Frankenstein Foods Belief And Delusion In The Campaign Against Gm Foods

Frankenstein Food: Belief and delusion in the campaign against genetically modified foods.

‘That corpse you planted last year in your garden, ‘Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year? (Eliot 1999 (1922))

Introduction The genetic modification of plants and animals used for food has proved one of the most controversial ecological issues of the recent past. The topic has received wide media coverage and public interest. Strong opinions have been voiced both in favour of, and against, the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO). The movement against GM has been spearheaded by their description as ‘Frankenstein Foods’, a phrase which has saturated both campaigning and media coverage. The phrase has proved useful shorthand for alerting the public to concerns about GMOs. However, many voices in the scientific community have found the media coverage misleading and unhelpful, and particularly disparage the term. But corporations and scientists, as well as activists have sought to influence public opinion using language that has frequently tended towards the evangelical. I propose that this is because the conflict of opinion is rooted in an essentially spiritual dispute over our conception of nature. That is a wonderfully sharp abstract. Well done. You’ve planned your work; let’s see if you now 1

work your plan.

The Case for GM What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow Out of this stony rubbish? (Eliot 1999 (1922)) Biotechnology has been presented as miraculous, a “holy grail” that can improve on nature, feed the burgeoning populations of the world and meliorates the health and wealth of the poor. It is presented as the continuation of the “green revolution” which brought scientific and industrial agriculture techniques to the third world. In documents prepared by public relations agency Burson-Marsteller on behalf of EuropaBio, lobbyists for the European Biotechnology industry, a strategy is laid out for managing public and media relations (1997). It offers a prime example of what Bill McKibben has described as ‘perception management’ (2003, p.184) and indicates how appeals are made to the non-rational. The strategy includes recommendations that the biotechnology industry use stories, it suggests that ‘it is essential to shift from issues-based communications to stories-based communications’, and that the industry should present symbols rather than logical appeals: Symbols – not logic: symbols are central to politics because they connect to emotions, not logic. Adversaries of biotechnology are highly skilled in the cultivation of symbols eliciting instant emotions of fear, rage and resentment. Bioindustries need to respond in similar terms – with symbols eliciting hope, satisfaction, caring and self-esteem (Burson-Marsteller 1997).

Some of this symbolic approach can be witnessed in the advertising and promotion of GM food crops issued in the late 1990s. Public relations work by two of the major GM producers, Monsanto and Syngenta, presented the benefits of their products in terms that resembled the miraculous. In commercials on US television Syngenta’s “golden rice” was presented as a foodstuff that could end blindness, and heal the sick (Pollan 2001, Smith 2007, p.243). In Let the Harvest Begin, a statement intended for European newspapers, Monsanto told how GM plants would feed the hungry ‘we dream of a tomorrow without hunger’, and breed plants from the dead ground, ‘more productivity from less tillable ground’ (Monsanto 1998). Mainstream media spoke of ‘super foods’ (Graham 1997). In line with Burson-Marsteller’s recommendations, 2

GM technology was presented as ‘the science that promises hope’ (Monsanto 1998). These testaments to the miraculous properties of GM crops, repeat the narrative told about the green revolution, where new ‘miracle’ seeds promised higher yields than nature could provide. While the benefits of the green revolution remain an article of faith for supporters of industrial agriculture, elsewhere there is scepticism about the advantages that these seeds provided. Critics concede that they ‘are a commercial miracle, because farmers have to buy new supplies of them every year: they do not reproduce themselves’ but find less impressive results on other metrics (Shiva 1988, p.121, Morgan 1979, p.237). Vandana Shiva remarks that, in ‘less than two decades, the farmers of the Punjab have found that the miracle seeds were not such a miracle after all’ (1988, p.136 Investigation into Syngenta’s claims for golden rice provides further cause for scepticism. Not only because the $100 million spent developing the grain was, apparently, matched by $50 million just to advertise it, but because of the causes of the afflictions it claims to heal. The vitamin A deficiency in the Asian poor, which led to blindness and illness, occurred subsequent to the loss of green vegetables from the diet. Those green vegetables were themselves lost as a result of green revolution moves to monoculture planting and pesticide use, which removed them from the fields and killed them at the margins. The rich diversity of nature was replaced with a poisoned industrialised landscape (Haerlin 2001, Pollan 2001, McKibben 2003, pp.141-147). It seems reasonable, therefore, to ask the proponents of biotechnology a question of Vandana Shiva’s, ‘[w]hy has it become necessary to have a second green revolution so soon after the first?’ (1988, p.136). Or to ask along with Jesus’s disciples, ‘who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2). Golden rice was subsequently revealed by Greenpeace to have such low vitamin A content, that an 11-year-old child would have to eat 15 pounds of it to reach the minimum daily requirement (Haerlin 2001). Michael Pollan, notes that the heavy promotion of golden rice, the first GM food with supposed health benefits, was largely aimed at silencing critics, hence the large advertising spend. The dubious actual value of its modified properties made this ‘the world’s first purely rhetorical technology’ (2001). A few years earlier Pollan had noted that, in promoting potential future benefits to the hungry in the third world, the GM industry was ‘asking consumers to do something it has yet to do itself: Forget rational self-interest, and act on faith’ (Pollan 1999). GM foods are being symbolically associated with miraculous, faithbased properties superior to natural life, and the western consumer is being appealed to accept them on a non-rational basis. This

