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 a Sunday item questioning what legacy could be left behind by a (now shut) chemical plant in Paritūtū, New Plymouth, which produced 2,4,5-T, containing the contaminant TCDD. The complaint was that the item breached the accuracy and balance standards as it exaggerated the harms of the chemical to people and the environment, and took insufficient care to fully investigate non-expert comments of interviewees ‘in spite of adequate explanatory reports in the public domain.’ Noting the high public interest and value in the item overall, the Authority found the segment was clearly presented as focusing on local residents’ perspectives of and concerns about the plant; the interviewees’ comments were clearly contextualised, and the item included references to reputable reports as well as appropriate comment from an expert in the area. Overall the Authority concluded sufficient information and viewpoints were presented to enable the audience to reach their own views, and any potential harm did not outweigh freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance

The broadcast

[1]  An item on Sunday, broadcast on 18 September 2022, discussed the demolition, and history, of the Paritūtū Chemical Plant in New Plymouth | Ngāmotu. The plant was run by Ivon Watkins Dow (Dow), then later sold to Corteva, and was used to manufacture the herbicide 2,4,5‑trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), targeted at addressing Aotearoa New Zealand’s gorse problem. The item was introduced as follows:

The chemical plant in New Plymouth causing birth defects and cancers for over 60 years? That's what people in Paritūtū fear. Owned by an American multinational, it was the last place in the world making the herbicide 2,4,5-T. Highly poisonous dioxins were produced in the manufacturing process. Some believe it's contaminating the whenua, where people live, where kids play. Now the chemical plant is being pulled down. Tonight, Mark Crysell asks, is it leaving behind a toxic legacy?

[2]  The segment included comments from:

• Andy Gibbs: introduced as a ‘wharfie and former resident’ with extensive knowledge of the Paritūtū chemical plant. Gibbs spoke to many Paritūtū residents, learnt about congenital disorders in the area and studied local death certificates to ‘build up a picture of what was happening in the suburb.’
• Dr David McBride: an Associate Professor at the University of Otago and one of the authors of a study into Paritūtū workers’ blood, who commented on the toxicity of dioxins and the likelihood dioxin levels over the years in Paritūtū could cause cancers (saying it was unlikely):
  
  Crysell:   Over the years, reports from the Environment and Health Ministries have found dioxin levels weren't high enough to affect people's health. Were there any levels that gave you cause for concern?
  McBride: No.
  Crysell:   Dr. David McBride of Otago University was one of the authors of a Dow funded study into Paritūtū workers' blood.
  McBride: The studies we did at the plant certainly didn't produce anything strange or startling, and the levels were lower than those found internationally.
  Crysell:   Could dioxins have caused cancers in that area?
  McBride: From what we've seen, no.
• A former worker at the plant: starting in 1977, who has a ‘list of the chemicals he handled’ and recounted his, and colleagues’, health issues and experiences working at the plant (such as not having ‘proper gas masks to cover the whole face’ until sometime after starting).
• Dr John Stoke (in historical footage): Director of Public Health 1986–1987 who stated he would be willing to drink 2,4,5-T each day (provided it was properly boiled) and it would not affect his health.
• Mayor Neil Holdom: New Plymouth Mayor who expressed the region’s concerns and desires, as he understood them to be, regarding the plant, in particular requiring Corteva to conduct testing when the plant was shut down and report the results back to the Council and the community.
• Chair of Taranaki Iwi: who ‘tautoko [supports]’ the Mayor’s comments.

[3]  The item also included the following key discussion points, which we consider relevant for the purposes of this complaint:

