Investigation report 3107 - ABW/ABQ - Catalyst/media/Broadcasting... · Web viewThe reason tooth eruption is delayed is because fluoride deposits in and affects the pineal gland

Investigation Report No. 3107File No. ACMA2013/1422

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABW – PerthABQ – Brisbane

Type of Service National Broadcaster

Name of Program Catalyst

Dates of Broadcast 8 August 2013

Relevant Code Standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised 2013)

Date finalised 14 March 2014

Decision No breach standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised 2013)

ACMA Investigation Report 3107 – Catalyst broadcast by ABW and ABQ on 8/8/13

The complaintsBetween 2 September and 9 October 2013 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received three separate complaints about an episode of Catalyst broadcast by the ABC on 18 August 2013.

This investigation commenced in September 2013.

The complainants each submitted that the program was biased towards water fluoridation and lacked impartiality.

The complainants have also said that the segment omitted material and was not accurate.

The ACMA has considered the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1 [reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy], 2.2 [factual content that will materially mislead], 4.1 [gather and present information with due impartiality], 4.2 [present diversity of perspectives over time] and 4.5 [unduly favour one perspective over another] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised 2013) (the Code).

The programCatalyst is broadcast nationally on ABC TV on Thursdays at 8:00pm, and repeated on Fridays at 11:00am. It is described on its website in the following terms:

At Catalyst we know that science is a dynamic force for change. Each week Catalyst brings you stories from Australia and around the world. Our passion to meet scientists at the forefront of discovery is matched by our fascination with science breakthroughs however big or small. Science changes all our lives. For better or worse, we are committed to showing you what our future holds.1

The segment broadcast on 18 August 2013 ran for nine minutes and nine seconds and reported on the effects of the controlled addition of fluoride to drinking water to improve dental health. The segment was introduced by the narrator in the lead up to its broadcast as follows:

Ahead ... water fluoridation, and how it protects our teeth.

The segment focused on the different approach taken in Queensland compared with the rest of Australia on decisions about controlled water fluoridation. It noted that water fluoridation has been controversial particularly in Queensland where decisions about fluoridation are made by local Councils, rather than at the State government level. The segment referred to the differences in dental health in people living in areas where water is fluoridated, compared with those living in un-fluoridated areas.

In this context, the segment considered the science on any adverse health effects in Australia of adding fluoride to water. The segment referred to the findings of two studies:

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation – Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) – released in 2007 (the 2007 NHMRC review).2

An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma – Harvard University - released in 2011 (Access to abstract only via internet).

The segment included interviews with:

1 http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/team/about.htm2 A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation - Australian Government National Health and

Medical Research Council – released in 2007 - www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm

ACMA Investigation Report 3107 – Catalyst broadcast by ABW and ABQ on 8/8/13 2

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/team/about.htm

Dr Michael Foley - introduced in the segment as ‘Director, Brisbane Dental Hospital’.

Dr Denis Ingham - introduced in the segment as a Bundaberg Dentist, and the ‘family dentist’ of the reporter.

Mr Stephen Bennett - introduced in the segment as ‘Queensland State MP for Burnett’.

Councillor Mal Forman – introduced in the segment as ‘Mayor, Bundaberg Regional Council, Queensland’.

Professor Michael Moore - introduced in the segment as ‘Vice-president, Australasian College of Toxicology & Risk Assessment’.

The segment also featured:

File footage of a journalist commenting on early water fluoridation in Australia.

File footage of Ms Merilyn Haines – referred to in the segment as an ‘Anti-fluoride campaigner’ (Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc and retired Medical Laboratory Scientist) addressing a council meeting.3

A vox pop comprising four women and four men commenting on fluoride. And

File footage excerpt of a well-known Australian advertisement for Colgate Fluoriguard toothpaste (featuring Mrs Marsh) from the 1970s.

A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

AssessmentThe investigation is based on correspondence between the complainants and the ABC, submissions from the complainants and from the ABC to the ACMA, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC.

Excerpts of correspondence and submissions relevant to the investigation are attached as follows:

Submissions and correspondence from Complainant 1 (Attachment B)

Submissions and correspondence from Complainant 2 (Attachment C)

Submissions and correspondence from Complainant 3 (Attachment D)

Submissions and correspondence from ABC Corporate Affairs (Attachment E)

The complainants have also provided several links to literature and publications on the adverse effects of fluoride. A list of these is included at Attachment F.

The ACMA has considered these publications only insofar as they are relevant to the issues raised under the Code and broadcast.

Other relevant sources have been identified where used.

Matters not pursuedThe complaints to the ACMA included some matters which had not been included in their original complaints to the ABC. As the complainants did not first complain to the ABC about these matters as required under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ACMA has not pursued these aspects of the complaints in this investigation.3 The footage was originally used in an episode of 7:30 broadcast by the ABC in February 2013.


Complainant 1 also submitted that the 2007 NHMRC review referred to in the broadcast was ‘a sham and a whitewash which contained many flaws’. The assessment of the methodology of this review is not a code matter within the ACMA’s jurisdiction and it has not been investigated.

Complainant 2 made submissions to the ABC and the ACMA concerning the timing of the ABC’s decision to include footage of Ms Merilyn Haines in the segment. To the extent that these submissions concern editorial decisions which are not matters within the Code, they have not been investigated.

‘Ordinary, reasonable’ viewer

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener or viewer.

Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or listener or viewer) to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.4

In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, visual images, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material broadcast, it then determines whether or not that material has breached the Code.

Issue 1: AccuracyRelevant Code standards

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Relevant Principles in relation to accuracy include the following:

Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries,

factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must

be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts

by reference to:

the type, subject and nature of the content;

the likely audience expectations of the content;

the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and

the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

4 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.


The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion. An opinion, being a value judgment or a conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or inaccurate in the way facts can. The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort the meaning of the opinion expressed.

The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances.Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without.Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts. Thepassage of time or the inaccessibility of locations or sources can affect the standardof verification reasonably required.

In applying standard 2.1 of the Code the ACMA generally adopts the following approach:

Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

Did it convey a ‘material’ fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment?

If so, were those facts accurate?

If a material fact was not accurate, (or its accuracy cannot be determined) did the ABC make reasonable efforts to ensure that the ‘material’ fact was accurate and presented in context?

In applying standard 2.2 of the Code, the ACMA usually adopts the following approach:

Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

Was that factual content presented in way that would materially (i.e. in a significant respect) mislead the audience?

The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Attachment G.

SubmissionsComplainant 1 raised the following accuracy concerns with the ABC (see Attachment B):

The segment did not mention that the biggest contributor to the rise in caries is sugar consumption; we were led to believe that caries develop from fluoride deficiency.

The segment omitted to mention that the 2007 NHMRC review qualified its recommendation by repeatedly stating that existing studies are insufficient for firm conclusions to be drawn, particularly for people in population subgroups who may be sensitive to fluoride.

The segment omitted to mention the recent Harvard meta-analysis on the neurological effects of fluoride on children (the 2012 Harvard Developmental Neurotoxicity study).5

Dr Michael Foley cited skewed statistics; the difference in dental caries between Townsville and Brisbane is not 45%.

5 Anna L.Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, and Philippe Grandjean, Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 2012 – Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China; School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China; Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.


The program should have shown caries statistics for each state, and should have included caries rates for Tasmania, the first Australian state to be fluoridated and showing the worst caries rates.

The viewer was given the impression that for some reason only Queenslanders objected to fluoridation.

The segment gave the impression that ‘all fluorides are the same’.

The segment, in showing an image of a very white set of teeth, implied fluoride gives you perfect teeth.

Complainant 2 alleged that (see Attachment C):

The segment incorrectly stated that Townsville was the only place in Queensland to have fluoridated water prior to 2007.

The segment allowed Dr Foley to say that tooth decay in Townsville was 45% less than in Brisbane, whereas the Queensland government has claimed that the difference is 65%.

The segment did not challenge Dr Foley’s claim that the benefits of water fluoridation for dental health extends to adults, despite being given evidence to the contrary.

The segment included a misleading and ‘utterly ridiculous’ claim that fluoridated water has a much greater topical effect.

The segment included the ‘ridiculous claim’ that it could be a problem to have too little fluoride.

The segment included the incorrect claim that the 2007 NHMRC review reviewed 5,500 papers.

The segment misrepresented Ms Haines’ credentials.

Relevant extracts of the submissions by the complainants are at Attachments B and C respectively.

The ABC’s responses to the complainants and to the ACMA are at Attachment E.

Findings The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code in relation to each of the factual assertions made in the broadcast of Catalyst on 8 of August 2013.

ReasonsIn respect of each statement set out above, the ACMA has examined wether the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and whether factual content was presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

1. Omission of information about the causes of caries

The complaint is that the segment did not refer to the biggest cause of caries, being sugar consumption, and therefore suggested that caries develop from fluoride deficiency.


The ABC dealt with this as a code complaint concerning accuracy. The ACMA notes that there is no requirement in the Code for all facts that are potentially relevant to a program to be presented. The question for the ACMA is whether the omission of facts would render the broadcast inaccurate or take it out of context, or result in factual content being presented in such a way that it would materially mislead the audience.

As noted above, the segment focussed on the different approach to controlled water fluoridation in Queensland compared with the rest of Australia, and the effects of controlled water fluoridation in Australia. It included statistics suggesting that areas where water was fluoridated contained lower caries rates and also illustrated how teeth react to fluoride creating resistance ‘to the acid that causes tooth decay’. It did not discuss or explore the various causes of caries, and did not state that caries is caused by fluoride deficiency.

The ACMA is satisfied that, in the context of the segment, the omission of a fact concerning the cause of caries was not a material fact. The relevant material facts were accurate and presented in context and any factual content concerning the cause of caries was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

2. Presentation of the NHMRC review

The complaints about the 2007 NHMRC review include:

the NHMRC had qualified its recommendation by repeatedly stating that existing studies are insufficient for firm conclusions to be drawn, particularly for people in population subgroups who may be sensitive to fluoride; and

The NHMRC did not review 5,500 studies, there were only a hundred or so.

The relevant excerpt of the broadcast includes:

Ruben Meerman [narration] - In 2007, Australia's top research body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, released a major report on water fluoridation.Professor Michael Moore - They reviewed 5,500 papers, and, on the basis of the papers of the highest quality, concluded that there was no association between fluoridation and illness. [ACMA emphasis added]

The recommendation

The ACMA considers that in the context of a science program, the statement that there was no association between fluoride and illness would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer as factual material. It was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

Shortly prior to this content the question was posed:

Ruben Meerman – These health concerns are not new. So what is the latest science on the adverse health effects? Is there cause for concern?

The ABC submitted:

The program’s reference to the NHMRC report was in the context of whether the latest science indicated any cause for concern in health risks posed by controlled water fluoridation. The NHMRC report was briefly and accurately summarised as indicating that the latest science did not give cause for concern. The program did not present factual content in a way that would materially mislead the audience.


The ABC also submitted that it had relied on its own assessment of the report and that of Professor Michael Moore, Vice President of the Australasian College of Toxicology & Risk Assessment. It added that it was unable to identify relevant references in the report, about people in subgroups who may be sensitive to fluoride.

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the 2007 NHMRC review was a systematic review which aimed ‘to identify, evaluate and summarise the findings of all relevant individual studies’. The ACMA is satisfied that the material facts were supported by the review. The NHMRC Public Statement issued at the time of the release of the study,6 summarises the findings of the study noting on the cover page:

The existing body of evidence strongly suggests that fluoridation is beneficial for reducing dental caries.

On the second page, the statement notes:

NHMRC Recommendation

Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wise exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. It is recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L, depending on climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis.

Under the heading ‘additional information’ the statement notes:

Infant Formulae – recent Australian research does not show an association between use of infant formulae and dental fluorosis;

Fluoride supplements, including toothpastes – [use of a low fluoride children’s toothpaste by children up the age of six years ...] has been associated with significant reductions in the prevalence of any fluorosis (especially very mild and mild fluorosis) in Australian children.

Risks associated with Fluoridation

Fluorosis - There is consistent evidence that water fluoridation results in the development of dental fluorosis, however, the majority of dental fluorosis is not considered to be of ‘aesthetic concern’. The prevalence of fluorosis has been significantly reduced with more appropriate use of other fluoride sources.

Skeletal effects - Water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries has little effect on fracture risk. Fluoridation at 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L may lower overall fracture risk compared to both no fluoridation and fluoridation at levels well above those experienced in Australia.

There is currently no evidence to determine the impact of milk and salt fluoridation, or other fluorides used to prevent dental caries, upon fracture risk and osteoporosis.

Cancer - There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence or mortality. The evidence shows variations on either side of the effect, however only two studies present statistically significant results, one showing an increase and one a decrease in cancer incidence.

Other - There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding other possible negative effects of water.

6 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_statement_efficacy_safety_fluoride.pdf


http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_statement_efficacy_safety_fluoride.pdf

Fluoridation. There is currently no evidence available to determine the other possible negative effects of milk, salt or topical fluoride supplementation.

These references verify the statement about the NHMRC recommendation. The ACMA is satisfied that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context and that factual content was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

Review of 5,500 papers

The relevant statement is:

[The NHMRC] reviewed 5,500 papers, and, on the basis of the papers of the highest quality, concluded...

The ACMA considers that this would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer as factual material. It was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

The ABC submitted that the 2007 NHMRC review notes that 5,418 citations were identified from a review of various databases and libraries. Abstracts were then assessed for eligibility to identify the highest quality, most reliable studies from which the review would draw its conclusions.

The ACMA notes that the review states in its Executive Summary:

Due to the availability of recent systematic reviews, searches were limited to publications from 1996 onwards, with the intention that the current review would update the most relevant existing systematic review. Searches were also limited to English-language publications. The search was conducted in December 2006. In total, 5418 non-duplicate citations were identified. After reviewing the potentially eligible, 77 citations were included in the review.

This reference verifies the statement about the number of papers reviewed in the 2007 NHMRC review. The ACMA is satisfied that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context and that factual content was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

Omission of the 2012 Harvard Developmental Neurotoxicity study on the neurological effects of fluoride on children

The ACMA notes that the segment did not include reference to the Harvard study cited by the complainant.

The ABC dealt with this as a code complaint concerning accuracy. As noted above, the question for the ACMA is whether the omission of facts would render the broadcast inaccurate or result in factual content being presented in such a way that it would materially mislead the audience.

The ABC submitted that the 2012 Harvard Developmental Neurotoxicity study referred to by the complainant analysed 27 research papers on fluoride neurotoxicity, 25 of which were conducted in China and two in Iran. These areas ‘have naturally high fluoride levels’ found in ‘plants, rocks, soil, air, food and very low levels in almost all fresh water’, and this ‘fluoride is not added to the water supply in a controlled manner’. It also noted that some of these areas ‘are affected by potential fluoride contamination’, and ‘very high, and uncontrolled fluoride


consumption, can be dangerous’. The ABC also stated ‘it would be misleading to compare naturally high levels of fluoridation found in China, to the controlled addition of fluoride that we experience in Australia’.

The ABC also submitted that the lack of reference to the study did not mislead the audience. It was also made clear in the segment that incorrect dosages are not beneficial (discussed below).

The ACMA is satisfied that in the context of a segment about the effects of controlled water fluoridation in Australia, as distinct from the broader subject of the effects of naturally occurring fluoride on communities throughout the world, the 2012 Harvard Developmental Neurotoxicity was not relevant. The relevant material facts were accurate and presented in context and any factual content was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

3. Statistical information

The complaints are that:

Dr Michael Foley cited skewed statistics; the difference in dental caries between Townsville and Brisbane is not 45%.

The segment allowed Dr Foley to say that tooth decay in Townsville was 45% less than in Brisbane, whereas the Queensland government has claimed that the difference is 65%.

The segment should have included caries rates for Tasmania, the first Australian state to be fluoridated and showing the worst caries rates.’

The relevant excerpt of the broadcast was:

Ruben Meerman [narration] - In a 1996 study, the teeth of children in fluoridated Townsville were compared with those in unfluoridated Brisbane, and the difference was clear.Dr Michael Foley - On average, there was about 45% less decay in the Townsville children than what there was in the Brisbane children.

The ACMA considers that this was factual material. It was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

The ACMA notes the use of the term ‘on average’ which would have indicated to the ordinary reasonable viewer that Dr Foley was providing an approximation.

In relation to the statistic 45%, the ABC cited the abstract of the 2006 Slade study, and noted it had sought comments on the study results from Dr Michael Foley, Director of the Brisbane Dental Hospital. The study compares caries rates for children in Townsville and Brisbane:

“Caries rates were significantly lower (P< 0.01) among children in Townsville than in Brisbane, both in the deciduous dentition (according to age, 32 to 55 per cent fewer tooth surfaces affected) and permanent dentition (20 to 65 per cent fewer tooth surfaces affected).”

The program has advised that Dr Foley used the ‘on average’ 45% less decay figure to approximate these ranges, and that Dr Foley was also relying on the results section of the study, which included:


“The values per child of 2.01 deciduous and permanent tooth surfaces with caries experience in Townsville children and 3.69 surfaces in Brisbane correspond with 45 per cent fewer surfaces being affected with caries in Townsville than in Brisbane.”

The ACMA considers that this reference verifies the approximation used in the segment.

In relation to the complaint about omission of statistics for other States, the ABC submitted:

The program has advised that it used the Brisbane/Townsville study to illustrate the difference in dental caries because the two cities are in the same state and it is preferable to compare like with like, to minimise the risk of confounding factors such as temperature and water consumption rates. The program has also provided me with references to other studies comparing dental caries in different regions and which come to similar conclusions.

The ACMA notes that the ABC relied on the Slade study which used Brisbane and Townsville as comparators to illustrate caries rates in fluoridated and un-fluoridated areas. In the context of a segment dealing with the experience in Queensland, the ACMA considers that it was not unreasonable to use that study rather than comparisons with Queensland and another States.

The ACMA is satisfied that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context and that factual content was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

4. Queensland objection to fluoridation

The complaint is that ‘the viewer was given the impression that for some reason only Queenslanders objected to fluoridation’ and that there is a wide coalition of anti-fluoridation activists in each State and other parts of the world trying to cease fluoridation as a public policy.

The complainant also complained that the program did not feature scientists opposed to fluoridation. This aspect of the complaint is dealt with at Issue 2, below.

The relevant statement was:

Narration: ... But, for decades, adding fluoride to the water was highly controversial. And in Queensland it still is.

And later in the segment:

Narrator: Up until 2007, Townsville was the only place in all of Queensland that had fluoridated water. In other States, all major population areas were covered.

The segment also included: a reference to Townsville being the only place in Queensland with fluoridated water (dealt with below); the reference to the Slade study (discussed above); reference to Queensland decisions about the introduction of fluoride still being made on a council-by-council basis following the reversal of the Bligh State government’s resolution to introduce mandatory fluoridation; footage of the mayor of Bundaberg saying he does not support fluoridation; and the vox pop with Queensland citizens who oppose it on the basis that fluoride is a poison.

The ABC submitted that the program was aware of groups and individuals opposed to water fluoridation, that the existence of concern and opposition was clear from the segment, and the focus was not on campaigners or controversy but the latest credible research.


In the context of the segment in its entirety, the ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the factual assertion to be that fluoride was introduced in other States some years ago, there has been some controversy about it and in Queensland where it is still being proposed, debate on its introduction continues.

The segment did not state that there is no debate about the merits of controlled fluoridation in other parts of Australia or the world. The ACMA is satisfied that the relevant material facts were accurate and presented in context and any factual content concerning the objections in Queensland and other parts of Australia was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

5. The impression that ‘all fluorides are the same’

The complaint is that the segment gave the impression that all fluorides are the same: industrial chemicals like silicofluoride which are by-products of aluminium and phosphate processing are much more lethally toxic than calcium fluoride which naturally occurs in water surfaces. Another aspect of this complaint is that the biggest problem with fluoridation is that dosage of the treatment cannot be controlled and there is no-one checking how much is being accumulated over time as only 50% is excreted.

The complainant referred to the following statements:

Dr Michael Foley - … You're always getting a little bit of a top-up. It's like a little fluoride treatment lots and lots of times during the day to make your teeth stronger.

Professor Michael Moore - It's really very emotive language that's used. It goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem.

The ABC submitted ‘nowhere in the program did Dr Foley or Professor Moore state that ‘all fluorides are the same.’

The ACMA considers that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood that the segment contained any factual material asserting or implying that ‘all fluorides are the same’.

It is therefore not necessary to assess the efforts and accuracy of the claimed factual assertion.

On the issue of dosage, the ABC submitted that the papers which look at the health effects of fluoride are based on populations that are living in water fluoridated areas. If health detriments cannot be seen in these studies, it suggests that the theoretical issues of fluoride accumulation are not borne out in the general population. The latest scientific data has not found health differences in populations living in areas where fluoride is added to the water other than improved dental care.

The segment was clear that the topic was controlled fluoridation of water in Australia which involves the addition of fluoride to the water supply. The statements complained about make it clear that the correct dosage is important and that too much fluoride would be dangerous.

The ACMA considers that, while a discussion about the nature of fluoride added, and the effects of incorrect dosage and accumulation might have been informative, in the context of the segment the omission of a reference to the types of fluoride added to the water


supply was not strictly relevant. On balance, the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and factual content was not presented in a way that would have misled the audience.

6. Image of perfect set of teeth

The complaint is that, in showing an image of a very white set of teeth, the segment implied fluoride gives you perfect teeth.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would not have understood the segment to be asserting that ‘fluoride gives you perfect teeth’. The ACMA also notes that the segment made it clear that the benefits from fluoride are associated with reduced caries rates, rather than other dental conditions. It also included an image of teeth affected by fluorosis as part of the file footage of a man saying ‘fluoride is not good for you'.

It is therefore not necessary to assess the efforts and accuracy of the claimed factual assertion.

7. Statement about fluoridated water in Townsville

The complaint is that it was incorrect to state that Townsville was the only place in Queensland to have fluoridated water prior to 2007.

The relevant statement was:

Narrator: Up until 2007, Townsville was the only place in all of Queensland that had fluoridated water. In other States, all major population areas were covered.


The ABC responded to this concern stating:

In response to this aspect of your complaint, the program team acknowledge that some other small population areas in Queensland had access to fluoridated water prior to 2007. According to the Fluoride Queensland Health Fact Sheet (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/document/fluoride_fact_sheet.pdf), “Townsville, Bamaga, Dalby, Mareeba and Moranbah councils provide water fluoridation”. The program team note that with the exception of Townsville’s population of 217,897, the number of residents who have access to fluoridated water in these other locations is small: Bamaga (852), Dalby (12,299 with a further 5,000 residing in the rural district), Mareeba (10,181) and Moranbah (8, 626). The program team have nonetheless annotated the transcript of the program to clarify this point. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm

The ABC has included an ‘editor’s note’ at the commencement of the transcript on its website stating:

The broadcast incorrectly states that Townsville is “the only place in all of Qld that had fluoridated water”. However, Townsville, Bamaga, Dalby, Mareeba and Moranbah councils provide water fluoridation.

The ABC also submitted:

The core focus of this segment was the results of scientific research on the safety of water fluoridation and, in general, facts associated with this scientific research would be considered


http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/document/fluoride_fact_sheet.pdf

to be material facts for the purpose of this segment. The reference to Townsville was relevant because it is a major population centre which can be (and has been) compared to other major population areas to assess the impact of fluoridation on dental health. In my view, the fact that some other small population areas outside Townsville also have access to fluoridated water was not a material fact for the purposes of this program as it has no bearing on the most recent scientific research on the safety of water fluoridation. Accordingly, the narration here did not breach ABC editorial standards.

The ACMA accepts that the factual assertion that Townsville was the only place in Queensland that had fluoridated water was inaccurate, and that this statement has been corrected. It also notes the contextualising reference to ‘all major population areas.’ It considers that to the extent that the assertion was a significant material error or the information was likely to significantly and materially mislead the ordinary reasonable viewer, it has been corrected or clarified in an appropriate manner.

8. Statement that the benefits of water fluoridation for dental health extends to adults

The complaint is that the segment did not challenge Dr Foley’s claim that benefits of water fluoridation for dental health extends to adults, ‘despite being given evidence to the contrary.’

The relevant statement is:

Ruben Meerman [narration] - The evidence that fluoride improves dental health extends to adults too.Dr Michael Foley - The National Survey of Adult Oral Health was done back in 2004 - 2006. Adults in fluoridated areas had significantly better teeth than adults in non-fluoridated areas.

The ACMA considers that the assertion that fluoride benefits extend to adult teeth would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer as factual material. It was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

The complainant submitted:

On the 5th August, prior to broadcast, I had provided Catalyst with dental data from the National Adult Oral Health Survey 2004-2006 showing little difference between adults in every age group (<5 % fluoridated) and adults in the heavily long term fluoridated states. I also advised that a March 2013 publication, an analysis of that survey showed a difference of 1.14 teeth, or approximately 10% less decayed teeth. I also advised that some confounding factors such as access to dental services were not taken into account in this study.

Nevertheless, Catalyst allowed a 10% difference to be broadcast as Michael Foley’s claim of “significantly better teeth”.

The ABC submitted:

The program has advised that Dr Foley based his comments on a March 2013 analysis of the National Survey of Adult Oral Health by Slade et al, ‘Effects of Fluoridated Drinking Water on Dental Caries in Australian Adults’, published in the Journal of Dental Research. This research concludes:


In this cross-sectional examination survey of a nationally representative sample of Australian adults, greater lifetime exposure to water fluoridation was associated with lower levels of caries experience; and

Based on this combined body of evidence, we believe that the current findings of an inverse association between water fluoridation and caries experience provide reasonable evidence of a causal, preventive effect in Australian adults.

The ACMA is satisfied that the factual assertion is supported by the 2013 research study. In relying on that study the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and factual content was not presented in a way that would have misled the audience.

9. Statement about the topical effect of fluoridated water

The complaint is that the segment included ‘a misleading and utterly ridiculous claim’ that fluoridated water has a much greater topical effect’.

The relevant excerpt includes:

Ruben Meerman [narration] - So it's clear that water fluoridation works. But, how exactly? Teeth are the hardest substance in the body, primarily made up of a mineral called 'hydroxylapatite'. Fluoride, either in water or toothpaste, gets absorbed into the tooth enamel and forms a new, stronger mineral called 'fluorapatite'.…

Dr Michael Foley - … It strengthens the enamel, makes it much, much more resistant to acid. With fluoridated water, of course, you get both - you get the systemic benefit for little kiddies, and you get the much greater topical effect. You're always getting a little bit of a top-up. It's like a little fluoride treatment lots and lots of times during the day to make your teeth stronger.

The complainant’s concern is:

If fluoridated water at 1ppm had a great and significant topical effect, then there would be no need for any sales of fluoride toothpaste with 500 ppm, 1000ppm and 5000 ppm fluoride, mouth-washes with 100 ppm and fluoride varnishes with 22,000 ppm fluoride for a topical effect. These fluoride products would be redundant– we would only need to swallow fluoridated water to have a great topical effect.


The ABC submitted:

The program has advised that Dr Foley made his comments based on research which indicates that fluoride has both a topical and systemic effect. Dr Foley notes that fluoridated water is the simplest, cheapest and safest way for communities to gain the benefits of fluoride so that community members are “always getting a little bit of a top-up”. He notes that the topical effect is not just for the few seconds that the water is in a person’s mouth; the fluoride is absorbed by the biofilm on teeth, on the tongue, in the oral mucosa and in the microroughness of tooth enamel.

The ACMA considers that the statement about the topical effect of fluoridated water would have been understood by the ordinary, reasonable viewer as factual material. It was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification. However, as the statement did not include any reference to measures or data, it would not have been interpreted as canvassing the degree of significance of the benefit, but as a reference to an on-going ‘top-up’ benefit.

The ACMA is satisfied that in relying on Dr Foley’s statement and interpretation of the scientific studies, the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and that factual content was not presented in a way that would have misled the audience.

10.Statement about having too little fluoride.

The complaint is that the segment ‘included the ‘ridiculous claim that it could be a problem to have too little fluoride’.

The relevant broadcast excerpt includes:


The statement was preceded by a discussion of the benefits of fluoridation and footage of the Mayor of Bundaberg, explaining why he does not support fluoridation for his city and of anti-fluoride lobbyists and members of the Queensland community describing fluoride as a poison.

Immediately following this statement the narrator states:

So getting the dose right with water fluoridation is critical, just as it is when you treat water with chloride. But because fluoride is perceived only as a poison, people are concerned it only has adverse health effects.


In response to the complaint the ABC submitted that it understood the complaint to be that Professor Moore’s statement should have been challenged since there is no evidence that the ingestion of fluoride is necessary for good health. However, the point of the statement was an explanation, in simple and general terms, of the tension between dosage and toxicity.

In the context of the surrounding statements the ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the material facts of Professor Moore’s statement to be that the benefits of fluoridation will depend on the dosage.


The ACMA notes the ABC’s submissions concerning dosage at point 6 above. The ABC also submitted that it made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy by interviewing Professor Moore who is ‘eminently qualified to explain principles of toxicology and their relevance to water fluoridation’.

The ACMA is satisfied that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and factual content was not presented in a way that would have misled the audience.

11.Ms Haines’s credentials

One of the complaints is that the segment omitted the full credentials of Ms Haines, who appeared in the broadcast:

...[Catalyst] claimed to ABC Corporate Affairs that [Ms Haines] was a medical laboratory “assistant”, when [Ms Haines had] been employed as a “scientist” for over 30 years.

The ACMA has identified the following program material as of relevance in this context:

Stephen BennettWe all know that there's a few consistent things that came through. But overwhelmingly they did have the issue of fluoride being seen as a poison.

Merilyn Haines [with the heading ‘Anti-fluoride campaigner’]This is a Schedule 6 poison. Uses - as an insecticide, particularly for roaches and ants.Ruben Meerman [narration]Merilyn Haines is a member of the anti-fluoride lobby.Merilyn HainesThey can use it either for killing insects or fluoridation of drinking water.Ruben Meerman [narration]Talking to people on the streets of my home town, it's clear the poison message has been very effective.

The ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood from the segment that Ms Haines was being presented in the broadcast in her capacity as an ‘Anti-fluoride campaigner’. The ACMA considers that Ms Haines’s description was presented as factual material. It was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

The ABC submitted that Ms Haines is president of Queenslanders for Safe Water, Air and Food Inc which on its website describes its role ‘lobbying state governments to not force fluoridation on the public.’ The ABC also submitted that Ms Haines’s history as a medical laboratory assistant did not give her the credentials to speak as a research scientist on dental health or the health effects of fluoride in water.

In the context of the issues considered in the segment, the ACMA considers that in the relevant footage Ms Haines is speaking in her capacity as anti-fluoride lobbyist. In this context, the segment’s introduction of Ms Haines was accurate. Therefore the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and factual content was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

For the reasons set out above, the ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code in relation to each of the above statements.


Issue 2: Impartiality and diversity of perspectivesRelevant Code standards

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Relevant Principles in relation to impartiality and diversity of perspectives include the following:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

a balance that follows the weight of evidence;

fair treatment;

open-mindedness; and

opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

[...]

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

the type, subject and nature of the content;

the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;

the likely audience expectations of the content;

the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;

the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and

the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

SubmissionsThe complainants complained that the segment was biased and not a fair presentation of the facts.

In her complaint to the ACMA, Complainant 1 stated:

The way Catalyst presented the fluoridation opposition (via some comments of members of the community) implied there is no scientific opposition.

Complainant 1’s complaints to the ABC included that:


The segment was ‘propagandist’ and failed to ‘present any damning evidence against fluoridation’, including studies showing the relationship of fluoride consumption with the lowering of IQ.

It did not include interviews with anti-fluoride experts and scientists and footage of Ms Merilyn Haines was taken out of context.

It implied there is no opposition to fluoride in States other than Queensland whereas there are anti-fluoride activists throughout Australia and in other parts of the world.

It did not mention Australian safety regulation of fluoridation. And

It did not cover the issue of bio-medical ethics in relation to fluoridation.

Complainant 2 claimed that the segment ‘took a dedicated editorial stance’ and ‘was extremely partial to fluoridation’.

The complaint included that:

The segment did not mention the large majority of issues that make fluoridation controversial or that fluoridation is not only contentious in other parts of Australia, but in other countries.

The segment implied there is no scientific basis for opposition to fluoridation.

It made out that the concern was only over fluoride as a poison and not over ‘forced mass medication’.

It focussed on only one health concern, being the link between fluoride and osteosarcoma and did not mention the 2006 Bassin Harvard study (which found an association in boys between exposure to fluoridated drinking water and risk of developing osteosarcoma).

It did not mention the reasons why water fluoridation is controversial including - high rate of fluorosis, many countries do not fluoridate water, studies have linked fluoridation with lowering of IQ, the action is topical not systemic, it cannot be excreted and accumulates, NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 acknowledge that people with kidney impairment have a lower margin of safety for fluoride intake, the chemicals used in Australia are sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorsilicic are waste products of the phosphate fertiliser industry and water fluoride includes contaminants.

Complainant 3 complained that the program did not look for scientific opponents of fluoridation and:

The segment omitted reference to countries other than Australia in respect of fluoridation of public water supplies, and omitted figures about fluoridation in the rest of the world.

The ABC submitted in response to these complaints that:

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

The segment clearly identified that subject of water fluoridation as contentious, especially in Queensland and included interviews with politicians, a vox pop and footage of Ms Merilyn Haines of the anti-fluoride lobby.

It made the point that ‘fluoride as a poison’ was a significant issue of concern.


It set out to answer two questions (a) what is the latest science on adverse health effects? and (b) is there a cause for concern?

To answer these questions it interviewed two experts in the science, dentist Dr Michael Foley and toxicologist Professor Michael Moore who discussed the fundamentals of toxicology – ‘getting the dose right’.

The research which is most relevant deals with controlled water fluoridation, preferably at the same general level as recommended in Australia.

It considered ‘the most relevant research findings’ being studies dealing with controlled water fluoridation and referenced the 2007 NHMRC study and a 2011 Harvard study concerning cancer and water fluoridation.

The overall conclusion was that ‘the latest science does not show a link between controlled water fluoridation and adverse health effects.

The program demonstrated a balance that follows the weight of evidence.

In further submissions the ABC responded:

The program elected to interview experts in the fields of dental health and toxicology as these were the issues most relevant to the segment’s focus.

It selected Queensland as its focus because it is the state in which decisions about water fluoridation remain most widely controversial.

The program was aware of groups and individuals opposed to water fluoridation, however the focus was on the latest credible scientific research, summarised in the segment.

The issues of bio-medical ethics of fluoridation was outside the scope of the program.

While the NHMRC review was comprehensive, at the time the picture in relation to fluoridation and cancer was not certain and the 2011 Harvard study An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma clarified this concluding there was no significant association between bone fluoride level and osteosarcoma risk.

The Bassin study was followed by studies in the United States and Ireland which concluded that fluoridation has no influence on osteosarcoma rates in childhood and adolescence.

The program was aware that there are a range of issues that contribute to the controversy around water fluoridation but sought to explore the latest scientific research.

The 2007 NHMRC review concluded cases of fluorosis are mild and its prevalence and been reduced.

The decision not to fluoridate in other countries is based on a number of factors – the segment explored the relevant studies rather than political decisions.

As latest scientific data has not found health differences in populations where fluoride is added to water (other than improved dental care) this suggest accumulation is not a long term concern.


In respect of the NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011, the program could not find substantiated evidence from peer-reviewed science showing that patients with kidney impairment suffer from fluoride toxicity.

Relevant extracts from the submissions of the complainants and the ABC are at Attachments B, C, D and E respectively.

Finding The ABC did not breach standards 4.1, 4.2 or 4.5 of the Code.

ReasonsBased on the complainants’ submissions, the ACMA has assessed whether:

The information in the segment was gathered and presented with due impartiality (standard 4.1).

A diversity of perspectives was presented in the broadcast and over time (standard 4.2).

The segment unduly favoured one perspective over another (standard 4.5).

In determining whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under Standard 4 of the Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the considerations set out at Attachment H.

Impartiality

The ACMA acknowledges that the segment adopted a supportive stance on fluoridated water and the complainants’ concerns are acknowledged in this regard. However, as indicated at Attachment H, achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgment, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter who play a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language. A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. A perspective may be quite reasonably favoured if all the evidence supports it; it is only where the favouring is undue in some way that the Code is breached.

Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

As noted at Issue 1, above, the segment focussed on the different approach taken to controlled fluoridation of water in Queensland compared to the rest of Australia and the effects of controlled fluoridation on dental health. The segment made it clear that fluoridation of the water supply has been controversial and referred to the differences in dental health in Australia in those living in areas where water is fluoridated compared to un-fluoridated areas. It referred to recent systematic research into any adverse health effects and featured the views of pro-fluoride professionals. It also included an anti-fluoride campaigner and Queensland residents who oppose fluoridation, references to their health concerns, and a local mayor explaining why it has not been introduced by his Council.


The ACMA acknowledges that that the segment used language favouring fluoridation, such as:

Professor Moore - ... When you're looking at it from the position of a research scientist, it's very hard to understand the objections that people place in the presence of fluoride in water supplies. There are so many studies saying that it's safe when it's used properly.

NARRATION - But that's the problem. Local councillors usually aren't scientists, and, by their own admission, don't feel qualified to make these decisions.

Mal Forman - It's not up to us to be doing and dealing with health issues because it's not our department. And, being not a medical person or a scientist, we can only go on what people put on their labels and what people tell us, and go from there.

While it was clear the segment was supportive of fluoride in this regard, the ACMA considers that there was information conveyed in the segment to indicate opposing views on the topic of fluoridation, including:

But, for decades, adding fluoride to the water was highly controversial. And in Queensland it still is.

The amount of people with a passion for and against fluoride far outweighs anything outrageous a politician can do.

When I was elected as mayor, I made a commitment to the public and my people that I would not support the fluoridation of our city. I'm not convinced that's the way to go.

... But overwhelmingly they did have the issue of fluoride being seen as a poison.

[T]his is a Schedule 6 poison. Uses - as an insecticide, particularly for roaches and ants.

[T]hey can use it either for killing insects or fluoridation of drinking water.

Talking to people on the streets of my home town, it's clear the poison message has been very effective.- It's chemicals.- We don't like it.- It's just a poison.- Fluoride's good topically for your teeth, but ingested it's actually a poison.- Cause it's a poisonous chemical, so I just don't believe in it.

[I]t goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem.

So getting the dose right with water fluoridation is critical, just as it is when you treat water with chloride. But because fluoride is perceived only as a poison, people are concerned it only has adverse health effects.

Fluoride is not good for you

But these health concerns are not new....

The ACMA considers that the inclusion of the views of locals in a vox pop (as opposed to experts) was in line with the central theme of the segment with regards to the attitudes to fluoride in Queensland compared with other States.


Greater scientific detail on the nature of fluoride added to Australian water supplies, the health risks of an excessive dosage and controversies surrounding dosage control, ingestion and accumulation, the impact of naturally occurring fluoride in populations where it is not controlled, and a discussion of the ethics of fluoridation, would have been informative to an audience watching a science program. However, in the specific context of the segment outlined above, these details were not required.

The ACMA considers that the language and tone of the segment did not convey any prejudgment, nor did it appear to give effect to any affections or enmities. Rather the reporter maintained a relatively neutral tone throughout the broadcast and did not use sustained emotive or colourful language.

Many of the complainants’ concerns about impartiality arise from the alleged inaccuracies, the omission of information, and the favouring of the pro-fluoride perspective. For reasons outlined at Issue 1, above, the ACMA considers that factual material was presented accurately.

In the context of the focus of the segment on the different approaches to water fluoridation in Queensland and the rest of Australia, the ACMA accepts the ABC’s submissions that the segment explored the latest systematic science on adverse health effects of controlled water fluoridation in Australia and whether there was a cause for concern. It dealt with the most relevant research findings, being those focussed on controlled water fluoridation at the same level as recommended in Australia, and it relied on relevant experts in dental health and science in the areas most relevant to the segment’s focus. The ACMA has not been provided any other more recent systematic science reviews conducted in Australia.

In this way the segment achieved a balance that follows the weight of evidence.

However, it clearly identified that fluoridation was controversial and remains so in Queensland where decisions are still being made by local councils on its introduction. The segment also identified the basis of that concern by decision makers and members of the community.

The ACMA considers that the information in the segment was presented with due impartiality considering the type, subject and nature of the content, and the likely audience’s expectations of the content, and that the balance followed the weight of evidence.

Diversity of perspectives over time

The perspectives presented in the segment were specific to the theme of the benefits of controlled fluoridation to dental health within Australia, and the different approach taken to decisions about water fluoridation in Queensland compared to other States.

The ABC has indicated a willingness, over time, to present the anti-fluoride perspective. The ACMA notes that the program 7:30 broadcast on 27 February 2013 included significant content concerning opposition to fluoridation of water. This included excerpts and interviews with Mr Haines, who states that ‘95% of the world are not putting fluoride in water’. This was broadcast at a time when the Queensland State Government’s decision to fluoridate water was reversed and decisions about its introduction were reverting to local Councils.

The ACMA considers this broadcast, together with the anti-fluoride position expressed in the segment, demonstrates that a significant strand of thought has not been excluded over time.


Unduly favour one perspective over another

The ACMA notes that the segment was not concerned with many of the issues raised by the complainants, for example, bio-medical ethics in relation to fluoridation, the decisions in other countries of the world concerning fluoridation of water supplies, the health impacts of fluoridation occurring in those parts of the world where fluoride is naturally occurring, the large majority of issues that make fluoridation controversial and the composition or source of fluoride used in Australian water supplies.

The ACMA does consider that these matters could be relevant to a program that explored the adverse impacts of fluoride, in those parts of the world where an adverse impact has been found, whether naturally occurring or through fluoridation of the water supply.

The complainants have argued that in addition to the anti-fluoride views expressed in footage of lobbyists, the Bundaberg mayor and members of the community, the program should have included scientific experts opposed to controlled water fluoridation such as Emeritus Professor Paul Connett, Professor Mark Diesendorf and Associate Professor Niyi Awofeso.

The ACMA notes that there is available literature published by the experts referred to7 which express strong views against controlled water fluoridation in Australia and more generally because of the adverse effects of fluoride and the difficulty in measuring the dose ingested. As the ACMA understands it, these are not systematic reviews, giving a comprehensive result on health impacts. As outlined above, the ACMA has not been provided with any evidence of Australian systematic reviews on controlled water fluoridation more recent than that conducted by the 2007 NHMRC.

In response to the ACMA’s request for ‘any scientific views or evidence, in Australia or elsewhere’ that may be ‘in opposition to the evidence and hypothesis in favour of fluoridation presented in the program’, the ABC has stated that:

In gathering information for this segment, the program primarily relied upon the National Health and Medical Research Council’s 2007 systematic review of fluoride and health (available here - http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh41). Systematic reviews are fundamental to scientific knowledge and understanding.

...

The NHMRC’s systematic review provides a comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and safety of fluoride. It noted that previous systematic reviews indicated that water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries has little effect on fracture risk; that there is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence or mortality; and that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on other possible negative effects. On the basis of this systematic review, the NHMRC recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L, depending on climate.

...

7 New Evidence on Fluoridation – Paper published in Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health

(1997) – Diesendorf; Colquhoun; Spittle; Everingham; Clutterbuck Diesendorf MO, 2006, 'Response to John Spencer`s obfuscation of the results of his own paper', Fluoride:

journal of the international society for fluoride research, vol. 39, pp. 327 - 330 Today Tonight – Adelaide - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKAB9hYEX8 ‘Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia’ – Niyi Awofeso – 2012 – Oxford University Press.


http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh41

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKAB9hYEX8

Had systemic reviews indicated that controlled fluoridation of water supplies was associated with negative health outcomes, the program would have had no hesitation in drawing attention to these studies. Should such evidence emerge from future systematic reviews, the ABC will consider appropriate coverage.

The ACMA therefore accepts that, in its specific context focussing on health impacts of fluoridation in Australia, the segment featured the relevant perspectives on the controversies surrounding controlled water fluoridation in Queensland and Australia, and did not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Furthermore, in the context of the approach taken to decisions about water fluoridation in Queensland compared to other States, the ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the inclusion of the views of local community members in the vox pop was to highlight the strength of dissenting views in Queensland, in line with the theme of the report.

Having regard to the weight of evidence presented in the segment and the body of scientific evidence regarding the effects of water fluoridation, the ACMA is satisfied that the ABC presented information with due impartiality, did not unduly favour one perspective over another, and appropriately presented a diversity of perspectives in the segment.

Conclusion

The ACMA considers that, on balance, taking account of:

The context of the segment

The reliance on systematic studies of the effects of fluoridation in the water supply

The weight of evidence

The ABC’s willingness to broadcast other strands of thought over time

in all the circumstances, the ACMA is satisfied that:

The information in the segment was presented with due impartiality, was in context and followed the weight of evidence

A diversity of perspectives were presented

One perspective was not unduly favoured over another.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 of the Code.


Attachment A

***Editor's note: The broadcast incorrectly states that Townsville is “the only place in all of Qld that had fluoridated water”. However, Townsville, Bamaga, Dalby, Mareeba and Moranbah councils provide water fluoridation.***

Presenter: Ahead...water fluoridation, and how it protects our teeth.

Ruben Meerman, [reporter]This innocuous-looking glass of water has been hailed as one of the greatest health initiatives of the 20th century.

Dr Michael Foley, [Director Brisbane Dental Hospital]Everybody who has a tooth in their head will benefit from water fluoridation.

Dr Denis Ingham, [Bundaberg Dentist]It is very effective, and has been very effective in reducing tooth decay.

File footage - JournalistThese apples are being attacked by some of the best teeth in Australia.

Ruben Meerman [narration]Yass, in country New South Wales, was one of the first towns in Australia to fluoridate its water supply.

File footage - Journalist It's won wide notoriety for the pioneering part it's played in fluoridation in Australia.

Ruben Meerman [narration]And now around 90% of us are covered. But, for decades, adding fluoride to the water was highly controversial. And in Queensland it still is.

Stephen Bennett, [Queensland State MP for Burnett]The amount of people with a passion for and against fluoride far outweighs anything outrageous a politician can do.

Ruben MeermanWe now have more than 50 years of research data on the subject. So what does the science say? Should we be adding fluoride to our water supplies?

Ruben Meerman [narration]In federated Australia, the decision to add fluoride to water is left to the States. I grew up in Queensland, here in Bundaberg. Dr Ingham was our family dentist.

Ruben MeermanDr Ingham!

Dr Denis InghamRuben.

Ruben MeermanLovely to see you.

Dr Denis InghamAnd you.

Ruben MeermanI'm here to see if you could check out my teeth, see how all the fillings are looking after all these years.

Dr Denis InghamGood.


Ruben Meerman [narration]Up until 2007, Townsville was the only place in all of Queensland that had fluoridated water. In other States, all major population areas were covered. [refer to map of Australia showing percentages]

Dr Denis InghamYou've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight fillings there.

Ruben MeermanThat's a lot.

Dr Denis InghamThat's a lot. Maybe in a fluoridated area, if you had fluoride in the water supply, your caries experience would have been lower.

Ruben MeermanI might have been better off, you think, if I'd been in Townsville, perhaps?

Dr Denis InghamUh... yes, for sure.

Ruben Meerman [narration]In a 1996 study,8 the teeth of children in fluoridated Townsville were compared with those in unfluoridated Brisbane, and the difference was clear.

Dr Michael FoleyOn average, there was about 45% less decay in the Townsville children than what there was in the Brisbane children. There was a massive difference. If somebody could reduce heart disease or cancer or something like that by 45%, they'd get a Nobel Prize for it.

Dr Michael FoleyLet's sit you back and I'll have a quick look.

Ruben Meerman [narration]The evidence that fluoride improves dental health extends to adults too.

Dr Michael FoleyThe National Survey of Adult Oral Health was done back in 2004 - 2006. Adults in fluoridated areas had significantly better teeth than adults in non-fluoridated areas.

Ruben Meerman [narration]So it's clear that water fluoridation works. But, how exactly? Teeth are the hardest substance in the body, primarily made up of a mineral called 'hydroxylapatite'. Fluoride, either in water or toothpaste, gets absorbed into the tooth enamel and forms a new, stronger mineral called 'fluorapatite'.

Dr Michael FoleyAnd that stronger mineral is then more resistant to the acid that causes tooth decay. Remember Mrs Marsh used to talk about, 'It gets in like liquid gets into this chalk'?

Mrs MarshIt gets right into teeth, like this liquid gets into chalk.

BoyTo make teeth really tough.

Dr Michael FoleyWell, she was right. It strengthens the enamel, makes it much, much more resistant to acid. With fluoridated water, of course, you get both - you get the systemic benefit for little kiddies, and you get the much greater topical effect. You're always getting a little bit of a top-up. It's like a little fluoride treatment lots and lots of times during the day to make your teeth stronger.

8 Caries experience among children in fluoridated Townsville and unfluoridated Brisbane – Slade GD, Spender AJ, Davies MJ, Stewart JF – Aust N Z J Public Health 1996 Dec; 20(6):623-9


Ruben Meerman [narration]Traditionally, the Queensland State Government has left the decision to add fluoride to local councils. This changed in 2008, when Anna Bligh's government made fluoridation mandatory across the State. But, before it could be fully implemented, the newly elected Campbell Newman government overturned the legislation, handing the decision-making power back to the councils.

Dr Michael FoleyI'm not going to criticise the government, but the decision and the legislation was not based on the health of Queenslanders - and, as a health professional, that disturbs me.

NARRATIONCiting financial concerns along with community pressure, more than a dozen councils have pulled the plug on fluoridation.

Ruben MeermanIncluding my home town of Bundaberg.

Mal Forman, [Mayor of Bundaberg Regional Council, Queensland]When I was elected as mayor, I made a commitment to the public and my people that I would not support the fluoridation of our city. I'm not convinced that's the way to go.

Stephen BennettWe all know that there's a few consistent things that came through. But overwhelmingly they did have the issue of fluoride being seen as a poison.

Merilyn Haines [Anti-fluoride campaigner - addressing a council meeting] This is a Schedule 6 poison. Uses - as an insecticide, particularly for roaches and ants.

Ruben Meerman [narration]Merilyn Haines is a member of the anti-fluoride lobby.

Merilyn HainesThey can use it either for killing insects or fluoridation of drinking water.

Ruben Meerman [narration]Talking to people on the streets of my home town, it's clear the poison message has been very effective.

Ruben MeermanWhat's the scary thing about having it in the water, or what's your concern?

Woman 1It's chemicals.

Woman 2We don't like it.

Man 1It's just a poison.

Woman 3Fluoride's good topically for your teeth, but ingested it's actually a poison.

Man 2We’ve had it in New South Wales

Ruben MeermanAh, you're a New South Welshman.

Man 2Damn right. It's the best thing they've ever done.

Woman 4'Cause it's a poisonous chemical, so I just don't believe in it.


Ruben Meerman [narration]But toxicologist Michael Moore strongly disagrees with the line taken by the anti-fluoride lobby.

Professor Michael Moore, [Vice-president of the Australasian College of Toxicology & Risk Assessment] It's really very emotive language that's used. It goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem.

Ruben Meerman [narration]So getting the dose right with water fluoridation is critical, just as it is when you treat water with chloride. But because fluoride is perceived only as a poison, people are concerned it only has adverse health effects.

Ruben MeermanWhat are these risks they claim?

Dr Michael FoleyYou name the disease, they claim it. I've seen diabetes, dementia, cancer, particularly osteosarcoma, kidney disease, IQ, different tumours...

File footage of Man and image of fluorosis in teethFluoride is not good for you.

Ruben MeermanThese health concerns are not new. So what is the latest science on the adverse health effects? Is there cause for concern?

Ruben Meerman [narration]In 2011, Harvard University researchers looked at the selected link between bone cancer and water fluoridation.

Professor Michael MooreThe Harvard study was an excellent one, trying to see whether there was any relationship between the presence of fluoride in bone next to an osteosarcoma and the development of the cancer, and they could find no association whatsoever. It was a very, very thorough review, large number of subjects, a highly credible bit of work.

Ruben Meerman [narration]In 2007, Australia's top research body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, released a major report on water fluoridation.

Professor Michael MooreThey reviewed 5,500 papers, and, on the basis of the papers of the highest quality, concluded that there was no association between fluoridation and illness. When you're looking at it from the position of a research scientist, it's very hard to understand the objections that people place in the presence of fluoride in water supplies. There are so many studies saying that it's safe when it's used properly.

Ruben Meerman [narration]But that's the problem. Local councillors usually aren't scientists, and, by their own admission, don't feel qualified to make these decisions.

Mal FormanIt's not up to us to be doing and dealing with health issues because it's not our department. And, being not a medical person or a scientist, we can only go on what people put on their labels and what people tell us, and go from there.

Dr Michael FoleyJust put a little bit of fluoride on a couple of those...

Dr Michael FoleyIt's like decisions on vaccinations or speed limits or bicycle helmets or smoking. Major health decisions like that are best made at State and Federal level.


Ruben Meerman [narration]And across most of the country, that's the case - but not in Queensland.

Ruben MeermanWhat do you think about fluoride in drinking water?

Man (Showing dentures) Don't need it.

Ruben MeermanAh! You don't, do you?


Attachment B

Complainant 1’s submissions

[All emphases added by complainant]

Submission to the ACMA dated 2 September 2013

Biased reporting of fluoridation issue debated in the community. The ABC producers of Catalyst

promoted they reported on the opposition to fluoridation in the community but gave no

explanation of reasons why there is opposition and no interview of an expert representing anti-

fluoridation. Most of the programme was devoted to the rhetoric of the industry-funded fluoride

lobby without any questioning of their claims. The programme was biased because of the

assumption that what the fluoride lobby claimed, must be correct science. There were no

qualifying questions asked. Michael Moore was not a representative of the other side of the

argument. He is engaged by the fluoride lobby to support their agenda – as is Michael Foley.

They were not asked to substantiate their claims regarding ‘poison added to drinking water’ and

more specifically – how much is too much? This actual fluoridation debate is occurring amongst

many scientists around the world and there are serious concerns about toxic level of exposure as

fluoride builds up in the body over time and dosage of the chemical cannot be controlled. Fluoride

is added to the water to treat the people, not the water, and is promoted as a therapeutic good,

yet it is not regulated as such. I was most disappointed by the fact that the Catalyst programme

promoted they are an unbiased science programme, however the other side of the science

argument was omitted, implying to the viewer that there is no scientific counter argument. In the

interests of the community this omission should be addressed by a follow-up programme where

the leading experts from both sides can be interviewed and present their case. Now that link ups

can easily be done via Skype there is no excuse about availability of experts such as Emeritus

Professor Paul Connett from USA, and our own Professor Mark Diesendorf (UNI NSW) who has

also been outspoken against fluoridation. They would be available and ready to explain the

science if asked. The main reasons for the scientific opposition must be presented, not just the

reasons for, in order to be considered fair and unbiased reporting. The way Catalyst presented

the fluoridation opposition (via some comments of members of the community) implied there is no

scientific opposition – and this is clearly not true.

