/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

Getting genetically modified animals to market: the Mount Everest of public relations issues

(USC Thesis Other)

Getting genetically modified animals to market: the Mount Everest of public relations issues

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET:

THE
MOUNT
EVEREST
OF
PUBLIC
RELATIONS
ISSUES

by

Yuxin
Dai

Annenberg
School
for
Communication
and
Journalism

University
of
Southern
California

Master
Thesis
for
degree
in
Strategic
Public
Relations

December
2014

Copyright©
2014
Yuxin
Dai
–
All
Rights
Reserved

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

2

Dedication

This
thesis
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
unwavering
support
of

my
parents,
who
have
dedicated
their
careers
to
the
advancement
of
GM

technology.
Thank
you
for
inspiring
me
with
your
passion
and
granting
me
the

freedom
to
pursue
what
I
love.
I
hope
my
thesis
has
done
justice
to
the
incredible

work
that
you
do.

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

3

Acknowledgements

The
writing
of
this
thesis
was
one
of
the
most
daunting
and
academically

challenging
tasks
I
have
ever
undertaken.
However,
it
is
also
one
of
my
greatest

achievements.
I
would
like
to
give
thanks
to
the
special
group
of
supporters

standing
in
my
corner,
cheering
me
on
every
step
of
the
way.

I
would
like
to
thank
my
thesis
committee
chair,
Jennifer
Floto,
for
always

being
there
to
offer
comfort,
encouragement
and
great
advice.
She
helped
me

find
confidence
in
writing
from
my
very
first
day
at
USC.
To
me
she
is
not
just
a

mentor,
but
also
a
life
coach.

I
would
also
like
to
thank
my
committee
members
Laura
Jackson
and
Jerry

Swerling
for
their
keen
interest
and
constructive
feedback.

Finally,
I
want
to
thank
my
interviewees
for
offering
up
their
vast

knowledge
and
expert
insight
on
the
subject
matter.

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

4

Table
of
Contents

Dedication

..........................................................................................................................
2

Acknowledgements

........................................................................................................
3

Introduction

......................................................................................................................
8

Chapter
One:
Genetically
Modified
Organisms
101
–
An
Introduction

.......
10

Chapter
Two:
GMO
Benefits
–
A
Risk
Worth
Taking

..........................................
15

Money,
Money,
Money

.............................................................................................................
15

Environmental
Protection

.....................................................................................................
17

Wonder-‐Drugs

............................................................................................................................
17

Feeding
A
Hungry
World

........................................................................................................
18

Nutritionally
Enhanced

...........................................................................................................
19

Chapter
Three:
Dangers
of
GMOs
–
A
Technical
Oops-‐a-‐daisy

...........................
22

Herbicide-‐Resistant
Superweeds

.......................................................................................
22

Overuse
of
Pesticides

...............................................................................................................
23

The
Runaway
Gene

...................................................................................................................
23

Smells
Fishy

.................................................................................................................................
24

Chapter
Four:
Food
Safety
–
A
Top
Priority

..................................................................
26

Chapter
Five:
GMO
Labeling
–
An
Ethical
Conundrum

...........................................
29

Chapter
Six:
“Frankenfoods”
–
A
PR
Crisis

....................................................................
32

Chapter
Seven:
Promoting
GM
Crops
–
A
Public
Relations
Audit

.....................
37

Lobbyists
to
the
Rescue

..........................................................................................................
37

Covert
Operations

.....................................................................................................................
38

Lay
It
On
Thick

............................................................................................................................
39

Take
A
Bite

....................................................................................................................................
39

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

5

Crisis
Response

...........................................................................................................................
41

GMOAnswers

...............................................................................................................................
41

Chapter
Eight:
GM
Animals
vs.
GM
Crops
–

A
Communication
Perspective

...........................................................
45

Animal
Welfare

...........................................................................................................................
46

An
Ethical
Conundrum

............................................................................................................
47

A
Silver
Lining

.............................................................................................................................
49

Chapter
Nine:
Meet
the
Players
–
A
Profile

...................................................................
50

Consumers

....................................................................................................................................
50

Monsanto
and
Friends

.............................................................................................................
54

The
Regulators

............................................................................................................................
57

The
Farmers

.................................................................................................................................
58

The
Food
Vendors

.....................................................................................................................
59

The
Conventional
Food
Producers

.....................................................................................
61

The
Pharmaceutical
Companies

..........................................................................................
62

The
Scientists

..............................................................................................................................
63

The
Activists

................................................................................................................................
64

The
Media

.....................................................................................................................................
67

Chapter
Ten:
“Food”
for
Thought
–
The
Dos
and
Don’ts

........................................
69

Dos

...................................................................................................................................................
70

Be
Proactive

.................................................................................................................................
70

Clearly
Articulate
Benefits
for
the
End-‐User

.................................................................
72

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

6

The
Media

.....................................................................................................................................
73

Harness
the
Power
of
Social
Media

....................................................................................
74

Aim
Higher

....................................................................................................................................
75

Be
Careful
of
Phrasing

.............................................................................................................
76

Be
Prepared
for
Crises

.............................................................................................................
77

Don’ts

.............................................................................................................................................
77

Don’t
Play
Hide
and
Seek

........................................................................................................
77

Don’t
Put
All
Your
Eggs
in
One
Basket

..............................................................................
77

Don’t
Overlook
Internal
Communication

........................................................................
79

Don’t
Underestimate
SEO

.......................................................................................................
80

Build
Bridges,
Don’t
Burn
Them

.........................................................................................
81

Appendix:
Interview
Questions

...........................................................................................
83

Bibliography

...................................................................................................................................
85

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

7

List
of
Exhibits

Exhibit
1
Growth
of
GM
crops
across
the
world,
from
1997
to
2012
…..............…
12

Exhibit
2
Top
performing
GM
crops’
share
in
food
production
in
2012
………….
13

Exhibit
3
Herbicide
tolerance
and
insect
resistance,
or
combination
of
the

two,
are
by
far
the
most
common
traits
in
commercialized
GM

crops.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
14

Exhibit
4
Public
support
for
three
different
GMO
applications
between

1992
and
2000
……………………………………………………………………………
16

Exhibit
5
Would
consumers
buy
nutritionally
enhanced
GM
foods?
……………....
35

Exhibit
6
Consumer
attitudes
toward
eight
usages
of
GM
technology
…………....
48

Exhibit
7
Percentage
of
American
consumers
who
have
heard
or
read

“some”
or
“a
lot”
about
biotechnology
………………………..…………………
51

Exhibit
8
Conventional
and
organic
food
producers
are
main
supporters
of

pro-‐GMO-‐labeling
campaigns
…………………….…….…………………………...
61

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

8

Introduction

Aside
from
coffee
farms
and
mountain
scenery,
the
newest
attraction
to
the

Panama
highlands
is
the
world’s
most
controversial
fish.
Protected
by
netting,

barbed
wire
and
guard
dogs,
these
little
critters
are
the
spear-‐bearers
for
a
new

era
of
genetically
modified
(GM)
animals.

Getting
GM
animals
to
the
market
presents
the
Mount
Everest
of
public

relations
issues.
It
is
a
sandbox
where
scientists,
consumer,
activists,

corporations
and
politicians
all
come
out
to
play.
It
has
to
carry
the
weight
of
a

failed
GM
crops
campaign
as
well
as
deal
with
its
own
unique
set
of
problems.
To

the
author,
it
is
one
of
the
most
fascinating
but
understudied
PR
challenges
of
all

time.

A
brief
note
about
point
of
view:
The
author
comes
from
a
family
of
scientists.

Her
father,
a
GM
animal
expert
at
China
Agricultural
University,
has
devoted
his

entire
career
to
the
advancement
of
the
genetic
modification
technology.
His

visions
have
come
to
fruition
in
the
form
of
milk
products
that
enhance
the

immune
system,
reduce
allergies,
combat
bacterial
infections,
and
sustain
a

longer
shelf-‐life,
not
to
mention
the
potential
to
treat
cancer
and
anemia.
The

author
has
seen
first-‐hand
his
passion
for
the
science,
his
confidence
in
its
safety

and
the
tremendous
legacy
his
creations
could
be
for
society.
But
she’s
also
seen

ambitions
dashed,
potential
wasted
and
wondrous
creations
that
may
never
see

the
light
of
day,
due
to
ill-‐informed
activism
or
political
sabotage.

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

9

As
a
result,
the
author
admits
to
a
sort
of
two-‐edged
perspective
about

Genetically
Modified
Organisms
(GMOs).
She
is
in
awe
of
their
potential
benefits,

but
exasperated
at
the
communication
missteps
and
inaction
that
have
led
to
the

field’s
current
predicament.

As
a
public
relations
student
and
a
trained
journalist,
the
author
understands

what’s
at
stake,
but
tries
studiously
to
remain
above
the
fray.
She
is
one
step

removed
from
consumer
anguish
and
scientific
frustration,
from
muddled

politics
and
corporate
greed.
She
examines
the
issue
with
a
clinical
eye
and

points
the
finger
where
she
believes
blame
is
due.
Her
criticism
does
not
stem

from
spite
or
anger,
but
rather
from
the
firm
belief
that
through
better

communications,
it
is
possible
to
change
the
world.

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

10

Chapter
One:
Genetically
Modified
Organisms
101
–
An

Introduction

Question:
In
which
of
the
following
processes
were
genes
modified?

A.
Grafting
an
apple
branch
on
to
a
pear
tree

B.
Crossbreeding
cows

C.
Inserting
a
human
gene
fragment
into
a
goat

D.
Bringing
green
pepper
seeds
into
space

E.
A
clover
that
grew
a
4th
leaf

F.
All
of
the
above

At
this
very
moment,
the
global
population
has
surpassed
7
billion
1

and

continues
to
multiply
at
an
alarming
rate.
As
projected
by
the
United
Nations,
by

2050
it
will
be
teetering
on
the
brink
of
9.6
billion
2
,
at
which
time
the
current

agricultural
output
will
need
to
double
to
keep
up
with
global
food
demand.
By

way
of
conventional
agricultural
practices,
it
will
be
impossible
to
meet
that

demand.
3

In
times
of
desperate
need,
Genetically
Modified
Organisms
(GMOs)
have

risen
as
the
answer
to
a
dwindling
food
supply.
While
some
experts
embrace
it

as
the
savior
to
world
hunger,
others
shun
it
as
a
grievous
threat
to
the
natural

1

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

2

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/un-‐report-‐world-‐population-‐projected

-‐to-‐reach-‐9-‐6-‐billion-‐by-‐2050.html

3

Role
of
genetically
engineered
animals
in
future
food
production,
KA
McColl,
B
Clarke
and
TJ
Doran,

Australian
Veterinary
Journal

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

11

environment,
public
health
and
food
safety.

The
term
“Genetically
Modified
Organisms”
means
organisms
in
which
the

genetic
material
has
been
altered
in
a
way
that
does
not
occur
naturally
through

mating
or
natural
recombination.
4

It
applies
to
both
plants
and
animals,
except

humans.
In
layman’s
terms,
GMOs
are
technologically
advanced
“super
species,”

designed
by
scientist
to
perform
desirable
traits
by
either
suppressing
an

existing
gene
or
introducing
a
new
one
to
the
mix.
5

Although
the
term
has
only

been
heard
in
recent
years,
genetic
modification
is
not
a
new
concept.
Genetic

mutations
are
commonplace
in
nature.
Superior
traits
prevail
and
are
passed

down
through
natural
selection.
It
also
is
a
widely
popular
agricultural
practice

to
crossbreed
animals
to
increase
productivity
or
to
graft
plants
to
create

entirely
new
organisms,
such
as
the
boysenberry,
which
is
a
unique
cross

between
the
European
raspberry,
common
blackberry,
and
loganberry.
6

Professor
Stanley
N.
Cohen
of
Stanford
University
is
credited
with
first

developing
GM
technology,
as
it
is
known
today,
in
1973.
Ten
years
later,
his

visions
were
made
a
reality
in
the
form
of
an
antibiotic-‐resistant
tobacco
plant
–

the
first
GM
plant
in
human
history.
7

In
1994,
Calgene’s
FlavrSavr™, which

delayed
ripening
in
tomatoes,
marked
the
first
commercial
sale
of
GM
foods.

Afterwards,
the
technology
quickly
took
root,
leading
GM
crops
to
spread
across

170
million
hectares
in
28
countries
today,
though
they
are
mostly
grown
in
five

4

EU
Directive
2001/18/EC,
Article
2,
Definitions

5

Transgenic
Crops
and
Our
Life,
China
National
Agriculture
and
Life
Science
and
Technology

Popularization
Base,
Science
Press

6

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-‐is-‐a-‐boysenberry.htm

7

Transgenic
Crops
and
Our
Life,
China
National
Agriculture
and
Life
Science
and
Technology

Popularization
Base,
Science
Press

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

12

countries:
the
United
States,
Brazil,
Argentina,
Canada
and
India.
8

Exhibit
1
Growth
of
GM
crops
across
the
world,
from
1997
to
2012
(in
millions
of
hectares)
(Source:

Nature,
2013)

9

Although
there
are
currently
more
than
5,000
types
of
GM
crops
in
various

stages
of
development,
only
slightly
more
than
100
of
them
have
been
granted

the
green
light
to
be
served
at
consumers’
tables.
Out
of
the
100
or
so
currently

commercialized
GM
crops,
soya
bean,
maize
(corn),
cotton
and
canola
crops

represent
the
lion’s
share.
It
may
even
surprise
the
reader
to
learn
just
how

much
GM
crops
have
been
integrated
into
everyday
life.
In
fact,
in
the
United

States,
GM
varieties
have
taken
over
90%
of
the
total
planting
area
in
cotton,

maize
and
soya
beans.
10

8

GM
Crops
A
Story
in
Numbers,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

9

GM
Crops
A
Story
in
Numbers,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

10

GM
Crops
A
Story
in
Numbers,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

13

Exhibit
2
Top
performing
GM
crops’
share
in
food
production
in
2012
(Source:
Nature,
2013)
11

Perhaps
GM
technology
can
be
better
viewed
as
a
problem-‐solving

mechanism.
GM
crops
are
designed
to
overcome
obstacles
that
had
conventional

agriculturalists
stumped,
such
as
reducing
costs,
limiting
pesticide
use,

conserving
land
(by
increasing
unite
area
yield),
decreasing
labor
intensity,

improving
taste
and
adding
nutritional
value.
12

Commercialized
GM
crops
are

engineered
to
perform
approximately
30
different
traits.
Depending
on
the

specific
usage,
these
can
range
from
stress
resistance
to
flowering
habits.

Nevertheless,
herbicide
tolerance
and
insect
resistance
are
by
far
the
most

11

GM
Crops
A
Story
in
Numbers,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

12

Transgenic
Crops
and
Our
Life,
China
National
Agriculture
and
Life
Science
and
Technology

Popularization
Base,
Science
Press

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

14

prevalent
characteristics
featured
in
GM
crops.
13

Herbicide-‐tolerant
plants,
for

example,
are
given
a
gene
that
acts
as
a
protecting
shield
when
farmers
spray

herbicides
to
kill
weeds.
Insect-‐resistant
plants,
on
the
other
hand,
need
no

insect-‐killing
chemical
for
protection,
as
they
are
able
to
produce
their
own

insecticide.
14

Exhibit
3
Herbicide
tolerance
and
insect
resistance,
or
combination
of
the
two,
are
by
far
the
most

common
traits
in
commercialized
GM
crops.
(Source:
Nature,
2013)
15

13

GM
Crops
A
Story
in
Numbers,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

14

Washington
state
voters
reject
labeling
of
GM
foods,
Elizabeth
Weise,
USA
TODAY

15

GM
Crops
A
Story
in
Numbers,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

15

Chapter
Two:
GMO
Benefits
–
A
Risk
Worth
Taking

Question:
Which
of
the
following
scenarios
would
be
preferable?

A. Dying
of
starvation
right
now.

B. Maybe,
just
maybe,
suffering
unknown
symptoms
from
eating
GM
foods
100

years
later.

u Money,
Money,
Money

One
major
benefit
of
GM
technology
is
evident
in
the
agribusiness
sector.

Herbicide-‐resistant
crops,
modified
to
withstand
weed-‐killing
chemicals
or
resist

insect
pests,
can
lower
labor
intensity
for
farmers
and
increase
yields,
explained

Yunping
Dai,
a
transgenic
expert
at
China
Agricultural
University.

The
economic
incentives
this
provided
for
agricultural
producers
have

contributed
to
the
rapid
adoption
of
GM
crops
and
remain
strong
even
today.
As

a
matter
of
fact,
Swedish
scientists
have
done
the
math:
a
shift
to
GM
sugar
beets,

canola
and
potatoes
in
Sweden
could
yield
an
annual
revenue
of
€32
million.

Expand
to
EU-‐wide,
the
capitalized
value
would
land
somewhere
in
the
ballpark

of
€80-‐120
billion.
It
also
has
the
potential
of
bring
in
another
€7.5
billion
in

worldwide
global
welfare
gains.
16

But
all
this
rests
upon
the
premise
of
full

public
support
for
GM
crops.

The
lingering
downside
is
that
the
advantages
of
GM
crops
“have
been

16

Stop
worrying;
start
growing,
Torbjorn
Fagerstrom,
Christina
Dixelius,
Ulf
Magnusson,
Jens
F.
Sundstrom,

EMBO
Reports
VOL
13
NO.6
2012

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

16

almost
invisible
to
ordinary
consumers,”
says
Philip
Bodnar,
a
biotechnologist

with
Biology
Fortified,
a
non-‐profit
GMO
advocacy
organization.
17

Needless
to

say,
lining
the
pockets
of
giant
corporations
and
people
up
and
down
the

agricultural
production
chain
is
not
an
acceptable
reason
to
develop
GM
foods
in

the
public’s
eye.
According
to
the
Agricultural
and
Development
Economics

Division
(ESA),
the
lack
of
direct
and
immediate
benefits
to
consumers
(namely

improvements
in
nutritious
value,
cost
or
taste)
may
be
one
of
the
reasons
for

waning
public
support.
18

Exhibit
4
Public
support
for
three
different
GMO
applications
between
1992
and
2000
(Source:
Hoban

and
Kendall)
19

The
economic
benefits
can
explain
some
of
the
choices
made
by
biotech

companies.
At
the
onset,
herbicide-‐tolerant
and
insect-‐resistant
GM
crops
were

put
on
the
fast
track
since
the
payoffs
were
an
easy
sell
to
farmers
–
the
first
link

17

A
New
Breed,
Daniel
Cressey,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

18

Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

19

Hoban
and
Kendall,
1994;
Angus
Reid,
Inc.,
2000

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

17

in
the
agricultural
food
chain
–
while
consumer-‐oriented
GM
crops
like
the

nutritionally
enhanced
Golden
Rice
would
have
to
catch
a
later
train
to
reach
the

market.
Similarly,
faster-‐growing
AquaAdvantage
salmon
from
AquaBounty

Technologies
would
be
the
first
to
be
commercialized
despite
having
the
lowest

public
approval
rate
because
its
faster
reproductive
cycles
would
mean
higher

profits
for
breeders.

u Environmental
Protection

GMOs
have
been
hounded
with
allegations
of
environmental
damage
from

day
one,
but
not
enough
consumers
realize
that
the
very
same
technology

already
has
been
used
to
considerably
improve
the
environment.
Herbicide
and

insect-‐resistant
crops
reduce
water
and
land
pollution
that
would
have
resulted

from
runoff
due
to
excessive
pesticide
use.
Some
GM
applications
are
even

developed
for
the
very
purpose
of
environmental
protection.
Company’s

“Enviropig,”
a
genetically
enhanced
Yorkshire
pig
able
to
digest
plant

phosphorus
more
effectively,
is
such
a
creation.
Since
phosphorus
is
a
major

algal-‐enabling
nutrient
that
is
the
cause
of
fish
kills
and
reduced
water
quality,

Environpigs
that
produce
low
phosphorus
manure
reduce
potential
soil
and

water
contamination.
20

u Wonder-‐Drugs

Pharmaceutical
applications
represent
a
promised
land
for
GM
animals
–
a

market
where
high
economic
returns,
clear
market
demand
and
unlimited

20

http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

18

potential
all
come
together.
In
one
notable
example,
TG
rats
by
ImmunoGenes

are
developed
to
produce
antibodies
more
efficiently.
21

Recombinant
human

anti-‐thrombin
III
is
are
extracted
from
transgenic
goats
milk
and
made
into

protein
drugs
with
the
properties
to
fight
congenital
deficiencies
in
human

patients.
22

Compared
to
traditional
drugs,
GM
animal
applications
may
have

higher
efficiency,
lower
cost,
reduced
energy
consumption
and
less
degradation

to
the
environment.

GM
pharmaceuticals
also
save
lives.
According
to
the
National
Kidney

Foundation,
there
are
currently
96,645
patients
fervently
awaiting
kidney

transplantation
in
the
US
alone.
Sadly,
only
17,000
of
them
are
projected
to

receive
an
organ
in
2014,
due
to
a
shortage
of
available
donors.
But
a
new

solution
may
be
on
the
horizon.
Clinical
trials
are
exploring
whether
injecting
a

patient’s
own
stem
cells
into
pig
kidneys,
may
make
those
organs
safely

transplanted
into
the
human
body.
23

If
this
approach
proves
to
be
successful,

patients
on
the
transplant
list
may
only
need
to
wait
months
instead
of
years.

u Feeding
a
Hungry
World

There’s
more
magic
brewing
in
the
labs.

One
can
posit
that
more
people
would
be
alive
if
GM
technology
were
to
fully

blossom.
“If
we
solely
consumed
organic
food,
our
land
could
not
produce

enough
food
to
feed
over
3
billion
people,”
explained
Yunping
Dai.
A
hundred

21

Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

22

http://www.biotech.org.cn/news/news/show.php?id=34892

23

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/269738.php

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

19

years
ago,
people
would
be
lucky
to
live
to
see
50.
24

But
today,
average
life

expectancy
worldwide
has
risen
to
67.88
years,
25

owing
partly
to
an
increased

food
supply.
Now,
imagine
how
much
more
food
could
be
harvested
if
animals

grew
fast
and
lean,
and
if
crops
were
genetically
protected
from
insect,
disease

and
droughts.

Hunger
raises
the
stakes
and
makes
a
compelling
argument
for
developing

GM
foods.
One
potential
lifesaver
is
the
Bt
cowpea,
grown
throughout
the

savannahs
of
Africa.
Through
genetic
engineering,
scientists
have
been
able
to

arm
the
crop
against
a
major
insect
pest
called
the
Maruca
pod
borer.
If

successfully
commercialized,
this
particular
brand
of
cowpea
could
increase

yields
throughout
Africa
by
around
70%.
26

Activists
say
GMOs
represent
and
environmental
hazard?
GM
proponents

say:
magic
potion.

u Nutritionally
Enhanced

If
regulations
and
public
debates
were
ever
to
allow
GM
technology
to
reach

its
full
potential,
tremendous
global
welfare
gains
could
result.

Organic
aficionados
in
Europe
and
America
may
look
down
their
noses
at
a

plate
of
GM-‐grown
mashed
potatoes,
but
for
developing
nations
like
Kenya
and

Uganda,
where
one
quarter
of
the
population
is
malnourished
and
living
under

the
poverty
line,
27

GMOs
could
literally
represent
the
difference
between
life

24

http://www.getholistichealth.com/8129/how-‐life-‐expectancy-‐has-‐varied-‐over-‐the-‐past-‐100-‐years/

25

United
Nations
World
Population
Prospects
2010
Revision

26

Aftrica
and
Asia
need
a
rational
debate
on
GM
crops,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

27

Aftrica
and
Asia
need
a
rational
debate
on
GM
crops,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

20

and
death.

Vitamin
A
deficiencies
have
caused
severe
problems
in
developing
countries,

for
instance,
by
increasing
the
risk
of
childhood
death
from
infections
such
as

measles.
Scientists
have
provided
a
solution
to
these
unnecessary
deaths
by

introducing
genetically
modified
staple
foods
rich
in
provitamin
A,
such
as

orange
sweet
potatoes
in
Mozambique
and
Uganda,
and
so-‐called
“golden
rice”

for
Asian
countries.
Eating
150
grams
of
cooked
golden
rice
can
provide
roughly

60%
of
the
Chinese
recommended
nutrient
intake
of
vitamin
A
for
6-‐8
year

olds.
28

For
centuries,
humans
have
consumed
cows
milk
–
milk
intended
for
cattle.

Although
milk
helps
children
grow
muscles
and
bones,
it
lacks
the
desired

proteins
for
brain,
nerve
and
immune
system
development.
But
in
2011,
a
group

of
scientists
in
China
successfully
used
genetic
engineering
to
mimic
the

composites
of
human
breast
milk
in
cows’
milk.
This
milk
showed
such

advantages
as
modulating
the
immune
system,
as
well
as
antibacterial
properties,

and
successful
treatment
of
anemia
and
cancer.
“We
have
already
began
to
play

with
the
idea
of
customized
milk,”
said
team
leader
Yunping
Dai,
during
the

author’s
interview,
adding:
“In
the
future,
we
will
be
able
to
produce
custom
milk

for
each
individual,
tailored
to
their
state
of
health
and
family
medical
history.”

Sad
to
say,
whether
due
to
bad
PR
or
personal
interest,
some
consumers

refuse
to
sees
the
life-‐saving
potential
of
GMOs.
The
progress
of
the
technology
is

28

Tang,
G.
et
al.
Am.
J.
Clin.
Nutr.
96,
658-‐664
(2012)

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

21

constantly
disrupted
by
legislation
and
activism.
In
August
2013
in
the

Philippines,
protesters
acting
in
the
name
of
safety
concerns,
ripped
up
a
golden

rice
test
field
designed
to
address
Vitamin
A
deficiency
among
the
world’s

poor.
29

“People
have
the
right
to
choose
not
to
eat
GMOs,
but
they
do
not
have
the

right
to
deprive
other
people
of
that
choice,”
remarked
Dr.
Jinsheng
Lai,
a

distinguished
GMO
expert
at
China
Agricultural
University
and
former
R&D

project
manager
at
Monsanto,
during
the
author’s
interview.

29

“Golden
Rice”
GM
trial
vandalised
in
the
Philippines,
Matt
McGrath,
BBC
News,
August
9,
2013

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

22

Chapter
Three:
Dangers
of
GMOs
–
A
Technical
Oops-‐a-‐daisy

Sadly,
GMOs
are
not
a
magical
cure-‐all
that
will
make
all
our
troubles
go

away.
As
an
advancing
technology,
scientists
have
yet
to
work
out
all
of
the
kinks.

During
that
process,
they
have
made
inadvertent
mistakes,
creating

imperfections
that
anti-‐GMO
activists
have
latched
on
to,
claiming
they
will

destroy
entire
ecosystems
and
poison
mankind.
Dancing
around
the
subject
will

only
put
consumers
off.
Clear
communication
of
real
risks,
on
the
other
hand
will

help
accelerate
the
adoption
process.

u Herbicide-‐Resistant
Superweeds

Since
the
late
1990s,
U.S.
farmers
have
widely
adopted
GM
crops
engineered

to
withstand
the
herbicide
glyphosate,
a
chemical
that
kills
a
broad
range
of

weeds
without
ploughing.
In
the
marketing
process,
manufacturer
Monsanto

promised
miracles.
It
guaranteed
that
if
applied
at
the
recommended
dose,
the

glyphosate
would
kill
weeds
effectively
and
“we
know
that
dead
weeds
will
not

become
resistant,”
reassured
Rick
Cole,
Monsanto’s
technical
lead
of
weed

management,
in
a
trade-‐journal
advertisement
at
the
time.
30

Despite
that,
scientists
and
anti-‐GMO
groups
have
issued
warnings
about
the

danger
that
could
ensue
with
the
liberal
use
of
glyphosate.
And
sure
enough,
in

2004,
herbicide-‐resistant
amaranth
started
popping
up
in
Georgia
and
spread

like
wildfire
through
the
US,
Brazil
Australia,
Argentina
and
Paraguay.
“It
got
to

30

A
hard
look
at
GM
crops,
Natasha
Gilbert,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

23

the
point
where
some
farmers
were
losing
half
their
cotton
fields
to
the
weed,”

remarked
Jay
Holder,
a
farming
consultant
in
Ashburn,
Georgia,
who
first
spotted

the
anomaly.
31

Monsanto’s
defense
has
been
downright
embarrassing.
The
company
never

admitted
to
creating
the
problem.
Rather,
Mr.
Cole
has
suggested
that:

“over-‐confidence
in
the
system
combined
with
economic
drivers
led
to
reduced

diversity
in
herbicide
use.”
32

So
basically,
he
is
scolding
farmers
for
laziness

after
promising
them
a
miracle
product.
If
alienating
the
consumer
base
was
the

intention,
the
author
applauds
a
job
well
done.

u Overuse
of
Pesticides

Biotech
seed
companies
have
not
always
taken
enough
responsibility
in

educating
farmers
on
the
proper
use
of
their
products.
As
a
result,
the
new

powers
of
herbicide-‐tolerant
GM
crops
may
have
lulled
farmers
into
a
false
sense

of
safety.
Ill
informed,
they
might
spray
fields
with
a
single
type
of
pesticides,

confident
that
their
crops
are
immune
from
these
types
of
herbicide.
When

herbicide-‐resistant
weeds
started
popping
up,
they
simply
upped
the
dose.

The
bad
practice
of
overusing
pesticides
could
lead
to
land
and
water

contamination,
endanger
animal
life
and
leave
chemical
residue
in
foods,
which

defeats
the
original
purpose
of
GM
technology.

u The
Runaway
Gene

It
would
make
everybody’s
life
easier
if
genes
just
stayed
in
one
place.

31

A
hard
look
at
GM
crops,
Natasha
Gilbert,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

32

A
hard
look
at
GM
crops,
Natasha
Gilbert,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

24

However,
through
wind,
insects
and
animals,
pollen
and
seeds
tends
to
travel.

Genetically
modified
genes
can
wander
into
conventional
crops
field–
a
process

called
cross-‐pollination
that
is
impossible
to
avoid
entirely.
33

It
is
butterfly
effects
like
this
that
give
birth
to
concerns
that
an
introduced

gene
will
transfer
from
one
species
into
another
with
unforeseen
consequences.

“A
legitimate
concern,
if
often
overstated,”
admitted
Christopher
J.
M.
Whitty,

chief
scientific
adviser
at
the
UK
Department
for
International
Development.

34

He
notes
that
mass
mingling
can
be
avoided
by
staggering
planting
times
and

maintaining
a
careful
distance.

u Smells
Fishy

The
AquAdvantage
Atlantic
salmon
from
AquaBounty
Technologies
is
en

route
to
becoming
the
first
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(FDA)
approved
GM

animal
for
human
consumption.
These
fish
mature
twice
as
fast
as
standard

Atlantic
salmon,
thanks
to
an
added
gene
from
the
faster-‐growing
Pacific

Chinook
salmon.
35

Concerns
have
been
raised
about
the
potential
environmental
hazards
these

fish
may
pose.
Tim
Schwab,
senior
researcher
at
anti-‐GMO
lobby
group
Food
&

Water
Watch,
indicated
the
fish’s
“sterilization
process
is
imperfect,
and
the
FDA

noted
that
up
to
5%
of
GE
salmon
could
be
fertile,
which
could
amount
to
many

thousands
or
even
millions
of
fertile
fish
(potentially
escaping
and
breeding
with

33

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

34

Aftrica
and
Asia
need
a
rational
debate
on
GM
crops,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

35

GE
salmon
…
Is
the
FDA’s
review
process
for
genetically
engineered
animals
fit
for
purpose?,
Elaine

Watson,
foodnavigator-‐usa.com

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

25

wild
fish)
once
commercial
production
begins.”
36

There
is
the
slight
possibility

that
this
could
cause
imbalance
in
the
fish
population
and
produce
unforeseeable

results.

36

GE
salmon
…
Is
the
FDA’s
review
process
for
genetically
engineered
animals
fit
for
purpose?,
Elaine

Watson,
foodnavigator-‐usa.com

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

26

Chapter
Four:
Food
Safety
–
A
Top
Priority

Question:
Please
give
one
example
where
genetically
modified
food
has

done
harm
to
human
health.

The
author
would
like
the
reader
to
think
hard
about
the
question
above.

If
one
can’t
think
of
anything,
that’s
because
there
haven’t
been
ANY!

