NZORD's formal complaint under the Broadcasting Act about TVNZ coverage of the folic acid debate - August 2009

During June and July 2009 there was a concerted effort by industry groups to derail the new food standard requiring the addition of folic acid (Vitamin B9) to bread to prevent neural tube defects in babies. The intensity of this industry-led campaign caused widespread public anxiety and resulted in government deciding to review the folic acid standard that was due to take effect in September 2009.

NZORD was dismayed by the inaccurate and scare-mongering campaign led by industry, and also greatly concerned by many media failing to meet good standards of journalism in reporting the issue. NZORD has complained to Television New Zealand about their coverage, as theirs seemed consistently bad among all the poor reporting that occurred. Here is the full text of our complaint to TVNZ.

7 August 2009
The Chief Executive
Television New Zealand

I am writing to complain about television coverage provided by TVNZ on the topic of fortification of bread with folic acid. The specific programmes complained about are:

• Q&A Sunday 12 July 2009 Paul Holmes interviewing Sue Kedgley and Kate Wilkinson
• Breakfast Monday 13 July 2009 Paul Henry interviewing Prime Minister John Key
• Close Up Monday 13 July Mark Sainsbury interviewing Kate Wilkinson and Katherine Rich
• Breakfast Tuesday 14 July 2009 Alison Mau interviewing Prof Murray Skeaff and Laurie Powell
• One News Tuesday 14 July 2009 item which gives a summary of events to date.
  

The overarching complaint is that in its coverage of this issue TVNZ breached:

• Standard 4, which sets an obligation on controversial issues to make reasonable efforts or give reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view, including fair presentation of significant points of view.
• Standard 5, which requires accuracy in relation to all material points of fact, does not mislead, and must be impartial.
• Standard 8, which requires responsible programming, such that programmes are not presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress.

The context of this complaint in relation to TVNZ coverage is that the NZ Food and Grocery Council were running a highly organised and aggressive PR campaign to try and change government policy about the impending new food standard requiring fortification of bread with folic acid. This fact would have been very obvious to TVNZ through material presented to them by FGC.

The FGC used a number of claims challenging the effectiveness of this standard in reducing Neural Tube Defects, alleging possible links to certain cancers, alleging there would be mass medication of the whole population, alleging there would be a need to consume 11 slices of bread each day, alleging possible long term effects on the gene pool, and alleging there was evidence that more than 80% of the population were opposed to the plan. Each of these claims can be shown to be a highly selective interpretation of data, if not a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

My complaint includes an allegation that TVNZ failed in its duty to properly research these claims to determine their accuracy and the level of bias inherent in them. In uncritically accepting these industry claims and regularly repeating them in the various programmes mentioned, TVNZ itself showed bias and lack of accuracy in its reporting of the topic.

The level of bias and lack of accuracy was most apparent in the first three programmes complained against. Although the tone of subsequent presentations was moderated significantly, there was continued repetition of industry allegations without any effort by TVNZ to research their validity or challenge them, or to provide reasonable opportunities for the position to be put in favour of fortification with folic acid.

My complaint also claims that TVNZ has a duty of care under standard 8 in relation to topics that might cause panic, alarm or distress to the public. In the context of the FGC campaign which was seeking to overturn government policy by using precise tactics of community alarm and panic about the safety of food additives, TVNZ had a duty to ensure the facts were carefully researched and carefully presented, just as it would no doubt accept such responsibility if there were allegations about the viability of a savings bank, the safety of certain aeroplanes, or poison in certain dental products.

To properly meet its obligation under standard 8, TVNZ should have ensured there was detailed research of its own, or expert commentary available, to clarify technical aspects of the fortification programme and its impacts, distinguish hypotheses and association studies from robust evidence, and to comment on how these technical and scientific issues had actually been addressed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand in its detailed assessment reports. Please note that FSANZ have advised me they had no approach from TVNZ for briefings, context or information about the FGC claims.

Specifics of the complaint include:

• The Q&A programme showed bias and inaccuracy in the active clip from Damien Christie with claims about 11 slices being needed and concerns about high levels of folate leading to elevate prostate cancer, and in the statements by Paul Holmes about growing international health concern, plus emotional claims about his risk of prostate cancer returning and threats to the health of the nation. This programme also lacked presentation of significant other viewpoints, lacked accuracy and impartiality, and instead of the expert commentary that was demanded on a topic where alarm and panic were likely, the subsequent panel commentary provided by non experts did nothing to address the fears the topic would have raised for many.
• The first Breakfast programme showed significant bias and prejudging of the issue by the presenter Paul Henry. He uncritically repeated the PR claims of the FGC, made no effort to provide balancing or alternative viewpoints, and lacked impartiality. In addition, he added side commentary about "prostates the size of campervans" and discussed with newsreader Peter Williams that we should all stop eating bread in September. His presentation would have increased anxiety among the public and contributed to alarm and distress for many. His biased and inaccurate presentation was made worse by flippant remarks which were highly inappropriate for a matter of important public health concern.
• In the Close Up programme the active clip from (Sonia Boyce?) repeated numerous claims from the FGC without any challenge, critical analysis or expert commentary. The fact that the FSANZ reports had extensively researched, consulted and commented on these topics was not addressed. Not only did this produce significant bias and inaccuracy in the report, it also failed to present alternative viewpoints on the specific claims. The programme failed in the duty of care in relation to reporting of topics that may cause alarm or panic, despite the opportunity for the minister to give assurance of the safety of folic acid in food, because there was no opportunity for detailed rebuttal of the claims made about long term genetic effects or triggering of prostate or colon cancer.
• In the second Breakfast programme we came much closer to balance in the programme through the presence of an expert commentator able to put claims of cancer risk into a much more balanced perspective. However the question from Alison Mau about possible genetic defects demonstrates poor research on the part of TVNZ and continued uncritical presentation of claims raised by the FGC. This poor research led to a lack of challenge to the claim by Laurie Powell about "long term risks to the gene pool". On a matter of such public importance where alarm or distress might ensue, it is incumbent on TVNZ to be thoroughly briefed to manage the presentation of the issue.
• In the One News summary of events the exchanges between news presenter Simon Dallow and Political Editor Guyon Espiner did note the waning of health concerns but still uncritically repeated the 11 slices claim and also presented the statement "there are fears at least that there are health risks associated with excess folic acid". This uncritical repeating of the FGC claims without any balancing facts, continued the bias in the series of programmes complained about, and fails to meet the duty of care in respect of items that may cause panic, alarm or distress.
• As a final commentary in respect of this complaint I point out that during this series of programmes on bread fortification there was no mention of a separate food standard that mandates fortification of bread with iodised salt from the same date the fortification with folic acid is due to take place. This point is made to emphasise that lack of research or expert commentary by TVNZ, missed this separate food standard and missed an important opportunity to better understand the complex motives of the FGC and to question why in terms of public interest one mandatory regime was apparently OK while the other was not.

I look forward to your response.

John Forman
Executive Director, NZORD