...

Letter to the ABC dated 9 August 2013:

Whilst I must commend you on the excellent segment about the contribution of sugar hidden in packaged foods to the escalating global obesity rate, the propagandist presentation of the issues of fluoridation were its antithesis. Glaringly obvious in the juxtaposition of these two topics in the same show is the fact that the biggest contributor to the rise in caries is sugar consumption, yet this was not mentioned. Instead we were led to believe by the Hawaiian shirted and infamous Michael Foley that caries develop because of some kind of fluoride deficiency, and that a little 'systemic topping up' every day is supposed to ensure fluoroapatite forms in tooth enamel like the old Mrs Marsh commercials.


I'm so sick to death of the corruption of science by big industry agendas. The science is prolific that fluoride toxicity is escalating. Only half the fluoride of chronic fluoridated water consumption is excreted and the fluoride accumulates over time. This has very adverse effects on the brain and other organs because it is a systemic poison. It was admitted that fluoride is a poison, but somehow justified that in small amounts it's okay. What kind of lunatic statement is that?

How do you know what that fluoride is doing to every other cell in the body beside the tooth enamel when industrial grade fluoride chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride) have never been proven safe for ingestion? What's worse is that they are used in the water supply as an unapproved drug with the intention of achieving a therapeutic prophylactic effect. NHMRC have qualified their recommendation by repeatedly stating in each review that there are not enough quality studies and they cannot make a conclusion about safety of consumption over time for people in population subgroups that may be sensitive to fluoride such as people with kidney disease.

How do you know how much fluoride people are ingesting when they can drink any amount of this medication without restriction, and also absorb fluoride from dental products, drugs and the food supply via the halo effect?

How can you dare to show the image of a very white set of teeth to imply fluoride gives you perfect teeth when fluorosis of the teeth has become so common? Why did you not show pictures of what fluorosis looks like? You did not present any information about the damning evidence against fluoridation. Instead of informing people about the studies showing the relationship of fluoride consumption with the lowering of IQ, Hawaiian shirted Foley just glossed over these facts as though they were someone's imaginings. You did not contradict any of his propaganda with the evidence that is now so readily available. What about the recent Harvard meta analysis on the neurological effects of fluoride on children? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ There is so much to choose from and you had NOTHING. Unbelievable!

Why didn't you show the caries statistics of each state if you wanted to prove that fluoridation lowers caries? You compared Townsville with Brisbane using Hawaiian shirted Foley's skewed statistics. It's not a 45% difference at all. One quarter of a tooth surface is not statistically significant and in fact in all comparisons from around the world there is no statistical difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in the prevalence of caries. The only time the difference becomes greater is in the 5-6 year old age group because in fluoridated areas tooth eruption is delayed by a year, and so there are less teeth to measure and compare in the fluoridated areas. This difference disappears as children get older. The reason tooth eruption is delayed is because fluoride deposits in and affects the pineal gland which regulates our body clock. Yes, this little 'systemic top up', as referred to by Hawaiian shirted Foley, affects quite a lot more than the enamel. But you have censored all that data. Why?

Why didn't you show the statistics for Tasmania? They are the first Australian state to be fluoridated and after 60 years they have the worst caries rates in Australia.

And you call this science?

There is no morality in fluoridation. It is mass medication and a heinous crime against humanity. Get out of the 60's mentality and catch up with the rest of the world - PLEASE! The comparison with seat belt rules is so old and hackneyed I'm surprised Hawaiian shirted Foley hasn't come up with anything new in his arsenal. Seat belts are a safety precaution and doesn't harm:


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

Fluoridation has no precautionary principle and many people in the population can easily accumulate toxic levels. Yes, arsenic is a poison too, and in small doses over a number of years you can destroy organs and life. Fluoride is not a nutrient and in fact inhibits vital nutrients such as magnesium and iodine: A shortage in magnesium and iodine is associated with heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cancer, mental illness and osteoporosis. Just a 'systemic top-up'? No thanks!

Councils and water authorities are given the job to administer a medication with no medical qualifications to anyone regardless of their health status or sensitivities, and people can consume as much as they like without any monitoring of side effects. Fluoride was used in the 60's to treat hyperthyroid. Now we have the mass dosing of a population with an anti-thyroid medication. And you seem to think this is okay? Where is your moral compass?

Most of the rest of the world has ceased fluoridation because of the damning science that has emerged over the years. You cannot control the dose and people are being over-exposed.

This was just a sad dusty old propaganda piece. Nothing new. Very disappointing.

...

Letter to the ABC dated 20 August 2013 (in response to the ABC’s Corporate Affair’s response also dated 20 August 2013):

It is not in the interests of the community to air a programme like Catalyst, which holds itself out to fairly present science-based information which the greater public trusts to be true, whilst engaging in strategic omissions of crucial information which then skew the final conclusions reached. It was not a fair presentation of the facts or of what the issues actually are that are driving the anti-fluoridation movement in Australia.1) Why did you not bother to interview professional experts such as scientists Merilyn Haines, Professor Mark Diesendorf https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/associate-professor-mark-diesendorf or Associate Professor Niyi Awofeso http://med.unsw.edu.au/people/associate-professor-niyi-awofeso or a myriad of other professionals that have spoken out about the dangers of fluoridation as the dose of the therapy cannot be controlled?You showed some small soundbites taken out of context from Merilyn Haine's presentation to council, but there was no framework or argument to accompany those soundbites.The other random vox pops from the streets of Bundaberg showed people understood fluoride to be a poison, which is the reason for their opposition to fluoridation, but nothing more was presented. The whole counter argument was omitted. Why are people objecting to a poison being dosed to the drinking water supply? How could this be balanced?

What was glaringly missing from your programme was any attempt to allow the rationale of the anti-fluoridation movement to be aired. The viewer was given the impression that for some reason only Queenslanders objected to fluoridation. Even the tone of voice of the female presenter had a condescending tone in her voice when she said, "But not in Queensland," thereby implying that there is no opposition to fluoridation in any other state. The fact of the matter is that there is an Australia wide coalition of anti-fluoridation activists that are working in cooperation to try to overturn this antiquated and dangerous public therapeutic treatment. There are communities in every state actively trying to cease fluoridation as a public policy. Here is just one example of the activist movement in other states: http://afamildura.wordpress.com/ There are also two independent court actions underway in NSW in the Environmental Court challenging


http://afamildura.wordpress.com/

http://med.unsw.edu.au/people/associate-professor-niyi-awofeso


https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/associate-professor-mark-diesendorf


the legality of local councils building fluoridation plants which expel a large amount of the industrial waste fluoridation chemicals (sodium silicofluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid), as only 1% of tap water is consumed and 99% of the fluoridated water is released into the natural waterways and environment. In fact, in all the countries of the world that remain clinging on to this outdated practice of fluoridation, covering about 5% of the world's population, there are ever stronger emerging activist groups dedicated to the cessation of fluoridation. These community groups are now working cooperatively to share information.

2) This leads to another major issue that was completely missed, and all the more astounding because it was missed by a science programme. It was stated by Michael Foley and his partner Michael Moore, (who have been touring Queensland as a team to speak to councils about why they should fluoridate), that: 1) All fluorides are the same, and that, "You're always getting a little bit of a top-up," and 2) "You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem." These sweeping statements are not what one would expect from so-called professionals - regardless of what titles they may hold. A title does not automatically mean they have it right.Firstly, all fluorides are not the same and inferring that industrial chemicals like silicofluoride chemicals are the same toxicologically as calcium fluoride, which naturally occurs in surface waters, is extremely misleading and irresponsible. Here is a chemistry lesson for the programme producers of Catalyst:

According to Roholm's toxicology research on fluorine intoxication pertaining to various inorganic fluorides: H2SiF6 (Fluorosilicic Acid) is "25 times MORE lethally toxic than CaF2 (Calcium Fluoride)"

Page 3 of 9 Enviro Management Services report:

http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf

Secondly, the inference that we must have a small amount of poison for good health is equally as damning. Is a small amount of lead good for you? What about a small amount of radioactive radon? These, by the way, are some of the listed contaminants in water fluoridation chemicals. Is Michael Moore saying that you could package these elements (poisons) up in small amounts in tablets and sell them as supplements for 'good health'... because if you, "Have too little you've got a problem?" These industrial fluorides are by-products of aluminium and phosphate processing and are certainly not naturally occurring. They are artificially created by man. The raw material is a 'produced' poison that is combined with water at a certain ratio (1ppm concentration) as prescribed by government to produce a manufactured water product delivered to the consumer via the householder's tap, with the sole stated intention being to prevent caries. By this very admission the process of fluoridation is for therapeutic treatment and prophylaxis, yet the TGA have not caught fluoridation as one of their listed treatments and do not monitor its safety. NICNAS do not have any jurisdiction over regulating the chemical safety of fluoridation chemicals. This has all been confirmed via FOIs. The biggest problem with fluoridation is that dosage of the treatment cannot be controlled and no independent authority is checking how much fluoride people consume from all sources, or how much is being accumulated in the tissue cells of the body over time with chronic fluoride consumption, as only 50% is excreted. Once the main drinking water supply is dosed with fluoride chemicals there is what is called 'The Halo Effect', whereby foods are processed using fluoridated water. Fluoride does not evaporate when the water is boiled, but instead concentrates




in the remaining liquid. A cup of black tea can contain up to 8mg of fluoride because tea leaves have a propensity to accumulate fluoride if present in the ground water. Therefore beverages and processed foods using fluoridated water can concentrate fluorides even more. Medications now also use fluorides as preservatives. Fluorides are used as pesticides to fumigate produce warehouses, and fluorides of course are used in very high concentrations in dental products which can inadvertently be swallowed.Michael Moore said, "You take a lot of it, you get poisoned." Why did you not ask him after he made that statement, "How much is too much?" "Do you know how much people are consuming?" "What happens if you get too much?" Why did you not ask him what the symptoms of fluoride toxicity are? Fluorosis is rampant now, and despite people's perception that fluorosis presents only as white or brown stains or pits in the tooth enamel, fluorosis has also been defined by medical professionals around the world as contributing to a large number of illnesses from thryoid suppression (hypothyroidism) to IBS symptoms (as fluoride when it mixes with hydrochloric acid in the stomach forms hydrofluoric acid) to diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, bone deformity, skin rashes and more. Yet, not one word about fluorosis - ever on the increase in all fluoridated populations. See what Dr Susheela has to say about fluorosis - which she has scientifically studied for over 30 years and written about in medical text books: http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=58573df0f94a372dca9d

3) There was no mention in your report of Australian safety regulation of fluoridation exposures. How would Foley and Moore and the fluoride lobby know if fluoridation was safe for all members of the community regardless of how much they consume? They can't possibly know or make this kind of assurance of safety. The 2007 NHMRC was a sham and a whitewash which contained many flaws. It was not generally a quality review, as they cherry-picked the older data that supported their premise and ignored the newer quality studies that did not support their premise. Please see the attached excerpt from the 1991 NHMRC Review which actually addressed the need to monitor quantity consumed and effects on sensitive population subgroups such as young children and people with kidney disease. Also attached is an FOI document which shows health authorities were concerned about toxic effects to population subgroups enough to request that the 2007 Review cover the effects of fluoridation on people with kidney impairment as they could have, "As much as three times the normal retention rate. " Despite this concern, in the end the Review requirement was deleted! This is a smoking gun. What has happened to our investigative journalists?

4) You did not cover the issue of bio-medical ethics in relation to fluoridation. Please see the attached published documents to help your own research.There is so much information now about the toxic effects of chronic fluoride poisoning that it is inexcusable to plead ignorance these days. There are excellent high quality studies available and you would find them if you bothered to look - instead of blindly accepting the unfounded assurances of the fluoride lobby that fluioridation is "safe and effective." Clearly it is not. It cannot possibly be that because the dose is not controllable. There is no margin of error and no precautionary principle employed.

The public seem to know a lot more about fluoridation and its effects than the programme producers of Catalyst. Rather than a 'head-in-the-sand' approach, it would be very refreshing if your programme or another ABC investigative programme such as 4 Corners would cover the


http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=58573df0f94a372dca9d


real issues. Fluoridation has become more of a political issue than a scientific one. At the very least, if Catalyst is not permitted to present an unbiased presentation of both sides of the argument, then the programme should not cover it at all. But to present the issue as a 'fait accomplis' of science and that fluoridation is proven as 'safe and effective' is a lie and a very dangerous one at that.In conclusion, I recommend that your producers make themselves more familiar with the political history of fluoridation, its health effects and bio-chemical effects as discovered in studies by scientist Phyllis Mullenix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eou_UMhHlm4

Complainant 1’s complaint attached the following documents (as titled by the complainant):

NHMRC 1991 Review – excerpts regarding lack of Australian studies

Documents obtained by NHMRC Freedom of Information Request

Shaw 2013 Weeping and Wailing

Awofeso – Public Health Ethics

Further letter to the ABC dated 27 August 2013 (in response to an ABC email response also dated 27 August 2013):

In my view and that of many other viewers of your programme, it was bias and propagandist with

unfair weight being given to the pro-fluoride lobby - which are funded either directly or indirectly

by industry.

(1)"But on the latest, credible scientific research which could answer these concerns." Dead

wrong. You kept referring to old studies and the 2007 NHMRC Review, without offering any

specific information. There have been numerous high quality studies which cast serious doubt on

the safety and efficacy of fluoridation that have been published right up to the present day and

they are ongoing. As fluoride is a systemic poison, ie. it acts upon every cell via inhibition of

enzyme activity, its potential harm is far greater than the cited effects on bone resorption

(although that is bad enough). You have not presented any credible science. Apart from saying it

exists, you have not demonstrated its mechanism of action via ingestion. Your whole premise is

based on assumptions: ie. If topical fluoride application prevents caries, then drinking fluoride will

have the same affect. What a leap of faith! This is unacceptable for a programme that promotes

itself as a 'science programme'.

Even the premise that 'fluoroapatite in tooth enamel makes teeth resistant to decay' has been

seriously called into question:

Read the IAOMT statement attached. Here is an excerpt: "After fifty years of controversy, the

test that eluded the spotlight on this subject is simple: a healthy bicuspid, extracted during

preparation for orthodontics, is measured for fluoride concentration in the enamel; is immersed in

a substance that will rapidly de-mineralize the tooth (Coca Cola will do fine); then is measured for

its resistance to acid dissolution relative to the concentration of fluoride in the enamel. The result?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eou_UMhHlm4

As described by Featherstone in JADA, July 2000, "The fluoride incorporated into the tooth

developmentally -- meaning systemically, in the normal tooth mineral -- is insufficient to have a

measurable effect on acid dissolution."

You claim to have fairly presented both sides of the argument, however you could not establish

any argument against fluoridation. Your sole counter argument was a weak attempt to portray the

perception on the street that fluoride was a poison. Where were your scientific references which

reflect this perception? There are many and they are easy to find. Why didn't you interview an

expert or two from the other side as I listed in my previous emails such as Merilyn Haines,

Professor Mark Diesendorf (article attached) or Professor Niyi Awofeso? There are many more

scientists and doctors now calling for the end of fluoridation in those few countries where it still

remains as an outdated institution from the 60's. European countries have dropped fluoridation

because their governments actually listened to the recommendations of their scientists.

You didn't engage in a scientific debate because that is the protocol of the fluoride lobby as

preached by Michael Foley in his powerpoint presentation to Japanese dentists (attached): Here

is an excerpt espousing their modus operandi:

"Slide44　Try to avoid debates in public or on radio or TV in which anti-fluoridationists also appear. Taking

part in a debate with anti-fluoridationists gives them a respectability that they don’t deserve.

Slide39　If you’re being interviewed, remember that the media are probably not interested in dentistry or

fluoridation. They only want a story that will sell newspapers or make people listen to their radio

or TV station. It’s your job to give them information in a way that sounds interesting. Before the

interview, plan the main brief messages you want the journalist and the general public to

remember."

"The program took an evidence-based approach." Please cite the evidence you refer to: What

are the actual studies which prove fluoridation is safe for all that consume it every day for years?

2) "We would expect to see the health effects of fluoride accumulation - if they exist." Dead

wrong again. I put it to you that you are not looking and that is why you conveniently do not find.

See attachments and links below - just the tip of the iceberg.

You cannot in all honesty guarantee that fluoridation is safe for all because you have no idea how

much people are consuming and retaining over time at the tissue level. Even Moore mentioned if

you get too much poison its bad. The very next question should have been, "How much is too

much?" and "How much are we consuming on average?" "What about sensitive population sub-

groups such as babies, people with thyroid disorders, chemical sensitivity and kidney disease?" It

appears as though you purposefully skirted around this major issue of quantity consumed and

retained from all sources, yet it is the elephant in the lounge room.


The Dept of Health and Ageing was concerned enough to request it be studied in the NHMRC

Review - as is evidenced by the attached FOI. However for some inexplicable reason the

contractors engaged to conduct the Review - Technology Health Analysts - did not have to

perform this task. Why not? Where is the hard hitting journalism? For some reason your two

interviewees from the fluoride lobby took it upon themselves to assure people there was no

concern and not to listen to anyone else - and that it's a 100% certain that drinking as much as

you like of fluoridated water and by-products is absolutely safe for everyone. What a ludicrous

position, and incredibly clumsy science. I felt ashamed on behalf of your programme producers

who have approached this topic with 'eyes wide shut'.

"The NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2004 and 2011) states: “ People with kidney

impairment have a lower margin of safety for fluoride intake. Limited data indicate that their

fluoride retention may be up to three times normal ” Additionally.. “Fluoride is absorbed quickly

following ingestion. It is not metabolised, but diffuses passively into all body compartments. About

40% is excreted in urine within 9 hours and about 50% over 24 hours. Fluoride has an affinity for

mineralising tissues of the body, in young people bone and teeth, in older people bone” In 2007

the NHMRC released their privately contracted review of fluoridation, but despite the tender

contract requiring the cumulative effects on people with kidney disease be investigated, this was

not reported on in the NHMRC review. In 2011 Kidney Health Australia reiterated their 2007

position, “ there is consistent evidence that impairment of kidney function results in changes to

the way in which fluoride is metabolised and eliminated from the body resulting in an increased

burden of fluoride” Yet, despite these acknowledgements, no studies have ever done in Australia

looking at the cumulative effects of fluoridated water on people with kidney impairment. The

NHMRC did not investigate this in their 2007 review; even though Freedom of Information

documents reveal that the private review company was required to. In 2009, a FOI request

determined that no risk assessments or environmental impact statements had been done by the

Qld govt for water fluoridation. Qld Health has recently confirmed that no health impact

assessments for water fluoridation have been done." http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1-7-

million-australians-have-kidney-disease-what-is-fluoride-doing-to-them/

"Suggests that fluoride accumulation is not a long term concern.” Are you aware that Professor

Luke conducted studies with cadavres of people who had a lifetime consumption of fluoridated

water, and found that they had the highest accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland, correlated

with higher calcium content? Ref: http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

Summary: http://www.fannz.org.nz/pinealgland.php

"The pineal contained 16,000±11,070 mg Ca/kg wet weight. There was a positive correlation

between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02) but no correlation between pineal F and bone

F. By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone."

The Pineal Gland Has Highest Levels of Fluoride in Body. This inhibits melatonin production - a

vital anti-oxidant.