Comprehensive
studies
from
such
authorities
such
as
the
FDA,
the
European

Union,
the
World
Health
Organization
and
U.S.
National
Academy
of
Science
have

repeatedly
stated
that
there
is
“no
scientific
evidence
associating
GMOs
with

higher
risks
for
the
environment
or
for
food
and
feed
safety
than
conventional

plants
and
organisms.”
37

Having
been
documented
since
1994,
38

GMOs
are
considered
the
world’s

largest
human
experiment.
Billions
of
people
have
chowed
down
on
genetically

modified
corn
and
then
washed
the
tasty
cobs
down
with
some
GM
soymilk.
Yet

there’s
never
been
a
single
reported
incident
of
death
or
poisoning
caused
by

consuming
GMOs.

39
Conventional
farming
methods,
on
the
other
hand,
have

been
shown
to
dump
2.5
million
tons
of
pesticide
into
the
food
supply
every
year,

resulting
in
an
estimated
220,000
deaths
annually
from
pesticide
poisoning

37

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

38

Global
review
of
the
field
testing
and
commercialization
of
transgenic
plants:
1986
to
1995,”
James,
Clive

(1996),
The
International
Service
for
the
Acquisition
of
Agri-‐biotech
Applications,
July
17
2010

39

20
questions
on
genetically
modified
foods,
World
Health
Organization

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

27

worldwide.
40

The
reason
GMOs
are
now
such
an
inseparable
part
of
the
daily
diet
in
much

of
the
developed
world
is
that
after
20
years
of
vigorous
safety
evaluations
and

human
trials,
the
global
scientific
consensus
still
holds
that
existing
GM
crops
are

no
riskier
than
others.
Moreover,
they
have
provided
some
tangible
benefits.
41

Of
course,
it
would
be
rash
to
universally
say
that
all
GMOs
are
safe.
But
how

much
of
what
we
eat
is
100%
safe?
Fruits
and
vegetables
may
contain
pesticide

residue,
meats
can
be
hosts
to
parasites
and
viruses,
and
even
dairy
milk
is

known
have
been
contaminated
by
melamine
in
China.
At
least
in
the
case
of

GMOs,
the
risks
may
be
reliably
tested.
Each
product
is
required
to
pass

extensive
toxicity
and
environmental
testing
standards
before
being
approved

for
the
market.
Regulatory
bodies,
such
as
the
FDA
and
the
Center
for
Disease

Control
(CDC)
then
examine
the
findings
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis
to
ensure
safety.

From
R&D
to
market,
that
mashed
potato
you
just
had
for
dinner
may
be
infused

with
more
technology
than
your
smartphone!

Unfortunately,
popular
beliefs
often
do
not
reflect
scientific
evidence.
All
of

the
horrifying
consequences
we’ve
heard
so
far
are
primarily
urban
myths

masquerading
convincingly
as
science
to
mislead
the
public
and
obscure
the

facts.
Many
anti-‐GMO
groups
have
adopted
logos
that
resemble
a
biohazard
sign,

presumably
to
invoke
fear
in
people’s
hearts.

Some
of
the
most
widespread
rumors,
such
as
hamsters
losing
the
ability
to

40

Public
health
risks
associated
with
pesticides
and
natural
toxins
in
foods,
David
Pimentel
et
al.,
College
of

Agriculture
and
Life
Sciences,
Cornell
University

41

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

28

reproduce
and
rats
developing
cancerous
tumors,
were
published
in

questionable
scientific
journals.
They
encountered
immediate
scorn
from
the

scientific
community
upon
publication
and
most
were
later
retracted
or

contradicted.
One
of
the
most
common
mistakes,
whether
made
knowing
or

unknowingly,
is
confusing
correlation
for
causation:
Lab
rats
were
fed

Monsanto’s
corn.
They
developed
tumors
and
died.
So
researchers
deduced
that

GMOs
must
cause
cancer.
But
little
did
they
know
that
the
rats
used
in
this

experiment
would
have
developed
tumors
all
on
their
own.
42

However,
once
people
see
images
of
grotesque
rats,
mutant
fruits
and
health

hazard
warnings,
it
is
difficult
to
cast
away
the
doubts.
The
concern
over
GMO

safety
is
less
of
a
reflection
on
the
uncertainty
of
technology
and
more
likely
due

to
failed
attempts
at
effective
communication
and
persuasion.

42

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

29

Chapter
Five:
GMO
Labeling
–
An
Ethical
Conundrum

The
author
was
standing
in
a
Chinese
supermarket
aisle
one
day,

contemplating
a
purchase
of
canola
oil,
when
a
sales
assistant
walked
by.

“Don’t
worry.
This
one
isn’t
genetically
modified,”
he
said,
before
casually

strolling
away.

Oh
no!
The
author
stood
there,
hands
covering
her
face.
Does
he
realize
what

he
has
done?
He
has
implied
that
GM
oil
is
inferior
to
conventional
oil.
If
the

author
were
a
regular
consumer,
she
could
have
become
biased
for
life
on
the

basis
of
such
a
statement.

The
potential
for
consumer
confusion
is
one
of
the
main
reasons
that
biotech

companies
like
Monsanto
have
fought
so
fervently
against
GMO
labeling.
By

granting
market
approval,
regulatory
bodies
have
conceded
that
the
particular

GMO
is
“functionally
equivalent”
to
its
conventionally
grown
counterpart.

Introducing
new
labeling
laws
would
undermine
the
intention
of
this
statement

by
implying
that
GMOs
are
in
fact
different
from
conventionally
grown
food.
Such

laws
“would
stigmatize
genetically
modified
food,
making
them
harder
to
sell,”

argues
Pamela
Ronald,
a
professor
of
plant
pathology
at
the
University
of

California,
Davis.
43

If
every
“unnatural”
addition
should
be
labeled,
then
why
not
also
pass
laws

to
label
pesticide
use?
After
all,
their
potential
to
harm
the
human
body
can

43

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

30

actually
be
proven.
Biotech
giants
have
long
spoken
out
about
the
unfair
bias

new
labeling
requirements
would
impose
on
their
products.
But
it
has
been

difficult
for
the
industry
to
portray
themselves
as
victims
when
their
pockets
are

bulging
with
cash.

The
economic
aspect
of
GMO
labeling
presents
a
more
practical
argument
to

consumers:
labeling
comes
with
a
price
tag.
In
2013,
a
report
issued
by

Washington
state’s
Budget
Office
calculated
that
the
state
would
need
to
spend

an
extra
$567,000
per
year
to
cover
the
identity
preservation,
testing
and

certification
costs
related
to
new
GMO
labeling.
“Mandatory
labeling
...
is
likely
to

affect
trade
and
impose
higher
costs
on
firms
producing
and
selling
products
in

Washington,”
the
report
concluded.
These
costs
would
be
likely
to
jack
up
food

prices
for
consumers.
Even
with
survey
results
showing
the
majority
of

consumers
were
willing
to
pay
a
20
to
40
percent
premium
to
pay
for
such

labeling,
“this
legislation
would
cost
more
than
it
would
benefit.”
44

The
consumer’s
right
to
more
information
about
his/her
food
is
by
no
means

an
unreasonable
request.
Their
right
to
choose
what
they
eat
should
be
honored.

“People
are
concerned
about
what
they’re
feeding
to
their
kids,”
expressed
Philip

Bereano,
who
studies
the
political
and
social
aspects
of
new
technologies
at
the

University
of
Washington.
45

And
a
simple
“trust
us”
from
biotech
companies

simply
won’t
cut
it,
especially
when
it
comes
to
GM
foods.
In
fact,
secretly

force-‐feeding
consumers
without
giving
them
a
way
to
opt
out
is
only
further

44

Science
panel
says
GMO
labeling
would
cost
–
but
how
much
remains
unknown,
Sandi
Doughton,
The

Seattle
Times,
Oct
9,
2013

45

A
New
Breed,
Daniel
Cressey,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

31

damaging
the
public
image
of
GMOs
and
the
reputation
of
the
companies
that

create
them.

At
the
moment,
the
labeling
debate
seems
to
have
reached
an
impasse,
with

conventional
food
producers
and
consumers
on
one
side,
biotech
companies
and

food
vendors
on
the
other,
neither
willing
to
back
down.
Consumers
cannot

demand
mandatory
labeling
without
coughing
up
hard
cash
to
pay
for
tracking,

testing
and
certification,
and
biotech
companies
cannot
deny
consumers
of
their

right
to
know
without
acting
like
unreasonable
bullies.

However,
the
author
predicts
that
when
the
next
generation
of
nutritionally

enhanced
GM
food
hits
the
market,
the
two
interests
will
automatically
align.

Biotech
companies
and
food
vendors
will
voluntarily
label
GMO
products
as
a

way
to
differentiate
and
highlight
their
nutritional
superiority.
Consumers
will

then
be
more
likely
to
accept
a
higher
premium
due
to
the
obvious
health

benefits.

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

32

Chapter
Six:
“Frankenfoods”
–
A
PR
Crisis

Question:
Imagine
that
you
are
casually
skimming
through
a
news
website

on
your
smartphone.
You
come
across
the
following
headlines.
Which

article
are
you
likely
to
read?

A. “Scientific
Breakthrough:
Genetically
Modified
‘Roundup
Ready
Soybeans’

Significantly
Reduce
Pesticide
Usage”

B. “Eating
Genetically
Modified
Soybeans
Can
Give
You
Cancer!”

As
is
the
norm
for
every
groundbreaking
new
technology,
since
its
birth,

GMOs
have
been
riddled
with
controversy.
Concerns
were
raised.
Some
rooted
in

rational
scientific
reasoning,
others
vicious
slanders
and
trumped
up
rumors.

Unfortunately,
appalling
rumors
usually
run
faster
than
the
true
narrative,

creating
an
unbalanced
playing
field
in
terms
of
communication.

GMOs
are
quite
out
gunned
when
it
comes
to
spreading
the
word.
A
small

but
outspoken
group
of
haters,
consisting
of
environmentalists,
conventional

agricultural
producers,
animal
rights
activists
–
people
whose
interests
are

threatened
by
this
new
technology
–
have
been
launching
well-‐organized
smear

campaigns
against
GMOs.

A
sharp
contrast
to
the
failed
attempt
at
publicizing
GMOs,
the
anti-‐GMO

movement
is,
in
the
author’s
opinion,
one
of
the
most
successful
PR
campaigns
in

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

33

history.
Grassroots
campaigns
such
as
Label
GMOs
46

and
the
Non-‐GMO
Project
47

have
taken
off.
Rallies
were
called
in
front
of
state
capitals
like
Sacramento,

California
to
support
GMO
labeling.
48

Activists
even
tapped
into
the
power
of

social
media
and
organized
hugely
successful
international
Facebook
campaigns

like
“March
Against
Monsanto”
49

in
2013.
They’ve
done
and
extraordinary
job
of

framing
the
debate,
labeling
GMOs
as
“Frankenstein
Food”
or
“Frankenfoods”–
a

vivid
metaphor
for
a
genetically
engineered
freak
of
nature
out
to
destroy
the

world,
by
the
sound
of
it.

Lack
of
public
information,
an
opaque
decision-‐making
process
and,
in
some

countries,
suppressed
criticism,
fuel
the
hotbeds
that
help
rumors
and

conspiracy
theories
grow.
In
developing
countries
like
China,
special
interest

groups
have
taken
advantage
of
people’s
doubts
to
incite
populism,
calling
out

GMOs
as
a
“Western
imperialist
conspiracy,”
a
“subjugation
and
genocide
crisis”

and
even
the
“Third
Opium
War.”
50

Anti-‐GMO
activists
have
tailored
their
messaging
to
virtually
every

concerned
party,
including
college
students,
eco-‐conscious
shoppers
and

animal-‐lovers.
Not
even
children
have
escaped
this
net,
as
a
new
children’s
book

features
a
heroine
who
wages
war
on
GMOs.
“These
fruits
and
vegetables
are
not

natural,”
she
declares.
Well-‐organized
activists
have
managed
to
leverage

morality,
religion
and
even
democracy
on
their
side,
while
executives
at
large

46

http://www.labelgmos.org/

47

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

48

https://www.facebook.com/events/244510605718053/

49

https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

50

Busting
Chinese-‐style
GM
fallacies
and
rumors,
Tie
Li,
Southern
Weekly,
August
19,
2011

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

34

biotech
corporations
appear
to
have
buried
their
heads
in
the
sand.
Perhaps
they

believe
that
if
they
dug
deep
enough,
they
could
drown
out
the
negative
voices.

But
the
voices
are
still
in
consumers’
ears,
whispering:
GMOs
have
a
higher
risk

of
allergic
reactions!
GMOs
can
cause
infertility!!
GMOs
can
give
consumers

cancer,
ADHD,
and
God
knows
what!!!

Sometimes
the
influencing
factors
are
more
related
to
perceived
risks
rather

than
real
ones.
51

While
nothing
may
be
proven,
but
just
planting
the
seed
of

suspicion
is
enough.
Consumers
worry
about
the
underlying
risks
of
long-‐term

consumption.
According
to
a
study
conducted
by
the
research
and
consulting

firm
Enviornics,
with
the
exception
of
a
few
developing
countries
in
desperate

need,
such
as
China,
India
and
Cuba,
consumers
in
other
parts
of
the
world

express
reluctance
to
purchase
genetically
enhanced
GM
foods,
even
if
they

contain
extra
nutritional
value.
Consumers
in
some
developed
nations
such
as

Germany,
Australia
and
Great
Britain
expressed
an
even
more
hostile
attitude

towards
GMOs.
52

51

Murray
and
Maga
2010

52

Public
Attitudes
Towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

35

Exhibit
5
Would
consumers
buy
nutritionally
enhanced
GM
foods?
(Source:
Environics
International,

2001)
53

The
damage
of
negative
PR
does
not
stop
there.
The
communications
around

GMOs
are
an
excellent
example
of
how
perceived
risks
can
re-‐shape
the
public

debate
and
consequently,
the
regulatory
framework,
54

according
to
Saharah

Moon
Chapotin,
acting
Division
Chief
for
Agricultural
Research
at
the
U.S.
Agency

for
International
Development.

Negative
sentiment
in
the
public
domain
has
the
potential
to
adversely

influence
future
policy
decisions.
Monsanto
admitted
in
a
recent
Securities
and

Exchange
Commission
report:
“The
degree
of
public
acceptance
or
perceived

53

Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

54

Moon
Chapotin
and
Wolt
2007;
Ramessar
et
al.
2007

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

36

public
acceptance
of
our
biotechnology
products
can
affect
our
sales
and
results

of
operations
by
affecting
approvals,
regulatory
requirements
and
customer

purchase
decisions.”
55

In
fact,
public
sentiment
gained
more
weight
on
regulatory
decisions
in
2013.

Bills
were
drawn,
lobbying
took
place
and
26
states
considered
legislation
that

would
require
the
labeling
of
foods
containing
GMOs.
56

Connecticut
and

Vermont
have
already
passed
laws
to
require
such
labeling,
57

while
California

and
Washington
narrowly
dodged
that
bullet.
Without
some
serious
revamping

of
GMO’s
tarnished
public
image,
the
regulatory
landscape
could
be
even
more

challenging
for
GMOs
in
the
future.

55

Monsanto
confronts
devilish
public
image
problem,
Jenny
Hopkinson,
POLITICO

56

Monsanto
confronts
devilish
public
image
problem,
Jenny
Hopkinson,
POLITICO

57

GMO
Labeling
Bill
Voted
Down
in
Senate,
Michael
McAuliff,
Huffington
Post

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

37

Chapter
Seven:
Promoting
GM
Crops
–
A
Public
Relations
Audit

Case
studies
have
shown
that
the
introduction
of
new
food
technologies

tends
to
follow
similar
adoption
patterns.
According
to
Thomas
J.
Hoban
in
the

ESA
Working
Paper,
“Initial
disinterest
and
some
resistance
are
often
evident

from
some
interest
groups.
As
the
benefits
to
diet
and
health
become
apparent,

consumer
acceptance
usually
develops
quite
rapidly.”
58

Curiously,
the
adoption
process
of
GMOs
diverts
from
the
norm.
After
two

decades
of
uneventful
consumption,
instead
of
quelling
public
concerns
about

food
safety,
consumer
acceptance
rates
are
down.
The
opposition
is
fiercer
than

ever
and
GMO
labeling
laws
are
under
serious
consideration.

