Wednesday, 30 November 2005 01:00

Reuters corrects reporting of GM lobbyists

By
Responding to an email from Spinwatch reported here recently. Reuters have acknowledged that their coverage of GM lobbyists has not been sufficiently open about their affiliations. In an email to Spinwatch Richard Mable, Editor, commodities and Energy, acknowledged that 'as you point out our story, does not make clear those affiliations so we have corrected the story to all our services and removed the previous version from our databases.' Spinwatch has written to Reuters thanking them for correcting their reporting.

Reuters - the influential news agency whose wire service stories appear in print, broadcast and web media outlets - has made a series of important corrections to an article on GMOs in Africa, following a complaint from SpinWatch.[1]

The article, originally published in late October under the headline "Africa seen accepting GMO crops more in future", has now been republished by Reuters[2] with a new headline and changes that are intended to clarify the affiliations of the source of the story - Dr Florence Wambugu and her lobby group Africa Harvest.[3]

The original article[4] reported "a Kenyan biotech expert" as seeing greater acceptance of GMOs emerging in Africa as a result of "homegrown" African GM projects. Resistance to GM in Africa was attributed by the "biotech expert" to the involvement of foreign corporations. The main example given of a "homegrown" project was a GM sorghum project that Dr Wambugu and her Africa Harvest group were developing with various collaborators.

The article as republished by Reuters makes clear that the views that are described are not those of a neutral expert but those of a "GMO advocate" who "promotes biotechnology"; it also no longer describes Africa Harvest as a "non-governmental organisation" and it makes plain the organisation's collaboration with a subsidary of the American GM giant DuPont.[3]

Wambugu's spin in the original article about 'homegrown' African GM projects, as opposed to ones driven by foreign corporations, appears suspect once one knows the real affiliations of those involved. The GM sorghum project is unimaginable without DuPont's multi-million dollar involvement and yet their involvement was not even mentioned in the original article.

Richard Mably, Reuters' Editor for Commodities and Energy, Spinwatch for helping Reuters "meet the highest standards of objectivity". He also noted that, "as you point out, our story does not make clear those affiliations so we have corrected the story to all our services and removed the previous version from our databases."[5]

SpinWatch has for some time been tracking the advocacy activities of Dr Wambugu and her Africa Harvest lobby group because of concern that their corporate affiliations were not always being made clear to journalists and others. For instance, on Africa Harvest's website[6] it is not immediately apparent who the organisation is funded by. In fact, the global federation of the biotech industry - CropLife International - is known to have funded the group's "communication activities" in the past. Wambugu, who has previously worked for Monsanto, is also a DuPont advisory panelist.[7]

Complaints about Dr Wambugu's media work are not new. In July 2003 Rankin McKay wrote in Australia's Herald Sun newspaper, "is it too cynical to suggest that having a black African as the face of a multinational chemical company is a spin doctor's dream? This seems to have lobotomised some journalists who have treated her views like the tablets from the Mount." [8]

Academic researchers have also challenged many of Dr Wambugu's statements in support of biotechnology, arguing that the scientific evidence often shows them to be the exact opposite of the real facts.[9]

SpinWatch, which is encouraging journalists to bring more investigative power and rigour to their reporting, especially where there may be undisclosed affiliations and other vested interests, is making available detailed profiles of GM lobbyists like Dr Wambugu[10] that journalists can use to help them check out this kind of background information as well as relevant affiliations.[11]


References

 

[1] Spinwatch is edited by a team of independent researchers who have extensive experience of researching the PR industry, corporate PR and lobbying, front groups, government spin, propaganda and other tactics used by powerful groups to manipulate media, public policy debate and public opinion. The editorial board of Spinwatch includes academics, activists and freelance journalists. http://www.spinwatch.org

[2] http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-11-23T121614Z_01_BAN344205_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-FOOD-GENETIC-AFRICA-20051123.XML

[3] In the article as republished on 23rd November 2005, the corrected headline reads "GMO advocate sees more acceptance in Africa" (The October 18 item was headlined "Africa seen accepting GMO crops more in future). In the first paragraph the corrected text now reads, "a Kenyan scientist who promotes biotechnology" instead of "a Kenyan biotech expert". In the third paragraph the corrected text now reads "foundation" instead of "non-governmental organisation". In the sixth paragraph the corrected text now reads, "including Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of U.S. chemicals company DuPont Co". The original text made no reference to DuPont or any other US companies, referring only to "two American groups".