• The manufacture of 2,4,5-T created a dioxin contaminant, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Dioxins ‘have long been linked to birth defects and cancers’. TCDD is a carcinogen, and toxic, but its mechanism of causation for cancers (and other disorders) is unknown. Crysell also noted ‘2,4,5-T was a key component in the Agent Orange sprayed on jungles by the US military during the Vietnam War.’
• Many Paritūtū residents believe various illnesses and birth defects in their families and whānau were a result of exposure to the chemicals. This ‘started in the mid-1960s when a local midwife recorded a high number of birth defects.’
• Waste from the plant was discharged to neighbouring areas, including Back Beach, which harmed wildlife. Ten years later, ‘chemicals leached out of the soil of an Ivon Watkins Dow research farm where they had been dumped. Locals were horrified.’
• Chemical waste was buried at various dumps around New Plymouth, and it was still there. ‘All perfectly legal at the time. It sat there until 2009, when Council workers mistakenly dug up old drums on the site of a former dump at Marfell.’ ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research) tested the samples and ‘found the second highest level of dioxin ever found in New Zealand.’
• Buried drums of waste were dug up and returned to the plant in the early 1980s to be reprocessed – work done by a former plant employee interviewed. Many were rusted out and half full ‘because they just leached out through the rusted drums.’ The employee considered the dioxin leaked into the soil.
• Various reports found dioxin levels (including in workers’ blood) were not high enough to cause cancers. This was contrasted with comments from the worker who noted he had ‘raised TCDD in the blood’ and it was ‘high enough for me to be worried about. It was above – well above – the national average.’
• Through Holdom and Taranaki iwi, the community’s perspective on the plant and what they would like done in terms of site assessments was presented. Although he acknowledged the plant was compliant with operating requirements (and the reporter noted groundwater monitoring showed no hazardous levels of contaminations), Holdom noted it could ‘be compliant while still having chemical contamination in the ground.’
• Corteva has been ‘secretive’ about its intentions for the site, but undertook to complete a ground assessment once the plant has been demolished. The reporter noted New Zealand law did not require Corteva to ‘clean up the site’ when it left.

[4]  The segment concluded with comment from Dow and Corteva who promised to ‘do more comprehensive contamination testing’ and share the results with New Plymouth, remaining ‘committed to meeting its safety and environmental obligations concerning the New Plymouth site and its surrounding communities.’

The complaint

[5]  Wallace Rae complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand as it misrepresented the harms of the chemicals and the manufacturers’ involvement. Specifically:

Chemical safety

• Anecdotal evidence presented is inconsistent with Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora reports of birth defects¹ and scientific literature² which found no correlation between exposure and birth defects or an increase in cancer deaths. Further, residents were unlikely to be more highly exposed than the workers in the plant.
• There was a conflation between the toxicity of TCDD (which varies widely between species and methods of administration) and 2,4,5-T (the latter is excreted within a few days). The broadcast also conflated the manufacture of 2,4,5-T with Agent Orange application in the Vietnam war (which had higher dioxin concentrations), which Rae considered was ‘a deliberate exaggeration to gain effect but bears little relevance to the current controversy.’

Waste management

• Reports found samples in residential soil around the plant were below guideline levels of dioxins.³ Further, there is little evidence to support claims of ‘high emission’ periods prior to 1972.
• The broadcast ‘exaggerated’ handling of waste and omitted reference to remedial action undertaken by the plant owners, including ‘complete excavation of the Waireka dump and reburial in a lined and monitored land fill.’ The Mayor’s comments regarding leakage of ground contaminants are also inconsistent with the [Regional] Council’s own monitoring reports that ‘contamination outflows from the site are nondetectable.’
• Run-off from the plant was collected and analysed before discharge.

Deference to Andy Gibbs

• Andy Gibbs was given improper deference in the broadcast. He has ‘no work history in the plant, no formal training in process chemistry and no formal training in reading or broadly interpreting data as a trained epidemiologist and yet he is presented as an authoritative commentator. His views are given extensive exposure throughout the program. He is an obvious supporter of the prevailing view that the program presents.’⁴
• Rae also had concerns with the inclusion of Dr Mann’s comments (in historical footage), as he is known ‘for his unbridled opposition to the continued use of 2,4,5-T. (Salient Vol. 35, No. 4, March 22 1972)’. (We note Dr Mann was not named in the broadcast, and his inclusion was through historical footage similar to Dr Stoke.)

[6]  Additionally, Rae considered the broadcast was unbalanced as:

• ‘contrary expert opinion that might have provided balance to the [programme] was sparse and often quoted out of context.’
• ‘The contrary view on the birth defect data was not adequately discussed.’
• ‘Frequent references of an emotive nature were made such as ticking time bombs that were ill considered and unchallenged.’

