The fight for hearts or minds

By IRENE CHAPPLE

When former international pop star Alannah Currie gathered a bevy of local celebrities for an anti-genetic modification photo shoot, she unleashed a bitter public relations fight between the loosely formed factions of the debate.

On one side were names loaded with honorifics signing off their cause via the print media. On the other, were young celebrities staring down at the public from prime advertising spots.

The anti-GM photos were montaged on to billboards during an overnight brainstorming session by Auckland University of Technology design tutor and lecturer Fiona Jack.

They were mounted a month ago, and remained until this week.

The style is clean; the message clear.

Recognisable faces - Dave Dobbyn, Bic Runga, Mikey Havoc, Danielle Cormack and Kevin Smith, among others - focus on the passerby.

They wear sound-bite T-shirts. "We need GE like a tomato needs a fish," reads one. Another: "GE - organised crime against evolution".

A silhouette stands in the group, pinpointed by an arrow. The question: "Are you with us?" The implication: do you fit this space?

The billboards captured premium, high-traffic spots around Auckland and raised hackles within the pro-GM fraternity .

The fight for the public's heart and the Government's ear is intense. A cabinet meeting at the end of the month is expected to finalise the decision on the GM debate.

The Green Party wants a ban on GM, the Alliance wants a moratorium on the decision, Labour is under pressure and the advertising war is on.

Dr William Rolleston, Life Sciences Network chairman and vocal proponent of the "responsible use of genetic modification", likens the billboard's populist style of advertising to that of propaganda in Nazi Germany.

Just because people responded, he said, did not mean it was right.

"The people who oppose GM have got only marketing left," he said. "If you want people to buy a product or follow a point of view, you have to persuade the population. If it's not based on benefit, then you have to find some other way.

"You can't communicate an issue like this in soundbites. And it is difficult to market a responsible message."

Dr Rolleston has written published comment on the issue. It was the best way to inform the public, he said. When you had time to explain the issues to people, they generally came on side.

"Trying to persuade people on a populist view is simply anti-democratic."

The network has not yet paid for advertising, but Dr Rolleston refuses to rule it out.

The New Zealand Universities Science Council, an organisation of university science deans and seniors, buckled last week and placed a full page ad in the Herald endorsing the findings of the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification.

"In ten years time," it trumpets, "New Zealand could be enjoying great economic wealth and prosperity as world leaders in agricultural and agrarian technology ... or we could be struggling to defend our traditional markets against the challenge of superior products from other countries."

The ad is signed by professors and doctors from Universities throughout New Zealand.

Council chairman Richard Price, from Waikato University, said the group had been forced into placing the ad. It cost $12,000, including the employment of an advertising agency. It had been paid for by the universities' "external income", partly grant money that would otherwise be used for initiatives such as scholarships.

"We felt we had a responsibility to do it," he said. "We have a large number of postgraduate students engaged in research in this area and, in terms of a career for them, this issue is pretty important. It was an initiative we took on behalf of our students."

But Peter Wills, a professor at Auckland University and a member of the science faculty, said the ad did not represent the department.

"Questions are being asked in the tearoom. We are struggling to get money for this and that and here they are advertising their political position," he said.

Despite the leading statement plastered across the ad, Professor Price said the intention was not to create fear. It was to combat an emotional and unscientific campaign by the anti-GM advocates.

"And how else do you get the support? March down Queen St?"

Ms Jack argued that environmental groups had tried for years to use economic ideas with people and had not been listened to. The logo style advertising was more upfront and honest. "I thought it was time for pulling the community together rather than just pounding facts into people," she said. "It's a call to action. I guess you could say it's peer pressure, but so is any advertising. And I am so sick of people not looking out for the good of the country."

She said the advertising for use of GM was much more insidious. How could the anti-GM lobby compete with their invitations to scientists and offers of free champagne?

The billboard models had not charged for use of their faces, she had not charged for her work and Alannah Currie paid for the billboards from personal money and donations.

The five spots were given at a discount by advertising agency Oggi.

An Oggi spokesperson said prime spot advertising, such as the site above Victoria Park Market, cost about $12,500 a month - plus expenses such as printing (up to $2000) and installationt (around $800).

But Dr Rolleston said this was not a financial David and Goliath situation.

The anti-GM lobby had huge financial backup in Greenpeace, a multinational organisation.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Annette Cotter denied payment for advertising. Greenpeace had advertised by supplying books showing which companies used GM, available free off the internet.

Dr Rolleston said his organisation probably did not have the resources for an advertising campaign, or the time.

So, if it's not the money, is this a battle for the smartest or sexiest image?

Ms Jack: "We're on a level playing field. Scientists may not be seen as very sexy, but neither are environmentalists."

Dr Rolleston said the image of his faction was changing. Younger people were getting involved, and scientists were seen as more intelligent.

But Dr Price admits that the public perception of those supporting the use of GM is stereotypical - scientists with an unconscionable pursuit of an end.

Media critic and Waikato University lecturer Geoff Lealand said the advertising and associated images did nothing for the debate.

"The billboards evoke the idea that you're either with us or you're against us. On that level, people respond," he said.

"It's not appropriate in terms of keeping the debate on an intellectual level."

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary