 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Australasian Biotechnology, Vol. 10 No. 6, 2000, pp. 17 BIOTECH COMMUNICATION A NORTH AMERICAN UPDATEPaula Fitzgerald, Agrifood Awareness Australia Code Number: au00063 I am drafting this article at the Seattle airport while I wait for my flight to San Francisco and the connection to Sydney. My plane has a one-and-a-half hour delay - it is two days before Thanksgiving and the airport is frantic. According to the news report, there will be an estimated 7.3 million people travelling via air, train or bus over the next few days, and 31.6 million driving vehicles. How many of these travellers are aware of genetically modified (GM) foods, I wonder? How many are concerned about the Starlink corn incident? Or how many people are simply focused on what’s important to them - such as the size of the Thanksgiving turkey and getting home to be with family? I have enjoyed a hectic three weeks in North America - speaking at the 7th Pacific Rim Biotechnology Conference in Vancouver, and visiting various organisations in the US and Canada involved in biotechnology communication, including: Washington DC
As there is not enough space in this article to report on each meeting, I will narrow my report down to five key highlights. These highlights are the issues/ideas and strategies that had the greatest impact on me and made me question and evaluate what or how we are conducting activities in Australia. Five key issues from North America1. Communication and CoordinationWhile there was differentiation between organisations and activities in the US and Canada, all groups maintained regular communication and were involved in coordinated activities. Each organisation/ association clearly has its own role and remains independent, however all groups share information, market research and activities and work to identify opportunities where all groups can be involved to maximise impact and results. This is something, I believe, we need to do better in Australia. We currently have several groups, numerous email lists and mailing lists, but no one real point of connection, communication and coordination. It is quite ironic, in that this is an area in which biotech protesters rank number one - with international networks and established and ongoing communication. The Australian biotechnology industry would benefit considerably from better communication between all groups. 2. Encompassing the Whole Value ChainIn Canada, I was particularly impressed by the fact that all members/ organisations in the value chain were represented - from chemical/ life-sciences companies and farm organisations, right through to retailers. In addition, there is regular communication/updates provided to supermarket retailers which has ensured a situation in which individual supermarkets have agreed not to become publicly involved in the GM debate until the country’s GM labelling regime has been approved. Labelling discussions involving all stakeholders are currently under way. By comparison, in Australia we have already had one major supermarket retailer announce the development of GM-free food products for their customers. I question how many of these retailers have scientific expertise at their decision-making tables. Also, has the biotechnology industry made a concerted effort to encourage ongoing dialogue with the ‘other-end’ of the value chain? 3. BalanceEvery organisation that I met with saw their role as providing balanced, credible, scientifically-based information to their various audiences. They indicated that by providing information in this way - both potential benefits and risks - it provided them with credibility. This is one point that I believe Australian groups currently do quite well. We do however desperately need more scientists, working in this area, who are willing to discuss both the benefits and risks of this technology and put it into context. 4. Pharmaceutical PhobiasThis item comes specifically from the Pacific Rim conference during a session focussed on dealing with the media, where a panel of two journalists and a CEO spoke about their experiences in biotechnology reporting. The session ended with a lengthy discussion time, during which high level representatives of the pharmaceutical industry heavily criticised the agriculture biotechnology industry for poor consumer communication and education. This made me question where the pharmaceutical companies are in Australia? With numerous market research results highlighting greater consumer acceptance of biotechnology in medicine, why don’t we have greater representation of this group in the public arena? 5. Well PositionedMy overall conclusion is that Australia is well-placed in terms of biotechnology communication. That does not mean that any of us in the biotech industry can afford to relax. We have several groups, including government, communicating about the technology, with only one GM crop commercially available. With ongoing, credible, balanced communication, I believe consumers will, in time, look to adopt this new technology, as they have many others. Agrifood Awareness Australia would like to invite ABA individuals (from all segments of the value chain) to become more involved in communicating about biotechnology. Agrifood Awareness Australia provides media training and support materials for spokespeople. We look forward to hearing from you!
Copyright 2000 - Australasian Biotechnology |
| |||||||||