IQ Studies (Harvard Review July 2012): http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-

childrens-health-grandjean-choi/


"The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which

would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a

standard deviation of 15. Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure

could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores

than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but

the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened

earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity."

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,”

Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a

population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is

crucial to all of us.”

NOTE: Fluoride toxicity is more acute in the presence of iodine and magnesium deficiency.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/374/files/374264-270.pdf In Australia almost all states children have below normal levels of iodine according to a 2006

study. http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=904

STUDY 2012: Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820538

Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on

children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information

on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.

STUDY 2010: Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.5650051392/abstract "Fluoride appears to be a

key factor in the pathogenesis of stress fractures, and may be associated with increased

trabecular resorption in some treated patients."

Professor Cummins on Fluoride and Genotoxicity (2012):

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Drinking%20Water%20Fluoridation%20%20is

%20Genotoxic%20and%20Teratogenic.pdf

"According to a recent report fluorides mediate their actions through the MAPK gene signalling

pathway and can lead to changes in gene expression, cell stress, and cell death. Different strains

of inbred mice demonstrate differential physiological responses to ingested fluoride. Genetic

studies in mice are capable of identifying and characterizing fluoride-responsive genetic

variations. Ultimately, this can lead to the identification of atrisk human populations who are

susceptible to the unwanted or potentially adverse effects of fluoride action."

On Calcium Lesions in the Arteries (heart disease):

STUDY 2010: Calcium sensitization induced by sodium fluoride in permeabilized rat mesenteric

arteries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20221280


"These results suggest that NaF is an activator of the Rho kinase signaling pathway during

vascular contraction."

STUDY 2012: Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary

artery disease http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Abstract/2012/01000/

Association_of_vascular_fluoride_uptake_with.3.aspx

"An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased

cardiovascular risk."

3) NHMRC 2007 Review excluded many important studies, and totally missed evaluating the

effect on people with kidney disease, despite concerns by the Dept of Health and Ageing. (See

attached FOI)

4) If you cannot guarantee that all consumers of fluoridated tap water and its by-products are

safe to do so, and will have no adverse health effects, regardless of how much they consume,

then the 'ethical science issue' is at the very front of the controversy and cannot be ignored.

There is no difference in principle if you said, "Some people are deficient in arsenic, and as

arsenic is an essential trace element, we should add it to the public drinking water supply." BUT

NOT ACCOUNT FOR OVER-CONSUMPTION. This is flawed logic and ignorance combined with

arrogance at the highest level. Even the WHO cite an intake of 2mg or more per day as being

toxic and that at least some part of the population will develop fluorosis disease in the teeth. At

1ppm concentration, that means just two litres per day of fluoridated water or fluoridated

beverages will reach toxic levels. And that does not account for other vectors of fluoride.

Fluoridation (therapeutic treatment without informed consent) should be addressed by the

Australian Health Ethics Committee. Note: There is a difference with the above analogy,

because fluoride is actually not a nutrient and not needed by the body for any function. Its

presence in the enamel of the tooth, the bones, the endothelial lining of the arteries or the pineal

gland etc is a side effect of chronic toxic exposure, and not a sign that we need fluoride to be in

those locations. However the baby boomer generation have been brainwashed by the Mrs Marsh

'fooligard' commercials to believe we need it. This marketing spin was created by Edward L

Bernays to white wash the bad reputation of industrial waste fluoride that was the subject of much

litigation in the past. I recommend you study the history of fluoridation. Christopher Bryson has

an excellent expose in his book: 'The Fluoride Deception' - http://www.amazon.com/The-Fluoride-

Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008

There are just so many more studies damning fluoridation because of uncontrolled dose and toxic

exposure... I could go on a write a book of links. However, I'm sure you get the drift by now. If

you don't look, of course you don't find. Let's grow up now and get our heads out of the sand. I

recommend you lift your standards and present real science, real studies, and a fair presentation

of EACH side of the controversy - not just one.

Complainant 1’s email dated 27 August 2013 attached the following documents:


Dr Mark Diesendorf – letter re fluoridation advising that fluoridation is ‘unsafe, ineffective , and unethical’

Affidavit of Albert Schatz Ph.D in Circuit Court case – Safe Water Association, Inc, vs. City of Fond DU LAC

Gerald Steel New York Attorney – Fluoride

Fluoride – New Grounds for Concern – The Ecologist Vol. 16, 1986 Fluoride – New Grounds for Concern by Mark Diesendorf and Philip R.N. Sutton

Hopkins DDS – letter re Fluoridation concerns

Policy position on ingested fluoride and fluoridation - International Academy of Medicine and Toxicology

Richard Sauerheber letter re FDA FDA concerns – 7/3/13

Professor Trevor A Sheldon – Letter re University of York Review – 9/10/04

A Review of the 2010 Fluoride Literature – 2011 – Tara Blank, Ph.D. – Fluoride Action Network

Fluoride Increases Lead Content in Blood – 2010 – journal Toxicology - Sawana RMM (a), Leite GAS (a), Saraiva MCP (a), Barbosa Jr. F (b), Tanus-Santos JE (c), Gerlack RF (a)study

Fluoride and Human IQ studies - Review of 23 published studies.

Slides of Dr Michael Foley’s presentation to Japanese Dentists - How to Introduce Fluoridation

Documents obtained from NHMRC pursuant to a Freedom of Information request


Attachment CComplainant 2’s submissions

[Emphases added by complainant]

Submissions to the ACMA dated 3 October 2013:

I wish to place a complaint about bias and lack of impartiality in the Catalyst program on water fluoridation ( first broadcast 8th August 2013 ) I have placed a complaint with ABC Corporate Affairs and I have received a response that I am unsatisfied with. I now wish to place a complaint with ACMA.

Until high quality studies are conducted, there is legitimate scientific controversy about health effects and effectiveness with fluoridation. This is as advised in a letter by Prof Trevor Sheldon Chair of the York University 2000 fluoridation review – ( this letter was provided to Catalyst by email on 2nd August ) however, according to Catalyst fluoridation is very effective and very safe. Catalyst staff have represented a Catalyst segment on fluoridation as if it was a legitimate, wide reaching comprehensive definitive review of water fluoridation and determined that Catalyst had the ultimate say on fluoridation safety and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND On the 26th July 2013 I learned that Qld Health Dentist Michael Foley had been interviewed by Catalyst and as Dr Foley has at times been a full time lobbyist for fluoridation (being seconded to the Office of the Qld Chief Dental Officer for months earlier this year for that purpose ) I became concerned that Catalyst was going to do a biased promotion of fluoridation. Between 26th July and 1st August I attempted to contact Catalyst staff, sending emails and phone messages asking them to contact me because I was concerned of possible bias by Catalyst.

On the afternoon of 1st August I had a brief phone call from Catalyst which re-enforced my opinion that the Catalyst story would be a biased promotion. In that phone call I emphatically stressed that the 2007 NHMRC fluoride review did not include 5000+ studies as the Catalyst staff member has just informed me.

From the 2nd of August to the 6th August I sent 7 emails to Catalyst, some including a number of scientific publications and data showing little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non – fluoridated areas.

On the 3rd September I placed a complaint with ABC Corporate Affairs. On the 18th September I received a reply.

Although Catalyst staff, through ABC Corporate Affairs, have attempted to justify themselves as not being biased, I believe (as do many others that I have spoken to) that the program was very biased and partial to fluoridation and that was the intent from the way the program was structured, the emotive language used and the omission of many arguments and evidence that make fluoridation controversial.

...

I wish now to address some of the issues in the ABC Corporate Affairs and then bring up some issues that ABC Corporate Affairs has not addressed.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE (Program) “ fluoridation has been controversial in Australia and particularly in Queensland “ .... “ toxic properties of fluoride have been a factor in decisions not to proceed “


MY RESPONSE - Fluoride being a poison, a toxic substance has been just ONE issue, of MANY issues as to why 17 Queensland councils have rejected fluoridation in the last year. In ending fluoridation Cairns Regional council in Jan 2013 cited the current Local Government Association Qld Policy on Water Fluoridation - extract of which is - “ Local Government believes it is a principle of ethical public health policy that mass involuntary medication must never proceed without the express consent of the community” One very important reason why water fluoridation is controversial is that is it considered by many to be unethical mass medication , however Catalyst did not air this reason for controversy, Catalyst choosing to focus only on “ its a poison “ and never once mentioned the controversial mass medication issue.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE (Accuracy) (a)

MY RESPONSE I am glad that Catalyst have now amended their transcript to show that some other areas in Queensland did have fluoridated water supplies (before forced fluoridation announced in 2007 ) as opposed to Catalyst original broadcast claim that only Townsville was the only place. Catalyst’s original claim however does indicate poor quality researching.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE ( Accuracy) (b) Dr Foleys claim that Townsville- Brisbane study that there was 45 % less tooth decay)

MY RESPONSE On the 5th August, prior to broadcast, I had provided emailed information to Catalyst showing a 2007 Qld Health newspaper advertisement claiming 65 % difference based on the same Townsville Brisbane study . A difference of 65 % was claimed by Qld Health, yet this was only 0.17 of one tooth surface. Additionally, the lifetime difference for children aged between 6 and 12 years was only 0.23 of one tooth surface for permanent teeth. I had advised there were up to 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth and that the absolute difference might be only very small with a large percentage difference. I believe that Catalyst in broadcasting claims of percentage differences should also advise to the public what the absolute difference is as the public have no way of knowing that a large percent difference may only be a small absolute difference. Additionally that in permanent teeth there is very little difference between fluoridated areas and non – fluoridated areas.

I also on the 5th August provided data to Catalyst from child dental surveys showing that by the age of 12 years, Qld children (with less than 5 % of population exposed to fluoridation) in some years had on average more tooth decay than children from Tasmania (83% fluoridated) and the ACT (100% fluoridated). Additionally I provided information that tooth decay in unfluoridated Brisbane had come down similarly to fluoridated Australian capital cities. Catalyst chose to ignore and just promoted fluoridation as making a 45 % difference in tooth decay based on Michael Foley’s claim from one study published in 1996 from data collected in 1991-2.

In Prof Sheldon Chair of 2000 York Review letter provided to Catalyst by email on the morning of the 3rd August – Prof Sheldon had claimed of the 2000 York University Review “Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from "massive".

Catalyst should have considered this advice before just promoting fluoridation as resulting in 45% less decay. Current World Health Organisation dental data indicates that 12 year old children from unfluoridated countries have equivalent tooth decay to 12 year old from the heavily fluoridated countries. WHO data can be used to show that tooth decay in children’s permanent


teeth has come similarly in both fluoridated and non- fluoridated countries over the last 50 years. As an illustration of this please see http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/ It is quite possible that Catalyst researchers were aware of this, but chose instead to promote fluoridation as unequivocally reducing tooth decay by 45% without allowing the opportunity to say there is conflicting evidence on effectiveness.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE (Accuracy) (c) Michael Foley’s claim that adults in fluoridated areas had significantly better teeth than adults in non- fluoridated areas.

MY RESPONSE On the 5th August, prior to broadcast, I had provided Catalyst with dental data from the National Adult Oral Health Survey 2004-2006 showing little difference between adults in every age group (<5 % fluoridated) and adults in the heavily long term fluoridated states. I also advised that a March 2013 publication, an analysis of that survey showed a difference of 1.14 teeth, or approximately 10 % less decayed teeth. I also advised that some confounding factors such as access to dental services were not taken into account in this study.

Never the less, Catalyst allowed a 10% difference to be broadcast as Michael Foley’s claim of “significantly better teeth”.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE (Accuracy) (d) Michael Foley’s claim that fluoridated water has a “much greater topical effect”.

MY RESPONSE – Michael Foley has apparently provided comments (his speculation and opinion) to Catalyst in an effort to justify himself, but I note no research, no studies have been cited . I request that Catalyst provide references for any published studies that claimed to show that fluoridated water had a “much greater topical effect.” If fluoridated water at 1ppm had a great and significant topical effect, then there would be no need for any” sales of fluoride toothpaste with 500 ppm, 1000ppm and 5000 ppm fluoride, mouth-washes with 100 ppm and fluoride varnishes with 22,000 ppm fluoride for a topical effect. These fluoride products would be redundant – we would only need to swallow fluoridated water to have a great topical effect. Catalyst researchers should be able to cite the studies that claim a “much greater topical” for fluoridated water. If not, then Catalyst should retract that claim.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE (Accuracy) (e) Prof Moore’s claim that it is possible to have too little fluoride.

MY RESPONSE Catalyst has been obtuse in their interpretation of what I said about it being ridiculous that it was a problem to have too little fluoride. Catalyst has claimed that this just meant Prof Moore was explaining about dosage and toxicity. I had specifically stated in my complaint that there is no study to show that fluoride needs to be ingested to live, to be healthy, or even have good teeth. As there is not a single human or animal study to show that fluoride is an essential nutrient that needs to be ingested, it was misleading of Catalyst to broadcast.... “Have too little, you have a problem.” This claim about having too little fluoride (ingested is implied) being a problem is incorrect and misleading, Catalyst should withdraw this claim.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE (Accuracy) (f) Incorrect claim that the NHMRC Review reviewed 5,500 papers .

MY RESPONSE I advised Catalyst verbally on the afternoon of the 1st August that the NHMRC 2007 review did NOT include 5,500 studies. On the 2nd August I emailed Catalyst and advised ..............“If Catalyst looks at the NHMRC 2007 Review they will find that the INCLUDED references are only of the order of 113 studies, not 5,5000 studies. There were


http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

many studies that the NHMRC briefly looked at study Abstracts , but didn’t actually use. The 2007 NHMRC review also added in other fluoride vehicles such as salt fluoridation and milk fluoridation which are not even used in Australia.”

Despite this advice prior to broadcast Catalyst PERSISTED in broadcasting Moore’s claim the NHMRC had reviewed 5,500 studies. In the ABC Corporate response the ABC acknowledged that the NHMRC notes that 5,418 non – duplicate citations were “identified ” (my emphasis) from a review of various databases and libraries . It is easy to “ identify “ 5,500 studies – just type in the word fluoride or fluoridation , however the huge majority of these “identified” studies were rejected / excluded as being unsuitable for the review – they were the wrong type of studies and thus were not then reviewed by the NHMRC.

To be pre-warned and still deliberately allow it to be claimed in the broadcast that the NHMRC reviewed 5,500 studies is misleading. I request Catalyst retract that information.

ABC CORPORATE AFFAIRS RESPONSE (Impartiality) MY RESPONSE - If the ABC principles of impartiality are to give opportunity ( over time ) for principal relevant viewpoints on matters of contention to be expressed , why did Catalyst restrict viewpoints to two issues out of so many issues that I had identified to Catalyst in my complaint.

Bias in selection of voc pops shown? In my complaint I queried if in doing the vox pops section if any person/s on the street asked an opinion had brought up the issue of mass medication but this had ended up on the cutting room floor. This was apparently ignored by ABC Corporate and was not addressed in their response.

Bias in selection of footage shown. Catalyst would have had access to considerable footage of [Ms Haines] talking about mass medication and many other fluoridation issues in the ABC Archive, but Catalyst chose to just use one very small bit on fluoride being a poison that can also be used as insecticide in addition to water fluoridation.

NHMRC review as proof of safety. Catalyst focused on the NHMRC review as if it was the definitive decision on safety of water fluoridation. Examination of the NHMRC review and York Review shows the part on water fluoridation in the NHMRC review is very largely based on the York Review – yet Prof Sheldon York Review Chair in his letter that I provided to Catalyst, advises the York review did not show water fluoridation to be safe . As the NHMRC review is almost a copy cat of the York review it should be difficult to claim that the NHMRC review is proof of safety.

Osteosarcoma bias. Catalyst put forward a 2011 publication on Osteosarcoma as if it was the definitive answer on Osteosarcoma. This paper looked at the fluoride content of bone next to an Osteosarcoma lesion compared to the fluoride content of bone next to other types of bone cancer (patients with bone cancer were the controls). While this publication supported these authors own hypothesis, it did not and could not possibly refute the 2006 publication on Osteosarcoma by E Bassin et al which looked at time of age exposure and gender in identifying that boys exposed to water fluoridation in childhood had a greater risk of developing Osteosarcoma up to the age of 20 years.

To compare the two Osteosarcoma studies is to compare apples with oranges. The Bassin findings still stand, the jury is still out on Osteosarcoma and water fluoridation, yet Catalyst favoured and only put forward the 2011 publication and in the manner Catalyst presented it, was made out that the 2011 publication was absolute proof that water fluoridation does not cause Osteosarcoma.


Issues ignored by Catalyst – Dental fluorosis. The most obvious issue that Catalyst chose to ignore was dental fluorosis. This is a significant issue and the only one that fluoridation promoters will even acknowledge as being a risk.

US Dental fluorosis rates is the reason why the US Public Health Service is lowering their recommended concentration down to 0.7 mg /L ( most of Australia is fluoridated at 1.0 mg/L ) While dental fluorosis rates in Australia are not as high as in the USA , the rates are still high. The latest data (2007 NSW Child Dental Health Survey) shows that a quarter of 11 to 12 year old children in fluoridated NSW areas have some level of fluorosis, with high levels even in non- fluoridated areas. In fluoridated NSW areas nearly 4 in every 100 children have moderate dental fluorosis (in non – fluoridated areas incidence is 2 in 1000 children). Children are getting too much fluoride as can be seen by fluorosed teeth.