[4] The original article is archived here: http://www.absp2.cornell.edu/newsroomarchives/dsply_news_item.cfm?articleid=296

[5] Personal communication, 23 November 2005.

[6] http://www.croplife.org

[7] Africa Harvest's previous funding information page is still accessible via an Internet archive and this confirms the funding by CropLife International: http://web.archive.org/web/20041010205547/www.ahbfi.org/funding.asp

For more on CropLife International: http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=69 . Africa Harvest's previous funding information page is still accessible via an Internet archive and this confirms the funding by CropLife International: http://web.archive.org/web/20041010205547/www.ahbfi.org/funding.asp

For more on CropLife International: http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=69

For more on Wambugu: http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=280

[8] GM science can be blinding, Herald Sun, July 30, 2003: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1234

[9] See, for instance, the report by Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, 'Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa' http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/00010161.html ; or the report by Dr James Smith, an African Studies specialist at the University of Edinburgh, 'The Anti-politics Gene - Biotechnology, Ideology and Innovation Systems in Kenya', http://assets.innogen.ac.uk/assets_innogen/dynamic/1121332705303/Innogen-Working-Paper-31-Final.doc

[10] http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=280

[11] http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia



Correspondence follows
_____________________________________

----------
From: Richard Mably <>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:03:10 +0000
To: David Miller

Cc: Camila Reed <>, Sean Maguire <>
Subject: RE: Monsanto and GM

dear Prof. Miller

By all accounts, from our correspondent attending the Johannesburg conference, Florence Wambugu was very open about her affiliations.

Nevertheless, as you point out our story, does not make clear those affiliations so we have corrected the story to all our services and removed the previous version from our databases. Attached is the corrected story.

Thank your again for your correspondence in helping us meet the highest standards of objectivity.

regards Richard

Richard Mably
Editor, Commodities and Energy
Reuters

www.reuters.com





From: David Miller [mailto:davidmiller@strath.ac.uk]
Sent: 21 November 2005 22:13
To: Richard Mably
Cc: Camila Reed; Sean Maguire
Subject: Re: Monsanto and GM

Dear Richard Mably

Thank you for getting back to me on this and for giving this matter careful consideration. I do appreciate it and the complex and global role that Reuters has to perform. That said, I do have some continuing concerns about the reporting of this particular story which I hope you'll consider it helpful if I outline.

In terms of balance, you contrast it with another piece by the same journalist headlined, "S.African anti-GMO campaign to step up fight". What is striking about that headline is that it suggests straightaway the probable source and biases of that story. I for one would assume it to be an article reporting that S. African anti-GMO campaigners are talking of stepping up their campaigning activities. By contrast, the headline for the article that concerns me reads "Africa seen accepting GMO crops more in future". There is nothing in that headline to indicate the source or their probable biases. To do that it should really have read, "GM lobbyists see Africa accepting GMO crops more in future".

You point out that at times Reuters articles "may represent the views of one side of the debate" and I accept that. The critical issue is how clearly the source is identified as belonging to one side of that debate. You write:

> 'When it comes to the body of the story In the case of the story you take issue with, on the company Africa Harvest, we were clear on the source of the information and provided background about its links with U.S. companies and the Gates foundation'

In fact, the initial identification of the source in the article is simply given as "a Kenyan biotech expert". Africa Harvest, as opposed to its director Florence Wambugu, is not actually mentioned until the third paragraph and then it is referred to as a "non-governmental organisation".

To most of your readers, I would suggest, somebody identified as an "expert" does not equate with a "lobbyist" or somebody campaigning on one side of a debate. Similarly, an NGO does not normally equate with a "company" but rather with a charity or voluntary group. I would certainly imagine that very few of your readers would assume that an organisation thus identified has benefited, when it comes to its "communication activities", from the financial backing of the global federation of the biotech industry.

Similarly, and without wishing to nit pick, there is no indication in the article that Africa Harvest's links are to "U.S. companies". The article refers rather to, "A consortium of seven African groups, including Wambugu's Africa Harvest, and two U.S. groups". In the context the word "group" is surely more likely to be taken by the reader to refer to an NGO or to a groups of scientists or other experts, rather than to a subsidiary of one of the world's major GM corporations.

