attack of the killer labelsby jay byrne

8/3/2019 Attack of the Killer Labelsby Jay Byrne

1/5

It Starts Online

Attack of the Killer Labels

Words like Frankenfoods and genetic engineering scare consumers

and deny them the facts about agricultural technology and food safety,

the author writes.

By: Jay [email protected]

Its ocial and now were stuck with it. Frankenfoods has made it to the

latest edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. Does it matter?

As students are returning to school this fall, purchasing new books, diction-

aries included, will this one trivial mention matter?

My children love to say sticks and stones may break my bones, but wordswill never hurt me. Poppycock. Language matters. It denes how we ap-

proach and process issues inuencing areas of our lives, both intellectually

and emotionally. The use of powerfully negative words like Frankenfoods

in media coverage and our language regarding the regulation and labeling of

foods derived from biotech crops is a prime example.

The words chosen by the media and others in their coverage of biotechnol-

ogy in agriculture and the ways currently being debated over how to provide

consumers informed choice in the labeling of foods are a striking case studyin how propaganda often trumps science and manipulates public opinion,

even on such important issues as food production and food safety.

How did we get here? Despite claims by European green activists or U.K. su-

permarket retailers who rst exploited the term for prot in the late 1990s,

the word Frankenfoods did not originate in Europe. In June 1992, a Boston

College professor and opponent of biotechnology wrote a letter-to-the-

editor of The New York Times in response to an opinion piece supporting

FDA oversight of biotechnology-produced foods.1 In the letter, ProfessorPaul Lewis coined the term Frankenfoods. Within two weeks, The New York

Times-not the sensational and often baudy British tabloids-used the term

in a front-page headline, and a recent news search reveals more than 6,000

media references to this phrase since The Times banner headline.2 Why did

the venerable New York Times opt to place such a loaded term in a Page One

1 Lewis, Paul, Mutant Foods Create Risks We Cant Yet Guess, The New York Times, June 16,

1992.

2 ONeil, Molly, Geneticists Latest Discovery: Public Fear of Frankenfood, The New York

Times, June 28, 1992.


2/5


It Starts Online

2

headline? Times food writer Molly ONeill told the Boston Globe simply, I love

the term. Its got such wonderfully chilling connotations.3

Biotechnology vs. genetic engineering

Chilling indeed. A study by the London School of Economics found that the me-

dias use of Frankenfood headlines and other metaphors for foods produced

using agricultural biotechnology helped create and fuel public fears.4 Numer-

ous published polls show a majority of consumers support foods derived frombiotechnology, yet other polls show these same consumers oppose genetic

engineering of food.5 Clearly language choice matters.

The two phrases describe the same thing, but they are perceived quite dier-

ently, and that fact is not lost on interest groups that benet from these fears.

Activists and other industry groups with a vested nancial interest have labeled

conventional and biotech-as opposed to organic-farming as nonorganic,

chemical-laden and even toxin-laden. A 1999 Internet memo from an or-

ganic industry advertising executive directed to activists and journalists givesa glimpse into the depth of manipulation behind anti-biotechnology propa-

ganda. Moreover, it shows the success that such groups have had in co-opting a

media often poorly trained in science.

GE Euphemisms and More-Accurate Alternative Power Words to Use: Control-

ling the Language, distributed by groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the

Earth and various organic agriculture lobbying interests, provides a glossary of

alternatives to the accepted, more accurate, science-based language descrip-

tions for biotechnology applications in agriculture. The author counseled activ-ists and journalists that biology and biotechnology are words we should

never use... . Other terms to eschew: food scientists, biotechnology compa-

nies and biotechnologists.

Make them use our words, writes Peter Michael Ligotti, architect of several In-

3 Muru, Mark, Wayward words, The Boston Globe, June 29, 1992.

4 Frankenfood headlines scare public, study shows, Reuters, July 16, 1999

5 IFIC, Support for Food Biotechnology Holds (71% support)..., IFIC Backgrounder, Sept. 23,

2002, http: www.ifc.org & Majority oppose GM Foods (70% oppose), Farmers Guardian, Dec. 28, 2001.


3/5


4/5


It Starts Online

4

No killer tomatoes

To be accurate, virtually all foods are genetically altered or manipulated. Foods

from apples to wheat did not exist in their current form before man began to

alter and cross their genetic makeup-including organic crops. In addition, thou-

sands of crop varieties today, many used in organic agriculture, were developed

through chemical and nuclear mutagenesis-haphazardly exposing seeds and

plants to gene mutating radiation or chemicals to alter their genetic structures.

This genetic mutation clearly altered the genetic structures of plants, yet re-quired none of the similar regulatory safety testing of the more precise biotech-

nology engineered breeding programs. Yet these foods make up a signicant

portion of the breeding stock for the so-called natural, unadulterated and or-

ganic food crops promoted as alternatives to the mislabeled Frankenfoods.

Modern biotechnology tools are changing the way farmers grow crops making

them pest- and disease-resistant or able to grow in harsher climates, but are

altering the actual foods we eat less than most conventional and organic cross-

breeding programs and with signicant knowledge and precision lacking in cropvarieties derived through random mutagenesis. Yet many journalists use lan-

guage and certain unscrupulous food companies use labels and advertising that

mislead us to believe there is a vast and potentially dangerous shift in the phys-

ical makeup, nutrition or safety of the foods we eat. In fact, simple biotechnol-

ogy breeding techniques-moving one or more well- known and researched set

of benecial genes into a plant-typically undergoes years of highly-regulated

testing guidelines to ensure its safety prior to commercial release.

In a recently published book funded by the Rockefeller Foundation titled Food,Inc. author Peter Pringle writes that biotech food products are not Frankenfoods,

noting: The changes are not inherently unsafe, nor are the companies that pro-

duce them inherently evil. Pringle suggests that biotech opponent campaigns,

many heavily funded by the multibillion dollar organic food industry, have raised

awareness beyond its usefulness and turned it into scaremongering.9

The truth about agricultural biotechnology is far more benign than the imagemeeting.

9 Nestle, Marion, Eat Drink and be Wary, The Washington Post, July 6, 2003.


5/5

Attack of the Killer Labels5

of a mutant killer tomato would indicate or a food label warning may contain

GMOs. Time magazine reported, By over-reacting to fears fanned by well-fed

consumers in the industrialized world, food producers might uproot an industry

that could someday provide billions of people in the rest of the world with crops

they desperately need.10 The Wall Street Journal notes that the media and spe-

cial interest groups are preying on overblown and growing irrational fears, like

food biotechnology. The Journal wrote: People who study fear have never seen

a period in which rational sources of it were in such short supply.11

Mary Shellys gothic horror story was written in 1816 as a cautionary tale of the

potential dangers of scientists playing God but more so was an even greater

admonition against public overreaction to science. The choice for consumers,

dictionary authors and responsible journalists should be clear: Get your infor-

mation and select your words carefully from the scientists-not the wordsmiths.

Language counts. Labels will only have meaning if they are driven by facts, not

fears.

Copyright 2003 PR Tactics. Reprinted with permission by the Public Relations

Society of America. (www.prsa.org)

10 Whos afraid of Frankenfood? Time magazine, Nov. 22, 1999

11 Eig, Jonathan, Analyze this, as good times roll what are American worried about now, The Wall

Street Journal, Feb. 9, 2000.

attack of the killer labelsby jay byrne

Documents