Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

May 14, 2000

Subject:

Interview with Gordon Conway of Rockefeller Foundation and other

 

- http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com

In a message dated 5/14/00 4:25:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
tony.combes@ea.monsanto.com writes:

<< So 4 technical mistakes which
are hardly "fraudulent", let alone "lies"!

If you want to see the print ads and judge for yourself, go to
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/highlights/ads/ad1.html but please don't ring
the telephone numbers included in them, as many have changed! Thank you.
>>

Dear Tony
Thank you for your informative note. It would be good if people on this
listerv checked out the ads you give above. I'm comparing them to the BCI ads
I've seen.
I was in London at the time and remember the climate well. Monsanto was
already in a defensive posture before the ad campaign began, and the campaign
was desgned in part to respond to public opposition. You may call the 4
counts of conviction "mistakes" and not lies, but I see them as many others
do - calculated attempts to deceive in order to make GM foods friendlier.
What Monsanto did was very damaging because it appears the industry itself
doesn't believe the plain truth about biotechnology will win proponents. But
the plain truth is the only thing that will increase understanding.
If these ads weren't intentionally deceitful, then some really stupid and
insensitive people were writing ad copy, and is there an explanation for such
stupidity in the middle of an important public debate?
Back to the original question: is Monsanto more of a 'target' than
others? Yes.
Joseph Houseal