3

indicates to me that the conflict between those for and against the introduction of GM is dominated by techniques of persuasion that might be understood as magic. These techniques clearly fall into types we are used to describing as campaigning, propaganda, public relations and advertising but the perception that their methodology also has something of sorcery about it, is by no means novel. In his essay Advertising: the Magic System, Raymond Williams describes how advertising uses a cultural pattern of associating objects with social and personal meanings and notes that: The short description of the pattern we have is magic: a highly organized and professional system of magical inducements and satisfactions, functionally very similar to magical systems in simpler societies, but rather strangely co-existent with a highly developed scientific technology1. (Williams 2005 (1980), p.185). That such patterns extend beyond the simple advertising of goods and services for sale to wider interpretations of the world is proposed by activist and witch Starhawk, who writes that a ‘spell is a story we tell ourselves that shapes our emotional and psychic world. The media, the authorities tell a story so pervasive that most people mistake it for reality’ (2003, p.155). Jeffrey M. Smith suggests that much of what is said about GM crops by corporations engaged in their production and dissemination are manufactured realities (2007, p.1) and the messages of Monsanto and Syngenta are clearly stories intended to shape our perceptions of both nature and technology. Others go further and state that the claims made for biotechnology and GM are myths (Working Group on Genetic Engineering of the Justice, Peace and Creation team, 2005, p.16).

The very fact that the biotechnology that produces GMOs is a highly developed area of science may, contrary to Williams’s suggestion of strangeness, be a contributory factor as to why it is considered through a magical lens. Arthur C. Clarke’s dictum that ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ (1973), suggests that we have a tendency to consider advanced science in a non-rational manner. Biotechnology is to the average citizen, to all intents and purposes, magical. 1

4

The Case Against GM and the term ‘Frankenstein Foods’ Meanwhile the grail passed again in front of them, and again the youth did not ask who was served from the grail… So the question was put off, and he set his mind to drinking and eating (Troyes 2004, p.421). The persuasive stories of the biotechnology companies were successful in introducing GMOs to the USA, where GM foods have been sold unlabelled as such for over a decade. In the early 1990s NGOs were struggling to make much of an impact on the general public with their anti-GM campaigns (Porritt 2000, p.77). Up until the end of the 1990s the European nations seemed likely to follow the USA in widespread introduction of GM foodstuffs, with little attention being paid to activists’ concerns. Starhawk suggests that the manufactured realities of political and corporate power might be dispelled by means of counter-spells, ‘The counterspell is simple: tell a different story. Pull back the curtain, expose their story for the false tale it is’ (Starhawk 2003, p.155). A number of phrases and descriptions have been used by the media and by campaigning organisations to tell a different story, to describe GMOs and their alleged effects. All of them suggest a distorted nature. There has been talk of ‘mutant crops’ (Johnston et al. 1999), ‘mutant foods’ (Lewis 1992), talk of ‘super weeds’ and ‘zombie seeds’ (Sense About Science 2009, p.5), ‘monster munch’ (Graham 1997) and even of ‘cannibalism’ (Ingham 1999). These are all examples of what Peter Sandman, an expert on risk communication and public relations consultant to major corporations (including Monsanto) calls ‘outrage’, suggesting a public response out of kilter with established hazard (Burke 2004, Jensen 2006 p.532-533). The most successful tactic has made use of a pre-existing story, one that challenges the narrative of infallible scientific achievement, and evokes the hazards of manipulating nature: Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus (2003 (1818)). Shelley’s work has begotten the phrases most associated with the movement against GMOs, ‘Frankenstein Foods’ and Frankenfoods. The Oxford English Dictionary (Anon 2006) traces the origins of the neologism Frankenfoods to a letter by Paul Lewis (1992) published in The New York Times. Lewis was responding to an earlier article (Krimsky 1992) on the FlavrSavr™ tomato (the first GM food product to go on sale) and warned of ‘risks we can’t yet guess’. Lewis is a professor of English specializing in gothic fiction, teaching at Boston College (a Jesuit university). The association of Mary Shelley’s novel with genetic engineering