[7]  In summary, Rae considers the broadcast:

misled the public, and [took] insufficient care to fully investigate the non expert comments of Andy Gibbs and others in spite of adequate explanatory reports in the public domain. There is an over reliance on the editorialising of the reporter of his own biased views. There is unlikely to be another program to redress this lack of disclosure.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Chemical safety

• The broadcast ‘was discussing contemporaneous concerns of birth defects at the time the public and worker exposure to the chemicals at the plant was highest (which was stated to be mid-1960s until 1972). No inference or comment was made about the effects of the chemical exposure in the present’ such as continued birth defects from the site.
• Regarding reliance on anecdotal evidence, TVNZ questioned whether ‘any health department reports investigated highly exposed 1960s Paritūtū residents living near Ivon Watkins Dow’ (noting the 2010 report did not mention high 1960s exposure),⁵ and the complainant has not supplied any.’
• References of carcinogenicity ‘relating to TCDD rather than 2,4,5-T with TCDD contaminant’ is not material as ‘TCDD on its own or in a vehicle or carrier’ is still TCDD, as recognised by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora.⁶ Further, TCDD is a component of Agent Orange.

Waste management

• ‘The programme was clearly questioning residues in the [Dow] site and at Marfell dump, not in residential Paritūtū sampled in 2002’ (the subject of the Ministry for the Environment study cited).
• Regarding tightening up of waste discharges from the site, the reporter (who grew up in New Plymouth) stands by the assertion waste was still spilling onto Back Beach from a discharge pipe (although doesn’t identify the type of waste, only that it was from the plant). This ‘discussion is of public importance’ and ‘the Bill of Rights Act 1990 allows that it can be broadcast.’
• It disputes the broadcast exaggerated waste disposal as Dow had advised the Regional Council that there was no disposal at Marfell Park (when it was a landfill), instead using various municipal landfills.
• No evidence was provided by the complainant that ‘all runoff from the immediate factory site was collected and analysed before discharge’.
• Mayor Holdom’s fears were framed as his own opinion, to which the standard does not apply.

Deference to Andy Gibbs

• Gibbs’s ‘level of expertise and training was clearly outlined’ in the broadcast. Further, observation of the number of mortality and anencephaly cases amongst births does not require a PhD.

[9]  Regarding the balance standard, TVNZ noted it ‘is an established principle of this standard that balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch; it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented.’ TVNZ considered this occurred through comments from:

• those who had worked at the site
• ‘concerned local Andy Gibbs’
• New Plymouth Mayor, Neil Holdom
• a representative of Taranaki iwi
• Associate Professor David McBride, from Otago University
• ‘the Deputy Director General of Health in the '80's, Dr John Stokes, who had zero issues with 2,4,5-T’
• Corteva, the current owner of the site; and
• the reported findings of the ‘Environment and Health Ministries who found Dioxin levels weren't high enough to affect people's health’.

[10]  Regarding ‘the adequate discussion’ of birth defect data, there ‘is no “contrary view” which could be included that discusses the 160 residents cohort’. Further, although the report did not find statistically significant differences with the rate of neural tube defects, it was slightly higher than the estimated national rate.

[11]  In making its final comments in response to the complainant’s submissions, TVNZ concluded:

We spent months trying to convince Corteva to contribute to the story but they declined. We made the editorial decision to proceed with the story as the future of the site is a matter of public interest given the fact that highly toxic chemicals were manufactured on this site for decades.

The local mayor and iwi are advocating on behalf of the community to ensure comprehensive testing of the site is done to see if there is any contamination. The companies involved have now agreed to conduct comprehensive testing with independent oversight. We believe they only did this because of pressure of our story. We clearly stated that no one knows if there is any contamination on the site.

The whole thrust of this story was to point out that despite all the reports downplaying the impact of the plant [on residents’ and workers’] health there is still a large degree of suspicion about what went on at the plant and how that affected people's health – that went all the way up to the mayor of New Plymouth and local [tāngata] whenua.

