BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The alleged link between exposure to Benlate and birth defects – especially

anophthalmia (being born without eyes) – was examined in an item broadcast on 20/20

between 7.30–8.30pm on Monday 3 June 1996. Two children in Christchurch were

featured and the item mentioned a forthcoming court case in the US dealing with the

relationship between Benlate and anophthalmia. In an update broadcast on 20/20 the

following week, 10 June 1996, a report prepared in Christchurch in 1994 (the Alchin

report) concluding there was no good evidence of a link between Benlate and birth

defects was referred to. It was also reported that a child in the US born without eyes

had been awarded $6 million compensation from DuPont, the manufacturers of

Benlate.

DuPont (New Zealand) Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to TV3 Network

Services Ltd that the original item breached a number of standards by not referring to

the Alchin report and by not including any contemporary comment from a DuPont

representative in New Zealand. It was also inferred, incorrectly, that both children

featured suffered from anophthalmia. The update, it continued, also breached the

standards by not dealing with the substance of the Alchin report.

On the basis that the report was not significant internationally, that DuPont's stance

had not changed in the 18 months since the comments by a UK DuPont spokesperson

were made – and which were included in the item – and that the alleged inference that

both children featured suffered from anophthalmia was not contained in the item, TV3

declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, DuPont's solicitors referred the complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

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

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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Programme

Birth defects were featured in the 20/20 item 'Blinded by Science' broadcast on 3

June 1996. Two Christchurch children were shown. The first, Blake Isson, suffered

from anophthalmia (being born without eyes) and the second, Jessie Riley, was blind

because of an unformed optic nerve, and was retarded and fed through a stomach tube.

It was reported that both mothers had worked as gardeners at the Christchurch City

Council and were trying to prove that a horticultural product caused the deformities in

the children. Both mothers specifically mentioned their exposure to Benlate and the

reporter commented that Benlate was suspected of causing anophthalmia and

microphthalmia (being born with small eyes). DuPont as the manufacturer of Benlate,

the reporter continued, rejected those claims. She added that a law suit against

DuPont in the US was linking families with eyeless children throughout the world.

The lawyer bringing the case in the United States was shown briefly referring to

aspects of the case and the reporter observed that children like Blake Isson would be

directly affected by the result of the representative action in America.

After reporting that DuPont insisted that Benlate was safe, the item included comment

from DuPont's UK spokesperson who said by way of conclusion:

What we do know is that the amount of research that has been done on Benlate

has cleared beyond any doubt whatsoever the possibility that Benlate, even at

low doses or particularly at low doses could cause Anophthalmia. We are

absolutely certain that there is no link whatsoever.

The Complaint

Through its solicitors, DuPont (New Zealand) Ltd complained to TV3 about a number

of matters. They argued specifically that the item, by omitting any reference to the

Alchin report, was neither balanced, impartial nor fair. That report, they added, by

Occupational Physician Dr John Alchin was prepared for the Christchurch City

Council as a result of the claims about pesticides. Entitled 'Investigation into Birth

Defects in Children in Mothers Working with Pesticides for the Christchurch City

Council', the solicitors wrote:

Dr Alchin's report not only investigated the medical conditions and possible

causes of those conditions in the children of the Christchurch workers, but also

included a thorough literature search from around the world. To the best of our

knowledge, Dr Alchin's report is the most recent research in regard to the

subject.

They referred to Dr Alchin's conclusions which recorded:

In particular, there is no evidence that Benomyl ('Benlate') is the cause of the

birth defects for three reasons:

(a) The mothers had no exposure to 'Benlate' during and just before their

pregnancy, as far as I could determine.

(b) There is good evidence that 'Benlate' does not accumulate in mammalian

tissues.

(c) There is no evidence at all in humans that benomyl causes anophthalmia or

microphthalmia.

The Update

In the 'Update' segment of 20/20 broadcast on 10 June, the presenter referred to the

previous week's item on Benlate and commented in part:

Since that story was broadcast a jury in Florida has found in favour of a six year

old American boy who was born without eyes. His lawyers argued the defect

was due to Benlate, and DuPont and the farm where the fungicide was used have

been ordered to pay $6 million in compensation.