5

goes back further however, the first ever conference on the release of genetically engineered micro-organisms was reported in The Guardian with the suggestion that it ‘opened the way for the “Frankenstein’s Monster” version of science’ (Radford 1988). This same fear was evoked by HRH The Prince of Wales in a speech given at the 50th anniversary of The Soil Association, where he railed against the urge to dominate nature, framed the issue in a spiritual perspective and asked ‘what actual right do we have to experiment, Frankenstein-like, with the very stuff of life?’ (1996). The widespread use of the term “Frankenstein Food” begins, however, in 1998-1999 amongst the media coverage of allegations about the safety of genetically modified foods. Dr Arpad Pusztai, leader of the team designing safety assessments for GM foods on behalf of the UK government went public with concerns that those foods were harmful in a television documentary Eat Up Your Genes (Granada 1998). A subsequent press conference he gave in the House of Commons (12 February 1999) drew media attention and public concern. This was the moment that anti-GM campaigners became more successful. UK food suppliers reacted quickly with an advertising campaign that characterised the anti-GM movement as superstitious and unscientific. A front organisation for the lobbyist group The Food and Drink Federation. calling itself “foodfuture” placed half page advertisements in the UK press, headlined ‘Frankenfoods or Fairy Tales’ (1999). The advertisement, featured an illustration of a beanstalk and proclaimed: When we were young we believed tales of the big bad wolf and giant beanstalks. Nowadays we see reports of the potentially terrible consequences of so called “frankenfoods” – in both cases these stories may have more to do with fantasy than fact. (foodfuture 1999) The irony that it was, in fact, the GM industry, which was asking indigenous farmers to give up their traditional agriculture for magic beans, is apparently lost on them. The scientific community also took issue with the ‘scare stories’ appearing in the media and the use of Frankenstein Food headlines before research was published and could be assessed (Goldacre 2008 p.222). Richard Dawkins wrote a letter in response to statements made by HRH Prince of Wales calling on him, and those who shared his views, to not turn their ‘back on science’ (2000). In an article for the European Molecular Biology Organization, Derek Burke2 remarks on both the ‘hostile attitude’ of the newspapers, and Burke served as Chairman of the UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes from 1989 to 1997, during which time the body approved the sale of GM tomato paste, the first commercially 2