When fluoridation began in Australia no more than 10 % of children were supposed to end up with have fluorosis. The Tasmanian Royal Commission (1968) and the Victorian Inquiry (1980) estimated 10% of children in fluoridated populations will suffer dental fluorosis, yet we currently have an incidence rate of 25 % as seen in the 2007 NSW survey. Surely then dental fluorosis, as the only risk acknowledged by fluoridation promoters, was worthy of even a mention in the Catalyst broadcast? For Catalyst to have not brought up the issue dental fluorosis indicates to me that Catalyst was not going to engage in any issue that is potentially harmful to the Australian water fluoridation program. This would be an example of bias if Catalyst’s deliberate decision to not even mention dental fluorosis was for the intention of being protective of fluoridation.

Even though measures have been taken to reduce fluorosis incidence in Australia (introducing children’s 500 ppm toothpaste, advising to only use smaller amounts of toothpaste and making manufacturers lower infant formula fluoride content) we still have 25 % of children with some level of dental fluorosis – yet Catalyst chose to ignore this issue and not even mention dental fluorosis in their broadcast.

Issues ignored by Catalyst –Fluoride exposure linked to lowered IQ

Prior to broadcast Catalyst was provided a 2012 publication which was a Meta- analysis and Systematic Review of 27 human studies looking at lowering of IQ and exposure to fluoride . The title of the published review is “ Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity : a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis “by researchers Anna Choi et al published in the US Federal govt journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Catalyst was also provided prior to broadcast with a summary of the water fluoride concentrations for the studies that were included in that review. Many of the water fluoride studies included (which had single point concentrations rather than a range) were only 2 to 4 times higher than the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. One study indicating lowered IQ was associated with a fluoride concentration of 0.88 mg/L which is lower than the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania.

There is an increasing and accumulating body of evidence to indicate that fluoride is a neuro-toxicant. There are 36 human studies and 16 animal studies indicating that fluoride exposure can affect cognitive ability. This is surely a controversial issue, even Channel 10s The Project last year did a segment on this issue - even if The Project did initially falsely claim that the fluoride concentrations in the 2012 Harvard study were more than 20 times that used in Australia.

There has been a huge amount of internet traffic on fluoride possibly lowering IQ since the publication of the 2012 publication “Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: a Systematic Review


and Meta-Analysis”. The possibility and indications that fluoride can lower children’s IQ is currently a very controversial issue and subject of a lot of hot debate yet Catalyst did not even mention this current issue, possibly to help protect fluoridation. It is misleading to the Australian audience that Catalyst did not bring up the issue that fluoride exposure has been linked to lowering of IQ in children, especially considering the amount of news articles there has been in the last 12 months.

Considering the precept of toxicology that the dose makes the poison, it should be considered that children who consume 2 litres of water a day of water with 1mg/l of fluoride gets the same dose of fluoride as a child drinking 1 litre a day with 2mg/L fluoride in the water. When the amount of water consumed cannot be controlled except by thirst, there is reason for concern that children who drink the average amounts of water in fluoridated Australian areas can be taking in as much fluoride as children in some of the studies with natural fluoride that have been associated with lowering of IQ . The precautionary principle should be employed, but the Australian audience will not learn that fluoride exposure at only modestly raised levels is being increasingly associated with lowering of children’s IQ because Catalyst denied the public the opportunity to hear this.

Comments supplied by Catalyst staff in the ABC Corporate Affairs response (thus post broadcast) that we are particularly concerned with include - “Moreover, we now have 50 years of research tracking the potential dangers of adding fluoride in the water. In this time, we would expect to see the health effects of fluoride accumulation - if they exist. As the latest scientific data has not found health differences in populations living where fluoride is added to the water, and those that do not (other than, of course, the improved dental care), it again suggests that fluoride accumulation is not a long term concern.”

We are aware through Freedom of Information that the 2007 NHMRC fluoride review was required to investigate the cumulative effects of fluoride (on people with kidney impairment was particularly mentioned) – this was a requirement of the Tender to do the 2007 NHMRC review. However when the 2007 NHMRC review was published there is nothing on cumulative effects of fluoride, either for people with kidney impairment or for any other compromising condition. The NHMRC either didn’t investigate or didn’t report.

As Catalyst staff believe that there is 50 years of research which would have identified lack of cumulative effects we request that Catalyst staff cite references for the 50 years of research that specifically looked for cumulative effects of fluoride, particularly for those people with kidney impairment.

...

I also was a little annoyed when Catalyst claimed to ABC Corporate Affairs that [Ms Haines] was a medical laboratory “assistant”, when [Ms Haines had] been employed as a “scientist” for over 30 years.

...

To accompany this complaint, I will also forward the emails that had been sent to Catalyst prior to their broadcast. Please particularly note where I had asked Catalyst to not broadcast misleading information such as the NHMRC 2007 review supposedly reviewing 5,500 studies.


Submissions to the ABC dated 3 September 2013:

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Code of Practice has editorial standards for impartiality. The Catalyst 8th August 2013 broadcast on water fluoridation breached the ABC’s editorial standards.

The Catalyst program from the very beginning (including the pre-promotions) to the end, took a dedicated editorial stance – fluoridation protects teeth – it works! Catalyst did not present facts and issues on fluoridation fairly. The Catalyst program was extremely partial to fluoridation, it unduly favoured the perspective of fluoridation over the side of non- fluoridation. The pro- fluoridation perspective was very favourably presented, with only two elements of concern and contention being aired ( fluoride is a poison , fluoridation is linked to osteosarcoma) and then Catalyst allowed these two concerns to be dismissed by the two pro fluoridation lobbyists that Catalyst chose to interview.

Catalyst promotes itself as Australia’s premier science investigation series – it thus gives the Australian public the expectation that true science will be presented and that what is presented will not be presented in a biased manner and that the public will not be misled by Catalyst. I contend that Catalyst did mislead the Australian public by their bias and non- airing of many relevant issues with fluoridation. There were many people who posted comments on the Catalyst website who also believe that the Catalyst broadcast was biased towards fluoridation. There may have been many more similar comments - If Catalyst had not closed off the comments section so quickly.

From the pre- promotion “ how it protects your teeth “commencing at the end of the 1st August Catalyst broadcast, to the closing shot of a man with no teeth – no you don’t need it (Fluoride) - Catalysts’ 8th August article on water fluoridation was carefully crafted to be a vehicle to promote water fluoridation and equally carefully crafted to try to minimise or dismiss any argument or evidence that fluoridation is not effective at reducing tooth and that the practice is controversial for a number of valid scientific reasons other than being a poison.

The subtitle of the Catalyst story was to look at controversy, but Catalyst did not mention the large majority of the issues that make fluoridation controversial or that fluoridation is not only contentious in Qld but in other parts of Australia and in other countries where fluoridation has been forced , or attempted to be forced on the public. There is so much more to the current debate as to why water fluoridation is contentious than the limited issues that Catalyst showed. Emails and phone calls (message boxes) were made to Catalyst well in advance of their broadcast and information including scientific papers were provided to Catalyst in advance**, but Catalyst apparently chose to ignore ( ** at end of this document see Background and Communications sent to Catalyst PRIOR to 8th August broadcast ) also emails that were sent to Catalyst that will now be forwarded.

Referring to the Catalyst transcript to show intended bias -

INTRODUCTION - Catalyst used very positive language and statements setting the stage in their introduction telling the public -fluoridation is great and it works .

...

Catalyst’s Ruben Meerman then staged a visit to his old family dentist to set the scene to encourage the public to further trust what Catalyst was going to say. Everyone trusts an and


respects a friendly old family Dentist or Doctor, so Catalyst used this ploy to engage trust of the viewers.

Narration - this then set the scene that Townsville had been the ONLY place in Qld that had fluoridated water before forced fluoridation (this was incorrect information that Catalyst broadcast) either Catalyst does very poor research, or they chose to say this as it certainly makes it easier for Catalyst to make a simpler uncomplicated case).

Having the Bundaberg dentist count Ruben’s fillings and then Ruben supposedly naively asking, if he had lived in Townsville, would he have had less fillings? – Dentist – yes for sure (Catalyst presents this simplistic but effective propaganda exercise as a proof positive that fluoridation works).

Catalyst then used this as a lead into allowing dentist Michael Foley to make claims that tooth decay in fluoridated Townsville was 45 % less and suggesting that fluoridation was in the Nobel Prize category. Catalyst broadcast this claim, despite Catalyst having prior being provided information showing that the Qld government had placed newspaper ads in 2007 claiming that tooth decay in Townsville children was 65 % less than Brisbane children – but the 65% less decay was actually an absolute average difference of only 0.17 of a tooth surface (this is out of over a hundred tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth). A huge claimed percentage difference can be a minute absolute difference but Catalyst did not expose this.

Catalyst’s narration then effectively claims that Catalyst has proved water fluoridation works for children and that it works for adults too. “The evidence that fluoride improves dental health extends to adults too” which then leads into dentist Foley stating “The National Survey of Adult Oral Health was done back in 2004, 2006. Adults in fluoridated areas had significantly better teeth than adults in non-fluoridated areas.”

Catalyst did not challenge Foley’s statements despite Catalyst having been prior provided data showing that there was no difference in adult tooth decay between unfluoridated Qld and the heavily fluoridated states in this survey. Additionally, that a new analysis of that survey showing that adults who had lived in fluoridated areas for most of their lives had nearly 8 teeth with decay, while those who had very little exposure to water fluoridation had nearly 9 teeth with decay (the difference was only 1.14 teeth, or approximately 10 % difference – with the study not even taking into account varying access to dental services)

Catalyst then goes into a promotion of fluoridation claiming that fluoroapatite is a stronger mineral and more resistant to acid and Catalyst then leads into the old Mrs Marsh advertisement (an ad that was about fluoride toothpaste – but Catalyst used it as if it was about water fluoridation) Catalyst then lets dentist Foley use this as a spring board once again promote fluoridation even making the very misleading statement “you get the systemic benefit for little kiddies, and you get the much greater topical effect.” Foley is unchallenged on his utterly ridiculous claim that fluoridated water has a much greater topical effect. If fluoridated water at 1 ppm had a great topical effect, then there would be no market to sell toothpaste with 1000 ppm, or the newer toothpastes with 5000 ppm.

Catalyst then starts to explore the Queensland situation and Foley is given another free kick implying that the Qld decision to overturn mandated fluoridation will hurt the health of Queenslanders.

Catalyst then introduces the issue that fluoride is a poison and then Catalyst does everything they can to make out that this is the only issue of concern with the general public. Catalyst then sets


out to dismiss the poison issue - there is really no problem with this – it is still safe a Prof says so. Catalyst implies that there is no scientific basis for opposition to fluoridation.

Catalyst then shows 2 very brief clips of [Ms Haines] detailing that fluoride can be used as an insecticide. This was a very small part of the file material that Catalyst would have had available from an ABC 7.30 report broadcast earlier this year. While I had offered myself to be interviewed by Catalyst in emails 13 days before the Catalyst broadcast, I was not given an opportunity to be interviewed and I certainly was NOT asked and did NOT give my permission for Catalyst to use this footage and particularly in this non- representative manner.

Catalyst dismissively described [Ms Haines] “Merilyn Haines is a member of the anti-fluoride lobby” Catalyst did not describe [Ms Haines] as president of Queenslanders For Safe Water , Air and Food Inc and a medical laboratory scientist for 30 + years, yet Catalyst would have been aware of this. No doubt Catalyst did not want to give [Ms Haines] any credibility and wanted to try to denigrate [Ms Haines] as an anti and a lobbyist. Catalyst did not similarly describe dentist Foley or Prof Michael Moore as forced fluoridation lobbyists - yet this is exactly what they are.

...

Catalyst’s Ruben Meerman conducted a vox pop - where he is supposed to have asked people on the street for their concerns. The people shown in the street who addressed concern all mentioned poison, not one person mentioned forced mass medication. The contentious issue of forced mass medication is very widely widespread and controversial. It is possible that Catalyst chose not to broadcast any people raising this issue, as this did not fit with the Catalyst agenda of promoting fluoridation? Did the clips of any persons who mentioned mass medication end up on Catalyst’s cutting room floor?

Prof Michael Moore is then introduced and is given free rein to counter “the anti-fluoride lobby”

Catalyst then broadcast the old hoary argument of the dose makes the poison raised by Moore (this despite Catalyst receiving information prior to their broadcast that fluoride dose received depends on fluoride concentration AND a person’s thirst and there is a very wide and uncontrolled range of water consumption)

Moore even makes a ridiculous claim “Have too little, you've got a problem” with Moore’s claim being unchallenged despite there being not a single human or animal study showing that fluoride needs to be ingested to live, to be healthy or even to have to have healthy teeth. Catalyst then cavalierly assists dentist Foley to trivially dismiss that there are issues of concern with fluoridation (but not necessarily the ones Foley cited) “You name the disease, they claim it. I've seen diabetes, dementia, cancer, particularly osteosarcoma, kidney disease, IQ, different tumours...” Catalyst then leaves at this, effectively further dismissing any concerns – apart from osteosarcoma which they single out, but only to dismiss.

Catalyst then focuses on just one issue, osteosarcoma and Catalyst ably assists Michael Moore to dismiss this issue, effectively claiming that a 2011 study was proof that there was no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma.

“The Harvard study was an excellent one, trying to see whether there was any relationship between the presence of fluoride in bone next to an osteosarcoma and the development of the cancer, and they could find no association whatsoever. It was a very, very thorough review, large number of subjects, a highly credible bit of work” - Michael Moore


The 2011 Harvard study may have made their point that the fluoride content of bone next to an Osteosarcoma lesion wasn’t higher than the fluoride content of bone next to another type of bone cancer lesion (hardly a “normal” control) , however the findings did not refute the findings of a 2006 study by E Bassin et al which found an association in boys up to the age of 20 (the population group with the highest incidence) who had a 5 to 7 fold increased risk of developing osteosarcoma if they have been exposed to fluoridated water during the time of mid childhood growth spurts.

Catalyst researchers would surely have heard of the Bassin Osteosarcoma study, the findings still stand and are unrefuted. Why did Catalyst then ONLY mention the 2011 study which had a completely different hypothesis to the 2006 Bassin Harvard study and in no way could ever have refuted the Bassin study? The Bassin study was provided to Catalyst on the 2nd August.

Catalyst then broadcast Moore as claiming that the NHMRC had reviewed 5,500 papers for the NHMRC 2007 review. Catalyst was advised well prior to broadcast that this claim was incorrect. The NHMRC only lists 113 papers as being looked at for their review. The NMHRC does list many papers that they got abstracts for, but after they looked at the abstract they didn’t actually use (see NHMRC 2007 review Part 2 Citations listed as EXCLUDED studies). If Catalyst researchers had looked at the citations in NHMRC 2007 review (after I had warned them on the 1st August) they would see that the huge majority of papers were EXCLUDED from the NHMRC 2007 review. If studies were excluded, they cannot be claimed as being reviewed. After having been pre- warned that the NHMRC review did not actually review 5,500 studies why did Catalyst then not make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts were accurate?

On Friday 2nd August I had emailed my concern that Catalyst were going to make incorrect and misleading claims and I had particularly advised in my email ... “If Catalyst looks at the NHMRC 2007 Review they will find that the INCLUDED references are only of the order of 113 studies, not 5,5000 studies. There were many studies that the NHMRC briefly looked at study Abstracts, but didn’t actually use. The 2007 NHMRC review also added in other fluoride vehicles such as salt fluoridation and milk fluoridation which are not even used in Australia.”

I had also verbally advised a Catalyst staffer on the Thursday afternoon 1st August (when I finally got a response from Catalyst) that the NHMRC did not review 5,500 studies, there were only a hundred or so. Despite this when Catalyst do their broadcast on the 8th August they still included the footage with Moore’s comment that the NHMRC had reviewed 5,500 studies. Catalyst obviously intended to let the public believe that the NHMRC Review was a proper review of 5,500 studies, not of only 113 included studies, some of which were not even about water fluoridation.

Catalyst was also advised prior to broadcast that the section of the 2007 NHMRC review that was on water fluoridation was largely a carbon copy of the 2000 York University review of water fluoridation. Catalyst was also provided prior to broadcast with a 2004 letter from Prof Trevor Sheldon who advised that the York University review did not find fluoridation to be safe, the quality of research was poor, more research was needed, that the level of dental fluorosis was significant and not just cosmetic, there was little evidence that fluoridation had reduced dental inequality and that the size of the benefit estimated at 15 % was not massive. Additionally in his letter, Prof Sheldon noted that until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation. Catalyst apparently ignored this information and deliberately implied that the science was settled.Catalyst then selected one of their man on the street interviews and very cutely finished off their


show by showing a man with false teeth and Ruben Meerman saying he didn’t need it (fluoride) – Ruben then laughs ( friendly finish ) - “ Ah! You don't, do you?” - subtext here – you needed fluoride before!

Tasmania, longest fluoridated state in Australia is reported as having the highest rate of endentulism. Showing an edentulous man on a street in Tasmania would have just been just as relevant as showing an edentulous man on the street in Bundaberg, however Catalyst was not going to present any data that puts water fluoridation effectiveness into doubt (with just a small amount of research Catalyst should have been aware of World Health data showing very similar child tooth decay in fluoridated and non- fluoridated countries)

Catalyst did short interviews with State Member for Burnett Stephen Bennett and Mayor of Bundaberg Regional Council Mal Forman, but Catalyst presented selected snippets to reinforce Catalyst assertion that the only problem with fluoridation was that the public thought fluoride was a poison and Catalyst assisted dentist Foley’s desire that fluoridation decisions not be made by communities, but instead by State or Federal governments

If Catalyst had honestly wanted to explore why water fluoridation is controversial they could have explored, or, at least mentioned some of these various issues that any researcher should easily find -

The high rate of dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities ( 2007 NSW Child Dental Health Survey shows 25 % of 11 to 12 year children having some level of dental fluorosis in NSW fluoridated areas (and with nearly 4% of children in NSW fluoridated areas having Moderate (clearly visible dental fluorosis)

That 95 % of the world’s population does not fluoridate their drinking water.

That most western European countries do not fluoridate drinking water because these countries have concern about adverse health effects and many have concerns that water fluoridation is unethical mass medication.

That there is very little fluoride in breast milk and that the water added to infant formula contains 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk.

That there are 36 humans studies linking fluoride exposure (many studies had only moderately raised fluoride concentrations ) to lowering of children’s IQ - a 2012 Harvard meta-analysis and systematic review of 27 of these studies found an average lowering of IQ - most water studies were only 2 to4 time the concentration in Australian fluoridated water.