We stated at the beginning that you can't tell the story of the plant without knowing its history – that history is one of controversy, of claim and counterclaim – our story showed that – this climate of suspicion wasn't helped by Corteva's initial refusal to share the results of any testing with the New Plymouth District Council – they changed their minds as a result of our story – hopefully that will finally bring this period of history to a conclusion that satisfies all those affected.

The standards

[12]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁷ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁸ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[13]  The balance standard⁹ states when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[14]  The standard ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.¹⁰

Our analysis

[15]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

The Authority’s role / Scope of our decision

[16]  At the outset, we note the written submissions from both parties strayed into issues not covered in the broadcast, such as: the manufacturing process of 2,4,5-T; levels of dioxin emissions; alternative sources of dioxin exposure; and the history of, and studies resulting from, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

[17]  It is not our role, nor within our expertise, to determine the safety of 2,4,5-T or the dioxin contaminants in the manufacturing process (a pervasive issue in the parties’ respective submissions).¹¹ Rather, it is well established that this Authority’s role is limited to applying broadcasting standards to the specific content broadcast and determining whether those standards have been breached.

[18]  Accordingly, only points which were raised in the programme are addressed in our determination of this complaint.¹² We are also satisfied the complaint can be appropriately and adequately considered without the Authority delving into potentially contentious areas of science.¹³

Freedom of expression and public interest

[19]  Our starting point when we determine any complaint is to consider the right to freedom of expression. We are tasked with weighing up the right to freedom of expression, and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint when the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.¹⁴

[20]  The issue of the possible harm of dioxins has attracted, and continues to attract, significant public interest, both in Aotearoa New Zealand¹⁵ and globally (particularly in a veterans’ health context given their inclusion in herbicides used in combat).¹⁶ We also note the issue, including in relation to Paritūtū, has been the subject of multiple decisions of this Authority.¹⁷

[21]  We acknowledge, as we have previously in a decision concerning a 2006 documentary into the Paritūtū plant, there is a public interest in the expression of community concerns, particularly where it serves a dual purpose of holding the government (or in this case large corporations) to account.¹⁸ Despite the findings of various reports, the community remains concerned given their perception of negative health impacts. These concerns are entitled to be expressed, unless there is absolutely no foundation for the assertions made.¹⁹

[22]  Given the significant level of public interest, a comparable level of harm is required to justify our intervention to restrict this exercise of freedom of expression.

[23]  The alleged harm in this instance is through misinforming viewers on the risks / dangers (both potential and actual) caused by the Paritūtū plant to people and whenua (land). This was through allegedly misrepresenting: the manufacturers’ actions (both historic and recent), and current knowledge about the health effects of dioxins.

[24]  For reasons we expand on below, we consider overall the broadcast was unlikely to mislead viewers, and the audience was given sufficient information and viewpoints to be able to form their own reasoned opinion (which is important to the operation of an open and democratic society).²⁰ We did not find harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention.

Accuracy

[25]  Consistent with our role, outlined above, we do not consider it necessary, or useful, to undertake a line-by-line evaluation of the accuracy of each statement made in the broadcast. Such an analysis is also not required by the accuracy standard, which is concerned only with material points of fact and points likely to ‘significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole’.

[26]  We therefore consider it useful to outline the overall effect of the broadcast, and the impressions viewers were reasonably likely to have been left with. We consider key audience takeaways for the general audience included:

• The Paritūtū chemical plant manufactured a chemical which included a toxic contaminant, being TCDD.
• TCDD is toxic, but its mechanism of action is currently unknown.
• Some Paritūtū residents, and former workers at the plant, consider TCDD was seriously harming their health, with several illustrations of the perceived impacts (eg birth defects). However, various government reports found TCDD levels were unlikely to cause the effects claimed.
• Locals (who were not represented as scientists or experts) remained concerned: they did not accept these findings, considering them deficient in various aspects (such as calculating defect rates by reference to New Plymouth as a whole rather than focusing on the population closest to the plant).
• Locals are concerned the plant did not manage its waste appropriately, with recollections of waste being discharged onto Back Beach and being buried in various landfills around New Plymouth. However, the plant was compliant with all relevant consents and groundwater monitoring shows no hazardous levels of contamination. (The current owners of the plant, Corteva, declined all requests for an interview).
• Locals are concerned about the wider impact of the plant’s activities and the concentration of dioxins that may remain in the soil.
• There is no legal obligation in New Zealand for Corteva (or Dow previously) to clean up the site.
• The local community wants Corteva to properly assess the site and undergo appropriate remediation (and the item concluded with Dow and Corteva promising ‘to do more comprehensive contamination testing at the end of this year and share the results’ with the local community, and Corteva stating it remains committed to meeting its safety and environmental obligations concerning the site).

[27]  We acknowledge the complainant’s level of knowledge and familiarity with this topic, and extensive submissions on the safety of dioxins, supported by credible studies. However, the accuracy standard is concerned only with material points of fact and misleading impressions likely to ‘significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole’.²¹ We consider most viewers would have understood the concerns expressed in the broadcast reflected those of the New Plymouth community, which were not necessarily shared by the scientific community. We note in support of this:

• The item began by noting ‘some believe [the dioxins are] contaminating the whenua’. The item was clearly introduced as presenting the perspective from those affected, expressing their concerns. This introduction also flagged that other perspectives existed.
• Indeed, the reporter referred to ‘reports from the Environment and Health Ministries’ which found dioxin levels were not high enough to affect people’s health. This was reinforced through comment from McBride who was one of the authors of a study into Paritūtū workers’ blood, particularly through the following direct exchange:
  
  Crysell:     Could dioxins have caused cancers in that area?
  McBride:   From what we've seen, no.
• The broadcast presented a narrative starting with the history of the plant, including concerns from residents (and a ‘local midwife’ at that time) and the results of investigations resulting from these concerns. It then transitioned to the present: waste left behind at the plant. The broadcast did not state the plant was continuing to cause harm (particularly as it was shut the previous year), rather, that locals feared the site has not been appropriately tested and (if necessary) remediated following its use for manufacturing chemicals.
• The item concluded by referring to Corteva’s undertaking to meeting its safety and environmental obligations concerning the site, leaving viewers with the understanding that the concerns were being heard and acted upon.

[28]  In this context, we reached the view the broadcast overall was materially accurate.

[29]  We do not consider it was necessary for the programme to present a comprehensive explanation of the health effects (if any) of dioxins.²² The complaint touches on numerous other issues at a granular level of specificity which would not, in our view, affect the average viewer’s understanding of the item as a whole. Briefly addressing some of these:

• Gibbs’s involvement: We have previously dealt with Gibbs’s involvement in issues surrounding the Paritūtū chemical plant.²³ As in that decision, we consider Gibbs was clearly introduced ‘as an advocate for people who believe they’ve been poisoned by [the plant] and it would have been clear to viewers that he had a particular perspective’.²⁴ Further, his position was expressly questioned in the broadcast, as reflected in the following dialogue:
  
  Crysell:     Are you a scientist?
  Gibbs:       No.
  Crysell:     So why do you think your research is more credible?
  Gibbs:       It's not my research. It's what the death certificates and what the data says, Mark, it's not about me.
  