As
public
relations
professionals,
the
overriding
question
to
be
examined
is:

What
went
wrong
with
the
communication?

u Lobbyists
to
the
Rescue

It
is
no
secret
that
lobbyists
are
biotech
seed
companies’
favorite
weapons
in

the
legislative
arsenal.
GMO
critics
might
claim
that
biotech
titans
have
tried
to

cheat
the
system
by
using
lobbyists
to
circumvent
consumers
and
push
bills

through
or
insert
favorable
legislation.
For
the
past
two
decades,
they
would

assert
that
such
efforts
have
proven
to
be
an
efficient
way
of
strong-‐arming

GMOs
into
the
marketplace.

Scientists
are
also
may
be
on
the
receiving
end
of
“strategic
philanthropy.”

58

Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

38

Companies
like
Monsanto
regularly
make
generous
donations
to
universities
and

offer
scholarships
and
grants
to
individual
scientists,
including
contributions

used
to
fund
GMO
research.

These
tactics
are
designed
for
maximized
effectiveness.
Unfortunately,
the

problem
is
that
such
efforts
may
make
consumers
feel
neglected
and
helpless.
In

fact,
they
have
fought
back
with
grassroots
campaigns
and
counter-‐legislation

that
could
threaten
to
offset
the
system
from
the
bottom
up.
In
2013,
more
than

half
of
the
states
in
the
U.S.
considered
bill
requiring
GMO
labeling
or
other

restrictive
legislation.
Although
most
were
rejected,
activists
are
expected
to

revisit
the
issue
in
future
years,
59

with
ballot
counts
getting
closer
and
closer.

This
is
the
time
where
biotech
seed
companies
have
to
ask
themselves:
“How

long
can
we
hold
back
the
tide?”
and
“How
can
communications
help
us?”

u Covert
Operations

To
maximize
economic
benefits,
biotech
companies
and
food
manufacturers

have
been
accused
of
intentionally
withholding
information
from
consumers

about
which
products
contained
GMO
ingredients.
Although
they
were
able
to

justify
their
reasons
in
a
court
of
law,
consumers
have
reached
their
own
verdict.

Some
interpret
this
stealthy
course
as
having
something
to
hide.
Others
see
it
as

depriving
of
their
right
to
choose.
Regardless,
these
views
do
nothing
to
build

favorability
toward
GMOs.

59

Monsanto
confronts
devilish
public
image
problem,
Jenny
Hopkinson,
POLITICO

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

39

u Lay
It
on
Thick

In
their
early
days,
GMOs
promised
the
world
miraculous
results.
In
this

fantasy
scenario,
conventional
food
would
be
replaced
by
nutritionally
enhanced

GMOs,
and
become
the
main
food
source
for
starving
people
in
developing

third-‐world
nations;
GMO
drugs
would
produce
fast
and
affordable
solutions
to

illness.
In
the
excitement
to
drum
up
some
positive
PR,
some
GMO
messaging

came
off
as
too
threatening,
which
caused
unintentional
consequences.

Just
as
conventional
food
producers
were
not
prepared
to
hand
a
piece
of
the

market
over
to
GMOs,
neither
was
Big
Pharma
about
to
let
a
few
bioreactor
cows

replace
the
billions
already
invested
in
R&D
facilities.
The
GMO
industry’s
overly

aggressive
PR
approach
triggered
instinctive
reactions
from
industry
titans
to

squash
GMO
applications
at
the
onset,
whether
through
lobbying
or
smear

campaigns.

u Take
a
Bite

In
China,
GMO
sampling
sessions
have
been
the
preferred
method
for
GMO

advocates
to
promote
Golden
Rice.
From
May
to
October
2013,
these
sessions

were
conducted
in
20
cities,
with
over
1,000
volunteers
feasting
on
cakes
and

porridge
made
from
beta-‐carotene
enriched
Golden
Rice.

"The
taste
test
is
the
best
way
to
popularize
GM
food,"
said
Jianbing
Yan,
a

pro-‐GM
professor
at
the
School
of
Life
Sciences
at
Huazhong
Agriculture

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

40

University.
60

The
hope
was
that
these
sampling
sessions
would
reassure
the

public
of
GMO
safety
and
lay
the
groundwork
for
future
commercialization.

But
can
it
really?

Sure,
product
sampling
is
a
proven
method
of
promotional
PR.
Tech

companies
loves
to
handout
their
latest
doodads
for
bloggers
to
fiddle
with.

Cosmetic
brands
lay
out
samples
for
customers
to
try.
Even
supermarket

sampling
booths
effectively
increase
purchases.
But
unlike
a
user-‐friendly

interface,
a
great
shade
of
lipstick
or
a
snack
bursting
with
flavor,
the
benefits
of

consuming
Golden
Rice
are
intangible.
Taste
is
not
a
distinguishing
factor
for
the

GM
rice.
Consumers
will
feel
no
difference
after
sampling,
thus
it
will
unlikely

affect
their
disposition.
Perhaps
unless
people
can
literally
feel
the
vitamins

surge
through
their
bodies
or
gain
a
miraculous
improvement
in
eyesight,
the

only
thing
this
tasting
test
proves
is
that
you
will
not
drop
dead
immediately

after
eating
GMOs.

Of
course,
this
tactic
could
come
in
handy
with
GMOs
designed
for
taste

improvements.

In
addition,
participants
of
these
sampling
sessions
were
random
volunteers

from
the
Internet.
Their
level
of
influence
was
not
taken
into
account
during
the

registration
process.
Organizers
did
not
seem
to
have
reached
out
to
popular

online
food
bloggers
and
nutritionists.
It
is
important
for
consumers
to
have
a

closer
relationship
with
GMOs,
but
with
nearly
1.4
billion
people
in
China
61
,

60

GM
rice
taste
test
quells
doubts,
Xinhua
News
Agency,
Oct
22,
2013

61

http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-‐01/18/content_695553.htm

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

41

trying
to
convince
them
one
at
a
time
does
not
seem
like
the
best
approach.

u Crisis
Response

Thus
far,
accusations
and
rumors
about
GMOs
have
largely
been
dealt
with

in
the
same
way
scientific
disputes
are
settled.
After
an
opposing
theory
is
raised,

a
group
of
pro-‐GMO
scientists
sets
out
to
disprove
it,
spending
months
or
even

years
on
designing
and
executing
tests.
Rebuttals
laden
with
scientific
jargon
are

then
written
and
published
in
professional
journals,
such
as
Nature
and
Science.

Meanwhile,
the
original
argument
remains
undisputed
in
the
public
domain,

which
allows
them
the
opportunity
to
spread
further
and
potentially
morph
into

more
serious
allegations.

Unfortunately,
this
approach
fails
to
look
at
the
problem
as
a
public
relations

crisis
or
an
attack
on
the
GMO
brand,
or
even
react
in
any
sense
of
urgency.
After

dozens
of
these
incidents,
no
noticeable
crisis
response
plan
has
been
detected.

In
addition,
the
rebuttals
are
not
only
published
in
exclusive
scientific

journals,
they
are
often
complete
gibberish
to
the
general
public.
The
author,
a

master’s
student
in
a
renowned
American
university
with
a
B.A.
in
Journalism,

even
had
difficulty
interpreting
the
papers.
It’s
hard
to
imagine
any

self-‐respecting
consumer
would
spend
his
or
her
free
time
reading
about
“α
-‐lactalbumin,”
“atherosclerotic
plaques”
or
“recombinant
human
antithrombin

III.”

u GMOAnswers

The
most
visible
public
outreach
effort
seen
so
far
is
GMOAnswers,
a
website

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

42

the
Council
for
Biotechnology
Information
introduced
in
September
2013
as
part

of
an
industry-‐wide
effort
to
advocate
for
GM
technology,
according
to

POLITICO.
62

The
new
website
aims
to
“make
information
about
GMOs
in
food

and
agriculture
easier
to
access
and
understand,”
by
providing
independent
and

company
experts
to
answer
GMO-‐related
questions.
It
encourages
users
to
“Ask

tough
questions.
Be
skeptical.
Be
open.”
63

At
first
glance,
the
website
has
a
clean
design
and
is
easy
to
navigate.
The

color
and
layout
lend
an
environmental,
scientific
and
energetic
sense
that
is

consistent
with
the
image
that
GMOs
are
trying
to
portray.
Digging
deeper
into

the
content,
readers
will
find
a
veritable
treasure
chest
full
of
information,
from

GMO
history,
to
scientific
studies,
to
GMOs’
impact
on
health.
As
advertised,
the

site
makes
it
effortless
for
anyone
to
ask
questions.
Expert
answers
are
tailored

to
each
question
and
carry
a
human
touch.
The
language
seems
calibrated
to
be

conversational,
maintaining
a
professional
manner
without
getting
overly

technical.
The
“Community
Manager”
is
also
attentive
and
helpful
in
the

comment
section,
referring
people
to
similar
answers
or
outside
resources.

This
site
should
also
get
a
gold
star
for
transparency.
The
expert’s
name,
title

and
company
are
clearly
given
before
each
response.
It
also
does
not
try
to
hide

the
fact
that
GMOAnswers
is
funded
by
six
biotech
corporations.
On
the
contrary,

it
provides
links
to
company
websites
and
prompts
viewer
to
learn
more
about

62

Monsanto
confronts
devilish
public
image
problem,
Jenny
Hopkinson,
POLITICO

63

http://gmoanswers.com/about

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

43

their
safety
assessments.
64

Having
said
that,
there
are
still
improvements
to
be
made.
The
site
only

collects
1-‐2
questions
a
day
and
has
112
listed
experts,
65

yet
it
is
inexplicably

backlogged.
Some
questions
posted
as
early
as
September
2013
remain

unanswered.
66

With
sites
like
these
specifically
aimed
at
providing
answers,

expectations
for
immediate
response
are
high.
Real-‐time
responses
during
the

social
media
era
have
spoiled
Internet
users.
Consumers’
attitude
could
quickly

turn
from
neutral
to
hostile
if
they
feel
they
are
somehow
being
neglected.

Untimely
or
selective
responses
will
unlikely
go
unpunished.

The
site
is
also
not
up
to
standard
in
terms
of
search
engine
optimization

(SEO).
When
the
author
typed
“GMO”
in
to
Google,
a
list
of
anti-‐GMO
campaigns

immediately
poped
up
on
the
first
page.
GMOAnswers
does
not
come
into
view

until
the
third
page.
By
then,
the
viewer
is
probably
influenced
by
all
the

negativity
that
was
force-‐fed
them
in
the
first
two
pages.
Not
publicized
through

mainstream
media,
the
site
flies
under
the
radar.
It
is,
therefore,
constrained
to

people
who
have
already
heard
about
the
website,
which
results
in
limited

participation.

This
tactic,
though
a
commendable
first
step
towards
public
education,
is

more
reactive
than
proactive.
It
is
only
able
to
reach
people
who
take
the

initiative
to
search
for
answers
and
fails
to
push
these
messages
out
to
the
vast

pool
of
consumers
who
may
be
concerned
but
uneducated
on
the
topic.
The

64

http://gmoanswers.com/public-‐review

65

http://gmoanswers.com/experts

66

http://gmoanswers.com/questions

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

44

website
tackles
skeptics
one-‐at-‐a-‐time
with
highly
targeted
responses,
which
is
a

critical
part
of
improving
the
public
image
of
GMOs,
but
it
will
need
further

support
from
mass
readership
and
social
media
to
effectively
get
the
message

across.

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

45

Chapter
Eight:
GM
Animals
vs.
GM
Crops
–
A
Communication

Perspective

The
term
“GM
animals”
refers
to
those
that
have
had
their
genetic

constitution
modified
by
genetic
engineering
techniques
as
opposed
to
classical

selection
procedures.
67

While
it
shares
the
same
basic
principle
as
GM
crops,

they
are
not
merely
two
sides
of
the
same
coin.

Despite
the
fact
that
the
development
of
GM
animals
preceded
that
of
GM

crops
68
,
GM
animals
have
not
enjoyed
the
same
commercial
success
that
was

granted
to
the
latter.
The
U.S.
dinner
table
has
yet
to
serve
a
single
GM
animal.

Twenty-‐four
years
after
the
birth
of
the
first
GM
animal,
only
one
is
near
the

commercialization
finish
line
–
transgenic
salmon
–
but
only
after
an
18-‐year,

$60-‐million
battle.
69

Many
technological
hurdles,
such
as
the
higher
biological
complexity
of

animals,
their
longer
reproductive
cycles
and
the
lower
availability
of
funding

stood
in
the
way
of
developing
GM
animals
more
quickly.
70

However,
there
are

several
social
and
ethical
differences
that
set
them
apart
from
GM
crops.
These

distinctions,
with
significant
communication
implications,
call
for
the
attention
of

communication
professionals
in
the
brave
new
world
of
commercialized
GM

67

Role
of
genetically
engineered
animals
in
future
food
production,
KA
McColl,
B
Clarke
and
TJ
Doran,

Australian
Veterinary
Journal

68

‘Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?”,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

69

Transgenic
salmon
nears
approval,
Heidi
Ledford,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

70

‘Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?”,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

46

animals.

u Animal
Welfare

Humans
tend
to
have
a
stronger
emotional
attachment
with
animals
than

with
plants,
thus
animal
testing
and
losses
are
considered
less
ethically

acceptable.
One
need
only
look
at
the
multitude
of
cat
videos
trending
on

YouTube
to
realize
this
is
true.
As
Vazquez-‐Salat
of
the
Global
Biopolitics

Research
Group
at
King’s
College
London
conceded:
“Animal
welfare
has
an

increasing
profile
on
the
global
agenda.”
Influential
animal
welfare
organizations,

such
as
People
for
the
Ethical
Treatment
of
Animals
(PETA),
Compassion
in

World
Farming
(CIWF),
Royal
Society
for
the
Prevention
of
Cruelty
to
Animals

(RSPCA)
and
Eurogroup
have
all
been
vocal
about
their
strong
disproval
of
any

use
of
GM
animals
for
food
consumption.
71

Dissatisfied,
these
activist

organizations
may
go
to
extreme
lengths
to
protest,
campaign
and
turn

consumer
sentiment
against
GM
animals.

Conversely,
giving
disease-‐resistant
traits
to
animals
seemingly
would
be
a

boon.
Think
of
all
the
mass
slaughter
that
could
be
eliminated
during
outbreaks,

the
subsequent
environmental
damages
that
could
be
avoided,
the
food

production
that
could
be
increased
and
the
people
we
could
protect
from

diseases.
72

But
don’t
be
so
sure.
While
American
organizations
typically
believe

this
is
a
positive
step
towards
animal
welfare,
European
activists,
more
adamant

71

‘Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?”,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

72

Role
of
genetically
engineered
animals
in
future
food
production,
KA
McColl,
B
Clarke
and
TJ
Doran,

Australian
Veterinary
Journal

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

47

in
their
disapproval
of
GM
technology,
see
it
as
an
excuse
to
lower
housing

conditions
and
veterinary
interventions.
73

It
is
a
multifaceted
issue
that
merits
serious
thought
from
communication

professionals.
So
before
GM
advocates
start
bragging
about
this
shiny
new

technology,
beware
of
the
rising
tide
of
social
expectations
when
it
comes
to

animal
welfare,
lest
one
suffer
the
wrath
of
animal
rights
activists
directed
at
the

company’s
public
image.

u An
Ethical
Conundrum

While
environmental
risks
have
been
the
front
and
center
of
the
GM
crops

debate,
GM
animals
may
not
pose
the
same
level
of
environmental
threat,
with

the
exception
of
a
few
highly
mobile
species.
On
the
contrary,
ethical
and
cultural

values
are
the
main
battlegrounds
for
GM
animals.

In
a
survey
conducted
by
Environics
International
(2000),
respondents

expressed
their
attitude
towards
eight
different
applications
of
GM
technology.

Nearly
three-‐quarters
favored
various
usage
of
GM
crops
and
GM
bacteria.

However,
over
half
said
a
big
NO
to
animal
produced
medicines
and
increasing

productivity
(54
and
62
percent
respectively).
Forty-‐two
percent
wagged
their

fingers
at
GM
animal
feed,
even
when
it
led
to
healthier
meat.
74

From
these

results,
it
is
apparent
that
any
mention
of
“animals”
could
cause
support
for
GM

to
take
a
dive.
Similar
surveys
have
revealed
that
public
acceptance
for
GM

73

‘Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?”,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

74

Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

48

animal
products
are
merely
20-‐30%
in
the
US.
75

Towering
public
concern
over

GM
animals
indicates
that
complex
ethical
and
emotional
issues
have
long
gone

unaddressed
in
the
communication
process.

