Managing Uncomfortable Knowledge about Pesticides: New Zealand's handling of Glyphosate Information


Manuel Vallee, University of Auckland

The knowledge that a population possesses will significantly mediate their resistance to environmental injustices. For instance, if people are aware of the harmfulness of pesticides applied in public parks, they will be more likely to organize and pressure politicians to create laws that will curb or perhaps even ban the application of such pesticides on public lands, as has occurred in Montréal. On the other hand, if they are unaware of the pesticide’s harmfulness, they are less likely to be concerned about it or oppose it. This points to the fact some knowledge is inconvenient to those in power, and that such individuals have a vested interest to manage uncomfortable knowledge. As demonstrated by previous scholarship, one way of doing so is through the active production of non-knowledge (also referred to as ignorance), which can be cultivated by actively suppressing the production of knowledge that might be inconvenient, which some scholars refer to as undone science. For example, in the case of pesticides, manufacturers and government agencies can impede the allocation of public funding for research that might reveal the pesticide’s harmfulness. The scholarship also shows that when the production of uncomfortable knowledge can’t be suppressed, suppressing its release becomes another way of managing it. As Peter Galison (2008) emphasizes, censorship and designating something as “classified” are extremely effective strategies to suppress the emergence of potentially uncomfortable knowledge. Neutralization is another management strategy identified by previous scholarship. When the release of uncomfortable knowledge can’t be suppressed, those in power will often seek to neutralize its impact through denial, downplaying, and distraction. Drawing on the previous scholarship about uncomfortable knowledge, this paper will analyse the way government agencies manage uncomfortable knowledge about pesticides. Towards that end, I focused on the New Zealand government’s production of knowledge about Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide. This herbicide makes for a remarkable case to study. While the United Nations’ International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a group 2A carcinogen in 2015, it has since become the world’s best-selling herbicide. New Zealand is also a strategic case selection. While the country regularly presents itself as being environmentally responsible, its restrictions on glyphosate are comparatively low and its use comparatively high. Moreover, in Auckland (i.e. New Zealand’s largest city) the herbicide is regularly applied to roadways, sidewalks, parks and sports fields. This paper will trace the country’s use of glyphosate to the system of knowledge government agencies have produced about the herbicide. Towards that end the paper will identify the tactics government agents have used, which will include interfering with the production and dissemination of uncomfortable knowledge about glyphosate. As well, based on a content analysis of their communications campaign (which will include press releases, quotes in the media, and other means of communication) about glyphosate, the paper will identify the tactics they have used to neutralise uncomfortable knowledge that couldn’t be suppressed, which will include denial, downplaying and distraction tactics. This paper will contribute to this session on knowledge by drawing attention to both the important concept of uncomfortable knowledge, and how such knowledge is managed by government agencies. Further, it contributes to the conference theme by revealing processes through which powerful entities facilitate environmental harm, knowledge that can help communities build a more sustainable shared future.

This paper will be presented at the following session: