. It
>means listening carefully."
>
>Mr Shapiro said Monsanto sought common ground with his critics:
"We are
>listening, and will seek it whenever its available, and will
seek
>solutions that work for a wide range of people."
>
>He added that the company was prepared, as new products were
developed, to
>engage in consultation with people "at an earlier level than we
have been
>doing in the past".
>
>But Greenpeace's director, Lord Melchett, accused Mr Shapiro of
being a
>bully. Monsanto, he said, had fundamentally misunderstood the
changes
>taking place in society and people's changing priorities. "The
vast
>majority are not anti science, or Luddite. But they are
increasingly aware
>and mistrustful of the combination of big science and big
business. Your
>vision promotes false promises of easy alternatives via short
term
>technical fixes and increases the imbalance of power between
multinational
>corporations and farmers in the developing world.
>
>"People are becoming more confident in their understanding of
what is at
>stake and more resolute in their ability to resist. There has
been an
>unprecedented, permanent and irreversible shift in the
political
>landscape," he said.
>
>Mr Shapiro said that US polls consistently showed that
opposition to
>biotechnology came from the poor and uneducated, whereas
>university-educated people and those most familiar with the
science were
>most supportive.
>
>
>=================================
>
>
>*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material
>is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest
>in receiving the included information for research and
educational
>purposes. ***
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail