----- Original Message ----- From: Emilie Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 8:00 AM Subject: Fw: Terminator's termination backgrounder (fwd) > -----Original Message----- > From: MichaelP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: unlikely.suspects:; <unlikely.suspects:;> > Date: Sunday, October 10, 1999 12:21 AM > Subject: Terminator's termination backgrounder (fwd) > > > >Thanks KarlW > > > > > >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 organisation 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. *** > > > > > > > > > > >
