On Monday, October 27th, NBC-TV’s Today Show dove headfirst into the controversy over genetically modified foods with a segment entitled “Eat Smart Today: What’s in Our Food?” The early morning television news show featured interviews with food scientists, a consumer and a debate between a Lisa Katic from BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization) and anti-GMO author Mark Lappe.

Agricultural biotechnology started off fairly well. Correspondent Robert Hager introduced University of Illinois Professor Schuyler Korban who spoke to biotechnology’s ability to increase the quality via increased nutrition and quantity of food we produce. Professor Korban’s moment of nationally televised fame was reduced to two brief sentences.

Hager then echoed the very inventive and effective propaganda device used by anti-biotech NGOs for the past few years when he used the term “frankenfoods” and repeated the NGO refrain that such foods “could be dangerous to health” and “wreak havoc on the environment.” Quickly the points scored by Dr. Korban with his statement about increased nutrition were lost as the blanket of NGO-fabricated doubt and fear wrapped the issue.

Biotech lost the second round because it lacked a “parent/consumer” singing the praises of biotech-enhanced foods. The anti-biotech side had their handsome, charming, and glib parent ready to pounce.

The lone consumer interviewed was described as “Minneapolis consumer Corey Brinkema who is among those who worry” over potential dangers posed by GMO food. Brinkema continued the fear theme when he delivered his well-prepared one sentence statement that “There’s not enough science behind this whole thing.” His was a powerful if not contradictory sound bite to be certain given its juxtaposition with the words of a scientist. Brinkema’s sentiments although obviously lacking in accuracy were exactly representative of NGO claims regarding the fear of the public in regard to GMOs.

Brinkema seemed too perfect to be a man-in-the-street consumer ambushed by a news reporter. He is anything but a casual bystander in the green anti-biotech debate.

Minneapolis is the headquarters of the staunchly anti-GMO/pro-organic food Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. IATP President Mark Ritchie is also president of the Organic Buyers and Growers Association. IATP’s for-profit sister organization, Headwaters International Inc. markets “Peace Coffee” under the organic/fair trade banner. That fact may be considered coincidental and even irrelevant given the size of Minneapolis and the myriad businesses and groups that call that city home, that is until a closer look is given to Corey Brinkema.

There is indeed a Corey Brinkema working and consuming in Minneapolis who is not only a ranked marathon ski competitor and a new dad but he is also a mover and shaker in that city’s “green” real estate and development movement. Brinkema’s credentials include founding the an environmental consulting firm, e4 Partners, that “focuses on eco-industrial development and sustainable building design” and founding the Green Institute, a non-profit that combines economic/job opportunities within an environmentally considerate atmosphere for inner-city reclamation projects in the Twin Cities. And, Brinkema is no stranger to the GMO debate. He’d been interviewed by local newspapers on the issue of labeling GMO foods and is quite articulate and outspoken in his embracing of the NGO hostility towards agricultural biotechnology.

Oh, yes. Corey Brinkema’s Green Institute has a program called Greenspace Partners. Greenspace partners is part of a coalition of environmental organizations dealing with Minneapolis/St. Paul “greening” issues entitled the “Twin Cities Greening Coalition.” Listed just after Brinkema’s Greenspace Partners in the TCG Coalition is the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Having the right person in the right spot to be “accidentally” discovered by the media is only one reason biotech is at a disadvantage in dealing with extremely well organized NGOs.

Following the Brinkema one liner, NBC TV’s Katie Couric handed the microphone to Mark Lappe with a softball toss setup. Couric characterized Lappe as being “angry” that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “hasn’t gotten more involved” in the labeling issue.

Lappe established himself as a “scientist and ethicist” as well as a sympathetic defender of consumers’ right to know about ingredients in their foods. Lappe was allowed to voice an outrageous lie when he claimed that GMO foods and conventionally grown foods are not similar and that “there are no proteins in the food.” He portrayed agricultural biotechnology as denying consumers their right to choose and pounded home the NGO fostered perceptions that GMO foods are “failures.”

Katie Couric continued the NGO line that no studies on human health or the environment have been done. BIO’s Lisa Katic countered in the predicable industry mode of quoting ponderous statistics. Instead of dispelling the fabricated concept of consumers gripped in fear or being given the choice of inferior foods versus highly nutritional and safety tested foods, she talked about “benefits” to farmers in terms of 14 billion pounds of food grown and a $2.5 billion increase in farm income as well as a decrease of 163 million pounds of pesticides.

Couric listened and still came at Katic with the strongly prejudicial question about “what kind of impact (GMOs) might have on long-term health concerns.” Katic responded that in 20 years “not one report of any case of an ill effect has resulted from eating these foods.” Instead of slamming the door on that concept, Katic allowed the viewers to ponder the next logical thought, no one has been reported ill…not yet.

Lappe jumped in raising the specter of the “new proteins” added to plants being potential sources of new allergies. Remember, earlier he denied that the biotech crops had any proteins at all. Now Katic has allergies to deal with. Lappe brought up the StarLink public relations fiasco and said there were 49 cases of allergic reactions. Katic never said they proved false. Lappe ended his statement talking about the “decimation of wildlife”, “cross-contamination of spreading genes,” and the “transformation of agriculture.”

Katic ended with references to FDA, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the FAO of the United Nations being supportive of biotechnology.

Katic told the truth. Lappe lied. The unfortunate fact of the exercise is that Lappe won and Katic lost. Katic lost precisely on the points that made Lappe the victor. She failed to make the case to the viewing public that agricultural biotechnology improved their lives, the nutrition of their families and the food they eat. Lappe did the opposite. Using the time-honored techniques of propaganda or its modern offspring advocacy, Lappe conjured up a scenario designed to frighten and outrage the average viewer.

Katic’s true statement about farmer income and farm production yield increases play very well to an audience of farmers. But America’s farmers are in the fields while Katie Couric and friends are being beamed into America’s households. The people watching the debate were moms, grandparents and retirees who hear about increased farm income and see their limited budgets stretched beyond the breaking point.

With the baby boom generation largely settling into a life of sedentary retirement, blood pressure and cholesterol medication, and endless supplies of decongestants to open allergy closed breathing passages, etc. the very thought that the food we eat my contribute to the assault on their health is simply more than they can bear.

As long as the biotech industry and every other resource-related industry relies on the media training of traditional adversting agency/public relations firms, they will continue to spout meaningless (to consumers) statistics. They will continue to see themselves cast as greedy ogres who don’t care a whit about the health of the planet or the viewers’ families.

The fact remains that biotechnology had a forum where it could have won the equivalent of the World Series of public relations. The dreams and reality biotech scientists bring to the world’s food and environmental forums are amazing, inspirational and filled with real achievements that should provide the world with hope, not fear.

Unfortunately, biotech failed to seize its moment of glory. It’s representative reacted exactly the way the NGOs predicted and allowed the opposition to steal the trophy. It is not our intention to cast aspersions upon the biotech industry or their spokesmen and women. The BIO representative reacted exactly as she was trained. The unfortunate fact of advocacy life is that traditional media training simply cannot win debates with NGO advocates.

If U.S. agricultural biotechnology is to avoid the mistakes that lost it so much time, energy and consumer empathy in Europe and increasing throughout Asia and elsewhere, it must not let anti-biotech NGOs carry each public debate. The Today Show debacle clearly demonstrates the need for groups such as Sustainable Resources International LLC to school the industry on dealing with advocacy tactics and strategy.