Exhibit
6
Consumer
attitudes
toward
eight
usages
of
GM
technology
(Source:
Environic
International,

2000)
76

Vazquez-‐Salat
also
warned
of
“stronger
values
attached
to
animals
or
to

specific
species.”
77

For
example,
how
would
Hindus
react
to
the
genetic
altering

of
the
cow,
a
creature
they
revere
as
the
source
of
food
and
a
symbol
of
life?
78

Would
a
vegetable
injected
with
pig’s
genes
be
acceptable
to
Muslim
and
Jewish

communities?
Would
a
consumer
with
religious
beliefs
permit
them
to
take

drugs
produced
by
certain
animal
bioreactors,
even
if
were
to
save
their
life?
If

the
author
had
to
guess,
it’s
unwise
to
pit
technology
against
faith.

75

Trait
selection
and
welfare
of
genetically
engineered
animals
in
agriculture,
Greger
M.,
J
Anim
Sci
2010;

88:811-‐814

76

Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

77

‘Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?”,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

78

http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/things/cow.htm

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

49

So,
while
GM
technology
may
be
well
intentioned,
it
gives
off
the
impression

of
treating
animals
like
products
off
an
industrial
assembly
line
79

–
a
notion
that

is
frowned
upon
in
the
public
eye.
Without
executing
extreme
caution
and

sensitivity
in
the
communication
process,
one
could
find
oneself
in
the
midst
of

ethical
and
religious
turmoil.

u A
Silver
Lining

While
large
numbers
of
consumers
recoil
at
the
thought
of
consuming
GM

animals,
pharmaceutical
usages
of
GM
animals
are
blessed
by
higher
acceptance

due
to
their
immediate
life-‐saving
properties.

In
the
aforementioned
Environics
study,
the
use
of
GM
technology
in

developing
new
medicines
received
clear
overwhelming
support
(85
percent).
80

Obtaining
such
public
goodwill
not
only
clears
a
huge
hurdle
between
laboratory

and
market,
it
provides
just
the
“shot
in
the
arm”
regulators
and
investors
have

been
waiting
for.

Through
strategic
public
relations
planning,
pharmaceutical
applications

and
their
benefits
have
the
potential
to
become
the
poster
child
for
GM
animals,

influencing
public
opinion
and
opening
doors
for
the
adoption
of
the
technology

in
the
breeding
sector.

79

Role
of
genetically
engineered
animals
in
future
food
production,
KA
McColl,
B
Clarke
and
TJ
Doran,

Australian
Veterinary
Journal

80

Public
Attitudes
Towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

50

Chapter
Nine:
Meet
the
Players
–
A
Profile

Question:
Who
would
you
trust
most
with
information
regarding
GM
foods?

A. Friend
or
family
members

B. Respected
scientists

C. Biotech
company
executives

D. Activists

E. Your
favorite
journalist
or
TV

personalities

F. Ordinary
farmers

G. Government
authorities

There
is
seldom
an
issue
so
multifaceted
and
socially
impactful
as
the
debate

on
GMOs.
One
of
the
major
flaws
of
the
‘90s
GMO
crisis
was
underestimating
the

influence
that
different
players
can
have
in
the
adoption
of
new
biotechnological

applications.
81

Now,
the
chessboard
of
GM
animals
is
laid
out
before
us.
Players

are
spread
intricately
across
the
board.
One
false
move,
and
checkmate.

u Consumers

Consumers
are
arguably
the
most
important
players
in
the
GMO
crisis.
They

are
the
end
users
for
most
GMO
applications.
As
noted
by
Renkoski,
“technology

without
the
consumer
and
[a]
market
is
a
wasted
effort.”

Anyone
familiar
with
the
GMO
issue
would
agree
that
consumer
attitudes

towards
GMOs
differ
from
country
to
country.
It
is
impossible
to
draw
broad

conclusions.
Public
relations
professionals
will
need
to
gauge
the
specific

strength
of
forces
at
play
and
the
sentiment
in
their
own
countries,
although
in

81

Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

51

the
next
decade,
the
United
States
and
developing
countries
like
China
are

expected
to
be
the
biggest
markets
for
GMOs.

In
the
U.S.,
though
a
vocal
minority
stands
firmly
against
GMOs,
the
majority

of
consumers
seem
to
know
every
little
about
this
complex
issue.
Their
attention

span
may
have
been
shorted
due
to
political
spats,
reality
television
and
cat

videos
on
YouTube
all
vying
for
their
attention.
According
to
the
ESA
Working

Paper,
barely
40
percent
of
American
adults
managed
to
stay
awake
long
enough

to
read
about
biotechnology.
82

Exhibit
7
Percentage
of
American
consumers
who
have
heard
or
read
“some”
or
“a
lot”
about

biotechnology.

In
addition,
most
American
consumers
are
detached
from
the
food

production
process.
They
may
be
unaware
of
the
prevalence
of
GMOs
and
most

don’t
even
realize
they
have
already
consumed
it.
According
to
a
2013
New
York

Times
poll,
a
mere
14
percent
of
surveyed
adults
correctly
believed
that
more

82

Hoban,
1996,
2001;
IFIC,
2001

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

52

than
half
of
our
food
contains
GM
ingredients.
83

Of
those
clued-‐in,

three-‐quarters
were
worried
about
GMOs
in
their
food,
with
their
top
concern

being
health
risks.

84

According
to
the
Pew
Research
Center,
Americans
are
trusting
of

authoritative
figures
to
determine
food
safety.
Once
they
are
informed
of
how

widespread
GMOs
are,
they
are
more
likely
to
shed
original
fears,
though
some

feel
a
sense
of
betrayal.
85

This
presents
a
great
opportunity
for
the
FDA
to
take

the
lead
in
educating
consumers
about
the
existence
of
GMOs
in
the
American

food
supply
and
the
safety
measures
that
have
been
taken
to
ensure
they
can
eat

their
morning
cereal
in
peace.

American
consumers
want
to
see
a
wide
variety
of
information
on
food

labels,
which
includes
GMO
labeling.
However,
44
percent
of
them
refuse
to
pay

for
the
costs
that
come
along
with
it.
86

Taking
advantage
of
this
state
of
mind,
an

economic
argument
could
be
played
up
to
convince
consumers
that
GMO
labeling

is
a
value-‐add
rather
than
a
necessity.

Consumer
profiles
in
China
paint
a
rosier
picture
for
GMOs.
“Lack
of

knowledge
is
not
a
major
obstacle
in
China,”
said
Dr.
Lai
of
China
Agricultural

University.
Asian
consumers
tend
to
be
better
informed
about
the
existence
of

GMOs
in
their
food
supply
than
Americans.
Most
consumers
in
China
are
aware

that
they
have
eaten
GMOs
and
take
no
measures
to
avoid
doing
so.
They
are

83

Pew
Research
Center,
2001

84

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

85

Pew
Research
Center,
2001

86

Center
for
Science
in
the
Public
Interest
(CSPI)

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

53

open
to
sampling
GM
foods.
An
emphasis
on
improved
nutritional
value
and

reduced
cost
during
the
communication
process
should
be
enough
to
overcome

any
initial
hesitation.
87

Because
Chinese
consumers
have
suffered
one
food
safety
scare
after

another,
they
are
far
more
concerned
about
nutritional
value,
microbial

contamination
and
pesticide
residue
than
unfounded
rumors
about
GMOs.
The

labels
they
most
often
check
on
food
items
are
“expiration
date,”
“ingredients”

and
“nutritional
value.”
The
Asian
Food
Information
Center
reports
that
the

majority
of
Chinese
consumers
express
satisfaction
with
the
information
they

are
currently
offered
and
do
not
insist
on
labeling
GMOs.
88

However,
Chinese
consumers
may
harbor
an
almost
childish
rebelliousness

when
it
comes
to
information
from
their
own
government.
They
may
discredit

and
reject
any
information
they
deem
government
propaganda.
For
example,

announcements
from
authoritative
government
agencies,
such
as
the
Ministry
of

Agriculture,
defending
the
safety
of
consuming
GMOs,
have
been
were
mocked

on
social
media
in
the
past.
Respectable
scientists
speaking
in
favor
of
the

technology
have
been
suspected
to
be
mouthpieces
for
the
government.

Unfortunately,
in
a
socialist
political
system,
not
many
institutions
can
sever
ties

with
the
government.
In
this
case,
biotechnology
companies
will
need
to
step
up

and
be
the
flag
bearers
of
the
GMO
campaign,
since
they
do
not
ignite
the
same

kind
of
consumer
outrage
in
China
as
they
do
in
the
U.S..

87

Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

88

Asian
Food
Information
Center,
2003

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

54

Despite
various
differences,
there
is
one
striking
similarity
across
the
board.

Consumers
express
surprisingly
little
interest
in
learning
more
about
the

technology
or
the
scientific
principles
behind
it.
Communicators
cannot
expect

them
to
sift
through
scientific
journals
or
tune
into
a
debate
starring
rambling

scientist.
Most
consumers
simply
want
to
know
what
GMOs
mean
for
their
daily

diet
in
terms
of
options,
quality
and
safety.

u Monsanto
and
Friends

There
is
a
saying
often
quoted
by
activists:
“If
you
control
the
seed,
you

control
the
food;
if
you
control
the
food,
you
control
the
people.”
GMOs
have

been
accused
of
delivering
“concentrated
power
and
profits
into
the
hands
of
a

few
large
corporations.”
89

But
if
it
were
profit
making
that
these
dissenters

oppose,
why
are
they
not
picketing
outside
of
ExxonMobil
and
Shell
when
these

companies
are
making
a
killing
from
oil
drilling?
How
is
profiting
off
of
GMOs

any
different
from
selling
cars?

Activists’
real
beef
is
with
large
biotech
corporations,
or
as

hazmat-‐suit-‐wearing
activists
in
Occupy
Monsanto
would
probably
describe
it:

“farmer
bullying,
money
grubbing,
demonic
seed-‐spreading
villains.”
At
the

center
of
the
storm
lies
DuPont,
Bayer
CropScience,
Dow
AgroSciences,
BASF,

and
the
most
notorious
of
them
all
–
Monsanto.

The
fate
of
biotech
seed
companies
tells
a
great
cautionary
tale
for
GM

animals.
For
years,
these
firms
seemed
to
have
shrugged
off
criticisms,
allowing

89

A
New
Breed,
Daniel
Cressey,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

55

conjecture
to
run
wild
in
the
public
domain,
while
allocating
most
of
their
public

relations
funds
to
farmer
outreach
and
lobbying
efforts.
A
lack
of
transparency

and
open
dialogue
has
given
way
to
“other
actors
with
other
agendas
to
fill
in
the

gaps,”
observed
Camille
Ryan,
a
research
associate
in
the
College
of
Agriculture

and
Bioresources
at
the
University
of
Saskatchewan.
90

Regrettably,
a
few
of
these
bio
corps
have
suspicious
pasts
that
warrant
the

deep-‐rooted
mistrust.
Monsanto,
in
its
early
days,
manufactured
sulfuric
acid,

polychlorinated
biphenyl
(PCB)
and
other
chemicals,
which
later
were
found
to

cause
reproductive,
developmental
and
immune
system
disorders
in
people.

During
the
Vietnam
War,
Monsanto
was
one
of
the
U.S.
military’s
main
suppliers

for
Agent
Orange,
which
the
public
later
learned
is
a
cancer-‐inducing
herbicide.
91

Given
the
history,
one
can’t
blame
consumers
for
second-‐guessing
before
putting

food
manufactured
by
this
very
same
company
into
their
mouths.

It’s
no
wonder
biotech
giants
may
have
turned
a
blind
eye
to
public
image

problems,
since
bad
public
relations
is
likely
to
make
hardly
a
dent
on
their

respective
bottom
line.
In
the
midst
of
a
media
storm
induced
by
the
so-‐called

“Monsanto
Protection
Act,”
which
sought
to
protect
the
agricultural
giant
from

litigation
in
the
face
of
health
risks,
92

the
St.
Louis-‐based
seed
company
actually

saw
a
25
percent
increase
in
net
income
during
2013,
pocketing
$2.5
billion
on

net
sales
of
$14.9
billion.
93

90

Monsanto
confronts
devilish
public
image
problem,
Jenny
Hopkinson,
POLITICO

91

TIMELINE:
History
of
Monsanto
Co,
Reuters

92

Monsant-‐Oh
No!,
Alex
Palombo,
Huffington
Post,
March
28,
2013

93

Monsanto
confronts
devilish
public
image
problem,
Jenny
Hopkinson,
POLITICO

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

56

But
the
days
of
reckoning
are
at
hand.
With
public
outbursts
pressuring

policymakers
for
GMO
labeling
and
more
stringent
regulation,
even
these
biotech

titans
are
starting
to
wring
their
hands.
For
the
first
time,
they
may
be
admitting

the
need
to
step
up
their
game.
Robert
Fraley,
executive
vice
president
and
chief

technology
officer
for
Monsanto
acknowledged
that
his
company
has
“been

absolutely
riveted
and
focused
on
giving
technology
and
tools
to
farmers
to

improve
their
productivity
and
yield
and
we
haven’t
spent
nearly
the
time
we

have
needed
to
on
talking
to
consumers
and
talking
to
social
media
and
really

intercepting
this.”
94

To
be
fair,
Monsanto
seems
to
have
taken
on
its
fair
share
of
corporate
social

responsibility
to
eradicate
world
hunger,
support
education,
ensure

environmental
sustainability,
and
more
95
,
through
initiatives
such
as
the

Beachell-‐Borlaug
International
Scholars
Program
96

and
Project
SHARE
97
.

While
such
CSR
hasn’t
necessarily
traveled
as
far
as
the
public
skepticism,

things
may
be
looking
up,
though.
During
the
second
half
of
2013,
Monsanto
has

shaken
up
its
senior
public
relations
staff,
and
scaled
up
its
historical

relationship
with
Fleishman
Hillard,
a
venerated
public
relations
and
reputation

management
agency,
to
flesh
out
a
comprehensive
communications
campaign.
98

The
biotech
seed
companies’
devilish
public
image
has
trickled
down
to

pollute
the
whole
GM
industry.
It
is
impossible
for
GM
animals
to
start
with
a

94

Monsanto
confronts
devilish
public
image
problem,
Jenny
Hopkinson,
POLITICO

95

http://sustainability.monsanto.com/communities/our-‐commitment-‐to-‐the-‐communities-‐of-‐the-‐world

96

http://sustainability.monsanto.com/food-‐nutrition/monsantos-‐beachell-‐borlaug-‐international-‐scholars-‐

program-‐mbbisp

97

http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/project-‐SHARE.aspx

98

Monsanto
Selects
FleishmanHillard
To
Reshape
Reputation,
Arun
Sudhaman,
The
Holmes
Report

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

57

clean
slate
when
it
comes
to
public
perception.
However,
with
the
industry
more

aware
of
the
problem
and
experimenting
with
ways
to
solve
it,
there
is
yet
hope

for
effective
communications
that
can
set
the
record
straight.

u The
Regulators

Regulators
may
be
caught
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place.
On
one
hand,

some
legislators
rely
on
campaign
contributions
from
biotech
giants
to
remain
in

public
office.
Some
may
be
firm
believers
and
strong
advocates
for
the

technology.
On
the
other
hand,
they
may
be
afraid
that
publicly
endorsing
GMOs

or
opposing
GMO
labeling
will
ruin
their
political
future.
When
Greggor
Ilagan,
a

member
of
the
state
of
Hawaii’s
County
Council,
voted
against
an
island-‐wide

ban
on
GMOs,
he
was
met
with
swift
and
explicit
retaliation.
Some
constituents

even
threatened
to
“consider
more
progressive
candidates”
for
the
next
term.
99

Regardless
of
how
they
personally
feel
towards
GMOs,
elected
officials
have

a
whole
other
world
of
political
considerations
that
may
affect
their

decision-‐making,
including
political
tradeoffs,
trade
protection
and
constituency

or
party
interests.
This
is
where
public
relation
professionals
often
find
their

hands
tied.
For
example,
a
senators
from
Alaska
might
not
vote
favorably

towards
approving
commercial
sale
of
a
GM
salmon
that
could
potentially
cripple

their
fishery
industry,
no
matter
how
persuasive
the
PR
campaign.