That the Centre for Disease Control has acknowledged since 1999 that the main action of fluoride is topical, not systemic (thus little need to ingest)

That at least 50 % of ingested and absorbed fluoride cannot be excreted and accumulates (mostly in bones)

The NHMRC Aus Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 acknowledges that people with kidney impairment have a lower margin of safety for fluoride intake and that their fluoride retention may be three times normal ( although there is only limited data available).

That the USA Public Health Service is in the process of lowering their recommended fluoride concentration to 0.7 ppm (across the whole of the USA) with dental fluorosis stated as the reason. This level of 0.7 ppm is significantly lower than many areas of Australia which fluoridated at 1.0 ppm.


That the chemicals mostly used in Australia Sodium Silicofluoride and Hydrofluorosilicic acid do not even exist in nature and are waste products of the phosphate fertiliser industry

That unlike toothpaste (which uses pharmaceutical grade fluorides) water is fluoridated with industrial grade chemicals which are allowed to contain heavy metal contaminants such as lead arsenic, mercury and cadmium.

Even the most ardent of fluoridation supporters will admit that fluoridation would be a balance of the benefits (reduction of tooth decay - the evidence for significant reduction is weak) and risks (the only risk they admit to is dental fluorosis) - YET Catalyst did not EVEN bring up the issue of dental fluorosis! Catalyst certainly did not bring up the issue of fluoride being a neurotoxin that can lower children’s IQ – even though the internet has been awash with this ever since the release of the 2012 Harvard meta-analysis by Choi et al ( provided to Catalyst prior to broadcast).

The Australian public thinks highly of the ABC. Catalyst has let the ABC down badly and misled the Australian public by their biased promotion of water fluoridation – redress is requested. ...

To accompany this complaint, I will also forward the emails that had been sent to Catalyst prior to their broadcast. Please particularly note where I had asked Catalyst to not broadcast misleading information such as the NHMRC 2007 review supposedly reviewing 5,500 studies.

Background and Communications sent to Catalyst PRIOR to 8 th August broadcast Friday the 26th July – I learned that Qld Health Dentist Michael Foley ( at times a full time fluoridation lobbyist for Qld Health ) had been interviewed by Catalyst on the topic of water fluoridation. In Michael Foley’s own words he was “confident of a positive story”

As Michael Foley is one of Queensland’s most active promoters of forced fluoridation, I was very concerned that Catalyst was going to do a biased broadcast promoting water fluoridation.

I then immediately phoned Catalyst and left a message on their answering machine and also emailed Catalyst with a similar message. (email sent to Catalyst Friday, 26 July 2013 4:12 PM)

Monday morning 29 July - I then emailed Catalyst again from my personal email address ... I asked Catalyst to contact me urgently because of my concern that Catalyst intended to do a very one sided story.

Thursday morning 1 August - I again emailed Catalyst. I also phoned Catalyst via the ABC switchboard and left another phone message (after being directed by a staff member on switchboard) this time my message went to a phone message ... That same afternoon, I was contacted by a female who told me that Prof Michael Moore had also been interviewed for the Catalyst program and in our brief conversation she mentioned the NHMRC (2007 NHMRC review of fluoridation) and that it had 5,500 studies in it. I advised her that it had nothing of that claimed number of studies included in the NHMRC report. As Prof Moore has written to every Qld council encouraging that forced fluoridation be continued, I became extremely concerned that Catalyst had every intention of doing a biased one sided promotion of fluoridation.

Friday morning 2 August 2013 10:07 AM – I again emailed Catalyst with concerns and I provided 5 attachments which included 3 scientific publications (2 scientific papers linking osteosarcoma to fluoridation, a 2012 Harvard study linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children and a letter from Prof Sheldon chair of the 2000 University of York review of water fluoridation.)


Monday 5th August 12:44 hrs I emailed Catalyst information on adult and child dental surveys pointing out how tooth decay had decreased in fluoridated and non –fluoridated areas alike, how there was no difference in tooth decay between Qld adults (with <5 % of population with fluoridated water) and the heavily fluoridated states in the 2004 -2006 national adult oral health surveys. Additionally how percentage claims of less tooth decay can be misleading (example of Townsville vs Brisbane was used) A second email was sent to Catalyst that day about a breaking news on the fluoride concentration in a SEQWater reservoir rising to twice what it should have been.

Tuesday 6th August 09:22 am I emailed Catalyst with a pdf of the 2006 National Research Centre report “ Fluoride in Drinking Water “ and a word doc with excerpts on health effects from the 2006 NRC report – this information should have been of concern to any researcher , yet Catalyst in their broadcast still portrayed fluoridation as being safe.

Complainant 2 also included in this submission:

a sample of the 2007 NHMRC fluoridation review citations page – showing excluded studies.

Copies of the seven emails described above.


Attachment DComplainant 3’s submissions

[Emphasis added by the complainant]

Submissions to the ABC dated 8 August 2013, and subsequent complaint to the ACMA:

Your "analysis" of the current position of fluoride in drinking water was appallingly one-eyed. Ignoring new research in USA and that more countries around the world have rejected its use in public water supplies was conveniently ignored. It is unacceptable that fluoride was not even referred to by its correct name though of course by doing that, you avoided an important issue. CALCIUM fluoride is a naturally occurring substance and present in the human body in varying degrees. If it is considered by a medical association that fluoride should be added to public water supplies, then it should be calcium fluoride - as nature intended (not that that last phrase would mean anything to the dentists on the program).

SODIUM Fluoride is what is used in public water supplies - the extremely toxic waste product of vulcanising plants and aluminium smelters to name just two industries that are forbidden (since 1920's) to dump that particular waste product in the environment.

You didn't mention the 10% of children who develop untreatable mottling of the teeth through drinking sodium fluoridated water. No mention was made of the fact that around 50% of ingested fluoride is stored in all organs of the body, including the brain. Nor was any mention made of the fact that by the age of 15 years, there is only a 50% of one tooth difference in the incidence of dental caries in children. Again, no mention of the fluorodosis of the skeleton, evident after two decades of drinking fluoridated water. The dentist on your program who tried to say that small amounts of (sodium) fluoride can be beneficial has obviously not studied the literature enough, if at all. I could go on and on about the serious and significant omissions in your program. It was, to say the least, hugely biased - not scientific at all. I would love to know who spawned the idea of a fluoride story for your program.

Thank goodness for reverse osmosis water treatment, which I have used since day one of arriving in Australia in 1981.

The Reasons Why I Consider the ABC’s Response to be Inadequate

The first point I need to draw attention to is the avoidance of a major, factual consideration occurring not only in the Catalyst program but also in the response by Denise Musto. I quote:

Section 1V Principles and Standards 2. Accuracy.

"Principles: The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. CREDIBILITY DEPENDS HEAVILY ON FACTUAL ACCURACY." (my emphasis).

Therefore, in any reference to Fluoride, particularly a science program, the kind of fluoride being considered needs to be stated since one is natural and sometimes present in the human body (calcium fluoride) while the other (hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt - silicon fluorides which are industrial fluoride products) are extremely toxic and only found in the human body if ingested. Previously at the top of the toxicology list, the list was rearranged to "mitigate" (in the eyes of the public) that form of fluoride's high level of toxicity. It has been illegal in the western world to put this toxic form of fluoride in food supplies since the 1920’s. It was never conceived of


at the time that it would ever be put into public drinking water supplies and so water was not exempted.

My second point draws attention to the part of Denise Musto’s response to my letter regarding: Impartiality 4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

In the program a dentist, Dr Michael Foley, spoke about the need to fluoridate water. It becomes easy to see why Dr Michael Foley was chosen by Catalyst to speak about Fluoridation of public water supplies, because the Catalyst program was geared to the promotion of fluoride. Yes, anti-fluoride people were given space on the program, but interestingly, Catalyst didn’t look for scientific opponents of fluoridation, of which there are plenty, so that the two “experts” on fluoridation could easily make the non-science qualified speakers look absurd or alarmist. At a public meeting in Bundy, Queensland in January 2013, Dr Michael Foley said:

"I'm here to say it is beneficial for your teeth and will save you lots of money,"

He is wrong on both counts - and clearly his comment is not evidence based, rather, old rhetoric favoured by pro-fluoridation dentists. as shown by, among many papers, A WHO study involving 12-year olds which found tooth decay rates have decreased as fast in non-fluoridated areas (Japan, The Nederlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The United Kingdom) as in fluoridated areas (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Singapore, The United Stes of America). The study does not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades. So here, the message to Dr Michael Foley is - do some much needed professional development.

In the interest of brevity, I will limit any further considerations to the following, though they are connected equally with the following three parts of the ABC Code of Practice:

[Impartiality provisions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 of the Code cited]

It was a deliberate omission in the Catalyst program to never refer to any country other than Australia in respect of the fluoridation of public water supplies. Was this a way of inferring to a possibly unknowing Australian public that most or all the rest of the world fluoridated their water? A 2012 published list by the British pro-fluoridation society shows that out of a total of 196 countries thereabouts, only 25 countries fluoridate, only 2 of which reaches 100% of the population and 12 of these reach less than 45% of their population, some as low as 2 %and 3%. Almost the whole of mainland Europe is Fluoride free. Only 10% of UK is fluoridated. These figures are important in any debate or program about the subject.

[ABC response] draws attention to a statement made in the Catalyst program by Professor Michael Moore, toxicologist. Quote:

"...one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem."

Inexplicably, irrationally, he infers that an unregulated dosage (which is what happens when everyone consumes the “medication” in drinking water) of the poisonous form of fluoride will somehow make you well. What on earth is he saying? This is an illogical and dangerous statement. No one has ever died from a lack of this poisonous form of fluoride, but many have died from its ingestion - one notable case being that of an Australian boy, in a dentist’s chair, being killed by the anaesthetic containing fluoride.


By WHO standards, the “safe” level of the poisonous form of Fluoride is already surpassed by the consumption of fish and the drinking of tea, without any consideration of that ingested from fluoridated toothpaste (particularly by young children) and the drinking of fluoridated water. Where is the logic? Where in fact, is the science?

In connection with Professor Michael Moore’s statement, Denise Musto quotes the program narration:

“… getting the dose right with water fluoridation is critical".

One does not need to have a degree in science to see the downright stupidity of such a statement when the “medication” is given in a most unregulated way - the public water supply. This is an insult to anyone’s intelligence. Can anyone claim to argue this point?

Denise Musto concludes her response to me with, quote,

“The overall conclusion from the program was that the latest science does not show a link between controlled water fluoridation and adverse health effects. “

Unfortunately, the use of the phrase “the latest science” is profoundly wrong. A recent publication, to name only one, “The Case Against Fluoride” by Connett, Beck and Micklem completely opposes Catalyst’s conclusion. A quote by Dr Connett and his co-authors says, ”We now have 23 studies from four different countries; Mexico, Iran, India and China, which indicate that moderate exposure to fluoride is lowering IQ in children," He also refers to links between fluoride and harm to one’s brain, bones, and kidneys.

And one needs to remember that the original purpose of adding the poisonous form of fluoride to drinking water to control or prevent dental caries in children is now thoroughly discredited. So what is the purpose of continuing such a practice?

If any science can show that “fluoride” can improve dentition, then why doesn’t it promote calcium fluoride? 40% of American children would not have mottled teeth. No studies have been bothered with for Australian children! No one would object to calcium fluoridation because there would be no ill effects. Simple.

...


Attachment EABC’s submissionsThe ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs’ response to Complainants 1, 2 and 3 included:

...

Program

This Catalyst segment examined the controlled addition of fluoride to drinking water to improve dental health. It focused on the Australian experience and particularly the different approach taken to decisions about water fluoridation in Queensland compared to other states. It noted that water fluoridation has been controversial in Australia and particularly in Queensland where decisions about fluoridation are made by individual councils. In some areas, residents’ concerns about the toxic properties of fluoride have been a factor in decisions not to proceed with water fluoridation. The program then examined research on the safety of water fluoridation.

Accuracy

...

Your complaint includes allegations that the segment included inaccurate information and omitted to include relevant information, such that the information presented was misleading. I have considered each of the relevant issues set out in your complaint below.

a) The segment did not mention that the biggest contributor to the rise in caries is sugar consumption; it suggested that caries develop from fluoride deficiency.

As explained above, the focus of this segment was the controlled addition of fluoride to drinking water to improve dental health. There are many causes of poor dental health, including diet, as you suggest. However, these causes of poor dental health were not the focus of the program and it was not misleading for the program to omit coverage of these matters. The segment briefly explained how fluoride works to improve dental health in the following passage:

NARRATION - So it's clear that water fluoridation works. But, how exactly? Teeth are the hardest substance in the body, primarily made up of a mineral called 'hydroxylapatite'. Fluoride, either in water or toothpaste, gets absorbed into the tooth enamel and forms a new, stronger mineral called 'fluorapatite'.Dr Michael Foley - And that stronger mineral is then more resistant to the acid that causes tooth decay. Remember Mrs Marsh used to talk about, 'It gets in like liquid gets into this chalk'? … Well, she was right. It strengthens the enamel, makes it much, much more resistant to acid. With fluoridated water, of course, you get both - you get the systemic benefit for little kiddies, and you get the much greater topical effect. You're always getting a little bit of a top-up. It's like a little fluoride treatment lots and lots of times during the day to make your teeth stronger.

This passage makes it sufficiently clear that fluoride offers protection against tooth decay by strengthening tooth enamel and making it ‘much more resistant to acid’. This explanation does not suggest that caries develop because of a ‘fluoride deficiency’ and it is not misleading.

b) The segment omitted to mention that the NHMRC have qualified their recommendation by repeatedly stating that existing studies are insufficient for firm conclusions to be drawn, particularly for people in population subgroups who may be sensitive to fluoride.


The program posed the question ‘So what is the latest science on the adverse health effects? Is there cause for concern?’. It then referred to the NHMRC report in the following passage:

NARRATION - In 2007, Australia's top research body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, released a major report on water fluoridation.

Professor Michael Moore - They reviewed 5,500 papers, and, on the basis of the papers of the highest quality, concluded that there was no association between fluoridation and illness. When you're looking at it from the position of a research scientist, it's very hard to understand the objections that people place in the presence of fluoride in water supplies. There are so many studies saying that it's safe when it's used properly.

The NHMRC report concluded that previous systematic reviews indicated that water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries has little effect on fracture risk; that there is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence or mortality; and that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on other possible negative effects. On this latter point, the NHMRC report noted that the most recent systematic review examined 25 studies and considered them all to be of low quality.

On the basis of its review, the NHMRC recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L, depending on climate.

The program’s reference to the NHMRC report was in the context of whether the latest science indicated any cause for concern in health risks posed by controlled water fluoridation. The NHMRC report was briefly and accurately summarised as indicating that the latest science did not give cause for concern. The program did not present factual content in a way that would materially mislead the audience.

The program made reasonable efforts to ensure that the material facts relevant to the NHMRC report were accurate and presented in context by relying on its own assessment of the NHMRC report, as well as the assessment given by Professor Michael Moore in the program. Professor Moore is Vice-president of the Australasian College of Toxicology & Risk Assessment and is eminently qualified to summarise the NHMRC report findings.

While I note your suggestion that the NHMRC report included specific cautions about people in population subgroups that may be sensitive to fluoride, such as people with kidney disease, I was unable to identify any relevant references in the NHMRC report. A search of the document for ‘kidney’ identified only one reference to a study by Singh et al which considered the prevalence of kidney stones. In relation to this and two other more recent studies on other possible negative effects of fluoride, the NHMRC report observed: ‘the additional studies do not suggest an increased risk of other adverse events with the level of fluoridation used in Australia (~1 ppm). The study of Singh et al (2001) involved fluoride concentrations that would not be observed in water in Australia’.

c) The segment omitted to mention the recent Harvard meta analysis on the neurological effects of fluoride on children.

In response to this aspect of your complaint, the program provided the following information:

“The recent Harvard meta analysis, which can be viewed here http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104912.pdf analysed 27 papers on fluoride neurotoxicity. 25 of


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104912.pdf


these research papers were conducted in China and the other two were in Iran. Fluoride as a compound is naturally found in plants, rocks, soil, air, food and in very low levels, in almost all fresh water. Parts of the world, including parts of China, Iran and India, naturally have very high fluoride levels. This fluoride is not added to the water supply in a controlled manner. In some cases, these nations are also affected by potential fluoride contamination, which can reach the air and water supplies through coal burning and aluminium smelters, for example. Very high, and uncontrolled fluoride consumption, can be dangerous. This was pointed out in our story where Professor Michael Moore stated: ‘It goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem.’

But, it would be misleading to compare naturally high levels of fluoridation found in China, to the controlled addition of fluoride that we experience in Australia.”

Support for the program’s observations about the different circumstances in China and Iran is found in the World Health Organisation’s 2006 publication, ‘Fluoride in drinking-water’ (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf). The lack of reference to the recent Harvard study did not mislead the program’s audience.

d) Dr Michael Foley cited skewed statistics; the difference in dental caries between Townsville and Brisbane is not 45%. The program should have included caries rates for Tasmania, the first Australian state to be fluoridated and showing the worst caries rates.

This reference occurred in the following passage:

NARRATION - In a 1996 study, the teeth of children in fluoridated Townsville were compared with those in unfluoridated Brisbane, and the difference was clear.Dr Michael Foley - On average, there was about 45% less decay in the Townsville children than what there was in the Brisbane children.

The program has provided me with a copy of the 2006 Slade et al study comparing caries rates for children in Townsville and Brisbane. The abstract notes:




There was no inaccuracy in the program’s use of the 45% figure. In any event, the program made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy by seeking comments on the study’s results from Dr Michael Foley who is Director of the Brisbane Dental Hospital and well-qualified to comment on this area. The use of the phrases ‘on average’ and ‘about’ ensured that viewers were not misled.

The program has advised that it used the Brisbane/Townsville study to illustrate the difference in dental caries because the two cities are in the same state and it is preferable to compare like with like, to minimise the risk of confounding factors such as temperature and water consumption


http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

rates. The program has also provided me with references to other studies comparing dental caries in different regions and which come to similar conclusions.