And DuPont New Zealand has written to us through their lawyers noting that a

report by an occupational physician, Doctor John Alchin found that there is no

good evidence that Benlate caused the defects in the Christchurch children.

The Standards

As they considered that statement did not adequately report the findings of the Alchin

report, the solicitors' formal complaint referred to both the programme and the

update. The solicitors believed that the broadcasts breached standards G1, G3, G4,

G6, G7, G19 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first five

require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G3  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

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

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

G7  To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the presentation

of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence viewers have in

the integrity of broadcasting.

The other two read:

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event

or the overall views expressed.

G20 No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present

all significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only

by judging every case on its merits.

The Broadcaster's Response

The details of the complaint and the broadcaster's response are presented in the

Appendix. In its report to the Authority, TV3 described the following matters as the

substance of the complaint:

a)  20/20 should have referred to the report prepared by Dr John Alchin who

concluded ' ... there is no evidence that Benlate was the cause of any

defects in the children featured in the programme'.

b)  The programme inferred that ' ... both children featured suffered the same

condition (ie anophthalmia)' when in fact Blake Isson has this condition

but Jessie Riley does not.

c)  The company was not invited to participate. Notwithstanding that the

programme used footage of a DuPont spokesman it was ' ... at least

eighteen months old ... did not deal with the two children featured'. TV3

should have obtained a ' ... contemporary comment from a spokesman of

DuPont New Zealand ...'.

d)  The programme wanted the public to infer that Benlate had caused the eye

defects and was '... calculated to appeal to a public emotion and feeling.'

TV3 made the following comment on each aspect of the complaint.

(a)  As DuPont did not accept that there was any connection between Benlate and

birth defects, and as the company's position was clearly conveyed in the programme,

TV3 argued that no useful purpose would have been served by any reference to the

Alchin report. Moreover, it wrote, Dr Alchin's view was not as categorical as DuPont

suggested. He had concluded:

I have not concluded that pesticide use did not cause the birth defects, just that:

(a) There is no good evidence that it did:

(b) It is therefore more likely that chance rather than pesticide use is the

cause.

(b)  TV3 quoted extracts from the script which, it said, refuted DuPont's allegation

that the item suggested that Blake Isson and Jessie Riley suffered from the same

condition. The programme had said that the mothers believed that the defects were

the result of exposure to Benlate.

(c)  Asking what was the difference between comment from a DuPont spokesperson

in New Zealand or elsewhere, TV3 wrote:

20/20 does not have an obligation to film any particular person at DuPont

merely because DuPont New Zealand feels that they wish to appear in the

programme. Our obligation is to put DuPont's view of the subject matter.

20/20 fulfilled that obligation. There is no suggestion that a spokesman for

DuPont New Zealand would have said anything differently from the UK

spokesman regardless of the fact that the footage of the UK spokesman was

eighteen months old. This criticism is beside the point.

(d)  Explaining that children born without eyes was an emotional issue, TV3 denied

that the programme was 'calculated to be emotional'. It repeated that the item

reported the mothers' belief and, TV3 concluded:

TV3 did not treat DuPont unfairly. DuPont's position was put fairly and

squarely. DuPont absolutely denies that there is any connection whatsoever

between the use of Benlate and birth defects in children.

DuPont primarily objects to the fact that they were omitted from the

programme, but 20/20 has no obligation to include them – only their point of view

 which it did.

The Complainant's Final Comment

DuPont's solicitors responded to each point in its final comment to the Authority.

(a)  As the item focussed on two specific children, and as the Alchin report

investigated the medical condition of these two children, they argued that the item

should have reported the Alchin's report findings that there was no evidence of a

causal link between Benlate and the defects.

(b)  As the item linked horticultural products with birth defects, the solicitors said

that it suggested that the two children were in the same category. However, as the

American test case dealt only with anophthalmia, the differences were important.

They wrote:

Undoubtedly, TV3's purpose in not drawing out these distinctions was to

suggest that they were two instances of birth defects of the sort featured in the

American test case. The obvious intention and/or effect in doing so was that

viewers would infer both that the eye defect of Jessie Riley and the other defects

suffered by the two children were also the result of Benlate. No doubt this

added to the emotional tone of the programme, but once again, it was inaccurate.