6

NGOs experienced in ‘spin’, complaining that their ‘mission is not to debate facts and findings but to influence public opinion, and any debate with them is unlike a standard scientific debate’ (2004). This comment addressed to the NGOs seems on the evidence quoted earlier directly applicable to the GM industries, but also worthy of inquiry. Jonathan Porritt has noted the division between ‘rational scientific discourse’ and ‘media-hyped, polarized confrontation’ (2000, p.77) but adds that: Far from being bamboozled by sensationalist media coverage, it seems more likely to me that people are making quite sophisticated, if intuitive, judgements about relative risks and benefits (Porritt 2000, p.91). I wonder, however, if this issue doesn’t go beyond an assessment of the relative risks and benefits associated with GM foods and that if it is ‘unlike a standard scientific debate’ that is because it addresses not only scientific questions, but also questions about science. Not least the assumption that technology is neutral (Mander 1992, p.35). The accusation of an un-scientific approach is acute, however, activists in the debate over global warming arm themselves with ‘peer-reviewed science’. We can of course, and should, assert that there is more than one paradigm of nature, and more than one view of science. Holding to the truths of science need not mean that all our values should be drawn from materialism nor that our philosophy should be limited to observable phenomena. Victor Frankenstein is an archetype of the scientist that represents everything perceived as being transgressive and dangerous in a science that pursues the technically possible before asking whether the results are desirous or not. The metaphor of ‘Frankenstein Foods’ is therefore, not simply about health risks associated with GM foods but an extension of the critique of science found in Shelley’s original novel and a further rejection of the mechanistic paradigm of nature. Genetic modification is clearly in the philosophical lineage of the Cartesian interpretation of nature as a mechanism. GM promotes the idea that nature is reducible to distinct building blocks, genes, and that these might be interchanged between species. This exchange of desirable characteristics peculiar to one life form with unwanted characteristics of another in order to facilitate the production of a superior ‘machine’ marks the triumph of a reductionist worldview. It also marks a de-sacralising of nature. Vandana Shiva remarks that the ‘ ‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ will be new dualisms – cultural creations of a biotechnology based on available GM foodstuff in the UK.

7

profitability alone’ (1988 p.139). Elsewhere, it has been proposed that the ‘reductionism at the heart of GE [genetic engineering], in which life is reduced to a genetic code, reinforces a culture of individualism in which the only way life forms can relate is as marketable commodities’ (Working Group on Genetic Engineering of the Justice, Peace and Creation team, 2005 p.27). The association of GMOs with the transnational corporations that produce and distribute them and with the processes of industrial agriculture, industrial science and economic globalisation should direct us immediately to the question: cui bono? Who benefits? Or the spiritual formulation of this question – who does it serve? (McIntosh 1998). As a report to the World Council of Churches stated, ‘in the area of food security, science and technology are not neutral, but are in fact rooted in the power dynamics of the global neo-liberal economic paradigm’ (Working Group on Genetic Engineering of the Justice, Peace and Creation team, 2005 p.16). In 2002 Jesuit priests in Zambia led the country’s rejection of GM food offered by the USA as famine relief because it was seen to be an offer of junkie crops. The offer was perceived as a means of creating dependence rather than facilitating autonomy (Abernathy 2004). Peter Henriot, a Jesuit priest who directs the Jesuit Center for Theological Reflection in Lusaka, Zambia, notes further that: There are also religious and ethical concerns about the GMO approach. Because we humans are fellowcreatures with the rest of creation - members of the earth community - we must show due respect for the integrity of creation. Manipulation of the forces of nature through biotechnology is not a neutral or purely technical matter. It has been demonstrated to have effects on nature and continually must be subjected to ethical evaluation (Henriot 2005). Dennis Burke attempts to understand why some people regard the GM technology he supports as unnatural, and proposes that it relates to a religious conception of the ‘natural’. He suggests that people who promote such ‘naturalism’ see GM as an ‘offence to nature’. He can find no logic in this decision however and considers such a view to be the product of ‘pre-existing agendas’, by which one can only conclude he means beliefs held prior to their consideration of GM (2004). All those considering the question of using GM come to it with preexisting beliefs. Behind the support for GM technology is a belief structure, which holds that industrial capitalism and an economic globalisation based on principles of free trade are the only conditions from which we can successfully address the world situation. The promoters of biotechnology ask us to embrace GM as

8

a necessary tool to solve problems caused by the thinking they themselves extol, like the pesticide use of the green revolution, and Monsanto’s comment that ‘we need new ways to yield more from what is left – after development and erosion take their toll’ (1998s). While many supporters of GM also see it as a “green” technology, even as organic, it is clear that they do so from a position that views nature from a purely functional perspective (Burke 2004). According to this perspective, the natural world is considered to have value as a source of materials and services but not to have any integral value in itself. The deeply felt resistance to GM is not based merely on immediate questions such as do GM foods harm human health? But on the more essential spiritual conception that we are not separate from nature, that nature cannot be reduced to abstract elements reanimated or not according to our will.

