BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The range of work now undertaken by dentists was dealt with in an item on One

Network News broadcast between 6.00–7.00pm on 26 October 1995. The item also

reported that the diversity was the result of a decline in the level of tooth decay over the

past 25 years which coincided with the period during which much of the country's

water supply had been fluoridated.

The President of the New Zealand Pure Water Association (Mrs K Wilcock) complained

to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item's implication was

unbalanced. Not only were the possible long term effects of fluoride not dealt with, she

argued, but the data overall showed that tooth decay in children declined slightly more

in non-fluoridated areas when compared with fluoridated areas.

Arguing that the increased variety of work carried out by dentists, not fluoridation, was

the item's focus, TVNZ maintained that there was undisputed evidence that tooth decay

had declined in the past 25 years. The ongoing debate about fluoridation, it continued,

had been dealt with by the media on many other occasions and it declined to uphold the

complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mrs Wilcock on the Association's

behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The increasing range of tasks being undertaken by dentists and the dramatic decline in

the number of dental nurse trainees were explored in an item broadcast on One Network

News on 26 October 1995. It reported that these changes were the result of the

substantial decline of tooth decay among children and that the decline was the result of

water fluoridation.

Mrs Wilcock, President of the New Zealand Pure Water Association, complained to

TVNZ that the item was "unbalanced" and "amounted to propaganda". She challenged

the item's statement that there had been an improvement in children's teeth since the

introduction of fluoridation. She wrote:

This assumption is based on misleading studies which compared samples of

children from selected communities, but the fact is that when surveys of ALL

available data are studied it is shown that since 1980 tooth decay of 12 and 13

year old children has declined slightly more in non-fluoridated areas than in

fluoridated areas, and this is a trend that is world wide.

She objected to the reporter displaying a copy of the Public Health Commission's 1994

report "Water Fluoridation in New Zealand" while not referring to the Commission's

1995 report entitled "Fluoride and Oral Health". The latter report, she continued,

sought research to examine:

... the risks of fluoride in relation to dental fluorosis including research to explain

individual sensitivity to optimal fluoride intake.

Pointing out that fluoridation is a controversial issue, she asked:

Why was it not revealed that research is showing there is more incidence of hip

fractures in water fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated areas?

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. It requires broadcasters:

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters,

current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

Commenting:

In examining your complaint, we felt that perhaps your keen interest in the issue

of fluoridation had blurred slightly your understanding of what the item was about

TVNZ argued that the story reported the radical changes in the work of dentists. While

not disputing that there might be negative effects from the long-term use of fluoride,

TVNZ continued, the item was not about the pros and cons of fluoridation.

As for the fluoride issue, it wrote:

We believe that the debate over fluoride is an on-going one and one that has been

covered from every conceivable angle in the news media at various times in the

last 25 years. Doubtless it will continue to be a subject of debate. We do not

believe that, in the interests of "balance" it is necessary each time the word is

mentioned to outline in detail the arguments for and against fluoridation.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

When she referred the Association's complaint to the Authority, Mrs Wilcock reiterated

the contentions advanced to TVNZ. Describing the remark cited above about the

Association's attitude as "unfair and patronising", Mrs Wilcock asked, if the item was

not about the fluoride debate, why was the Public Health Commission report shown?

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ stated:

We did not assert that fluoridation of public water supplies was the only reason

for the decline in the level of tooth decay over the last 25 years or so. Without

doubt however, it is the principal reason.

In her final comment, Mrs Wilcock persisted with the Association's complaint that the

item said that the changed role of dentists "was due to the (claimed) success of water

fluoridation".

In its approach to the complaint, the Authority has examined carefully the item

complained about. The principal issue it addresses is the change in the work now

undertaken by dentists. Visuals of historic school dental visits are shown along with

pictures of the training of large numbers of school dental nurses in the 1950s and

1960s. Having made the point that the demand for the services of dentists (and dental

nurses) has decreased over the years, the item explains that the reduction is due to the

decline in tooth decay – especially among children. The widespread fluoridation of

water is given as the main reason for this decline.

As will be apparent, fluoridation is not the item's theme. The item notes that

fluoridation is a controversial issue but the Authority does not expect that every time a

news item refers to a controversial matter, that it is necessary for the item to digress and

provide a summary of the relevant debate. It considers that the acknowledgment that the

subsidiary issue touched on remains controversial – for example, as one which has been

investigated by the Public Health Commission – is sufficient to comply with the

standards in this instance.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
22 February 1996

Appendix

The New Zealand Pure Water Association's Complaint to Television

New Zealand Ltd - 30 October 1995

Kathleen Wilcock, President of the New Zealand Pure Water Association, complained

to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on One Network News on 26

October 1995.

Describing the item as unbalanced and propaganda, Mrs Wilcock said that it claimed

water fluoridation was responsible for the shortage of dentists in New Zealand. The

shortage occurred, the item had stated, because of the improvement in children's teeth

since the introduction of fluoridation.

