Monsanto was the first company to aggressively sell the 'concept' of biotechnology and its products to the European public. It is considered by other industry members, scientists and policy makers to be partly if not wholly responsible for negative public feeling against genetically manipulated food. The company's 1997-98 European PR campaign backfired as consumers reacted strongly against campaign message that genetically manipulated food benefited society and the environment. Resistance was particularly strong in the UK although throughout Europe, suspicion of the genetechnologies and of the multinational corporations behind them is high

"They used the might of the conglomerate. They used bullying tactics, really. Used their might to bulldoze it through," replied a journalist when asked about the 1998 UK Monsanto PR campaign.

As a result of this, Monsanto and other industry members are now finding themselves, together with policy makers, in the difficult position of having to "reverse" negative public perception towards food biotechnology.

Industry, with Monsanto in the lead, is framing "communication" (PR, marketing....) as the root of the crisis facing genetic engineering perceptions. This is an infinitely easier strategy than actually facing the environmental and health concerns raised by biotech. Dealing with such concerns would likely lead to moratoria--extremely bad news both financially and competitively-speaking for the European genetech industry. It is much easier to decide that citizens are against biotechnology because they just don't know what it is.

One recent example of this was a statement by Philippe Gay of Novartis Seeds at the EFB Brussels conference that the recent Novartis Bt maize issue in France was merely a "communications cultivation of Novartis's Bt maize was based on incomplete research on ion problem." The French Conseil D'Etat's (France's highest court) decision against authorization for the the antibiotic resistance properties of this crop.

Policy makers and politicians, whilst very sensitive to public opinion, are being led by the "competitiveness of Europe in the global markets" argument. They too need to believe that communication is the main barrier to be overcome.

Public Relations and marketing are being developed in 4 main areas: industry "dialogue" initiatives; the transparency of governmental institutions; coalitions including direct action by scientists; and informing and educating the public to reach "informed decisions."

Policy makers see transparency as a strategic tool in re-establishing "trust." Whilst transparency is important, it is often used selectively and as a PR tool which enables the more important issues of public opinion on legislation to be sidelined.

"Dialogue" is yet again seen as a handy PR tool whilst enabling potentially unwanted legislation to be avoided: "Parties with opposing opinions can choose between two general strategies in dealing with the contentious issues surrounding biotechnology - conflict and dialogue. [...] Eventually, the conflict may result in political decision, for example in new legislation. With the uncertain and ambivalent attitude of the general public and even politicians in the biotechnology area, it is often very difficult to predict the outcome of such conflict."

In the Swiss Referendum on genetic engineering, which took place on June 7, 1998, a 2:1 majority voted not to ban genetic engineering in Switzerland. The victory was attributed to a PR engineered coalition which created images of "everyday" people going out into pubs, markets and shopping streets to give their views for genetic engineering.

According to Professor Richard Braun, Vice-Chairman of the EFB Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, one of the most important events in the build up to the referendum was the mobilization of scientists, especially young ones, as an interface with the public through pro-biotech demonstrations.

The involvement of the scientists in local actions created a certain distance between genetic engineering and multinational corporations. This tactic ensured an intense but apparently (to the public) informal communication campaign carried out by research scientists from academic institutions in whom the public have more trust than in industry or government. Whilst advertising techniques are not to be totally sidelined, the emphasis is to be placed on explaining genetic engineering and promoting dialogue.

Another industry initiative, call the European Initiative for Biotechnology Education (EIBE) helps develop biotechnology education initiatives by training teachers and providing educational materials to schools targeted to 16 to 19 years olds. An example of this is Access Excellence, a high school level program funded by Genentech which provides high school teachers with new scientific information and enables the exchange of teaching methods via the Web. For more information: http://www.gene.com/ae

One EIBE report states, "The up-and-coming generation are however more amenable to change, and students of school and college age represent a target group that is potentially receptive to understanding the principles underpinning the new biotechnology and to assessing the implications of current and future developments."

Museums are also industry targets. A Science, Industry and Technology initiative creates travelling biotechnology exhibitions including a "Future Foods" exhibition traveling between London's Science Museum, Lisbon in Portugal and Lille in France and an exhibition "Gene Worlds" for Spain and Greece.

New industry PR tactics are becoming subtler and therefore harder to pin down. Corporations have understood that they must distance themselves from issues surrounding genetically manipulated foods.

"Dialogue," "Informed Decision," "Education" and a publicly active heterogeneous pro-genetech group (scientists, farmers, medical workers, young people....) are the new industry tools to turn around public concern about the environmental and health consequences of this emerging technology.