Searching for Achilles' Heel:
The Anti-GE Movement and the
Biotech Industry
UW-Madison conference on GM Crops/Food:
The Future of the World Agricultural Economy?
April 15, 2005
Dr. Rachel Schurman
Dept. of Sociology and Institute for Global Studies,
University of Minnesota
Goal: To explain the turnaround in the
ag biotech industry’s fortunes in the
late 1990s, and in particular, its
rejection in Europe
Basic premise: Organized activism was
responsible for changing the
industry's fortunes...
Reasoning:
– No major public health disasters with GMOs
– No corporate scandals
– The “counterfactual”… (what would have happened w/o
activism)
Cover of Newsweek, 1999
Evidence of the problem:
♦ June 1998: Monsanto invests $5 million in
ad campaign to convince Europeans of
GMOs’ benefits.
♦ Nov. 1999: 7 large life sciences firms form
new industry alliance to improve public
image in the US (BIO)
♦ Early 2000: firms narrow R&D to focus on 4
major crops. Become less ‘bullish’ toward
technology.
♦ 1999-2002: Major industry restructuring.
Three LS firms put ag divisions up for sale.
Venture K flows dry up.
What happened?
Argument: Three factors conjointly
explained the activists’ impact on the
industry:
– Activists’ strategic behavior,
– the structural vulnerabilities of the
biotech industry, deriving from “industry
structures” and
– the cultural and political context in
Europe.
Definition of industry structures (IS):
The organization of an industry, the
economic and institutional relationships
that characterize it, and the “normal” or
culturally resonant way of doing things
within it
Key idea: “IS” provide political openings
and closures to SMs, and render firms and
industries more or less vulnerable to
activist challenges
Strategic Behavior
Public demonstrations
Anti-GM “gardening”
"There are moments and issues in history where parliament is inadequate
and it falls to the people themselves to act. With the case of genetic
engineering and the granting of patents on life, I believe we have reached
one of those historic moments." -Alan Simpson MP for Nottingham
Supermarket campaigns
Constructed
alternative
frames:
“Frankenstein
foods”, genetic
contamination,
GMOs as
“unnatural”
products
“Seize the Day” folk group
targeting Monsanto
Activists also worked from the inside,
to pressure particular EU
governments to reject GMOs. Gov’ts
were more or less receptive
depending on politics of the moment
France and British governments
became less willing to approve GMOs
in the late 1990s)
These activist strategies interacted
with industry structures and political
cultural context to turn Europe
against GMOs…
Several IS important:
1) Relations along supply “or
commodity” chain.
Biotech industry dependent on processors
and retailers for a market, but not vice
versa.
 Allowed activists to divide the corporate
community; became too costly for
retailers to support biotech industry,
and they split...
(Note difference with US, where such costs haven’t
been imposed)
Supply chain for the
ag biotech industry
Ag biotech
firms (seeds)
Farmers
Monsanto, Dupont
Processors
(Nestle’s,
Nabisco, Gerber)
Elevators
or traders
(ADM, Cargill)
Retailers
(Safeway,
Sainsbury’s,
McDonalds)
2) Competitive behavior and asset
structure of firms were important:
Supermarket sector in Europe (esp.
Britain) is a highly competitive
oligopoly
Activists played one firm off against
another
Brand names and firm reputations
important - puts retailers on the
defensive
Iceland makes a strategic move
3) Organizational cultures
played a role…
 Malcolm
Walker, CEO of Iceland,
uncomfortable with GMOs (personal
values
Process of “institutional isomorphism”
occurs (copy cat behavior)
MAJOR EUROPEAN SUPERMARKET CHAINS TO GO "GMO-FREE"
(partial list)
Action announced
Date announced
Iceland
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
own brand products
March 18, 1998
Carrefour
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
own brand products
February 5, 1999
ASDA
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
own brand products
February 13, 1999
Mark's and Spencer
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
its products
March 15, 1999
Sainsbury's
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
own brand products
March 17, 1999
Co-op
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
own brand products
March 18, 1999
Waitrose
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
own brand products
March 18, 1999
Tesco
Will no longer use GM ingredients in
own brand products; will label all
other products that contain GMOs
April 27, 1999
Firm type
Political-Cultural Context
 Cultural
identities around food and
agriculture
 Recent public health scares (“Mad
cow" disease, CJ disease)
 Anti-imperialist sensibilities
Outcomes
 EU
wide de facto moratorium (at
least until recently)
 Heightened awareness of the issue
(GMOs) and major shift in public
opinion against GMOs
 Strict labeling laws for GM foods,
allowing consumers to discriminate
Current challenges (for anti-GE
movement)
 Need
to maintain public opposition ongoing challenge
 Need a way to deal with the ending
of the moratorium: new environment
 Finding a way to work with EU
farmers
 Need to counter global winds, which
are blowing in the industry’s favor
again (Brazil, Monsanto’s first qtr
earnings)
Activist strategies
Working on the co-existence issue; trying
to find loopholes and openings (coexistence rules, liability)
 Working from ground up (grassroots
groups) to build a ‘GMO-free regions’
movement
 Trying to strengthen labeling laws to
include animal feed
 Seeking to maintain pressure on retailers
thru ‘report card’ approach (Greenpeace)

Industry strategies
 Also
seeking to influence national coexistence rules
 Trying to split farmers’ interests from
activists’ (e.g, reducing farmer risk
by offering to purchase contaminated
crops)
 Simply “outliving” the movement and
hubbub
Not clear how the conflict among these
adversaries will play out, but …it is
clear that this is a new moment and
new terrain
Possible new sources of energy for
movement:
1) Pharming (plant pharmaceuticals)
2) Cloned and GE animals
3) Some other unexpected food, public
health, environmental disaster