(c)  Because the programme focussed on two children in New Zealand, the solicitors

believed that DuPont in New Zealand should have been seen to participate.

(d)  The solicitors stated that the item's overall presentation breached the standards

as it implied, incorrectly, that Benlate was the cause of the birth defects of the two

children considered.

By way of conclusion, the solicitors said that because of the item's inaccuracies and

omissions, and the failure to record DuPont's view about the two children featured,

the item was misleading, unbalanced and partial.

The Authority's Findings

Reference to the Alchin Report

The Authority accepts that an item which features two individuals – in this case with

birth defects – should report the substantive findings of any expert who has

investigated the matter which the item refers to. On that basis, the Authority

examines the matters raised in the Alchin report. The report, it notes, dealt

comprehensively with the mothers' work histories and their exposure to pesticide.

Rather than repeat the report's conclusions in full, the Authority points out that

aspects have been recorded above when cited by DuPont and TV3 respectively. At

this stage, the Authority records four other conclusions contained in the report:

(a)  The two children have separate sets of birth defects, tending to argue

against a common cause.

(b)  [...]

(c)  In most cases of birth defects, the cause is unknown.

(d)  There is no evidence in humans linking any of these birth defects to

pesticide use.

(e)  The pesticide exposure of the two women before and during the pregnancy

was minimal.

Nevertheless, it seems that Dr Alchin as a scientist was not prepared to state

categorically that Benlate did not cause the defects. Instead, he surmised that there

was no good evidence that Benlate was the cause of the defects. Dr Alchin's decision

was guarded rather than conclusive. The Authority does not accept that the 'no good

evidence' phrase exonerated Benlate. Because of the equivocal nature of the findings

in the Alchin report, the Authority concludes that the omission of any reference to the

report and its findings in the item broadcast on 3 June did not breach any of the

standards cited.

Both Children Suffered from the Same Condition

While the programme did report a number of similarities, eg both children suffered

from birth defects – including lack of sight – and both mothers had been working with

pesticides for the same employer, the Authority concludes that a clear distinction was

drawn between the defects. The item stated that Blake Isson suffered from

anophthalmia and had been born with a double cleft palate. It was also reported that

Jessie Riley was blind because of an optic nerve failure, was retarded and had glandular

and hormonal problems.

The American test case involved anophthalmia and it was clearly evident that this was

of direct relevance to Blake's parents only – not to Jessie's mother.

The Absence of a DuPont New Zealand Spokesperson

Again the Authority accepts that the complaint raises a valid point and it approaches

the issue on the basis that TV3 is required – because New Zealand children are featured

– to justify its decision to exclude a spokesperson from DuPont in New Zealand.

While the children shown were living in New Zealand, from the outset the item

advised viewers that the matter was relevant because of a 'multi-million dollar test

case in the United States'. That there was an important international aspect to the

item was apparent from the inclusion of an interview with a mother and reference to

children in various parts of Great Britain, and comments from a DuPont representative

from the UK, a foetal pathologist from Liverpool and an American lawyer.

In this context, the Authority is of the opinion that the inclusion of a New Zealand

DuPont representative was not necessary.

The complainant also expressed concern that the comment from the British

representative was recorded some 18 months earlier.

As the complainant accepts that the representative seen put DuPont's case

appropriately, the Authority does not accept that the absence of more recent

comment contravened the standards.

Overall Tone

The Authority agrees with TV3's comment that 'children born without eyes is an

emotional issue'. However, it does not accept that the emotional overtones were

advanced at the expense of content. Neither does the Authority accept that the item

advanced the case that Benlate was the cause of the birth defects in the children

featured. The item reported the mothers' belief of a causal link and the Update

advised that the view held by Blake's mother had been accepted by an American jury.

Summary

The item advanced the belief of two New Zealand mothers that the birth defects

suffered by their respective children was a result of being exposed to the pesticide

Benlate. It reported that the possibility of the link between Benlate and anophthalmia

was about to be tested in a court case in the US.

It was also reported that DuPont, the makers of Benlate, had refuted any causal link

for some years and continued to deny it.

The Update reported that the American test case had found against DuPont.

DuPont's solicitors complained that the programme and the Update had, through

omissions and inaccuracies, been unbalanced and had breached various nominated

broadcasting standards.

Having examined the complaint fully, having viewed the programmes, and having read

the correspondence, the Authority concludes that the item did not breach the

nominated standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith M Potter
Chairperson
3 October 1996

Appendix

DuPont (New Zealand) Ltd's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 5 June 1996

Through its solicitors, Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartlett and Co, DuPont (New

Zealand) Ltd complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about an item entitled

'Blinded by Science' broadcast on 20/20 between 7.30 - 8.30pm on Monday 3 June

1996.

Complaining that the item was unbalanced as it failed to present significant

information, the solicitors said that the item omitted any reference to the report dated

15 April 1994 by Occupational Physician Dr John Alchin titled 'Investigation into

Birth Defects in Children of Mothers Working with Pesticides for the Christchurch

City Council'. This report, the letter continued, had investigated the claims about

pesticides, including Benlate, made by former City Council workers. Further, it had

dealt specifically with the children featured in the 20/20 item. The solicitors added:

Dr Alchin's report not only investigated the medical conditions and possible

causes of those conditions in the children of the Christchurch workers, but also

included a thorough literature search from around the world. To the best of our

knowledge, Dr Alchin's report is the most recent research in regard to the

subject.

However, despite being reminded of it before the broadcast, the 20/20 item did not

mention the Alchin report. The report's conclusions, the solicitors argued, would

have provided balance to the item. Moreover, the item was inaccurate when it implied

that both the children featured had the same condition, ie anophthalmia, when one,

Jessie Riley, did not have that condition. The letter commented:

No doubt, these serious omissions were designed to avoid weakening the 20/20

programme's case against Benlate.

Questioning why their client was not invited to participate by way of an interview,

the solicitors noted that the item included some footage from the UK, which was at

least 18 months old, to present DuPont's point of view. The solicitors opined:

The whole presentation of the programme was calculated to arouse public

emotion and feelings against DuPont in circumstances where the ultimate

inference the programme was seeking to draw, that Benlate has caused eye

defects, is completely unproven.

This situation has unfairly prejudiced DuPont and has been exacerbated by

TV3's inaccurate and unfair reporting.

A retraction and an apology on the next screening of 20/20 were advanced as the

appropriate remedies.

Appended to the complaint was a copy of the Alchin report and the correspondence

between 20/20 to DuPont before the broadcast on 3 June.

Further Correspondence

In a fax dated 12 June, TV3's solicitors advised DuPont's solicitors that the criticism

was rejected and a full reply awaited the receipt of further information from the

United States. On 19 June 1996, DuPont's solicitors advised that a prompt

substantive reply was necessary.

As a substantive reply had not been received promptly, on 1 July 1996, DuPont's

solicitors referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. They said

that on 20/20, at 8.25pm on 10 June 1996, there had been a brief update which had

also breached the standards. Transcripts of both items were enclosed.

As the Authority could not at that time accept referrals until the broadcaster has had

60 working days in which to respond to the complaint, the Authority advised

DuPont's solicitors that the referral could not be accepted.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 July 1996

TV3's solicitors (Grove Darlow and Partners) advised DuPont's solicitors that TV3

did not accept that DuPont had any basis for complaint. They explained:

The documentary was about the impending trial in the United States, the

expectations of families in New Zealand (and around the world) who would be

touched by that trial and the issue which would be decided in that trial.

DuPont's position in relation to that (then) forthcoming event was put on record

in the same way the aspirations of those families who aligned themselves with

the claimants in the US action.

In view of the judgment given in favour of the US claimants the documentary is

vindicated.

TV3 rejected the implication in the complaint that it had an obligation to report

matters as DuPont would have liked. Dr Alchin's report, it added, was not referred to

for the following reasons: first, it was insignificant at the international level; secondly,

he lacked the level of qualification to speak authoritatively on the subject; thirdly, the

report was equivocal; and finally, DuPont's position was conveyed by another

person.