  Viewers were well informed as to his background. Although not determinative (as it post-dates the broadcast) we would also note Gibbs has since co-authored a paper on the subject, Silencing Paritūtū.)²⁵
• Link between TCDD and birth defects: We note the broadcast referred to birth defects at multiple points in the broadcast, and stated health concerns ‘started in the mid-1960s when a local midwife recorded a high number of birth defects.’ The broadcast then included comment from Gibbs detailing the number of birth defects in the area over the years (particularly five of the 18 children born to the 160 local residents between 1968–1972 exhibiting some form of birth defect). We acknowledge the complainant’s concern the broadcast did not refer to the report investigating the midwife’s concerns²⁶ which found ‘no evidence of an effect on the rates of birth defects’ from TCDD exposure in New Plymouth and suggested the increased reporting was due to ascertainment bias on the part of the midwife. Although some of Gibbs’s specific claims were not directly challenged (such as the link between TCDD and birth defects), the overall tenor of the claims were challenged through McBride’s responses and comments such as that Government agencies did not consider dioxin levels were high enough to be of concern.
• Present danger: The complainant was also concerned the broadcast was suggesting the site poses a present danger to locals as it provides a source of long-term exposure to TCDD. We consider the future focus of the broadcast related to the community’s concerns of testing the whenua and sharing the results with the community. As noted above, the community is entitled to express these concerns.
• Link to Agent Orange: Much of the submissions discussed Agent Orange, both its application in the Vietnam War and implications from its use on various affected people. We acknowledge its relevance in that the same poisonous dioxin contaminant is in both Agent Orange and the manufacture of 2,4,5-T (and the comparison was likely included as audiences would be more familiar with Agent Orange than TCDD). However, Agent Orange was only referenced once in the entire broadcast, when introducing Dr McBride, noting its use in the Vietnam War and that NZ Vietnam veterans ‘were the only group that are ever shown to have an excess of chronic lymphatic leukaemia.’ We acknowledge Rae’s concerns regarding the exaggeration of Agent Orange’s toxicity (particularly in light of the National Academies of Science’s work on this topic over more than two decades reporting limited association, or less, for the majority of claimed disorders).²⁷ However, in the context of a brief passing reference, and the key audience takeaways, we do not consider further information on this point was required.
• Waste management: The complainant had concerns regarding the broadcast’s representation of Dow’s waste handling, such as through the reporter recounting a pipe ‘spewing waste out from the Paritūtū site onto the beach’. We do not consider this significantly affected viewers’ understanding of the programme as viewers would have understood this was the reporter’s recollection of events and his own experiences. Further, there were balancing comments later that Dow was complying with all applicable resource consents and within the law, reinforcing the overall impression of the broadcast that community concerns were not shared by officials.

[30]  We have not addressed every submission made. However, we do not consider any other alleged omission or inaccuracy (particularly those of a technical nature unlikely to be appreciated in the context of this broadcast) makes the broadcast inaccurate. Its perspective, and focus, was clearly signalled to viewers who would have understood the concerns reflected those of the community given their distrust of the plant and harms experienced. There is a large public interest in the community expressing these concerns.

[31]  We consider finding any breach of the standard in these circumstances would constitute an unjustifiable restriction on the right to freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and communities to express concerns. Sufficient information and perspectives were included, in our view, to ensure the programme as a whole was materially accurate and unlikely to materially mislead the audience.

Balance

[32]  The complainant’s concerns under this standard generally relate to the broadcast’s focus on providing the perspective of concerned locals, omitting what he considers to be key expert opinion on the issues discussed. We consider the core of the complainant’s concerns are better addressed under the accuracy standard, above, and particularly through our findings viewers were unlikely to be significantly misinformed by the broadcast.

[33]  Nevertheless, in this section we briefly address the balance standard.

[34]  For the balance standard to apply, the broadcast must discuss a controversial issue of public importance.²⁸ An issue ‘of public importance’ is defined as something that would have a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, New Zealanders. A ‘controversial’ issue is one garnering topical currency; which has generated or is likely to generate conflicting opinion; or about which there has been ongoing public debate.

[35]  The broadcast focused on the question of what legacy could be left behind the chemical plant at Paritūtū. As noted above, at footnote 15, issues surrounding the Paritūtū plant have attracted, and continue to attract, significant public interest. The issue of whether the plant has caused harm to the whenua has also generated conflicting opinion, with reports suggesting compliance with regulations (at the time) / no cause for concern, conflicting with developments such as waste being found under parks (formerly used as a landfill).

[36]  A key consideration under the balance standard is what an audience expects from a programme and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.²⁹

[37]  Given the framing of the item, as expressing the concerns of the community, we do not consider viewers would have expected the level of technical detail the complainant wished to be included. Further, in light of our consideration of audience impressions of the item (at paragraph [25], above), we do not consider viewers were misinformed of the issue or left unable to form their own views on it. The broadcast presented multiple perspectives, either by reference or through direct comments (through those interviewed at paragraph [9], above). It also noted Corteva had turned down all requests for an interview.