Legislators
are
subject
to
messaging
from
both
sides
of
the
table.
But
with

full
schedules
and
multiple
agendas,
they
may
be
unable
to
devote
their
full

99

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

58

attention
to
seeking
the
truth
about
GMOs.
“It
takes
so
much
time
to
find
out

what’s
true,”
observed
Mr.
Ilagan
during
his
truth-‐seeking
quest
on
GMOs.

Legislators
may
have
a
hard
time
distinguishing
fact
from
fiction,
falling
prey
to

unfounded
rumors,
or
phony
experts,
not
to
mention
highly
opinionated
and

vociferous
constituents.
During
the
GMO
labeling
hearing,
the
Hawaii
County

Council
spent
45
minutes
listening
to
the
ramblings
of
a
self-‐styled
“expert”
who

it
was
discovered
had
no
actual
scientific
credentials,
while
declining
to
call

scientists
from
the
University
of
Hawaii
to
the
stand.
100

This
scenario
shows
how
public
relations
practitioners
may
help
make

legislators’
lives
easier
by
presenting
easily
accessible
information,
offering

credible
expert
testimony
and
helping
persuade
their
constituents.
One
may
not

be
able
to
alter
the
vast
political
machine
at
work,
but
one
can
serve
up
a
positive

side
of
the
story
on
a
silver
platter
instead
of
having
them
dig
through
the
muck.

u The
Farmers

Farmers
can
bear
direct
witness
to
the
benefits
of
GM
technology.
After

adopting
GM
seeds,
they
have
found
themselves
working
less,
earning
more,

improving
crop
yields
and
physical
health.
Between
targeted
marketing

campaigns
and
apparent
profits,
farmers
have
quickly
warmed
up
to
GM

technology,
which
will
likely
be
the
case
for
GM
animal
products,
as
well.
Some

resistance
from
organic
and
conventional
farmers,
however,
is
still
to
be

expected.

100

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

59

Despite
these
advances,
communication
between
farmers
and
biotech

companies
still
leaves
much
to
be
desired.
There
have
been
numerous
occasions

in
which
inadequate
education
has
resulted
in
the
misuse
of
GM
products,

inadvertently
creating
superweeds
and
superbugs.
This
led
to
some
very
bad

publicity
that
still
haunts
GMOs
today.
Let’s
hope
PR
professionals
have
learned
a

thing
or
two
that
can
be
applied
to
facilitating
future
conversation
regarding
GM

animals.

Farmers’
voices
are
seldom
heard
in
mainstream
media,
which
is
a
pity

considering
their
trustworthy
and
down-‐to-‐earth
image.
They
could
be
enlisted

as
a
valuable
addition
to
the
team
of
GMO
advocates.
After
all,
a
farmer
with

rustic
charm
could
resonate
with
consumers
and
activists
in
a
way
that
a

corporate
executive
in
a
slick
suit
cannot.

u The
Food
Vendors

Food
vendors,
including
suppliers,
manufacturers,
distributors,

supermarkets
and
restaurants,
are
the
gatekeepers
to
consumers’
plates.
They

play
an
important
role
in
introducing
and
creating
appetite
for
new
foods.

Luckily,
their
interest
largely
aligns
with
the
GMO
industry.

Most
food
vendors
welcomed
the
technology
with
arms
wide
open,
as
it

translates
to
cheaper
prices,
increased
food
availability,
steady
food
supply
and

enhanced
nutritional
value.
According
to
interviews
conducted
by
the
ESA
with

250
key
leaders
from
the
U.S.
food
industry
in
2001,
the
overall
consensus
was

soaring
confidence
in
GM
technology
and
in
the
government’s
ability
to
regulate

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

60

food
safety.
101

Rather,
respondents
indicate
that
the
matter
that
keeps
them
up
at
night

involves
the
lack
of
consumer
acceptance.
On
account
of
their
close
proximity
to

consumers,
these
representatives
of
the
literal
food
chain
are
vulnerable
to

boycotts,
activism
and
consumer
backlash,
which
can
directly
impact
their
public

image.
As
a
result,
food
vendors
are
caving
under
pressure
and
starting
to

backpedal,
especially
those
touting
a
“green”
label.
Whole
Foods,
for
example,

has
abandoned
Chobani
Greek
Yogurt
in
early
2014
for
GMO-‐free
options.
102

The
grocery
giant
even
went
so
far
as
making
a
pledge
to
replace
some
foods

containing
GM
ingredients
and
label
others
by
2018.
Trader
Joe’s
markets
posted

signs
that
read:
“No
GMOs
Sold
Here.”
General
Mills
has
been
pressured
into

replacing
genetically
modified
ingredients
in
its
Cheerios.
103

Food
vendors
are
acutely
aware
of
the
inseparable
relationships
between

GMOs,
their
food
supply
and
consumers’
regular
diet.
Nevertheless,
they
may
be

envious
of
the
profits
GMOs
have
brought
to
farmers
and
beginning
to
wonder

why
they
got
the
short
end
of
the
stick.
For
the
time
being,
while
they
still
may
be

willing
to
align
with
the
GMO
industry
in
the
face
of
controversy
on
account
of

potential
future
benefits,
they
are
behaving
like
startled
rabbits.
They
could

become
a
strong
ally
in
the
quest
to
reform
the
public
image
of
GMOs,
if
PR

professionals
manage
to
keep
reminding
them
of
the
benefits
of
GMOs.
Or
even

101

Hoban
2001

102

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/foods-‐stop-‐selling-‐products-‐greek-‐yogurt-‐giant-‐chobani/story?id=21

262692

103

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

61

better,
PR
pros
could
help
them
educate
and
convince
their
consumers.

u The
Conventional
Food
Producers

It
is
fair
to
say
that
traditional
food
producers
may
feel
more
than
a
little

threatened
by
up-‐and-‐coming
new
GM
technology.
They
have
continually

bankrolled
pro-‐labeling
legislation,
since
doing
so
will
likely
give
their

conventional
products
a
competitive
advantage.
On
Washington
State’s
I-‐522

ballot
initiative,
conventional
food
producers
outspent
their
opposition
by
a
4:1

margin,
contributing
$3,489,078
for
the
campaign.
104

Exhibit
8
Conventional
and
organic
food
producers
are
main
supporters
of
pro-‐GMO-‐labeling

campaigns
(Source:
MapLight)

With
GMO
production
growing
by
the
year,
not
all
of
their
PR
tactics
may

prioritize
ethical
concerns.
For
example,
some
extraordinarily
“creative”
food

producers
have
come
up
with
PR
campaigns
that
use
GMOs
to
defame
their

104

Washington
State
GMO
Labeling
Initiative
is
Round
Two
for
CA
Prop.
37
Doners,
Rosie
Cima,
MapLight,

Aug
13,
2013

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

62

competition
–
a
case
of
“two
birds
with
one
stone,”
as
they
say.
In
2011,
one
of

China’s
top
edible
oil
manufacturers
LuHua
signed
a
PR
contract
to
publish
an

inflammatory
online
article
accusing
its
main
competitor
of
“sneaking
GM

soybean
and
canola
oil
into
Chinese
supermarkets.”
It
went
on
to
call
the

competitor’s
use
of
GMOs
“despicable”
and
“a
betrayal
to
the
country
and
its

people.”
105

This
may
only
be
the
start;
the
commercial
introduction
of
GM

animals
could
provide
a
lot
of
fresh
material
to
work
with.

With
economic
interests
at
odds,
it
is
unlikely
that
conventional
food

producers
would
change
their
minds
about
GMOs.
Nevertheless,
communication

messaging
towards
conventional
food
producers
could
be
less
threatening,

offering
suggestions
for
coexistence
and
market
segmentation,
instead
of

suggesting
GMO
providers
are
gunning
for
their
livelihood.

u The
Pharmaceutical
Companies

For
such
a
deep-‐pocketed
industry,
pharmaceutical
companies
are
extremely

cautious
with
their
investments.
Their
actions
suggest
they
eye
profits
hungrily,

but
may
be
reluctant
to
make
moves
due
to
the
fear
of
an
animal
welfare

backlash.
According
to
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat
and
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine
in
a

2013
article
published
in
Transgenic
Research,
pharmaceutical
companies

evaluate
GM
animal
applications
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis,
and
are
only
willing
to

part
with
their
money
after
an
application
is
cleared
by
regulatory
agencies
and

can
lead
to
substantial
rewards.
They
will
not
pick
up
the
tab
for
applications

105

Busting
Chinese-‐style
GM
fallacies
and
rumors,
Tie
Li,
Southern
Weekly,
August
19,
2011

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

63

with
only
a
small
pool
of
patients,
such
as
drugs
produced
by
animal

bioreactors.
106

And
one
can
only
imagine
that
any
GM
application
that
competes

with
existing
products
is
swatted
down
like
flies.

They
are
well-‐established
powerhouses
in
a
high-‐entry
barrier
industry,

thus
making
them
important
players
in
GM
animal
investment.

u The
Scientists

Over
the
years,
a
palpable
gloom
had
settled
over
the
bioscience
community.

Scientists
felt
baffled
by
the
tsunami
of
hate
towards
GMOs.
They
are
aggrieved

that
their
life’s
work
is
being
discredited
by
people
who
knows
nothing
about
the

technology.
They
are
often
discounted
and
attacked
by
GMO
critics
as
being

pawns
of
biotechnology
companies
or,
in
China’s
case,
propaganda
machines
of

the
government.

They
have
so
far
been
the
most
vocal
defenders
of
GMOs,
willing
and
eager
to

serve
as
advocates.
But
they
do
not
necessarily
make
the
best
spokesmen,
often

wading
into
debates
with
activists
with
a
hostile
and
condescending
attitude.

Other
more
cool-‐headed
scientists
often
shy
away
from
the
limelight
or
get

overly
technical
when
called
upon
to
testify.
“I
agree
that
we
need
people
with

scientific
know-‐how
to
help
spread
the
message.
But,
personally,
I’m
more

interested
in
the
technology,”
expressed
Dr.
Lai.

Scientists
are
less
popular
as
sources
of
information,
but
more
credible.
They

are
the
best
candidates
for
feeding
information
to
legislators.
Their
testimony

106

Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

64

will
also
be
crucial
in
dispelling
rumors
and
in
the
event
of
a
crisis.
But
first,

public
relations
professionals
will
need
to
lavish
a
handful
of
media
training

hours
to
create
a
suitable
spokesperson.

Perhaps
a
more
serious
problem
than
a
few
steamed-‐up
scientists
is
a
lack
of

consensus
within
the
scientific
community.
“We
welcome
all
skepticism
within
a

rational
range,”
Dr.
Lai
indicated.
However,
though
a
healthy
dose
of
reasonable

doubt
is
healthy,
the
mixed
messages
scientists
are
sending
consumers
is
a
great

source
for
anxiety,
especially
when
activists
take
these
hypothesis
and
go
about

publicizing
them
as
facts.
GMOs
will
always
leave
room
for
doubt
and
a
vigorous

discussion
may
even
propel
the
technology
forward.
But
public
relation

professionals
will
need
to
work
tirelessly
to
help
consumers
distinguish
between

scientific
speculation
and
proven
fact.

u The
Activists

During
the
debate,
both
biotech
companies
and
traditional
food
producers

spent
a
fortune
in
lobbying
regulator
and
politicians,
but
the
activists
proved
to

be
better
persuaders
of
the
public.
107

They
are
the
weight
that
tipped
the
scale

in
this
debate.
Activists
have
waged
a
furious
battle
against
GMOs
with
clear,

consistent,
powerful
messaging,
a
specific
target
audience
and
well-‐orchestrated

grass-‐root
campaigns.

Sensitive
to
the
accusation
that
their
stance
is
anti-‐science,
activists
groups

have
become
extremely
good
at
window
dressing.
They
sometimes
disguise

107

Society
and
GMOs
–
chicken
and
egg?,
Nuria
Vazquez-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Science
&
Society,

EMBO
reports

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

65

themselves
as
experts
in
the
field,
holding
such
ambiguous
titles
as
“research

specialist,”
even
though
they
have
no
credentials
whatsoever.

Although
generalized
into
one
group,
their
missions
vary
greatly.
Their

messages
target
consumers
with
a
special
interest.
Public
relations
professionals

will
need
to
address
each
of
these
subgroups
separately.
Communication
with

them
will
need
to
be
tailored
to
their
specific
needs
and
carried
out
through

different
channels.

First,
there
are
people
who
scream:
“Save
the
environment!”
Environmental

activists
have
raised
some
valid
concerns
regarding
the
environmental
safety
of

GMOs,
but
cannot
always
distinguish
between
reality
and
fallacy.
They
get

consumers
worked
up
by
repeatedly
draw
attention
to
the
negative

environmental
consequences
of
GMOs
while
ignoring
obvious
benefits.
They

have
been
extremely
active
in
protesting
against
GM
crops,
but
are
expected
to

be
less
involved
with
GM
animals
since
they
pose
little
threat
to
the
environment,

(except
for
highly
mobile
animals
like
fish).
Conversely,
there
is
even
an

opportunity
to
get
these
activists
on
our
side,
by
informing
them
of
the

tremendous
environmental
benefits
of
such
GM
animal
products
like
the

Enviropig.

Next,
there
are
people
who
demand:
“Protect
the
animals!”
Animal
rights

activists
have
been
one
of
the
strongest
opponents
of
GM
animals
and
their

influence
will
only
get
stronger
as
more
GM
animal
products
are
reviewed
for

the
market.
PR
professionals
need
to
express
the
same
level
of
concern
for

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

66

animals
through
communication.
Perhaps
the
best
way
to
ease
their
collective

minds
is
to
persuade
them
that
though
scientific
risks
are
inevitable,
companies

and
scientists
are
dedicated
to
preventing
animal
suffering.
Several
successful

cases
have
already
proven
that
GM
technology
can
be
a
vehicle
to
improve

animal
welfare.

Then,
there
are
people
who
declare:
“We
have
the
right
to
know!”
They
are

advocates
for
GMO
labeling.
They
do
not
object
to
GM
technology,
or
even
its

presence
in
the
food
supply.
They
have
a
strong
moral
compass
and
believe
that

they
are
“being
denied
their
right
to
information
about
what
they
eat.”
108

Of
all

the
activist
groups,
they
are
the
most
reasonable
and
receptive
to

communication.
Most
labeling
supporters
are
unaware
of
the
economic
burden

GMO
labeling
would
impose,
or
of
the
unfair
treatment
it
would
cause
for

manufacturers
of
such
products.
Public
relation
professionals
will
need
to
bring

these
arguments
out
of
the
courtroom
and
into
the
public
eye.

Or,
there
are
people
who
ask:
“Can
we
trust
you?”
They
do
not
believe
that,

when
it
comes
down
to
decision-‐making,
biotech
companies
will
choose
social

responsibility
over
profit.
Some
are
terrified
that
biotech
giants
will
eventually

take
control
of
the
global
food
supply
and
have
everyone
at
their
mercy.
They

reject
GMOs
as
a
part
of
fighting
against
the
industrial
food
system.
Some
have

misgivings
that
biotech
companies
are
not
telling
the
whole
story
about
the

potential
harms
of
GMOs.
In
order
to
put
their
fears
to
rest,
federal
regulators

108

GMO
foods
and
the
trust
issue,
Jan
8,
2014,
The
New
York
Times

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

67

will
need
to
send
out
strong
reassuring
messages
and
back
them
up
with

necessary
protective
actions.

There
are
people
who
exclaim:
“How
dare
we
humans
attempt
to
change

God’s
creations!”
They
are
often
naturalists
who
believe
everything
should
be

left
to
their
own
device.
Taoists
in
China
who
live
by
Lao
Tzu’s
philosophy
of
“let

nature
take
its
course”
are
a
prime
example.
They
are,
more
or
less,
anti-‐science

in
nature.
They
are
a
relatively
marginal
group
with
limited
influence,
but
more

radical
religious
groups
might
resort
to
radical
actions
like
demolishing
testing

facilities.
They
object
to
the
fundamental
principles
behind
GMOs,
therefore

almost
impossible
to
convince.

Finally,
there
are
people
who
wonder:
“What
do
they
know
that
we
don’t?”

