“Activism in paradise”: A critical discourse analysis of a public
Tracking number
relations campaign against genetic engineering.
ICA-15-10063
5
existed for the period of the Royal Commission, was extended until the end of October 2001
to coincide with the expected announcement of Government policy on genetic modification.
The Commissioners’ recommendations in fact provided no clear direction for New Zealand.
By allowing the possibility of commercial field trials but insisting on strictly regulated
conditions for research consent, the report solved nothing; it simply ensured that debate
would continue. Scientific and industry groups have argued that the legislative and financial
costs of gaining consent for research and for commercial field trials in New Zealand will
drive research off-shore (Watkin, 2001, October 27; Black, 2001, October 31). Organic
growers and concerned environmentalists have argued that “buffer zones” recommended by
the Commission will not limit the possible spread of genetically modified material to organic
crops or the natural environment, and that consumers do not want genetically modified food
products (Henderson, 2001, August 5).
The recommendations suggest that a “politics of difference” prevailed rather than a “politics
of universalism” (Taylor, cited in Trenholm & Jensen, 2000, p. 376). Different interest groups
in New Zealand, each with a different identity, were recognized by the Royal Commission as
having unique values and positions in the debate; New Zealanders were not represented as a
single cultural group with a common identity. In fact, the Commission called for further
research to explore the social and cultural implications of genetic modification, as an aid to
decision-making.
The Government chose to deliberate on these recommendations for three months before
announcing a strategic direction for New Zealand policy on genetic modification. It was
during this waiting period that the GE Free coalition mounted a campaign aimed at increasing
Convention