As DuPont's position had not changed in the past 18 months, TV3 pointed out that

the programme included Mr Upstone (DuPont's spokesperson in the UK) denying

any connection between Benlate and the children's condition. TV3 did not accept that

there was any basis for a retraction or an apology.

DuPont's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 5 July 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, DuPont's solicitors referred the complaint to the

Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The details were contained in

its letter of 1 July. The referral dealt with the item broadcast on 3 June and the brief

update broadcast on 20/20 the following week (10 July).

The solicitors maintained that the main programme reported; first, that DuPont

produced Benlate; secondly, that a test case had been brought in the US claiming that

Benlate was responsible for anophthalmia (babies born without eyes); thirdly, that

two children in Christchurch have birth defects, one of whom (Blake Isson) was born

with anophthalmia and a double cleft palate; fourthly, that both mothers have been

exposed to Benlate and 'that this was the cause of their children's birth defects'; and

fifthly, that DuPont as the manufacturer of Benlate was responsible.

The update broadcast on 20/20 reported that a jury in the US had found in favour of a

six year-old boy who had been born without eyes, concluding that this birth defect

was due to Benlate. It also reported that DuPont's lawyers had written to 20/20

drawing attention to the Alchin report which concluded that Benlate was not the cause

of the defects of the children in Christchurch. However, the solicitors stated, the

update had not dealt substantially with the Alchin report's findings.

Seeking an urgent response to the complaint in view of the prejudice against the

company the item had created, the solicitors wrote:

In December 1993, an investigation was instigated by the Christchurch City

Council as a result of claims made about pesticides, including Benlate by former

workers of the council. This report was conducted by Dr John Alchin,

Occupational Physician, MB, BS, Dip Obst, OUH, Dip Av Med, FAFOM.

The report related specifically to the two children featured in the 20/20

programme.

Dr Alchin's report investigated the medical conditions of the two children, and

also possible causes of those conditions. In addition, it included a thorough

literature search from around the world. To the best of our knowledge, Dr

Alchin's report is the most recent research on the subject.

Dr Alchin concluded that there was 'no evidence that Benomyl ('Benlate') is the

cause of the birth defects' of the children featured, and 20/20 had been reminded of the

report by DuPont before the broadcast of the item complained about. However, the

solicitors observed, the Alchin report was not referred to in the main programme and

not in any substantial way in the update.

The programme, the solicitors complained, implied that both the children featured had

the same condition, ie anophthalmia, whereas Jessie Riley did not have that condition.

Further, there was absolutely no evidence that the other defects suffered by Jessie

(hormone and glandular problems, and retardation) have been caused by Benlate.

The solicitors also complained that DuPont had not been invited to participate in the

programme. Footage of a UK DuPont spokesperson, taken at least 18 months ago,

was used. Not only would he not be aware of the circumstances of the two children

featured, the solicitors considered that contemporary comment from a local

spokesperson would have been appropriate. The complaint stated:

The whole presentation of the programme was calculated to appeal to public

emotion and feeling. The ultimate inference that the makers of the programme

clearly wished the public to draw was that Benlate had caused the eye defects in

the children featured. This suggestion is completely unproven, and is contrary

to the findings in the Alchin report.

The solicitors argued that the item breached standards G1, G3, G4, G6, G7, G19 and

G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The update breached the above

provisions and, in addition, standard G21.

The appropriate remedy was considered to be the publication of a statement (in the

form enclosed) with the referral.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 30 July 1996

In its report to the Authority, TV3 summarised the points raised by DuPont as, first,

that the item should have referred to the Alchin report; secondly, that it was implied

that both the children featured suffered from the same condition; thirdly, that the

company was not invited to participate; and lastly, that the programme was designed

to appeal to public emotions. It then dealt with each aspect.

In its discussion on the first point, TV3 said that it was DuPont's position that there

was no connection between Benlate and 'any defect whatsoever'. Three extracts from

the item's commentary were listed which reported DuPont's approach, and TV3

commented:

Given DuPont's fundamental position that there is no link whatsoever between

the use of Benlate and the birth defects in children, Dr Alchin's report would

have served no purpose except to restate what had been stated.

Moreover, it added, citing Dr Alchin's conclusion, TV3 said that he was not so

emphatic as DuPont was that there was no linkage between Benlate and anophthalmia.

