“Activism in paradise”: A critical discourse analysis of a public
Tracking number
relations campaign against genetic engineering.
ICA-15-10063
3
public knowledge about current public issues and use issues-management campaigns to
attempt to influence decision-making. They seek to influence public knowledge and public
opinion by persuasive communication, for example, through mass media such as newspapers,
television, and increasingly the Internet. They seek to influence government policy through
political lobbying.
This paper explores some of the tensions implicit in the rhetorical construction of a political
and national identity for New Zealanders and the implications for the path of the genetic
engineering debate. The phrases “genetic modification” and “genetic engineering” are used
interchangeably throughout the paper, as they are in the report of the Royal Commission.
Background - The genetic engineering debate in New Zealand
Issues related to the introduction of genetic engineering technologies have gained increasing
public awareness in New Zealand since 1998 but no clear majority support for a particular
policy direction has emerged (Henderson, 2001). Competing arguments result from the
different priorities accorded to environmental, economic, technological, and political values
and represent the diverse positions currently held by New Zealanders. A short summary of the
progress of the debate will provide a background for the GE Free coalition campaign.
New Zealand’s relative geographical isolation from other nations and its unique biodiversity
mean that, from an environmental perspective, genetic engineering presents the potential for
significant ecological risk (Fitzsimons, 1998, December 14). At the same time, New
Zealand’s heavy economic reliance on income generated from primary export industries
suggests that the adoption of genetic engineering technologies presents the potential for
significant economic gain for New Zealand through export earnings from genetically
Convention