Mrs Wilcock maintained the statement was based on misleading studies as the data in

total disclosed that since 1980:

... tooth decay of 12 and 13 year old children has declined slightly more in non-

fluoridated areas than in fluoridated areas, and this is a trend that is world wide.

She also expressed regret that the reporter had shown a copy of a 1994 Public Health

Commission report, "Water Fluoridation in New Zealand", rather than a 1995

Commission report, "Fluoride and Oral Health", as the latter called for more research

into dental fluorosis. She asked:

Why was it not revealed that research is showing there is more incidence of hip

fractures in water fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated areas?

Mrs Wilcock wrote in conclusion:

Fluoridation is a controversial issue and is the subject of referendum in many

places, and the NZPWA maintains the item put over as a so-called "News" item is

misleading to councils and the public alike.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 November 1995

Assessing the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ reported that the item had examined the range of activities now

undertaken by dentists as there had been a decline in the level of tooth decay over the

past 25 years. TVNZ commented that it was :

... a period which coincides with that during which fluoridation has been part of

much of the country's water supply.

TVNZ also noted:

In examining your complaint, we felt that perhaps your keen interest in the issue

of fluoridation had blurred slightly your understanding of what the item was

about.

Pointing out that the item acknowledged that fluoridation was a controversial issue,

TVNZ said it had not dealt with the arguments about fluoridation but the

"incontrovertible fact" that the work of dentists had changed in the past 25 years.

Further:

We know you will challenge this, but we maintain there is enough empirical

evidence to show that there is less (substantially less) tooth decay now than there

was in 1970.

TVNZ did not dispute that there might be long-term negative effects from fluoride but

reiterated that the diversification of dentists' practices was the issue addressed. TVNZ

said that the item was supported by the study cited which, it observed, was not

contested by the complainant. Hip fractures, TVNZ added, were not relevant to a story

about dentists.

As for the issue of fluoridation, TVNZ said:

We believe that the debate over fluoride is an on-going one and one that has been

covered from every conceivable angle in the news media at various times in the

last 25 years. Doubtless it will continue to be a subject of debate. We do not

believe that, in the interests of "balance" it is necessary each time the word is

mentioned to outline in detail the arguments for and against fluoridation.

Maintaining that its references to the debate over the years had been even-handed,

TVNZ said the item had dealt with an effect of the introduction of fluoride - not the

debate itself - and it declined to uphold the complaint.

The Association's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority -

27 November 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mrs Wilcock on the Association's behalf referred

the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. She also enclosed a letter sent to TVNZ disputing its ruling.

In the letter of referral, Mrs Wilcock argued that the item presented, in a selectively

favourable way, the point that water fluoridation was responsible for the shortage of

dentists in New Zealand. She regarded TVNZ's comment about the Association's

interest in the subject as "unfair and patronising" and, she asked:

If the story was not on the pros and cons of fluoridation, why was it necessary

for [the reporter] to hold up for the camera a copy of the Public Health

Commission publication "Water Fluoridation in New Zealand", and if TVNZ

believes the debate (emphasis added) over fluoride is an on-going one, why was

fluoridation introduced at all as "news" to an item entitled "New Zealand faces a

shortage of dentists"?

As TVNZ acknowledged that the dental profession was the source of the information

used in the item and as the Public Health Commission recommended financial support

for oral health professionals in promoting the extension of fluoridation, Mrs Wilcock

asked who funded the item about which the Association complained.

In the letter to TVNZ accompanying the referral, the Association maintained that the

item implied that the decline in tooth decay during the last 25 years occurred because of

the fluoridation of water supplies. That, Mrs Wilcock wrote was "NOT so". Dr

Colquhoun's research, she continued:

... clearly shows that the level of dental health in non-fluoridated areas is equal to,

and in some cases better than the level in fluoridated areas.

Better diet and better dental hygiene could also be the reasons for the improvement in

dental health during the past 25 years and the item's implication, she maintained,

breached standard G6.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority -21 December 1995

In its comment to the Authority about the referral, TVNZ said that it stood by its letter to

Mrs Wilcock of 30 November. It wrote:

We did not assert that fluoridation of public water supplies was the only reason

for the decline in the level of tooth decay over the last 25 years or so. Without

doubt, however, it is the principal reason.

The Association's Final Comment - 19 January 1996

On behalf of the Association, Mrs Wilcock maintained that viewers would have

interpreted the item to state that the shortage of dentists was due to the success of water

fluoridation. Nothing in TVNZ's comments, she wrote, dispelled that argument and,

she added:

Although the item complained about was from a commissioned survey, it showed

no evidence to establish the claimed success of fluoridation.

Mrs Wilcock enclosed a copy of the magazine "Pure Water News: 1995" which

included a copy of a letter from Dr Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer with the

Department of Health in Auckland, who maintained that the research showed that the

decline in tooth decay among young New Zealanders had occurred in both fluoridated

and non-fluoridated areas.