La campaña política contra el Valle y su radicalización progresiva.

The beginnings of GMO technology can be traced back to Crick and Watson’s description of the structure of DNA in 1953. Following this, recombinant DNA techniques were developed in the 1970s, thus paving the way for deliberate manipulations of the genome (see Devos et al., 2008). However, it was arguably not until the landmark court case of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty in 1980

15 _{According to contact information given on their website (www.plantandfood.co.nz), Plant & Food}

Research has 14 different physical addresses.

25 that GMO research became a worldwide industry rather than an academic pursuit. This case marked the first successful patenting of a life form, and therefore meant that GMOs could be developed for commercial gain (ibid.). With the subsequent increase in commercial applications of GM technology and the growth of biotechnology companies there has been an associated rise in public controversy across the world (see e.g. Hughes, 2005; Magnan, 2007; Scholderer, 2005; Yamaguchi & Suda, 2010).

The 1990s saw rapid growth of the biotechnology industry in New Zealand, including the

development of GMOs and various applications of associated GE technologies. The establishment of CRIs through the CRI Act (1992) indirectly promoted genetic engineering, and a number of public and private research institutions pursued research opportunities in this field (Weaver & Motion, 2002). By the late 1990s there was considerable public interest in GMO research (ibid.), and growing anti-GMO sentiment led to calls for the labelling of GM ingredients in food (Ashwell & Olsson, 2002) and the establishment of “GE-Free” zones throughout the country (Sustainable Future, 2008a).

While civic action in relation to GMO research was relatively sporadic during the twentieth century, this changed in the year 2000 when the many questions that surrounded GMO research led to a petition for a Royal Commission to be established (Sustainable Future, 2008a). This petition was signed by 92,000 people and presented to parliament by the Green Party in October 1999 (RCGM, 2001, Appendix 1). In response, the government announced on 21st _{December 1999}

that there would be a Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM).The general public was invited to comment via workshops, a telephone survey, and written submissions; specifically identified “interested persons” were also able to speak at public hearings; a one-day Youth forum was held; and a series of workshops were held with Maori (Sustainable Future, 2008a).

Submitted to Parliament in July 2001, the final report was presented as a survey of the present and future options available to New Zealand with regards to GM technology, and any legislative or institutional changes that would be necessary in order to pursue these options (see RCGM, 2001). The overall conclusion was that New Zealand should "preserve its opportunities and keep its options open" but that “we should proceed carefully, minimizing and managing risks”. This was portrayed as a conservative approach to the issue of GMO research, sitting in between the two extremes of either enabling unrestricted use of the technology or keeping New Zealand

26 The RCGM has been the subject of critique from a number of researchers. While some have criticised the Government’s failure to fully implement the report’s recommendations (see Sustainable Future, 2008b), others have focused on the participatory processes of the RCGM itself. Although the RCGM sought to survey the views of all New Zealanders, critics have questioned whether or not the voices of non-experts were actually heard during the process. Rogers-Hayden (2004, 2005) holds that public comment was both invited and marginalised during the RCGM, with the final report doing little to incorporate wider public opinion on GM. In a similar vein, Goven (2006) suggests that the Commission served as little more than a legitimation exercise, to give the appearance that meaningful public dialogue was influencing decision-making at the political level. Even Davenport and Leitch (2005), who do not explicitly criticise the

procedures employed by the RCGM, point out that it was not intended as a forum for including the public in decision-making, but was instead aimed at supporting debate on the topic of GM. The RCGM failed to meet the expectations of many anti-GMO campaigners, and the period directly following this process was a time when members of the public searched for other means to express their views. The Green Gloves Pledge, for example, was signed by New Zealanders who promised:

To take non-violent but direct action to prevent the irreversible release of genetically engineered lifeforms into the New Zealand environment whether this is deemed illegal or not. (Green Gloves, 2001)

A number of groups and individuals have since fulfilled this pledge to take direct action against GMO research. The People's Moratorium Enforcement Agency (PMEA)17_{, for example, was}

comprised of people who were frustrated that their formal protests against GMO research had not been listened to. As a result:

They have moved to take matters into their own hands. This month they held a camp with the express purpose of "training activists in direct action techniques". After Erma approval for a field trial of GM Roundup-resistant onions, 150 people descended on Mountain Valley School in Motueka, an independent institution running outside direct government control... They learned how to blockade trucks and trains carrying GM produce and how to make life difficult for those trying to end the protests... Crucially they also learned how

17 _{This group was named after the moratorium that was placed on GMO field tests and releases between}

27 "decontamination" [destruction of crops] should be undertaken to minimise the risks of GM material spreading further into the environment (Nippert, 2004).

The training camp mentioned in the above quotation was targeted at a field trial of GM onions at C&F. Although there is no evidence that the skills learned at this particular training camp were ever put to use, C&F was the victim of sabotage in 2002, when a potato crop was destroyed (Nippert, 2004). Another CRI, Scion, has also been the victim of sabotage, with incidents reported in 2008 and 2012 (Stuff.co.nz, 2012; Rowan, 2008).

Numerous other individuals and groups, though not necessarily advocates of such radical activities, nevertheless actively campaign against GMO research, choosing to use the popular media, parliamentary processes, protest marches, or even court cases to voice their concerns. Examples here include the book Seeds of Distrust, written by the journalist Nicky Hager to expose the alleged Government cover-up of imported GM maize into New Zealand; the policy of the Green Party to “[keep] the Aotearoa/New Zealand environment free of GE organisms” (Green Party, 2011, p. 7); a “rowdy but peaceful vigil” organised by anti-GE protesters at the opening of the five-day International Conference for Agricultural Biotechnology held in Rotorua in September 2012 (Holland, 2012); and the (successful) application made to the High Court by GE Free New Zealand in 2009 for a judicial review of the approval given to AgResearch18 _{to import, develop and}

field test a range of GMOs. Shopping guides have been compiled to promote consumer boycotts of food containing GE ingredients, while some products are labelled as “GE Free” to attract the same consumers19_{. Furthermore, there are a number of groups in New Zealand who create their}

own forums for discussion through websites, the release of media statements, and written publications. These groups include the Soil and Health Association, GE Free New Zealand, Sustainable Future (now the McGuinness Institute), and the Sustainability Council.

The above examples reveal that public participation in GMO research comes in many forms, and takes place in a variety of places. While the public may have had little input into formal decision- making processes such as those involved in the RCGM, there have been a large variety of indirect and direct actions taken against GMO research. These actions should be taken into account in any assessment of the role of the public in GMO research, and will therefore feature in the analytical chapters of this thesis.

18 _{AgResearch is a New Zealand CRI.}

19 _{For example, the “True Food Shopping List” was compiled by Greenpeace in order to help consumers}

28