6:24 AM - Mar 28, 2000 EDT
Scientist defends biotech crops, says 'buzz words' key to anti-lobbyist
by Julianne Johnston 

In a recent on-line biotechnology forum, John Mottley, University
of East London, said in his opinion, part of the problem with public
acceptance of genetically modified organisms is the anti-lobbist
have created - and set in the public mind - negative words against
GMOs. "Such words as 'FrankenFoods', 'genetic pollution' and so
on," he pointed out. "Words like these, as the anti-GMO protestors
know full well, are pure propaganda that works brilliantly.
The pro-lobby has been slow to respond likewise."

"Over the years we have gone from 'genetic engineering' to 'genetic
manipulation' to 'genetic modification'," he states. "We should now
start to be more positive and call it 'genetic improvement' or
'biotechnology enhanced'. Other terms we might start to use include
'biotechnology protected' crops, 'biotechnology pesticide-free'. We
might also take a leaf from the other side's book and use 'organic
poisons', 'organic destruction' of the rainforests, 'organic food
poisoning' etc. It might sound a bit Goebbelian, but we need to win
the war of words, as well as the science war, if the public are to
be persuaded to accept GMOs."

Anyone else got any ideas for buzz words? E-mail me by clicking on
my byline above.

Another scientist in the forum notes: "I am not willing to stake my
career on the acceptability of Bt-corn. However, plants that are
engineered to produce higher levels of vitamin A are easy to defend,
and the super-weed scenario doesn't apply. What is necessary in these
discussions is not a unified sound byte answer that all of us
scientists stick by, but a real debate, and real discussion that
leads to an increased level of understanding from all sides
(certainly us science types should not pretend to know all sides
of a social policy issue!)."