[38]  As noted above, there was public interest in expressing the community’s concerns and creating a discussion. The broadcaster maintains it made extensive efforts over a period of months to involve Corteva, and presented Corteva’s response to the extent one was given. Any potential harm caused by the lack of their participation is now minimal given their agreement to engage with locals to test and remediate (if required) the site.

[39] Accordingly we find no breach of the balance standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
30 May 2023

Appendix

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

1  Wallace Rae’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 7 October 2022

2  TVNZ’s decision on complaint – 7 November 2022

3  Rae’s referral to the Authority – 2 December 2022

4  TVNZ’s response to referral – 23 December 2022

5  Rae’s further comments – 21 January 2023

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 1 February 2023

7  Rae’s final comments – 8 and 9 February 2023

8  TVNZ’s final comments – 24 February 2023

¹ Citing Barry Borman and Deborah Read Birth defects in the New Plymouth District (Centre for Public Health Research, Wellington, 2010); and see generally Manatū Hauora | Ministry of Health “Dioxins” (1 November 2022) <health.govt.nz>
² Citing David McBride and others “Cohort study of workers at a New Zealand agrochemical plant to assess the effect of dioxin exposure on mortality” (2018) BMJ Open e019243
³ Citing Ministry for the Environment | Manatū Mō te Taiao and The Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd “Dioxin Concentrations in Residential Soil, Paritutu, New Plymouth” (26 September 2002) <environment.govt.nz>
⁴ Citing an interview Gibbs was involved with in 2005 on behalf of the Dioxin Investigation Network
⁵ Citing Jeff Fowles and others “2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) plasma concentrations in residents of Paritutu, New Zealand: Evidence of historical exposure” (2009) 75 Chemosphere 1259
⁶ Citing Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora “Dioxins questions and answers” (31 January 2014) <health.govt.nz>
⁷ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
¹¹ See NZDSOS Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-005 at [16] regarding our role with complaints concerning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and assessments of science supporting that safety; and Gibbs and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020‑156 at [15] concerning the veracity, and implications, of a statement that testing at Paritutu groundwater sites found negligible dioxin contamination
¹² See Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012 at [181] where we adopted a similar approach regarding similar issues raised
¹³ See Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012 at [178]–[179] for a similar finding regarding a similar issue
¹⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
¹⁵ For recent coverage regarding the Paritūtū chemical plant, see Robin Martin “Authorities accused over cancers around agrichemicals plant at Paritūtū” RNZ (online ed, 22 March 2023); and Robin Martin “Government warned over toxic chemicals on New Plymouth beach” RNZ (online ed, 11 April 2023); for more historic coverage, see “We won’t let up, say sick residents” NZ Herald (online ed, 9 September 2004)
¹⁶ See Stephen Lester “Here’s the real reason the EPA doesn’t want to test for toxins in East Palestine” The Guardian (online ed, 2 March 2023); Associated Press in Hanoi “US to clean up toxic Agent Orange residue 40 years after Vietnam war”; and generally National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018) (The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2018)
¹⁷ For decisions concerning the Paritūtū chemical plant, see Gibbs and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-156; and Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012. For decisions concerning dioxins and/or Agent Orange specifically, see Barron and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2014-056; and DowElanco (NZ) Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 1996-064
¹⁸ See Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012 at [210]
¹⁹ See Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012 at [217]
²⁰ The New Zealand Forest Owners Association Inc and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-022 at [18]
²¹ Guideline 6.2
²² See Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012 at [219] and NZDSOS Inc. and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision no. 2022-005 at [20]
²³ See Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012
²⁴ See Ministry of Health and Canwest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-012 at [234]
²⁵ Sarah Monod de Froideville and Andrew Gibbs “Silencing Paritutu” (2023) Crime, Law and Social Change
²⁶ Citing Barry Borman and Deborah Read Birth defects in the New Plymouth District (Centre for Public Health Research, Wellington, 2010)
²⁷ National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018) (The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2018) at 559–572
²⁸ Guideline 5.1
²⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 15