BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Breakfast with a public health researcher regarding the potentially carcinogenic properties of glyphosate, an ingredient in commonly available and widely used weed killers. The Authority found there was no breach of the balance standard as viewers would have been sufficiently aware of the existence of alternate views (both from the programme itself and from other reporting within the period of current interest) and that the accuracy standard did not apply as the relevant statements were analysis and opinion.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  John Campbell interviewed Dr Dave McLean, senior research fellow at the Centre for Public Health at Massey University, about the potential health risks of glyphosate, a chemical used in popular weed killers. In the interview, Dr McLean discussed a recent study showing that glyphosate had carcinogenic properties, and outlined the limitations of the study:

Campbell:     What does the science – and of course it’s disputed, it is particularly disputed by Roundup’s manufacturer – what does the science tell us about how carcinogenic glyphosate…is?

Dr McLean:   Well it doesn’t tell us how carcinogenic it is, it tells us whether it is or isn’t… it is probably carcinogenic…it does some of the biological process in cells that causes cancer…there is limited evidence from the human epidemiology that it is causing cancer in certain groups that have been studied. The problem is that there have not been a huge number of studies…so we don’t know how much is in people, there are very few studies in exposure of people, we are only just learning how widespread it is in food…there are very few… good studies that look at groups that are using it and compares to the rest of the population.

Campbell:     …on the basis of studies done so far, which are as you say insufficient…

[2]  Dr McLean criticised the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) for not placing restrictions on the use of glyphosate and suggested it had been lobbied by industry groups. Mr Campbell questioned Dr McLean further on this point:

So you are saying the New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency has put the potency of roundup as a weed killer ahead of public health issues…which is an extraordinary thing if that’s the case, we should really get the EPA on to respond to that…I think we better get the EPA in to respond to that because those were pretty damning allegations that Dave McLean’s making there.

[3]  The segment was broadcast on 2 October 2019 on TVNZ 1. As part of our consideration of this complaint, we have watched a recording of the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

The complaint

[4]  Cory Matthew complained that the interview with Dr McLean on Breakfast contained ‘very serious and far reaching allegations’ in breach of the balance and accuracy standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.¹ He made lengthy submissions, with key points summarised below:

• The broadcast, through ‘selection of sources, whether knowingly or through lack of due diligence’ told ‘only one side of a scientific debate.’
• Dr McLean made ‘a very serious allegation’ against the EPA and went on to speculate that the EPA was ‘obviously swayed by a strong lobby from MPI and the AG Industry who see glyphosate as vital to operation and place productivity above public health.’ This allegation ‘was allowed to stand unchallenged and was repeated on the news soon after.’
• ‘The allusion to historical examples of tobacco and asbestos was emotive, but not tied to actual evidence of similar behaviour with respect to the glyphosate issue under discussion, and therefore misleading.’
• The interview challenges ‘the behavioural propriety’ of the EPA ‘in a way that would be of grave public concern if correct’ and as it is ‘attributed to an expert of standing in the field’ the material is not an opinion, ‘even if that word is used’, as an average viewer would understand Dr McLean’s statements as ‘having the status of a presentation of facts’ which was confirmed by that segment being repeated in the following news bulletin.
• ‘There was no indication in the Breakfast presentation that EPA had been consulted about the reasons for their decision before proceeding with the sensational claim that they had sacrificed public safety for productivity.’
• The findings in the WHO report were ‘disputed’ by other reports, which TVNZ could ‘reasonably have been expected to know’ – ‘so the failure to mention those other conflicting reports and the presentation of just one side of a scientific debate in such definitive terms, is a serious concern for me.’
• While there may have been other balancing broadcasts, Mr Matthew did not see these, and commented that ‘If TVNZ intended the presentation by Dr Dave McLean to be considered in juxtaposition with material from the EPA representative the day before this should have been explicitly declared by the presenter in the introduction.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• The broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance and achieved balance throughout ‘the period of current interest including the 1 News bulletin of 30 September, Breakfast 1 October and the Breakfast programme of 6 October’2
• ‘The Breakfast programme of 2 October also includes both significant perspectives on the substance.’

Accuracy

• It provided sources indicating the accuracy of the link between glyphosate and cancer.
• ‘The science is divided on the subject of the safety of Glyphosate. It would be inaccurate for news reports to give a blanket statement that regulators have found these products safe when the opinion is divided…’
• The programmes referenced experts presenting the view that glyphosate is safe.
• The material was not handled in a way that would be misleading, and there is ‘a strong public interest in holding discussions such as this.’

The relevant standards

[6]  The balance standard (Standard 8) states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

[7]  The accuracy standard (Standard 9) states that broadcasters was make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. The objective of this standard is to protect audiences from being significantly misinformed.³

Our findings

[8]  The right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information, is the starting point in our consideration of complaints. Equally important is our consideration of the level of actual or potential harm that may be caused by the broadcast. We may only interfere and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified. In this case we are required to determine whether the item may have caused harm by misleading the public or failing to provide the audience with sufficient information to reach an informed opinion.

Balance

[9]  The balance standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss controversial issues of public importance. Breakfast is a news and current affairs programme, and we consider that this interview which considered the potentially carcinogenic properties of a commonly available and widely used weed killer clearly amounts to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of this standard.

[10]  The objective of the balance standard is to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion (which is important to the operation of an open and democratic society).⁴ The question for the Authority is whether viewers were able to do so on this occasion.