As for the distinction between Jessie Riley and Blake Isson, TV3 again quoted the

item's script and insisted that it was not stated that Jessie Riley had anophthalmia.

However, it was reported that both families had tried to prove that a horticultural

product had caused the respective deformities. Nevertheless, only Blake Isson was

named as a child who could be directly affected by the American case. TV3 wrote:

The programme at no stage inferred or said that Benlate did cause this condition,

only that the mothers were trying to prove, fighting to prove or believed that the

product did cause this condition.

The participation by DuPont in the item was the next matter addressed and TV3

asked:

What difference would it have made if there had been a comment from a

spokesman of DuPont New Zealand?

TV3 maintained that DuPont in New Zealand would not have been able to say

anything different from the comments made by the UK spokesman 18 months earlier.

TV3 argued:

20/20 does not have an obligation to film any particular person at DuPont

merely because DuPont New Zealand feels that they wish to appear in the

programme. Our obligation is to put DuPont's view of the subject matter.

20/20 fulfilled that obligation.

In response to the complaint about the item's overall presentation, TV3 stated that it

was impossible to deal with a documentary of this type without being emotional as

'Children born without eyes is an emotional issue'. Nevertheless, it wrote, the item

was not calculated to be emotional.

TV3 repeated that the programme reported that the women were trying to prove that

Benlate was the cause of children's blindness and had focussed primarily on the law

suit in the United States, and the expectation of Blake Isson's parents. TV3

continued:

The Authority ought to be aware that the case was successful. A Florida jury

found that there was a connection between Benlate and eye defects in the

American child who James Ferraro represented. The child has been awarded six

million dollars in compensation. This was reported by 20/20 in the following

week.

TV3 also noted that the follow-up in June also referred to the Alchin report and its

principal finding.

In conclusion, TV3 wrote:

TV3 did not treat DuPont unfairly. DuPont's position was put fairly and

squarely. DuPont absolutely denies that there is any connection whatsoever

between the use of Benlate and birth defects in children.

DuPont primarily objects to the fact that they were omitted from the

programme, but 20/20 has no obligation to include them - only their point of

view, which it did

DuPont's Final Comment - 8 August 1996

DuPont's solicitors dealt first with the Alchin report, and began:

The substance of DuPont's position is indeed that there is no connection

between Benlate and birth defects generally. However, the programme featured,

and focused on, two particular children and the possibility of a causal connection

between their particular birth defects and Benlate. The Alchin report

specifically investigated the medical condition of these two children. The

findings of the report dealt explicitly with the issue of whether or not there was

a connection between birth defects of these two children and Benlate. The

conclusion reached by Dr Alchin was that there was no evidence to establish this

causal link.

Contrary to TV3's position that the report repeated what was stated elsewhere, they

argued that the report was relevant specifically to the two children the item focussed

on. They suggested that the report had not been mentioned because it was in conflict

with the message the item wished to convey.

Referring next to Jessie Riley, they argued that the programme invited viewers to infer

that the birth defects suffered by both children were caused by Benlate. The full

transcript - not the use of selected quotes - contained that inference. In addition:

Furthermore, the programme implied that all of the birth defects suffered by

both children were the result of Benlate, whereas in fact the American test case

dealt only with anophthalmia. The update continued to conflate the differences

between the two children, and between anophthalmia and the other birth defects

suffered by the children featured. This conflation was inaccurate and misleading.

As a result, it was argued, the programme was inaccurate on this point.

As for the participation of a New Zealand DuPont representative, the solicitors

pointed out that the item focussed on two New Zealand children and although DuPont

commented on the subject matter:

By not giving DuPont the opportunity to comment on the specific cases of the

two children featured, TV3 failed to discharge this obligation [relating to

participation].

Dealing finally with the item overall, the solicitors argued that the conclusions from

the Alchin report were not advanced until the update broadcast the following week

and that occurred only after a complaint. The Alchin report's conclusion - that there

is no link between Benlate and birth defects generally, and anophthalmia specifically -

was not contained in the first programme.

The item, the solicitors concluded, breached the standards as set out in the original

letter of complaint.