 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Australasian Biotechnology, Vol. 11 No. 5, 2001, pp. 40-41 GMOs MALEVOLENT METAPHORS: THE MISREPRESENTATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODSTUFFS? Bev France Auckland College of Education, Auckland, New Zealand, b.france@ace.ac.nz Code Number: au01066 The biotechnology community has found it difficult to communicate positive images of biotechnology to the public. This article analyses the underlying causes for the rejection of GM food by the public and suggests how this situation might be remedied. Introduction In New Zealand there is a growing perception that the biotechnology industry has lost the genetic modification debate. I felt this strongly when I was one of seventeen asking for the scientists’ perspective to be heard at the anti-GM rally in Auckland on 1st September 2001. Ten thousand New Zealanders held opposing views and they gave notice that they did not want anything to do with GM. Their vehemence against the technology was very evident not only in the banners they carried but also in the slogans they shouted. In addition to the GM food debate there is another discussion going on. This debate has focused on the viability of developing New Zealand as an organic primary producer. An example of this debate is Way to Grow. Why going organic could make NZ rich (Listener February 12, 2000). A political expression of this debate is evident in the Green Party’s aim to have the country’s primary producers 50% organic by 2020 (Ansley, 2000). It appears that such an aim is coupled with a desire to turn away from GM technology. These debates have acquired a focus with the publication of the Royal Commission’s Report on Genetic Modification (www.gmcommission.govt.nz) that provided an opportunity for all interested parties to contribute. To those in the anti-GM camp the report betrayed their contributions and this view was very evident from the banners carried by anti-GM protestors on that Saturday march. Why has the debate been so resoundingly lost? It is important that the biotechnology community understands the reasons for these negative views so they can provide conditions for a meaningful dialogue with ‘the public’. I believe that such negativity cannot be dismissed as public ignorance or the result of media antipathy. Instead it is important that all participants reflect on the nature of a debate with the ‘public’ in terms of the participants as well as the message. When debating it is important to know your opposition and your audience. As this debate is public it is important that the debaters need to know not only the message they are transmitting, the nature of the opposing argument and but also their audience. THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF GM ISSUES What is ‘public’? Niedhardt (1993) describes ‘public’ as a communication system of speakers, audience and mediators and he defines the space where ideas are made accessible and open to scrutiny as the ‘public domain’. In relation to GM food, who are the ‘speakers’? According to Niedhardt’s (1993) analysis the speaker group includes civic groups, interest groups, experts and intellectuals. The speakers in this debate are scientists (The Royal Society and university spokespeople) and interest groups notably Greenpeace and the Green Party. Who are ‘the audience’? An academic definition considers them as a group of laypersons whose composition is unstable. What does this mean? It seems that many have considered the ‘audience’ to be ‘deficit’ (Miller, 1983) in their understanding of GM and consequently the role of the scientific community is to provide information to correct this situation. There are two problems with this supposition. The first problem is to assume that the ‘audience’ group is homogeneous and the second is the assumption that they are lacking in scientific information. Jon Turney (1998) observes that the important question is not what do the public need to know about genetic engineering but what do they want to know? The third group are the ‘mediators’. They include scientists who communicate their science, pressure groups who communicate their viewpoint and journalists who report on matters of current interest. This article uses two examples from the Listener (a weekly New Zealand magazine) to demonstrate the power of subliminal messages that accompany reasoned articles when journalists take up the role as ‘mediators’. My argument is that although the articles provide a balanced account, the headlines and images transmit a subliminal negative message. For the purpose of this article, these messages are called ‘malevolent metaphors’. METAPHORS AND ESPECIALLY MALEVOLENT METAPHORS We all use metaphors to explain complex ideas. Their function is to explain the characteristics of something that is unknown or unfamiliar to the reader (the target) by giving it a temporary identity with an object with which the reader is familiar (the source). In many cases metaphors can be positive. ‘Clean Green New Zealand’ is more than just a description of New Zealand. Instead it is a metaphor and branding for a lifestyle and environment that New Zealanders desperately want to make real. Such a metaphor is benevolent because it makes one accepting of the object that is compared. In contrast, malevolent metaphors are those by which a largely negative emotional burden is transferred. The following two examples are analysed to demonstrate the nature of the metaphor that has been used to transmit this negativity. These examples are:
FRANKENSTEIN FOOD The front page of the Listener (March 1999) displays a perfect dew-covered tomato just picked from the vine. On the tomato is a yellow label which reads ‘#4064 MAY CONTAIN TOMATO’. This image signals the genetic modification-labelling debate that occurs inside the covers. The source from which the headline is drawn is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein where a ‘scientist’ has created a ‘being’. However the later version via the television programme The Munsters may be more familiar to most people. Whatever the reference there is a supposition that GM modified food is suitable for such a creature. Another interpretation infers that eating this food may turn one into a monster (Turney, 1998). Or perhaps this non-natural food may be appropriate for a non-natural being. The image portrays perfection and freshness. The unblemished tomato is gleaming with dewdrops and the stalk signals that it has just been picked from the vine. The tomato’s label works on more than one level. There is the reference to the labelling of apples by Enza that brands New Zealand exported apples. Yet there is another subliminal message that refers to Rene Magritte’s Surrealist image where the painter uses naturalistic images to illustrate that things are not as they seem. Magritte’s painting The use of words I depicts a pipe with the inscription ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’. This painting provides the viewer with an opportunity to respond to the image in many ways. It is a painting of a pipe. In addition the inscription, in French, provides us with a clue to the painter’s viewpoint. In the same way the tomato is not a tomato even though it has all the appearance of ‘tomatoness’. The image of the tomato provides all the links to images of pure, fresh food but the label prompts the viewer to mistrust the image in the same way that the Magritte painting of a pipe inspires us to look beyond the image. Partial reasonableness is swept aside with the alliterative headline of Frankenstein’s Food and the reader is prepared to approach the article with a preconceived idea that such food is potentially dangerous. The opportunity for reasoned discourse is lessened. THE GENE GENIE The Gene Genie (Listener August 1999) headline appears to be a potentially benign metaphor. Images of microscopes give it a pseudo-scientific respectability and the green background provides an illusion that this product is aiming to be ‘clean and green’. The labels tell us that in addition to the material being genetically engineered it is a ‘100% food product’ while the red labelling at the bottom of the can warms us that it is ‘MYSTERY DNA WITH PROTEIN’. A ring of microscopes round the base of the can give us another reminder that this food has a scientific origin. There are two sources for this image. The headline alludes to a genie in the bottle that is a source of potential wonders but when misused can turn against his master. The second source is the soup can which invokes Andy Warhol’s painting of 200 Campbell Soup Cans where his depiction of rows of identical soup cans provides an instantly recognisable image of the predictability of mass production. The image and its headline provide a series of conflicting messages. This can’s contents are not predictable, the label tells us it is ‘mystery DNA’ and it is a genetically engineered food product. A sense of inevitability of potential disaster is evoked by the headline ‘the gene genie’. What may happen when the can is opened and the genie is let out? Yet more conflicting messages are transmitted. Although the image of the can of food is played straight, the dramatic labelling written in warning red, ‘Mystery DNA’ overshadows its partial reasonableness. Scientific symbols are provided with microscopes but they are given a toy persona. Even though the can is sealed and therefore free of contamination the labelling cries beware. This genie is certainly inside this can floating in a blue sky. BALANCING THE DEBATE: THE NEED FOR BENEVOLENT METAPHORS I believe that one of the factors that have contributed to the resounding defeat of scientists as ‘speakers’ in the GM debate is the negative messages that have been transmitted by the ‘mediators’ in their headlining and illustrating of their stories. Even though the articles written by Listener journalists ‘ Denis Welch and Margo White (Listener, March 13-19, 1999) and Mark Revington (Listener, August, 1999) are balanced, the accompanying images illustrate a malevolent metaphor. I hope I have demonstrated that these metaphors have the potential to provide a malevolent image. To counteract this impact ‘speakers’ in this debate need to generate some benevolent metaphors that provide more positive images of this technology. Although there have been many attempts to provide the ‘public’ with accessible information about GM and GM food for example the Independent Biotechnology Advisory Council (1999), New Zealand Royal Society and NZBA web page (www.biotech.org.nz) the images accompanying the explanation are missing or lacklustre. Does an image take the place of a thousand words? I would argue that information needs strong headlines and images to counterbalance to power of the malevolent metaphor. In New Zealand the ‘audience’ has been persuaded to reject GM food and GM technology. The debate rages on. It is time we used the powerful medium of visual metaphors to promote a positive beneficial story for GM food. REFERENCES
Copyright 2001 - AusBiotech |
| |||||||||