[11]  The assessment of whether a reasonable range of other perspectives has been presented includes consideration of a number of factors, which in this instance included the following:⁵

• Comments and devil’s advocate questioning from Mr Campbell throughout the interview signalled the existence of other views.
• These comments also made it clear that Dr McLean’s comments about the EPA were serious allegations which needed to be responded to.
• Both Mr Campbell and Dr McLean identified the limitations of the study referenced in the interview.

[12]  The standard allows for balance to be achieved over time ‘in other programmes within the period of current interest’, and as the Codebook commentary acknowledges, this may be taken from other media sources.⁶

[13]  TVNZ provided examples of the discussion of potential health risks of glyphosate in broadcasts on 1 News and Breakfast in the period 30 September to 7 October 2019, and in a broadcast on 7 October 2019 of Breakfast with an accompanying online news article (all being within the period of current interest). These included an interview with an EPA representative (on 1 News on 1 October 2019) explaining the EPA’s stance on glyphosate.  Accordingly, we consider that balance was achieved over time and viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views regarding the safety of glyphosate and of the EPA’s rationale and motivations for their stance.

[14]  Considering the introduction of the broadcast, the segment’s clearly signalled perspective, the level of coverage the issue received in other programmes in the period of current interest and the ongoing nature of the issue, we consider that viewers would have been sufficiently aware of the existence of alternate views on the issue.

[15]  Therefore, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[16]  Audiences may be misinformed in two ways: by incorrect statements of fact within the programme; and/or by being misled by the programme as a whole.⁷ Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’⁸

[17]  Mr Matthew did not identify any specific statements as inaccurate and the majority of his submissions were concerned with issues relating to balance. However, he was concerned with the following matters which we have addressed under this standard:

• that the item came across as a ‘black and white declaration that glyphosate is dangerous and should be banned.’
• that Dr McLean alleged that the EPA was valuing the usefulness of Roundup as a weed killer over public health concerns.

[18]  In making an assessment of whether the requirements of the accuracy standard were met, our role is not to determine the scientific accuracy of comments regarding the potential health risks arising from glyphosate. Rather our role is to determine whether the accuracy standard applied to the broadcast and if so, whether TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure that all material statements of fact were accurate and that the programme as a whole did not mislead viewers.

[19]  The standard does not apply to statements of comment, analysis or opinion.⁹ An opinion is someone’s view. It is contestable, and others may hold a different view.¹⁰ However, it is not always clear whether a statement is an assertion of fact or opinion. This will depend on the context and presentation of the statements and how a reasonable viewer would perceive them.¹¹

[20]  In this case, we found that Dr McLean‘s comments regarding the EPA’s position and whether glyphosate should be used were his analysis and his opinion. We reached this view taking into account the following contextual factors which signalled the nature of the views expressed:  

• Breakfast is a news and current affairs programme in which guests are often interviewed in a context that encourages them to present their opinions.
• The broadcast relates to scientific subject matter on which there are a range of views (as we have highlighted in our discussion on balance above).
• Dr McLean was established as a public health expert, and introduced as a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Public Health at Massey University, and was interviewed to provide his expert opinion on the issue.
• Statements made by Dr McLean throughout the interview indicated that he was providing his opinion, for example (emphasis ours):
  • He was asked ‘do you think Roundup and glyphosate should be used in New Zealand’ to which he responded ‘I don’t think it should be used.’
  • He said, ‘I understand that...ESR has done a study of groundwater and found it fairly widespread in the country… so I think that we are developing a problem for ourselves…I would like to see it limited if not stopped.’
  • He said, ‘I can’t speak for [the EPA] but I find it bizarre that they did [reject the studies]. It was obviously a strong lobby from MPI, the agriculture…to me it was like the tobacco industry denying the existence of lung cancer from smoking or the asbestos industry which has also denied it.’
  • Mr Campbell asked ‘so you are saying the NZEPA has put the potency of Roundup as a weed killer ahead of public health issues,’ to which Dr McLean responded, ‘I think I can say that, with all honesty, yes, that’s my opinion.’

[21]  We consider that Dr McLean’s statements were clearly his analysis and opinion, and therefore the accuracy standard does not apply. We note Mr Matthew’s submission that viewers may give more weight to an expert’s opinion on a subject. However, that does not alter the nature of the statements, ie that they were statements of his opinion not statements of fact. We also note that complaints concerning the weighting of particular perspectives in broadcasts are more properly dealt with under the balance standard (as above) and issues regarding whether the EPA was fairly dealt with in the broadcast are more properly dealt with under the fairness standard.

[22]  For the above reasons, we do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

 
 
For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judge Bill Hastings

Chair
26 May 2020

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Cory Matthew’s complaint to TVNZ – 29 October 2019

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 22 November 2019

3  Mr Matthew’s referral to the BSA – 19 December 2019

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 30 March 2020

5  Mr Matthew’s confirmation of no further comments – 30 March 2020

¹ The Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice was refreshed with effect from 1 May 2020. This complaint has been determined under the April 2016 version of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice as the relevant broadcast pre-dated the 1 May 2020 version.
² TVNZ provided a link to the online version of this broadcast and clarified it is from 7 October 2019.
³ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁴ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁵ Guideline 8c
⁶ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁷ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
⁸ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110
⁹ Guideline 9a
¹⁰ Guidance: Accuracy – Distinguishing Fact and Analysis, Comment or Opinion, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 62
¹¹ As above