These
questions
often
come
from
conspiracy
theorists
that
believe
the

government
or
biotech
companies
are
hiding
the
“truth”
about
GMOs.
Their

anxiety
stems
from
a
long-‐term
distrust
of
the
government
or
large
corporations,

but
exacerbated
by
the
lack
of
open
dialogue
from
these
parties.
As
is
always
the

case,
transparency
is
the
best
policy
when
communicating
with
them.
Do
not

patronize,
mock
or
ignore
their
concerns.
Leave
no
room
for
shadows
and
they

will
stop
trying
to
catch
them.

u The
Media

They
are
the
consumer’s
preferred
source
of
information
on
nutrition
and

food
safety
related
subjects.
They
have
a
broad
reach
and
unparalleled
influence.

As
debate
in
the
public,
political
and
scientific
domains
gets
heated,
media

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

68

interest
in
GMOs
has
gathered
simultaneously.
Leading
national
media,
such
as

the
New
York
Times
and
China’s
Southern
Weekly,
have
all
kept
a
close
eye
on

new
developments.
Their
stories
present
an
accurate,
even
favorable,
depiction

of
GMOs.
But
online
blogs
and
minor
publications
show
less
journalistic
integrity.

Because
let’s
be
honest,
the
scary
stuff
make
better
headlines.

Television
hosts
and
pundits
have
not
been
too
kind
to
GMOs,
either.

Celebrities
like
Oprah
Winfrey,
Dr.
Oz
and
Bill
Maher
have
all
warned
their

audiences
against
consuming
food
made
with
genetically
modified

ingredients.
109

In
2013,
famed
Chinese
talk
show
host
Cui
Yongyuan
even
got

into
a
very
public
spat
with
prominent
science
writer
Fang
Zhouzi
on
the
subject

of
GMOs.
He
has
since
resigned
his
post
at
China
Central
Television
and
became

somewhat
of
a
full-‐time
crusader
against
GMOs.

These
key
influencers
have
fallen
through
the
cracks
in
terms
of
targeted
PR

campaigns.
They
have
little
scientific
acumen
but
a
large
loyal
audience.
They

look
at
the
problem
from
a
humanistic
perspective
but
are
smart
enough
to

listen
to
the
other
side
of
the
story.
Public
relations
professionals
need
to
get
the

right
spokesmen
under
the
media
spotlight,
not
only
to
talk
to
consumers
but
to

convince
these
influencers
as
well.

109

A
lonely
quest
for
facts
on
genetically
modified
crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The
New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

69

Chapter
Ten:
“Food”
for
Thought
–
The
Dos
and
Don’ts

Question:
Imagine
that
you’re
picking
up
a
carton
of
milk
at
the
groceries,

which
of
the
following
food
labels
would
be
more
appealing
to
you?

A. Non-‐GMO
milk

B. GMO
milk

C. Bio-‐fortified
milk
for
immunity
boost,
antitumor
and
sleep
aid

“It
is
difficult
to
imagine
a
more
polarized
debate
with
science
intermixed

with
cultural,
religious,
ethical
and
environmental
concerns,”
110

lamented
Dr.

Vazques-‐Salat.

Changing
perceptions
towards
GM
animals
is
like
contracting
a
disease,
even

with
a
healthy
dose
of
PR,
it’ll
still
take
a
long
while
to
shake
off
the
symptoms.
It

is
not
the
kind
of
problem
that
a
few
press
releases
or
even
a
fabulous
PR

campaign
can
fix.
Those
of
us
who
dare
to
climb
the
Mount
Everest
of
PR,
who

shoulders
the
responsibility
of
advocating
for
GM
animals,
are
in
it
for
the
long

haul.
The
author
does
not
pretend
to
have
an
instant
and
miraculous
solution
for

this
complicated
issue.
But
it
is
her
hope
that
this
list
of
do’s
and
don’ts
will
get

the
ball
rolling
on
some
serious
thought
on
the
topic
of
promoting
GM
animals.

110

Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?,
Nuria
Vazques
-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie
Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res

(2013)
22:5-‐13

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

70

Do:

u Be
proactive

During
the
author’s
interview,
Dr.
Zhongde
Wang,
an
expert
in
animal

transgenesis
and
associate
professor
at
Utah
State
University,
shared
a
woeful

tale.
After
years
of
diligent
work,
his
lab
succeeded
in
achieving
the
impossible
–

the
world’s
first
genetically
modified
hamster,
which
can
be
used
as
animal

models
for
pharmaceutical
development.
Everyone
was
overjoyed,
but
their

mood
dampened
after
learning
that
their
much-‐anticipated
press
release
would

be
cancelled
because
the
university
feared
attacks
from
animal
rights
activists.

In
this
day
and
age
of
the
24-‐hour
media
frenzy,
“no
comment”
or
reactive

responses
are
simply
not
an
option
anymore.
Opinions
are
being
formed
out

there
as
we
speak,
in
media
platforms,
pubic
debates
and
consumers’
minds.

Opposition
will
not
cease
to
exist
because
we
choose
not
to
be
a
part
of
the

debate,
it
will
simply
grow
stronger.
We
cannot
afford
to
lose
out
on
any
more

opportunities
for
the
public
to
learn
about
the
benefits
of
GM
animals.
It’s
high

time
that
GM
animal
proponents
jump
in
the
ring
and
start
to
proactively
frame

the
debate.

Typically,
“scientists
find
an
area
of
interest,
do
the
research
and
publish
our

findings
in
industry
publications.
That’s
it,”
explained
Dr.
Wang.
But
to
the
PR

pros,
there
are
various
ways
to
create
interest
for
GM
animals
among
different

faucets
of
mainstream
and
online
media.
We
can
pitch
food
and
nutrition
writers

about
the
introduction
of
a
new
fangled
product
and
how
it
relates
to
the

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

71

consumers’
diet;
healthcare
journalists
on
breakthrough
discoveries
in

combating
disease;
business
reporters
on
the
financial
significance
of
a
GM

animal
and
its
boon
to
the
local
economy.
We
can
even
experiment
with
celebrity

chiefs
and
mommy
bloggers
on
new
recipes
using
nutritionally
superior
GM

products.
If
none
of
these
hooks
catch
any
fish,
we
can
always
become
content

creators
ourselves
and
push
stories
out
through
native
advertising.

Television
still
remains
the
best
way
to
reach
a
mass
audience.
PR

professionals
need
to
assemble
a
well-‐rounded
army
of
GM
animal
advocates,

from
scientist,
government
officials
to
corporate
executives
and
farmers,
put

them
through
media
training
boot
camp
and
dispatch
them
to
the
appropriate

media
outlet.
The
opportunities
for
getting
them
press
time
is
endless,
whether
it

be
interviews
about
their
companies’
latest
breakthrough,
talk
shows
promoting

their
new
book
or
debates
on
the
pros
and
cons
of
GMOs.
Prep
them
for
the

spotlight
by
preparing
talking
points
and
sound
bites.
Powerful,
compelling

commentary
can
have
a
long
life
circulating
on
television
and
firmly
loge
itself
in

the
public
debate.

Documentaries,
TV
mini
series
and
“viral”
videos
can
carry
an
abundance
of

information
with
the
added
benefits
of
providing
entertainment.
Sadly,
none
of

the
videos
currently
circulating
on
the
Internet
portray
GMOs
in
a
positive
light.

For
this
attempt
to
carry
any
serious
weight,
the
biotech
industry
must
be
ready

to
scrap
together
some
serious
cash
for
top
tier
production,
find
a
venerable

media
partner,
not
to
mention
make
it
entertaining
enough
to
appeal
to
the
taste

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

72

of
consumers.
Chipotle’s
much-‐heralded
“The
Scarecrow”
video
111

and
its
recent

endeavor
with
Hulu
in
developing
the
“Farmed
and
Dangerous”
112

mini
series,

both
with
a
serious
underlying
message
critical
of
the
industrial
food
system,

might
provide
an
inspiring
model
for
GM
animals
to
follow.

u Clearly
articulate
benefits
for
the
end-‐user

One
important
reason
consumers
are
rejecting
GM
animals
is
that
they

haven’t
been
given
enough
incentive
to
do
otherwise.
Too
many
grand
promises

made,
remote
benefits
touted,
but
not
nearly
enough
specific
and
immediate

gratification.
Genetic
modification
occurs
at
the
very
top
of
the
food
chain
and

GM
products
are
seldom
sold
in
its
original
form.
Thus,
consumers
feel
out
of

touch
and
do
not
understand
what
these
products
have
to
contribute
to
their

lives.
As
PR
professionals,
it
is
our
job
to
connect
the
dots.

We
need
to
let
them
know
how
their
life
and
surrounding
environment
can

be
directly
improved
by
making
the
choice
to
buy
this
carton
of
GM
milk
they’ve

just
picked
up
in
the
refrigerated
section,
whether
it
be
saving
pennies,

absorbing
nutrition,
putting
an
end
to
disease
suffering
in
animals
or
preventing

environmental
damages.
To
really
tug
at
consumers’
heartstrings,
these
benefits

need
to
be
personal,
straightforward
and,
preferably,
measurable.
Doesn’t

“bio-‐fortified
milk
for
immunity
boost,
antitumor
and
sleep
aid”
sound
more

tempting
and
practical
than
“enhanced
nutritional
value?”
Wouldn’t
milk
that

“reduces
mastitis
in
cows
by
80%”
be
more
likely
to
get
your
vote
than
one
that

111

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtnas5ScSE

112

http://www.hulu.com/farmed-‐and-‐dangerous

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

73

vaguely
promises
“animal
welfare?”

To
do
so
successfully,
PR
pros
need
to
have
a
deep
understanding
of
each
GM

product
and
their
designated
audience.
GM
animals
vary
distinctively
in
function.

As
a
result,
two
products
may
target
vastly
different
income
levels.
The
1%,

presiding
over
their
oceanfront
homes,
might
sniff
at
low-‐priced
GM
goods,
but

covet
highly
customized
nutritious
diets.
While
to
a
working-‐class
family

struggling
to
put
food
on
the
table,
saving
a
few
dollars
could
make
all
the

difference.
We
need
to
truly
know
our
audience
and
grasp
what
adds
value
to

their
food.

u Harness
the
power
of
social
media

One
compelling
lesson
learned
during
the
author’s
research
is
that
it
is

extremely
difficult
to
separate
truth
from
fiction
when
it
comes
to
GMOs.
Giving

consumers
easy
access
to
correct
information
is
much
needed.
Social
media

platforms
give
companies
the
means
to
become
a
trusted
source
of
information

with
the
added
benefits
of
increasing
transparency,
engaging
in
interpersonal

communication
and
building
a
loyal
community
of
advocates.
Since
GMO

products
have
the
disadvantage
of
being
generic,
social
media
interactions
can

make
up
for
the
lack
of
consumer
experience
and
loyalty
that
comes
with

branded
products.

Many
biotech
companies
and
organizations
have
already
jumped
on
the

social
media
bandwagon.
Some
of
their
efforts,
like
Monsanto’s
Facebook
page,
is

even
deserving
of
a
small
nod
of
recognition.
However,
a
glaring
problem
is
the

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

74

mixture
of
information.
These
Facebook
or
Twitter
pages
are
usually
flooded

with
company
announcements
and
internal
communications,
with
just
a
trickle

of
educational
messages
scattered
in
between.
This
lowers
the
effectiveness
of

communications,
neither
consumers,
employees,
reporters
nor
investors
can
get

access
to
the
uninterrupted
stream
of
the
information
they
need.
Perhaps
PR

professionals
should
consider
setting
up
separate
accounts
for
different

categories
of
information
and
directing
the
correct
audience
to
the
right
place.

Traditional
methods
of
public
education,
such
as
Television/print
ads
and

pubic
speaking,
come
with
a
big
price
tag.
For
an
enduring
issue
like
GM
animals,

the
need
for
continuous
education
is
needless
and
the
costs
can
really
stack
up

overtime.
Luckily
with
social
media,
we
won’t
need
to
break
the
piggy
bank
to

give
consumers
a
daily
dose
of
GMO
facts.

u Aim
higher

GM
animals
are
green
and
techy
–
two
of
the
biggest
trends
in
America
today.

So
why
aren’t
they
cool?

The
prevalence
of
GM
traits
designed
to
increase
production
has
reflected

itself
in
food
prices.
But
in
turn,
it
has
also
marked
GMOs
as
somewhat
of
a
poor

man’s
food
–
a
cheaper,
inferior
alternative
to
“natural
food.”
The
author
is
by
no

means
diminishing
the
importance
of
GMOs
contributions
in
combating
hunger

and
third
world
diseases.
Nevertheless,
to
gain
broader
market
acceptance
we

need
to
move
beyond
the
status
quo.

As
more
nutritionally
beneficial
GM
applications
are
maturing,
setting
our

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

75

sights
on
high-‐end
markets
would
be
a
lucrative
and
strategic
move.
These

affluent
consumers
have
sophisticated
educations.
They
are
more
likely
to
side

with
logic
and
reason
than
irrational
fear.
They
are
exceedingly
health
conscious

and
are
willing
to
pay
a
premium
for
superior
quality.
More
importantly,
they
are

trendsetters.
They
have
the
ability
to
lend
the
“cool
factor”
to
GM
animals
and

elevate
its
status.
Their
stamp
of
approval
can
create
a
product
that
the
rest
of
us

would
covet.
The
hype
would
gradually
trickle
down
into
the
mass
markets,

clearing
the
way
for
GM
animal’s
mass-‐market
entry.

For
a
demonstration
of
this
marketing
model,
one
needs
to
look
no
further

than
the
fashion
industry.
Top
tier
designers
frequently
favored
by
celebrities

have
enjoyed
great
success
in
partnering
with
high
street
fashion
brands
like

H&M
or
Target.
Consumers
who
normally
can’t
afford
designer
brands
swarm

into
stores
to
grab
the
bargain
items.

After
gaining
prestige
from
the
high-‐end
market,
GM
animals
can
then
step

down
from
the
alter.
Consumer
anticipation
should
sweep
away
some
initial

hesitation.
And
its
lowered
“high
street”
price
tag
would
allow
GM
animal

products
to
gain
a
firm
foothold
in
the
mass-‐market.

u Be
careful
of
phrasing

With
such
sensitive
and
controversial
products
as
GM
animals,
caution
must

be
exercised
in
choosing
our
words.
We
might
hit
pay
dirt
or
shoot
ourselves
in

the
foot
with
the
words
we
use
in
branding
and
marketing
materials.
For

example,
research
has
shown
that
the
public
responds
much
more
positively
to

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

76

the
term
“biotechnology”
rather
than
“genetically
modified
organism.”
113

Before
a
product
launch,
it
might
pay
off
to
conduct
some
primary
research

gauging
how
the
target
audience
responds
to
your
communication
efforts.
Test

out
different
messages
during
focus
group
sessions.
Find
out
how
participants

feel
about
each
one
of
them
and
engage
them
in
discussing
ways
to
improve
it.

Then,
gather
some
qualitative
data
by
fielding
out
surveys
to
a
much
broader

audience.

Somewhere
in
there
could
lay
an
insight
that
will
help
you
avoid
a
giant

market
flop!

u Be
prepared
for
crises

Meat
and
poultry
products
naturally
run
a
higher
risk
of
inducing
foodborne

illnesses
and
poisoning
than
crops.
If
a
person
falls
ill
after
consuming
GM

animals,
you
can
be
sure
that
GMOs
will
immediately
be
suspected
as
the
culprit,

whether
it
is
at
fault
for
not.
PR
professionals
need
to
brace
themselves
for
a

storm
of
crisis
situations
in
the
years
following
the
commercialization
of
GM

animals.

Not
only
will
biotech
companies
be
at
the
front
and
center
of
these
crises,

regulatory
agencies,
food
vendors
carrying
the
product,
research
facilities
that

developed
the
technology
will
all
suffer
from
the
blowback.
Any
company
or

organization
dabbling
in
GM
animals
should
have
a
comprehensive
crisis

management
plan
at
hand:
Concoct
different
scenarios
and
create
an
initial

113

Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA
Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

77

response
for
each
one.
Be
informed
of
where
to
go
for
more
information.
Identify

the
best
spokespeople
and
know
how
to
reach
them
24/7.
Maintain
a
strong

relationship
with
key
influencers.
Seek
out
legal
counseling
and
understand
the

legal
options.

Don’t
drop
the
ball!
Because
any
botched
crisis
management
could
spin
into

a
public
meltdown
that
will
send
us
back
to
square
one.