9

Bibliography ABERNATHY, B. 2004. Zambia: Genetically Modified Foods. Religion and Ethics Weekly. [Online] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week721/cover.html (02 march 2009). ANON. 1995. We Ketchup With Times. The Daily Mirror. 28 September, p.9. ANON. 1999. Leading Article: Less spin, more science. The Independent. 23 May. [Online version] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-article-less-spinmore-science-1095484.html (04 March 2009) ANON. 2006. Franken-, comb.form. DRAFT ENTRY Mar 2006. Oxford English Dictionary [Online version] http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/20002941? query_type=word&queryword=frankenstein&first=1&max_to_show =10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=hbvW-wlBOmr7584&result_place=1 (09 February 2009) (Subscription required). BBC. 1990. Guess What’s Coming to Dinner. [off-air video recording: VHS]. Horizon. London: BBC2. 12 February 1990. BURKE, D. 1999. ‘Frankenstein’ foods: why my committee approved them. Times Higher Education. 19 February. [Online version] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? storyCode=145151§ioncode=26 (03 March 2009). BURKE, D. 2004. GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? EMBO Reports, 5 (5), pp.432-436. BURSON MARSTELLER GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS EUROPE. 1997. Communications Programmes for Europabio January 1997. Unpublished public relations strategy document leaked to Greenpeace. [Online version] http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/geleak1.htm (02 March 2009). CLARKE, A.C. 1973. Profiles of the Future; An Inquiry into the Limits of the Future. New York: MacMillan. COOK, G. 2004. Genetically Modified Language; The discourse of argument for GM crops and food. London: Routledge. DAWKINS, R. 2000. Don’t turn your back on science; An open letter from biologist Richard Dawkins to Prince Charles. The Observer. 21 May. [Online version] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4020558,00.html (04 March 2009).

10

ELIOT, T.S. 1999 (1922). The Waste Land. London: Faber & Faber. FOODFUTURE. 1999. Frankenfoods or Fairy Tales? The Express. 17 February, p.8. Frankenstein. 1931 [DVD: Region 2 encoding]. WHALE, J. London: Universal Pictures. GOLDACRE, B. 2008. Bad Science. London: Fourth Estate. GRAHAM, P. 1997. Monster Munch; ‘Super’ foods hit the shelves. The Mirror. 28 November, p.28. GRANADA. 1998. Eat Up Your Genes. [off-air video recording: VHS]. World in Action. London: ITV. 10 August 1998. HAERLIN, B. 1999. GE rice is fool’s gold. [WWW] http://archive.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/food/goldenrice.h tm (02 March 2009). HENRIOT, P. 2005. The Zambia Experiment. Sojourners. [Online version] http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm? action=magazine.article&issue=soj0504&article=050423 (02 March 2009) (Registration (free) required to access). HERMAN, E.S. and CHOMSKY, N. 1994. Manufacturing Consent; The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage. HH. 1990. Food fit for Frankenstein. The Guardian. 13 February, p.36. HRH THE PRINCE OF WALES. 1996. A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales on the 50th anniversary of The Soil Association, The 1996 Lady Eve Balfour Memorial Lecture, The Banqueting Hall, London. 18 September 1996. [Online version] http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/a_speech_by_ hrh_the_prince_of_wales_on_the_50th_anniversary__140971213.htm l (02 March 2009). HRH THE PRINCE OF WALES. 1998. The Seeds of Disaster. The Daily Telegraph. 7 June. [Online version] http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/an_article_by_ the_prince_of_wales_titled_the_seeds_of_disast_1857887259.html (02 March 2009). INGHAM, J. 1999. Human Genes in GM Food; Protests at move to ‘cannibalism’. The Express. 15 February, p.1, 7. JENSEN, Derrick. 2006. Endgame; Volume 2: Resistance. New York: Seven Stories Press. JOHNSTON, L., CONNETT, D., CALVERT, J. and DERBYSHIRE, P. 1999. We can’t control our mutant crops; Confidential memo from

