ONLINE ACTIVISM

MAM’s website lists the following reasons for their opposition to Monsanto:

 

• Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.

• In the United States, the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the population, is steered by ex-Monsanto executives, and we feel that’s a questionable conflict of interests and explains the lack of government-led research on the long-term effects of GM products.

• Recently, the U.S. Congress and president collectively passed the nicknamed “Monsanto Protection Act” that, among other things, bans courts from halting the sale of Monsanto’s genetically-modified seeds.

• For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.

• Monsanto's GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world's bee population.                                

                    Rensink 2013 

 

Canal is quoted in USA Today as saying she would have originally thought the protest a success if 3,000 people had joined her. Thanks to the communication potential of the Internet, the message travelled around the world and by May 21 2013 the Facebook page had attracted 85,000 members, with approximately 110,000 ‘Likes’ and about 40,000 daily visitors.

The original protest held on May 25, 2013 in 436 cities in 52 different countries drew an estimated two million participants worldwide.

MAM continued with their main goal of raising awareness about GMOs through requesting that their followers participate in a twitter storm on October 5 2013, using the hashtags #MarchOct12 and #MarchAgainstMonsanto. The action was considered a success with both hashtags trending on Twitter (Bernabe 2013).

 

A second march occurred on October 12, 2013 with an estimated three million participants worldwide in 57 countries (MAM 2013).

The most recent rally occurred around the globe on May 24, 2014, again drawing activists in their millions from over 50 countries, who gathered to call for the permanent boycott of GMOs and harmful agro-chemicals (MAM 2014).

Due to the dediction and persistence of the organisers (who constantlypost links to research and other useful sources on both the MAM Facebook group and website) the movement has continued to grow, with the number of Facebook page ‘Likes’ sitting at 404,279 at the time of writing. These links and sources also play a huge role in keeping their audience involved and active; constantly encouraging them to maintain their offline activism. 

 

How did this campaign function as an online movement?

 

As Co-organiser Emilie Rensink stated in an interview with Canadian alternative media site, Press for Truth: ‘March Against Monsanto was started by one person as a Facebook page’ (Dicks 2013).  

Emilie Rensink became involved when she wanted to organise a march in her home town of Seattle. On contacting the creator of MAM, Tami Canal, Rensink realised that the movement was gaining much more momentum than Canal could have anticipated or deal with.

Being an experienced activist, Rensink jumped on board and helped Canal create a logo, print fliers, and create a website as the central locale for people to visit and obtain all the information they need about the movement itself, and the issues it challenges.

The site includes a spreadsheet detailing the locations of all the rallies held around the world and a step by step guide detailing ‘how to organise a rally in your area’ if a person can’t find a rally close enough to participate in.

Over the past year or so, MAM has predominantly garnered notice through their Facebook page and the general networking processes this platform proffers. They have also used Twitter to create ‘Twitter Storms’, successfully causing their hashtags to trend.

 

 

What tools were used?

 

March Against Monsanto started as a Facebook page so, naturally, it grew from this particular social media platform to include others as well - namely Twitter but also YouTube and Instagram. The main proponent of their online campaign centres around their website - http://www.march-against-monsanto.com - which acts as a base for all information related to the worldwide movement and the policies and issues it champions.

Experienced activists, campaign managers and social media managers also volunteered their time to help build the MAM online campaign, which is seen as a crucial factor in the development of the movement since its beginning over a year ago.

 

Did the campaign succeed? How? Why?

 

With this particular case study the answer is both yes and no. Unfortunately, the labeling of products that include GMOs is still not mandatory in many states in the USA - which was one of the original reasons for the beginning of MAM.

However with that considered, the past year has seen a number of bills being filed in state and local governments around the US urging for bans on genetically engineered food and crops. It is understood that there are at least 20 states in the US that are currently discussing GMO-related legislation, where six months ago they only numbered sixteen (OCA 2014).  

 

In Australia, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) oversees the development and environmental release of GM organisms under the Gene Technology Act 2000. As of August 2013, GM foods, ingredients, additives, or processing aids that contain novel DNA or protein must be labelled with the words ‘genetically modified’ (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand 2014).

The State of Tasmania has banned GE rapeseed, considering it as a weed. Western Australia has banned commercial GE planting. Some communities around the country (e.g. Bondi/Sydney, West Wimmera Shire) have declared themselves GE free.

 

The campaign is also considered quite successful in terms of the number one goal of M.A.M, which organisers state was to better inform the general public and raise awareness of the adverse environmental and health effects of GMOs.

On May 24 2014, MAM held it’s third world wide rally. Organisers estimate around three million people showed up on six continents in over 50 countries, with events held in over 420 cities (MAM 2014).

As the researchers Meyer & Brey; Giugni & Bosi; and Negrine agree, the main power of an online campaign is the mass communicative function the Internet serves, and thus by extension it's ability to create a network or sense of community between people who have similar interests.

If we consider the growth of MAM from a Facebook page created by one single person to a movement incolving over three million participants in offline protests around the world, then the online campaign can definitely be classified as a success - even though the political or legislative changes they aim to achieve have not yet come to fruition.

 

What did we learn?

 

Media has the power to bring people together. This is at the core of our research in considering the use of online tools to create offline change.

As Negrine states; ‘new information and communication technologies (ICTs) open up new possibilities of creating local, national, and global networks of action through which to challenge the establishment’ (Negrine in Fahlenbrach et. al. 2012).

This idea is supported and furthered through the research conducted by Harlow and Harp, who state; 'Some scholars… have demonstrated the potential of the Internet for building trust and constructing collective identities online, which can be turned into mobilisation and participation offline (Hara 2008; Nip 2004; Wojcieszak 2009)' (Harlow and Harp 2012).

This topic is not as new as we originally suspected, with some research papers dating back to the very early 2000s. With the combination of these papers and through our three case studies we have learnt that online activism can indeed contribute to creating tangible offline change as it has the power to carry a movement's message and information to a vast number of people around the world. This also encourages a sense of community and helps to inspire participants to continually engage in activism, both online and offline. As was recorded in the quantitative and qualitative research conducted by Harlow and Harp, many experienced and prominent activists who completed their survey claimed “online and offline actions are not dichotomous and should not be considered separately. ‘One is necessary for the other’...” (Harlow and Harp 2012).

In this particular instant with the March Against Monsanto movement, it becomes evident that the Internet and social media sites play a huge role in continually gaining support and spreading information. 

 

Was social media an instigator or just a tool for change? Were there underlying issues present before the online campaign began? What lead this to move online?

In this instance, social media was indeed the instigator for change as the March Against Monsanto movement, as we have noted already, was originally started online as a Facebook page in the USA which called for action against the Monsanto corporation. However, it must be recognised that these underlying issues with Monsanto were already present before the online campaign began. The Facebook page creator, Tami Canal, cites the rejection of Proposition 37 by the state of California as the instigator for her start the page in the first place.

We have seen, however, that online and offline activism go hand in hand. With many people living a significant part of their lives online, it only makes sense that it has become a part of any political or social activist movement. In today's digital world it seems that for a successful activist movement at least, you can't have one without the other.