Don’t:

u Don’t
play
hide
and
seek

Transparency
is
the
premise
of
a
proactive
public
relations
strategy.

The
sneaky
approach
GMOs
have
taken
in
the
past
can
easily
be
interpreted

by
the
consumer
as
a
lack
of
confidence
on
the
company’s
side.
Vehemently

lobbying
against
GMO
labeling
smells
of
treachery
to
the
public.
PR
professionals

need
to
help
the
fidgety
industry
stand
by
its
product
and
radiate
confidence.

Fortunately,
the
absence
of
GM
animals
in
the
consumer
market
gives
us
a

clean
slate
to
start
with.
Advocates
for
GM
animals
should
come
into
this
whole

new
ball
game
with
a
completely
different
outlook
–
go
big
or
go
home.
Take
a

page
from
Apple’s
playbook:
Make
each
product
launch
a
media
spectacle.
Build

anticipation
and
get
the
buzz
going
before
it’s
even
unveiled.
Don’t
shy
away

from
controversy.
Steer
the
debate.

u Don’t
put
all
your
eggs
in
one
basket

If
the
author
had
a
dollar
for
every
time
a
transgenetic
scientist
has
said:

“The
pubic
need
more
education,”
she
would
be
rolling
in
money.
Many
PR

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

78

professionals
also
share
the
view
that
“if
people
are
ignorant
about
the
benefits

of
something,
or
have
misconceptions
about
it,
then
the
route
to
changing
their

behavior
is
to
give
them
more
information.”
114

But
as
David
Corkindale,

professor
of
marketing
at
the
University
of
South
Australia
pointed
out,
public

education
is
the
longest,
hardest
and
most
expensive
road
to
that
end.

Public
education
has
so
far
been
considered
the
building
block
for
promoting

GMOs.
Dr.
Goetz
Laible,
senior
scientist
at
Agresearch,
is
no
stranger
to
such

methods.
Over
the
years,
he
has
given
many
public
lectures,
engaged
in
student

outreach
and
appeared
on
media
platforms.
It
is
a
commendable
effort
that

should
be
continued.
But
as
Professor
Corkindale
reminds
us,
such
educational

purposes
“by
itself
can
sometimes
raise
awareness
without
changing

behavior.”
115

Every
driver
understands
the
catastrophic
consequences
of
drunk

driving,
yet
1.2
million
drivers
were
still
arrested
in
2011
for
driving
under
the

influence.
116

All
the
author
is
asking
is
that
PR
professionals
not
gamble
the
house
on

public
education
campaigns
without
opening
our
eyes
to
other
possibilities.

Attractive
packaging,
for
one,
can
tempt
impulse
buys.
A
minimalistic
and
earthy

design
can
help
consumers
association
the
product
with
“green”
and
“natural.”

Clearly
articulated
nutritional,
environmental
or
animal
welfare
benefits
can

differentiate
the
product
and
appeal
to
discerning
shoppers.
Improved
taste
can

114

Marketing
GM
Foods:
The
Way
Forward,
Peter
W.B.
Philips,
David
Corkindale,
AgBioForum,
5(3):

113-‐121

115

Marketing
GM
Foods:
The
Way
Forward,
Peter
W.B.
Philips,
David
Corkindale,
AgBioForum,
5(3):

113-‐121

116

Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation,
“Crime
in
the
United
States:
2011”

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

79

acquire
immediate
buy-‐in.
A
sensible
pricing
strategy
can
help
some
products

gain
a
competitive
advantage
in
the
marketplace.

u Don’t
overlook
internal
communication

“Scientists
are
right
now
at
a
very
disorganized
stage.
If
they
can
do
it,
they’ll

just
do
it.
Their
ultimate
purpose
is
for
publication
instead
of
thinking
clearly

about
the
bigger
picture
–
what
animal
specie
we
should
choose,
what
kind
of

genetic
modification
we
should
do
and
what
groups
would
benefit.”
observed
Dr.

Wang,
“If
we
made
a
GMO
that
solves
a
huge
problem
and
people
immediately

see
the
benefit,
the
perception
for
GMO
would
be
quite
different.”

The
lack
of
consideration
for
the
consumer
during
the
scientific

decision-‐making
process
reflects
itself
in
bad
PR.
PR
professionals
cannot

convincingly
convey
to
consumers
why
they
should
purchase
GMOs
because
the

product
benefits
are
simply
not
attractive
enough
to
make
people
care.
Public

relations
can’t
effectively
function
unless
there
are
definite
reasons
for
advocacy.

Scientists
need
to
give
us
fuel
to
feed
the
fire.

Some
may
call
this
overstepping
our
boundaries,
but
the
author
believes
that

PR
professionals
should
be
involved
in
the
process
of
strategically
determining

what
products
to
develop.
We
need
to
solicit
cooperation
from
our
internal

audience
–
scientists
and
company
executives
–
in
gaining
favors
from
the

consumer
by
supplying
products
that
suit
their
demand.

We
need
to
convince
scientific
minds
that
the
work
they
produce
must
not

begin
and
end
in
academia,
but
have
real
marketplace
demand.
To
achieve
that,

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

80

their
creations
need
to
deliver
tangible
benefits
to
the
consumer.
We
need
to

persuade
company
executives
to
think
beyond
generating
steady
profits
from

quarter
to
quarter.
Developing
“star
vehicle”
products
to
infiltrate
the
market,

even
though
may
not
be
as
profitable
in
the
short
term,
can
gain
consumer

acceptance
and
open
doors
for
GM
animal
that
will
prove
to
be
more

advantageous
in
the
long
run.

u Don’t
underestimate
SEO

Type
‘GMO’
into
a
Google
search
engine
and
everything
we
see
is
negative.

If
the
author
wanted
to
find
out
whether
GMOs
indeed
causes
cancer
by

searching
“GMO
cancer,”
the
first
article
she
would
come
across
is
one
titled

“GMO
Corn
Linked
to
Cancer
Tumors.”
117

Red
flag!
Even
if
a
consumer
goes
into

the
research
a
natural
attitude,
this
article
alone
could
propel
them
into
a
state
of

panic.
As
with
real
estate,
location
is
everything.
We
need
to
deliver
our
message

at
the
point
of
decision-‐making,
because
trying
to
change
people’s
minds
after
its

been
made
is
exponentially
harder.

In
the
case
of
GMOs,
paid
advertising
placements
are
a
poor
substitute
for

SEO.
Since
consumers
are
very
skeptical
to
biotech
companies
touting
our
own

goods.
Any
blatant
advertising
attempt
would
likely
be
tuned
out.

Lucky
for
us,
this
problem
is
easily
fixable
and
there
are
a
myriad
of
ways
to

do
it:
strategically
incorporate
keywords
into
the
title
and
lead;
create

multimedia
elements
to
accompany
the
article;
use
social
media
channels
to
link

117

https://www.google.com/search?q=gmo+cancer&safe=active&espv=210&es_sm=91&ei=5sYaU5

G3N4e7oQTYzIK4DA&start=10&sa=N&biw=1277&bih=615

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

81

back
to
these
articles.
Mark
each
article’s
search
engine
ranking
at
the
time
they

are
posted
and
monitor
their
movement
throughout
the
next
few
weeks.
Make

necessary
adjustments
to
help
each
article
move
up
the
ladder.
We
need
to
land

our
content
prime
real
state
within
the
first
page
of
search
results.

u Build
bridges,
don’t
burn
them

As
the
debate
gained
heat,
conversation
between
scientists
and
activists
has

become
increasingly
ugly.
They
address
each
other
in
utter
contempt.
The
author

watched
as
online
debates
transformed
good-‐natured,
unpretentious
men
into

snippy,
irritable
clowns.
That
goes
for
both
sides
of
the
isle.

This
“us
against
them”
mentality
is
hurting
GMOs
in
more
ways
than
one.

Advocates
for
the
technology
should
not
see
enemies
wherever
we
look.
In
truth,

there
is
more
common
ground
to
be
found
if
we
look
for
ways
to
extend
an
olive

branch.

Instead
of
engaging
in
shouting
matches,
why
not
involve
animal
rights
and

environmental
activists
in
the
R&D
process?
Listen
to
their
concerns.
Are
they

worried
about
the
prevalence
of
avian
influenza
or
water
eutrophication?
Work

hand-‐in-‐hand
to
develop
a
genetically
modified
solution
that
also
delivers
profit

to
the
company.
Welcome
activist
supervision.
This
way,
our
products
would

encounter
considerably
less
opposition
when
they
finally
roll
out
into
the
market

and
maybe
even
muster
support
from
activist
groups.

GMOs
and
conventional
agriculture
have
been
trying
to
derail
each
other
for

years.
But
“genetic
modification
and
conventional
breeding
actually
compliments

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

82

each
other.
GM
technology
can
only
alter
individuals.
To
expand
an
individual

into
a
breed,
we
still
need
to
rely
on
conventional
breeding
methods,”
explained

professor
Dai.
There
are
opportunities
to
cooperate.
PR
professionals
need
to

foster
an
environment
that’s
less
confrontational
and
make
room
for
collective

thinking.

Progress
on
the
commercialization
of
the
Atlantic
Salmon
have
clearly

stalled.
Hopes
of
getting
GM
animals
to
the
market
seems
like
only
a
glimmer
on

the
horizon.
But
it
is
also
the
best
time
to
reflect
on
failed
PR
practices
and
lay

down
new
strategies.
Dust
ourselves
off
and
keep
trudging
forward,
because
just

over
the
horizon
awaits
a
brilliant
blue
sky.

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

83

Appendix:
Interview
Questions

1.
Why
do
we
need
GMOs?
What
are
the
benefits?

2.
[Animal
specialization]
Out
of
all
the
GMO
products
that
could
directly

benefit
consumers,
why
is
the
Atlantic
salmon
closes
to
commercialization?
It

does
not
seem
to
provide
enormous
benefits
to
the
consumer
and
there
seems
to

be
environmental
risks
associated
with
it.
What
is
the
hold
up
for
other
more

beneficial
GM
animal
products?

3.
What
are
some
criticisms
about
GMOs
that
you’ve
heard?
Are
they
legitimate

claims?

4.
What
consumers
really
care
about
is
food
safety.
Are
GMOs
safe?
What

mechanisms
are
in
place
to
ensure
their
safety?

4.1
Companies
who
develop
GMOs
are
tasked
with
assessing
their
safety.

This
has
become
a
point
for
criticism.
People
do
not
trust
these
companies
to

choose
public
safety
over
profit.
Why
is
the
system
set
up
in
such
a
way?
Can

it
indeed
ensure
safety?

5.
[Pharmaceutical
specialization]
What
is
the
relationship
between
your

company
and
Big
Pharma?
Are
they
investors?
Are
they
competitors?

6.
What
is
the
biggest
obstacle
in
the
developmental
stage
of
GMOs?
and

What
is
the
biggest
obstacle
in
getting
GMO
products
to
market?

7.
Compared
to
other
GMO
products,
what
are
the
unique
characteristics
of
GM

animals?

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

84

8.
What
is
your
position
on
GMO
labeling?
Do
you
think
GMO
products
should
be

labeled?
Why
or
why
not?

9.
During
the
past
year,
we’ve
seen
a
lot
of
protests
and
grass
root
campaigns.

Has
activism
affected
your
job
in
anyway?
How
has
it
affected
the
industry
as
a

whole?

10.
Have
you
personally
been
involved
in
communicating
the
benefits
of
GMOs?

If
so,
how?

11.
To
your
knowledge,
what
public
relations
or
communications
efforts
have

your
company
employed?

12.
I
know
you
are
primarily
focused
on
the
scientific
aspect
of
GMOs,
but
having

been
in
the
industry
for
so
long,
do
you
have
any
suggestions
on
how
to
better

promote
GM
animals
in
the
marketplace?

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

85

Bibliography

1. A
Hard
Look
at
GM
Crops,
Natasha
Gilbert,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

2. A
Lonely
Quest
for
Facts
on
Genetically
Modified
Crops,
Amy
Harmon,
The

New
York
Times,
Jan
4,
2014

3. A
New
Breed,
Daniel
Cressey,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

4. Africa
and
Asia
need
a
rational
debate
on
GM
crops,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL

497

5. Busting
Chinese-‐Style
GM
Fallacies
and
Rumors,
Tie
Li,
Southern
Weekly,

August
19,
2011

6. Global
Review
of
the
Field
Testing
and
Commercialization
of
Transgenic

Plants:
1986
to
1995,”
James,
Clive
(1996),
The
International
Service
for
the

Acquisition
of
Agri-‐biotech
Applications,
July
17
2010

7. GM
Crops
A
Story
in
Numbers,
Nature,
2
May
2013,
VOL
497

8. GMO
Foods
and
the
Trust
Issue,
Jan
8,
2014,
The
New
York
Times

9. Marketing
GM
Foods:
The
Way
Forward,
Peter
W.B.
Philips,
David
Corkindale,

AgBioForum,
5(3):
113-‐121

10. Public
Attitudes
towards
Agricultural
Biotechnology,
Thomas
J.
Hoban,
ESA

Working
Paper
No.
04-‐09

11. Public
Health
Risks
Associated
with
Pesticides
and
Natural
Toxins
in
Foods,

David
Pimentel
et
al.,
College
of
Agriculture
and
Life
Sciences,
Cornell

University

GETTING
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ANIMALS
TO
MARKET

86

12. Role
of
Genetically
Engineered
Animals
in
Future
Food
Production,
KA
McColl,

B
Clarke
and
TJ
Doran,
Australian
Veterinary
Journal

13. Science
Panel
Says
GMO
Labeling
Would
Cost
–
But
How
Much
Remains

Unknown,
Sandi
Doughton,
The
Seattle
Times,
Oct
9,
2013

14. Society
and
GMOs
–
Chicken
and
Egg?,
Nuria
Vazquez-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie

Houdebine,
Science
&
Society,
EMBO
reports

15. Stop
Worrying;
Start
Growing,
Torbjorn
Fagerstrom,
Christina
Dixelius,
Ulf

Magnusson,
Jens
F.
Sundstrom,
EMBO
Reports
VOL
13
NO.6
2012

16. Transgenic
Crops
and
Our
Life,
China
National
Agriculture
and
Life
Science

and
Technology
Popularization
Base,
Science
Press

17. Will
GM
animals
follow
the
GM
plant
fate?,
Nuria
Vazques-‐Salat,
Louis-‐Marie

Houdebine,
Transgenic
Res
(2013)
22:5-‐13

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Getting genetically modified (GM) animals to the market presents the Mount Everest of public relations issues. It is a sandbox where scientists, consumer, activists, corporations and politicians all come out to play. It has to carry the weight of a failed GM crops campaign as well as deal with its own unique set of problems. With a clinical eye, the author examines GMOs' historical issues and current predicament, analyses the influencers and public concern, takes a hard look at public relation strategies being implemented, and ultimately, gives suggestion to PR professionals on handling the introduction of GM animals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Tailoring pharmaceutical public relations strategies to different markets: a case study of the launching strategies of Gardasil in the U.S. and China

PDF

Public relations implications for regulation of health blogs

PDF

An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing

PDF

College athletic directors and reputational risk: the public relations imperative

PDF

60 years of magic: an in-depth look at Disneyland’s use of public relations strategies

PDF

The changing landscape of higher education: experiential learning in public relations for the millennial generation

PDF

One more thing: experiential economies and the future of public relations

PDF

That's just what this country needs: another film that's a flop at the flicks: a PR perspective on the success of home-grown films at the Australian box office

PDF

Breaking new ground: defending and learning from the founding fathers of public relations

PDF

The localization of global public relations firms in China

PDF

A comparison of corporate PR practices in U.S. and China: a case study approach

PDF

Comparing breast cancer awareness campaigns through four different ethnicities

PDF

Trading places: an in-depth analysis of entertainment public relations practices within different socio-economic contexts

PDF

Exploring perceptions of facilitators that encourage breast cancer screening behavior among latina women in Los Angeles County

PDF

Creating brand evangelists in the 21st century: using brand engagement through social media to develop brand loyalty in teens

PDF

Branding luxury: finding a balance between exclusivity and the inclusivity of a digital world

PDF

The evolution of sustainability: a public relations and business argument

PDF

Strategic communications in dietary supplement marketing — a case study of the marketing of Coenzyme Q10 supplements

PDF

The American deception epidemic: why public relations practitioners should take notice

PDF

A critical look at organic farming and positioning of organic products in the American market