11

Monsanto adviser shows true deceit of food giant. The Express. 18 February, pp.11-12. KRIMSKY, S. 1992. Tomatoes May Be Dangerous to Your Health. The New York Times. 1 June. LEWIS, P. 1992. Mutant Foods Create Risks We Can’t Yet Guess; Since Mary Shelley. The New York Times. 16 June, pp. A24/5. [Online version] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9E0CE0DD153AF935A25755C0A964958260 (02 March 2009). LOMBARD, H. & SMITH, J. 2006. Science or Nonsense? Two Sides of the GM Devb LORDE, A. 1984. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In: Sister/Outsider. Trumansberg: The Crossing Press. MANDER, J. 1992. In the Absence of the Sacred; The Failure of Technology & the Survival of the Indian Nations. Berkeley: Sierra Club Books. MCINTOSH, Alastair. 1998. The Cult of Biotechnology? Resurgence, (188), pp.8-11. [Online version] http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_biotechnology.htm (27 February 2009). MCKIBBEN, B. 2003. Enough; Genetic Engineering and the End of Human Nature. London: Bloomsbury. MONSANTO. 1998. Let the Harvest Begin. [Online copy] http://www.ukabc.org/gaiam2_1.htm (03 March 2009). MORGAN, D. 1979. Merchants of Grain. New York: Viking. MYERSON, G. 2000. Donna Harraway and GM Foods. Cambridge: Icon Books. O’NEILL, M. 1992. Geneticists’ Latest Discovery: Public Fear of ‘Frankenfood’. 28 June. [Online version] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9E0CE2DA103DF93BA15755C0A964958260 (02 March 2009). PITCHER, George. 2008. Prince Charles pits faith against GM cops. The Daily Telegraph. 21 December. [Online version] http://www.google.co.uk/url? q=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/georgepitcher/3 561449/Prince-Charles-pits-faith-against-GM-crops.html (04 March 2009). POLLAN, M. 1999. The Way We Live Now: Feeding Frenzy. The New York Times Magazine. 12 December. [Online version] http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=62 (04 March 2009).

12

POLLAN, M. 2001. The Way We Live Now: The Great Yellow Hype. The New York Times Magazine. 4 March. [Online version] http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=15 (04 March 2009). PORRITT, J. 2000. Playing Safe: Science and the Environment. London: Thames & Hudson. RADFORD, Tim. 1988. A sock in the teeth for Baron Frankenstein. The Guardian. 7 April, p.23. ROSZAK, T. 2000. The Gendered Atom; reflections on the sexual psychology of science. Totnes: Green Books. ROWELL, A. 2003. Don’t Worry, It’s Safe To Eat: The True Story of GM Food, BSE & Foot and Mouth. London: Earthscan. SAFIRE, W. 2000. The Way We Live Now: 8-13-00: On Language; Franken--. The New York Times. 13 August. [Online version] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9F07E0D8113CF930A2575BC0A9669C8B63 (02 March 2009). SENSE ABOUT SCIENCE. 2009. Making Sense of GM; What is the genetic modification of plants and why are scientists doing it? Sense About Science. SHELLEY, M. 2003 (1818). Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus. London: Penguin. SHIVA, V. 1988. Staying Alive; Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books. SMITH, J.M. 2007. Genetic Roulette; The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Fairfield: Yes! Books. SPRETNAK, C. 1997. The Resurgence of the Real; Body, Nature, and Place in a Hypermodern World. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. STARHAWK. 2003? Webs of Power: Notes from the Global Uprising. THORNTON, Mace. 1999. Monstrous Fiction Drives European Attacks on U.S. Food. The Voice of Agriculture – American Farm Bureau. [WWW] http://www.fb.org/index.php? fuseaction=newsroom.focusfocus&year=1999&file=fo0510.html (04 March 2009). TROYES, C. de. 2004. The Story of the Grail (Perceval). In: KIBLER, W.W. trans. Arthurian Romances. 2nd edn. London: Penguin. WILLIAMS, R. 2005 (1980). Advertising: the Magic System. In: Culture and Materialism. London: Verso. WINK, W. 1992. Engaging the Powers; Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

13

WOMACK, S. 1999. Blair battles to calm public fears over mutant food. The Express. 19 February, p.7. WORKING GROUP ON GENETIC ENGINEERING OF THE JUSTICE, PEACE AND CREATION TEAM. 2005. Caring for Life: Genetics, Agriculture and Human Life. [Online discussion document] http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/geneticengineering.pdf (02 March 2009).

14