The only way the average reader could have any sense of the real picture is by your journalist giving them one. The fact that your journalist failed to put Florence Wambugu and Africa Harvest more into context is, of course, precisely because they had very carefully presented themselves in such a way as to gloss over the awkward facts of their extensive GM corporate connections and backing. Only the more charitable involvement of the Gates Foundation seems to have been made plain. That they should choose to do this is perhaps understandable, given that the spin they were promoting was about this being a home-grown project headed by a Kenyan expert (in contrast to a project driven by foreign corporations), is somewhat subverted once one is aware of any of Wambugu and Africa Harvest's major corporate connections.

Finally, let me confirm that I'm not accusing Reuters of a general institutional bias. As I said before, I entirely sympathise with the plight of the generalist reporter when faced with such intentional PR manipulation. I do hope, however, that Reuters' journalists can be absolutely on the alert for this type of spin.

Best wishes

David Miller




From: Richard Mably <>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:03:59 +0000
To: davidmiller@strath.ac.uk
Cc: Camila Reed <>, Sean Maguire <>
Subject: re: Monsanto and GM


Dear Professor Miller

Thank you for your email on the Reuters article of October 18: "Africa seen accepting GMO crops more in future."

I would like to assure you that we have discussed the points you make and that we appreciate your help in aiding our efforts to provide a balanced picture on GM crops, including the information available on spinwatch.org.

Reuters aims to cover the issue of GM crops as objectively and accurately as possible. In doing so, we seek to provide coverage from all sides of the debate so individual stories may represent the views of one side of the debate more heavily than the other.

However, we feel that judged as a whole, our GMO file is reasonably balanced. For example, earlier this year we ran a story by the same correspondent in Johannesburg, Eric Onstad, under the headline "S.African anti-GMO campaign to step up fight" detailing campaigners' efforts against GMO.

In the case of the story you take issue with, on the company Africa Harvest, we were clear on the source of the information and provided background about its links with U.S. companies and the Gates foundation. Clearly though, the story did not attempt to go into the amount of detailed background on those allegiances as was possible. For a better view of our overall file, below is a sample of our headlines for GMO-related stories run in recent months.

> Polish PM says Poland to be GMO-free zone
> Calif. county rejects GMO crop ban
> EU authorises imports of GMO maize for feed
> Philippines faces hurdles in GMO rice push
> India seen okaying GMO mustard, rice
> Argentina to plant GMO crops despite Mon row
> China GMO rice unlikely this year
> GMO vines worry French winemakers
> Are Europe farmers warming to GMO maize?
> EU farm mins deadlocked over GMO maize
> Monsanto tests more Argentine soy in Europe
> EU authorises GMO rapeseed by legal rubberstamp
> EU food agency gives green light to GMO hybrids
> Slim chance of EU labels for "biotech" meat
> China OKs Monsanto GMO corn variety
> US says Cyprus ties could suffer on GMO
> African scientists plan GMO super sorghum
> Futuragene says can grow crops any climate
> Biotech crop policy in EU gets rethink
> Japan panel to start reviewing Bt-10 corn
> Rains boost Indian cotton sowing, transgenic
> Argentina soy exports seen slow after Monsanto
> Monsanto says readies Brazil soy royalty system
> Argentine GMO corn may face snag in Brazil
> EU withdraws Monsanto GMO approval after error
> EU ministers uphold right to ban GMO
> GMO foods can bring benefits, vigilance needed
> Japan finds third US cargo tainted with corn
> ANALYSIS-China resists 'Frankenbean'
> Japan to allow up to 1 pct GMO corn in US cargo
> U.S. grain exporters test for illegal GMO
> EU agency says illegal GMO maize probably safe
> Illegal GMO rice spreads in China-Greenpeace
> To satisfy Japan, Syngenta seeks FDA OK
> US lobby: world not ready for GMO wheat

> US has not agreed to corn tests for Japan
> Japan asks U.S. for biotech corn testing
> Pressure on prices as China readies GMO rice

Yours
Richard Mably
Editor, Commodities and Energy

Reuters

www.reuters.com