ESR welcomes decisions from Broadcasting Authority

ESR welcomes decisions from the Broadcasting Standards Authority

ESR welcomes decisions from the Broadcasting Standards Authority which uphold complaints by ESR and the Ministry of Health, relating to items broadcast by TV3 in October 2006.

On October 23, 2006 a TV3 Special Investigation was broadcast into the effects of 2-4-5t in New Zealand. ESR's complaint to the BSA related to serious criticisms made on the programme about a serum dioxin study ESR undertook on behalf of the Ministry of Health. The programme made significant criticisms of the study, the study's authors and ESR. A further complaint related to news items which continued to criticise ESR and the study.

Based on a review of the study by a forensic accountant Let Us Spray described the serum dioxin report, undertaken by ESR as seriously flawed with data wrongly interpreted, and the level of dioxin exposure downplayed.

In fact ESR's study has undergone six independent reviews by world experts in the field, including three reviews following the programme being broadcast. These reviewers concluded that the criticisms made in the programme were not valid and all endorsed the methods and results of the ESR study.

The authority noted in it's decision that "at no stage in the two years since the broadcast has CanWest broadcast an alternative perspective on the specific criticism of the serum study that were contained in Let Us Spray."

General Manager of Environmental health, Dr Fiona Thomson-Carter said that ESR was very pleased with the authority's decision. The authority found the programme lacked balance, had issues of accuracy and was unfair to ESR in its criticism of the serum dioxin study.

"The claims made by the Let Us Spray programme, and subsequent news items, that the ESR study was fundamentally flawed, impugned the scientific professionalism and integrity of ESR and its staff," she said.

"As the authority noted 'conducting research is a core part of ESR work and it considers strongly criticising the validity and integrity of a study conducted by ESR would have had a negative effect on the professional integrity of the organisation'.

"The BSA's rulings are a vindication of the work of former and current ESR scientist and staff. The criticisms made were very serious and were damaging not only to ESR as a scientific institute but also to the individual scientists involved with the report, all of whom were known and identifiable within the New Zealand and international scientific community," Dr Thomson Carter said.

ENDS

© Scoop Media