A Question of Credibility
By LYLE STEWART
Montreal Gazette
May 24, 2002
One of the driving themes of this column has been to critically examine the hidden ties between industry, government and seemingly independent non-governmental organizations, particularly over the issue of food biotechnology and the multimillion-dollar public relations campaigns launched to counter opposition to it. There are a multitude of government-funded citizens' groups that have been co-opted into becoming third-party front groups for government-industry communications strategies. I've written about the central role played, for example, by the Consumers Association of Canada and the Food Biotechnology Communications Network (which has since disbanded).
Now the Dieticians of Canada might face this quandary. The group describes itself as "the nationwide voice of over 5,000 dieticians, bringing trusted information on food and nutrition to Canadians." Last week, it published a resource pamphlet titled "Modern Food Biotechnology: Principles and Perspectives." The document is billed as a neutral educational resource for DC members to help them understand the issues surrounding genetically modified foods.
Very Open
It's funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information, the industry voice headed by former Monsanto Canada president Ray Mowling, and authored by Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman, who worked for and was trained by Monsanto on food biotechnology issues. In the past, she has promoted the corporation's GM potatoes, and traveled to Chile with Mowling (on an initiative funded by CIDA) to lobby the Chilean government into relaxing regulations governing GM foods.
In an interview, Ryan-Harshman was very open about her personal pro-biotech positions and her past work for the industry. So I asked her how this association could affect the perception of the dieticians' group - which itself takes no public position on biotech foods - as neutral and balanced.
"It's a common thing that you are criticized for the associations that you hold," she said. "As private consultants, we have those all the time. But the bottom line for dieticians in private practice who are consulting on education-type initiatives is that we want to get the message out. ... While I have a personal viewpoint, I tend to keep that out of whatever work that I am given."
Ryan-Harshman justifies the financial support from the Council for Biotechnology Information by noting it was an unrestricted educational grant. She says the CBI had no knowledge - though Mowling is cited in it several times - of what she was writing.
"I understand how you feel. You feel not unlike a lot of people that the closeness between government and industry is something to be cautious of," she said. "But I think all relationships should be re-examined on a regular basis that the intent of the association is such that it is bettering society and not becoming detrimental to society. And I'm very comfortable with working with government, industry and not-for-profit organizations in an effort to ensure that the public has access to information. I think it can be done. It might not be able to be done without criticism, but it can be done."
Still, her positions on industry concentration, corporate control and other issues such as voluntary vs. mandatory labeling tend to mirror that of the biotech industry. And in announcing the publication of "Modern Food Biotechnology," the Dieticians of Canada didn't mention that it was funded by the industry's main public-relations vehicle.
That leaves the group open to criticism from biotech opponents like Brad Duplisea at the Canadian Health Coalition.
Different Role
"None of these things has anything to do with the traditional role of a traditional dietician or nutritionist, but more to do with biotech industry strategy and communications initiatives," Duplisea said. "Ultimately, dieticians, nutritionists and health practitioners have no business defending this industry because the reality is that none of these crops have ever been subject to chronic testing. So nobody knows if they are safe or not. And it's a sad day when people who claim to be health practitioners and dietitians are becoming shills for the biotech industry."
The language is strong, and perhaps unfair to the Dieticians of Canada. But that's the danger in associating itself with powerful and self-interested industry groups. It can undermine the most important thing it has to offer - the public's trust that it is an independent voice.
Lyle Stewart is a Montreal writer.
Bradford Duplisea is an independent Ottawa-based researcher
who often works on health care and food safety issues for the Canadian Health Coalition.
He can be reached at:
Brad@Duplisea.ca
Click here to read more GM food exposés based on Access-to-Information research by Bradford Duplisea