Former Monsanto Lobbyist Carol Foreman

Appointed to Serve as US "Consumer Advocate"

on Biotech Consultative Forum Delegation

The Agribusiness Examiner # 77 6jun00
 Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective
A.V. Krebs Editor\Publisher

Ignoring the unanimous recommendation of many consumer and agriculture groups concerned about biotechnology, the White House, with input from the U.S. State Department, recently appointed its own "consumer advocate" to the global Biotech Consultative Forum on May 31.

"I'd say that the massive PR counter assault against biotech activists has just scored its most important victory with this appointment of one of them as our consumer activist," charged John Stauber, PR Watch Managing Editor in reacting to the appointment of Carol Tucker Foreman of the now very dubious "Consumer Federation of America" (CFA) to serve on the panel.

Although a number of groups had forwarded the name of Dr. Michael Hansen of Consumer Union's Consumer Policy Institute, Dr. Hansen, who has testified before Congress and many other bodies exposing false claims made by the Monsanto Corporation pertaining to the company's manufacture of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and other products, was passed over in favor of Foreman, a recent former lobbyist for Monsanto.

Foreman is currently working on a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, a heavy investor in biotechnology research and now heads up the food issues section, which includes Genetically Modified Organisms, for CFA, a Greenwashing group which happily accepts food industry funding.

Before leaving her lucrative lobbying firm --- now called Heidepriem & Mager --- last year, Foreman's many corporate clients included Monsanto, Procter & Gamble, and other agribusiness and biotech companies, as well as the tobacco giant Philip Morris ("Carol Foreman is one of the most respected consumer activists in town, formerly an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture"), who is also the largest food corporation in the U.S.

Stauber notes that Foreman has certainly shown "an interest" in the GE food issue.  "That's why she helped Monsanto lead the fight to make sure that rBGH was approved, without labeling, by the Clinton administration.  She was no doubt crucial in keeping her allies at Center for Science in the Public Interest, Public Voice and CFA quiet an the sidelines throughout that fight.

"Yes, she had more than an interest in the GE food issue, she had a huge personal political and economic stake, helping Monsanto and her food industry clients.  Unfortunately for them, ramming rBGH down our throats hasn't made these issues go away (oh, those pesky foreign activist!), and now once again, in my opinion, its Carol to the rescue, wearing her `consumer advocate' hat,"  Stauber adds.

Stauber goes on to point out that some suspect that Foreman's appointment has been long in the works, "that the primary reason she left her incredibly lucrative corporate lobby firm to take her current position as food czar with the CFA was to use her corporate, political and public interest connections to pave the way for a resolution of the current trade impasse on genetically engineered foods.

"The Clinton/Gore-led effort to rush GE foods onto the market has resulted in an economic and political train wreck internationally, and fixing this mess for the Democrats and the food and biotech industry requires someone of Foreman's skills, someone who has the incredible ability to sell herself inside the beltway as a `consumer advocate' while pulling in huge money as a biotech and food industry lobbyist," he adds.

Foreman was the executive director of CFA before starting her corporate lobby career, and while a corporate lobbyist she headed up the board of the food-industry funded Public Voice organization.  When she moved back to CFA last year, Public Voice became part of CFA.

Stauber notes that CFA badly needs infusions of corporate and foundation cash, and folding Public Voice into its operation under Foreman has delivered the money.  For instance, CFA's National Food Policy Conference was "held in cooperation with the National Food Processors Association, with technical assistance from the International Food Information Council.  Support the 2000 biotechnology component was provided by the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA).

The AFIA is a huge trade association and lobby group unknown to most Americans, but it is the group responsible for launching and coordinating the campaign to put food disparagement laws on the books in a number of states throughout the nation.

"The arrogance of the biotech food industry," Stauber points out, "has gotten them into their current mess. They are hoping the arrogance of naming Carol to this position will help get them out.  This will be a real test of just how much clout U.S. activists have.  Leafletting supermarkets and dressing up like a GE carrot is one thing, but it means little if biotech/food lobbyists like Carol are handed the baton."

The U.S. and the European Union (EU) have agreed to establish a Consultative Forum to review and assess the benefits and risks of biotechnology and prepare a report on these issues for the December 2000 U.S.-EU Summit.. The Forum includes individuals from outside government covering a broad range of perspectives, expertise, and interests --- people with backgrounds in labor, academia, and business, including scientists, ethicists, environmental interests, farmers, and consumers. They will look at factors such as the food security needs of developing countries, food safety, health and the
environment.

With the exception of Becky Goldburg of the Environmental Defense Fund, there are no known critics of biotechnology appointed to the Biotech Consultative Forum Board by the "environmental-friendly" Clinton/Gore administration. Corporate interests (including non-profit organizational mouthpieces for the biotech industry) are heavily weighted.

And, as Stauber observes, the venerable Norman Borlaug, father of high chemical-use agriculture, is also on the Board of Directors (not just the advisory board) of Elizabeth Whelan's American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), the oldest far-right industry funded think tank attacking concerns about rBGH, biotech foods, chemical poisons, asbestos, global warming and everything else but tobacco as "junk science" promoted by "extremists" and "food terrorists" who just want to scare the  public into buying books and sending them money.

"So, the bottom-line is that Elizabeth Whelan has better representation on this committee, much better, than U.S. consumers and public interest activists."