Impartiality

Your complaint alleges that the segment was a ‘propagandist presentation’ and failed to ‘present any information about the damning evidence against fluoridation’. I have considered these aspects of your complaint against the editorial standards for impartiality, specifically:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

The principles which accompany the ABC’s impartiality standards make clear that assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration of a range of factors, including (amongst other issues) the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious, the likely audience expectations of the content and the type, subject and nature of the content. The principles identify the hallmarks of impartiality as including a balance that follows the weight of evidence, fair treatment, open-mindedness, and opportunities over time for principal relevant viewpoints on matters of contention to be expressed. Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

In this case, it is relevant to note that the segment was featured on Catalyst, a program which deals with scientific issues and which audiences expect to take an evidence-based approach. The program clearly identified the subject of water fluoridation as contentious – especially in Queensland – and included interviews with State MP Stephen Bennett (Member for Burnett) and Mal Forman (Mayor of Bundaberg Regional Council) to highlight the strength of views in local Queensland communities and the challenges faced by local councils in making decisions about water fluoridation. The program also included vox pops filmed on the streets of Bundaberg, with almost every person featured expressing concern about water fluoridation and nominating the poisonous character of fluoride. This point was also reinforced in footage of Merilyn Haines, a member of the anti-fluoride lobby, addressing a public meeting.

In this way, the program made the point that the ‘poison message’ was of significant concern to people who oppose water fluoridation and set out to answer two questions: a) what is the latest science on adverse health effects?; and b) is there cause for concern? To answer these questions, the program interviewed two experts in the science – dentist Dr Michael Foley and toxicologist Professor Michael Moore. As pointed out by the program team above, Professor Moore explicitly noted “one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem.” The program narration noted that “getting the dose right with water fluoridation is critical”. It then went on to consider the most relevant research findings. The research which is most relevant deals with controlled water fluoridation, preferably at the same general level as is recommended in Australia. The two studies specifically referenced were the 2007 NHMRC study discussed above and a 2011 Harvard University which looked at the link between bone cancer and water fluoridation. The NHMRC review was very comprehensive. However, at the time it was conducted the picture in relation to cancer and water fluoridation was somewhat uncertain. The 2011 Harvard University study clarified this and concluded that there was no significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk.


The overall conclusion from the program was that the latest science does not show a link between controlled water fluoridation and adverse health effects. That the program came to this conclusion does not indicate a lack of due impartiality or an undue favouring of one perspective over others. The program took an evidence-based approach and demonstrated a balance that followed the weight of evidence, duly favouring the results of significant and credible scientific research and experts in the fields of dentistry and toxicology.

In a further response to Complainant 1 dated 27 August 2013, the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs wrote:

Thank you for your email setting out your further complaints about the segment dealing with water fluoridation broadcast on Catalyst on 8 August 2013. I have addressed your points below.

1. The program elected to interview experts in the fields of dental health (Dr Michael Foley) and toxicology (Professor Michael Moore) as these were the issues most relevant to the segment’s focus. Dr Foley was able to discuss the impact of water fluoridation on dental health and Professor Moore was able to address concerns that fluoride is a toxin and should not be added to drinking water. Both Dr Foley and Professor Moore referred to credible, peer-reviewed research in their respective fields.

The program selected Queensland as its focus because, in the program’s judgement, it is the state in which decisions about water fluoridation remain most widely controversial. It is clear on the facts that Queensland has a significantly lower water fluoridation rate than any other Australian state or territory, and is in that way in a substantially different position: in 2007, the NHMRC put the proportion of Queenslanders who had access to fluoridated drinking water at less than 5%, compared to 92% of the population in NSW (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/media/media/rel07/Fluoride_Flyer.pdf).

The program was aware of the activities of groups and individuals opposed to water fluoridation. That there is continued concern about the safety of water fluoridation and opposition to the practice was clear from the segment. However, as a science program Catalyst’s focus was not on the existence of campaigners or controversy, but on the latest, credible scientific research which could answer these concerns. It was this research that the program summarised.

As my earlier reply indicated, the fact that the program concluded that the latest science does not show a link between controlled water fluoridation and adverse health effects does not indicate a lack of due impartiality or an undue favouring of one perspective over others. The program took an evidence-based approach and demonstrated a balance that followed the weight of evidence, duly favouring the results of significant and credible scientific research and experts in the fields of dentistry and toxicology.

2. Nowhere in the program did Dr Foley or Professor Moore state that ‘all fluorides are the same’. Professor Moore referred to “one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison.” While noting your comments, I do not agree that - in the context of this program - reasonable viewers would have concluded that Professor Moore was suggesting that all toxic substances are beneficial to human health in appropriate doses.

I asked the program team for further comments in response to your concern that “[t]he biggest problem with fluoridation is that dosage of the treatment cannot be controlled” and your suggestion that Professor Moore should have been asked further questions on this point. The Catalyst team responded:


http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/media/media/rel07/Fluoride_Flyer.pdf

“The papers which look at the health effects of fluoride - be it on cancer rates or bone diseases - are based on populations that are living in water fluoridated areas. If health detriments cannot be seen in these studies, it suggests that the theoretical issues of fluoride accumulation are not borne out in the general population.

Moreover, we now have 50 years of research tracking the potential dangers of adding fluoride in the water. In this time, we would expect to see the health effects of fluoride accumulation - if they exist. As the latest scientific data has not found health differences in populations living where fluoride is added to the water, and those that do not (other than, of course, the improved dental care), it again suggests that fluoride accumulation is not a long term concern.”

In relation to dental fluorosis, the 2007 NHMRC report acknowledged that there is consistent evidence that water fluoridation results in the development of dental fluorosis, however most cases are mild and do not reach a level of ‘aesthetic concern’. Further, the NHMRC has stated that the prevalence of fluorosis has been significantly reduced with more appropriate use of other fluoride sources.

3. Your views on the quality of the 2007 NHMRC report are noted; they are not shared by the program.

4. The issue of bio-medical ethics of water fluoridation was outside the scope of this program. As explained, the segment focused on whether the latest science on adverse health effects gave any cause for concern.

The ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs added in its response to Complainant 2:

...

I note that you also object to the use in the Catalyst segment of footage of [Ms Haines] filmed by 7.30. Absent issues of privacy, etc, the issue of re-use of footage is not covered by the ABC’s Code of Practice. However, the program has advised that it sourced the footage from an ABC database which indicated that there were no restrictions on further use of the footage and on this basis the program did not seek [Ms Haines’s] permission to use the footage in the Catalyst story.

Accuracy

I have considered each of the relevant issues set out in your complaint below.

a) The segment incorrectly stated that Townsville was the only place in Queensland to have fluoridated water prior to 2007.

The narration stated:

“Up until 2007, Townsville was the only place in all of Queensland that had fluoridated water. In other States, all major population areas were covered.”

In response to this aspect of your complaint, the program team acknowledge that some other small population areas in Queensland had access to fluoridated water prior to 2007. According to the Fluoride Queensland Health Fact Sheet (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/document/fluoride_fact_sheet.pdf), “Townsville, Bamaga, Dalby, Mareeba and Moranbah councils provide water fluoridation”. The program team note that with the exception of Townsville’s population of 217,897, the number of residents who have


http://www.health.qld.gov.au/fluoride/document/fluoride_fact_sheet.pdf

access to fluoridated water in these other locations is small: Bamaga (852), Dalby (12,299 with a further 5,000 residing in the rural district), Mareeba (10,181) and Moranbah (8, 626). The program team have nonetheless annotated the transcript of the program to clarify this point. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm

I have considered whether this amounts to a breach of the ABC editorial standards for accuracy. Catalyst is a science program. The core focus of this segment was the results of scientific research on the safety of water fluoridation and, in general, facts associated with this scientific research would be considered to be material facts for the purpose of this segment. The reference to Townsville was relevant because it is a major population centre which can be (and has been) compared to other major population areas to assess the impact of fluoridation on dental health. In my view, the fact that some other small population areas outside Townsville also have access to fluoridated water was not a material fact for the purposes of this program as it has no bearing on the most recent scientific research on the safety of water fluoridation. Accordingly, the narration here did not breach ABC editorial standards.

b) The segment allowed Dr Foley to say that tooth decay in Townsville was 45% less than in Brisbane, whereas the Queensland government has claimed that the difference is 65%.

[NB the ABC’s following response is a repeat of its response as for statement (d) above]

This 45% reference occurred in the following passage:

NARRATION - In a 1996 study, the teeth of children in fluoridated Townsville were compared with those in unfluoridated Brisbane, and the difference was clear.

Dr Michael Foley - On average, there was about 45% less decay in the Townsville children than what there was in the Brisbane children.

The program has provided me with a copy of the 2006 Slade et al study comparing caries rates for children in Townsville and Brisbane. The abstract notes:




There was no inaccuracy in the program’s use of the 45% figure. In any event, the program made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy by seeking comments on the study’s results from Dr Michael Foley who is Director of the Brisbane Dental Hospital and well-qualified to comment on this area. The use of the phrases ‘on average’ and ‘about’ ensured that viewers were not misled. The 65% figure you refer to is not relevant to an assessment of the accuracy of the Catalyst segment.

c) The segment did not challenge Dr Foley’s claim that the benefits of water fluoridation for dental health extends to adults, despite being given evidence to the contrary.


http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821248.htm

The relevant passage from the segment is:

NARRATION - The evidence that fluoride improves dental health extends to adults too.Dr Michael Foley - The National Survey of Adult Oral Health was done back in 2004, 2006. Adults in fluoridated areas had significantly better teeth than adults in non-fluoridated areas.

The program has advised that Dr Foley based his comments on a March 2013 analysis of the National Survey of Adult Oral Health by Slade et al, ‘Effects of Fluoridated Drinking Water on Dental Caries in Australian Adults’, published in the Journal of Dental Research. This research concludes:

- “In this cross-sectional examination survey of a nationally representative sample of Australian adults, greater lifetime exposure to water fluoridation was associated with lower levels of caries experience”; and

- “Based on this combined body of evidence, we believe that the current findings of an inverse association between water fluoridation and caries experience provide reasonable evidence of a causal, preventive effect in Australian adults.”

There was no inaccuracy in the program’s references. In any event, the program made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy by seeking comments on the study’s results from Dr Michael Foley who is Director of the Brisbane Dental Hospital and well-qualified to comment on this area.

d) The segment included a misleading and ‘utterly ridiculous’ claim that fluoridated water has a much greater topical effect.

The reference occurred in the following passage:

NARRATION - So it's clear that water fluoridation works. But, how exactly? Teeth are the hardest substance in the body, primarily made up of a mineral called 'hydroxylapatite'. Fluoride, either in water or toothpaste, gets absorbed into the tooth enamel and forms a new, stronger mineral called 'fluorapatite'.…

Dr Michael Foley - … It strengthens the enamel, makes it much, much more resistant to acid. With fluoridated water, of course, you get both - you get the systemic benefit for little kiddies, and you get the much greater topical effect. You're always getting a little bit of a top-up. It's like a little fluoride treatment lots and lots of times during the day to make your teeth stronger.

The program has advised that Dr Foley made his comments based on research which indicates that fluoride has both a topical and systemic effect. Dr Foley notes that fluoridated water is the simplest, cheapest and safest way for communities to gain the benefits of fluoride so that community members are “always getting a little bit of a top-up”. He notes that the topical effect is not just for the few seconds that the water is in a person’s mouth; the fluoride is absorbed by the biofilm on teeth, on the tongue, in the oral mucosa and in the microroughness of tooth enamel.

There was no inaccuracy in the program’s references. In any event the program made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy by seeking comments from a credible and informed expert, Dr Michael Foley.

e) The segment included the ‘ridiculous claim’ that it could be a problem to have too little fluoride.


This reference occurred in the following passage:

NARRATION - But toxicologist Michael Moore strongly disagrees with the line taken by the anti-fluoride lobby.


I understand your complaint to be that the statement ‘If you take the right amount, it keeps you well’ should have been challenged since there is no study which shows that fluoride needs to be ingested “to live, to be healthy or even to have healthy teeth”. In my view, a reasonable viewer would not have understood Professor Moore’s remark in the way you have suggested. He is explaining, in simple and general terms, the tension between dosage and toxicity. In relation to fluoride, the suggestion that the “right amount … keeps you well” would be understood by viewers in the context of fluoridation’s proven benefits for dental health, which the segment had already discussed.

I am satisfied that this reference was not inaccurate and that the program made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy by interviewing Professor Moore who is Vice-president of the Australasian College of Toxicology & Risk Assessment and eminently qualified to explain principles of toxicology and their relevance to water fluoridation.

f) The segment included the incorrect claim that the NHMRC reviewed 5,500 papers.

The segment stated:

NARRATION - In 2007, Australia's top research body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, released a major report on water fluoridation.

Professor Michael Moore - They reviewed 5,500 papers, and, on the basis of the papers of the highest quality, concluded that there was no association between fluoridation and illness. When you're looking at it from the position of a research scientist, it's very hard to understand the objections that people place in the presence of fluoride in water supplies. There are so many studies saying that it's safe when it's used properly.

The NHMRC review notes that 5,418 non-duplicate citations were identified from a review of various databases and libraries. Reviewers then assessed the eligibility of abstracts to identify the highest quality, most reliable studies from which the review would draw its conclusions. As the NHMRC review authors states, “The aim of this review was to synthesise the highest level of evidence to answer each clinical question.” This was accurately conveyed by Professor Moore’s statement that 5,500 papers were reviewed and conclusions were based “on the basis of the papers of the highest quality”.

Impartiality

Your complaint alleges that the segment ‘took a dedicated editorial stance’, was ‘extremely partial to fluoridation’, and omitted material showing why fluoridation is controversial.

...


The NHMRC report concluded that previous systematic reviews indicated that water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries has little effect on fracture risk; that there is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence or mortality; and that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on other possible negative effects. On this latter point, the NHMRC report noted that the most recent systematic review examined 25 studies and considered them all to be of low quality. On the basis of its review, the NHMRC recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L, depending on climate.

...

You ask why the program did not refer to the findings of a 2006 study by Bassin et al which found an association in boys between exposure to fluoridated drinking water and risk of developing osteosarcoma. The program has provided the following material in response to this aspect of your complaint:

“Published in 2006, Bassin studied 103 males with osteosarcoma under 20 and 215 men without bone cancer that were of the same age. She asked the subjects where they lived, and whether they used fluoride mouth rinse or supplements. The team found that boys who grew up in communities that added at least moderate levels of fluoride to their water got bone cancer -- osteosarcoma -- more often than boys not exposed to fluoride http://curezone.us/upload/pdf/Fluoride_exposure_in_drinking_water_and_osteosarcoma.pdf

Her work was published in Cancer Causes and Control; and controversially, in the same issue, her dissertation adviser at Harvard, Chester Douglass, wrote a commentary warning readers to be “especially cautious” with these findings because, he had, unpublished data which found no significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20060406/does-fluoridation-up-bone-cancer-risk

In 2011, Douglass published a paper analysing the fluoride quantity in the bones of people with cancer and without. They figured that if chronic fluoride intake was a risk factor for osteosarcoma, then it would be found in significantly higher concentrations in cancered bones, than controls. Indeed, Douglass found no significant difference in the fluoride concentration in bone between the matched osteosarcoma case and tumor control pairs http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173011/

Other studies have concluded that water fluoridation in the U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782111001822

And again in Ireland, 183 osteosarcoma cases were recorded on the island of Ireland between 1994 and 2006, with no significant differences in incidence rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in either age-specific or age-standardised. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-011-9765-0

Our report aimed to give the most up to date research on the health effects of fluoride in the water. The current evidence suggests that fluoridation does not increase the risk of cancers, so we did not include old research.”

This explanation of the program’s approach accords with the requirements for impartiality set out above.

At the conclusion of your complaint you list a number of issues that you suggest the program should have explored to understand why water fluoridation is controversial. The program was


aware that there are a range of issues that contribute to controversy around water fluoridation. However, as a program with a clear focus on science, the program sought to explore the latest scientific research on adverse health effects. Selecting a particular aspect of a controversy for attention is not itself evidence of partiality. To the extent that the issues you have listed are relevant to adverse health effects, I have responded briefly below:

- In relation to dental fluorosis, the 2007 NHMRC review acknowledged that there is consistent evidence that water fluoridation results in the development of dental fluorosis, however most cases are mild and do not reach a level of ‘aesthetic concern’. Further, the NHMRC has stated that the prevalence of fluorosis has been significantly reduced with more appropriate use of other fluoride sources.

- In relation to the situation in other countries, the program team note that the decisions of various nations about whether or not to fluoridate their water can be based on a number of factors, including monetary considerations. They have explained that the Catalyst segment sought to examine the most relevant studies on water fluoridation, rather than political decisions taken worldwide.

- In relation to the recent Harvard meta-analysis regarding the neurological effects of fluoride on children, the program has provided the following information:

“The recent Harvard meta analysis, which can be viewed here http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104912.pdf analysed 27 papers on fluoride neurotoxicity. 25 of these research papers were conducted in China and the other two were in Iran. Fluoride as a compound is naturally found in plants, rocks, soil, air, food and in very low levels, in almost all fresh water. Parts of the world, including parts of China, Iran and India, naturally have very high fluoride levels. This fluoride is not added to the water supply in a controlled manner. In some cases, these nations are also affected by potential fluoride contamination, which can reach the air and water supplies through coal burning and aluminium smelters, for example. Very high, and uncontrolled fluoride consumption, can be dangerous. This was pointed out in our story where Professor Michael Moore stated: ‘It goes back to one of the fundamental precepts of toxicology - the dose makes the poison. You take a lot of it, you get poisoned. If you take the right amount, it keeps you well. Have too little, you've got a problem.’

But, it would be misleading to compare naturally high levels of fluoridation found in China, to the controlled addition of fluoride that we experience in Australia.”

Support for the program’s observations about the different circumstances in China and Iran is found in the World Health Organisation’s 2006 publication, ‘Fluoride in drinking-water’ (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf). The lack of reference to the recent Harvard study did not mislead the program’s audience.

In relation to accumulation, I sought comments from the program team and they responded as follows:

“The papers which look at the health effects of fluoride - be it on cancer rates or bone diseases - are based on populations that are living in water fluoridated areas. If health detriments cannot be seen in these studies, it suggests that the theoretical issues of fluoride accumulation are not borne out in the general population.


http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf



Moreover, we now have 50 years of research tracking the potential dangers of adding fluoride in the water. In this time, we would expect to see the health effects of fluoride accumulation - if they exist. As the latest scientific data has not found health differences in populations living where fluoride is added to the water, and those that do not (other than, of course, the improved dental care), it again suggests that fluoride accumulation is not a long term concern.”

In relation to the NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011, the program team has commented as follows:

“The report states that “People with kidney impairment have a lower margin of safety for fluoride intake. Limited data indicate that their fluoride retention may be up to three times normal.” Despite this, we could not find substantiated evidence from peer-reviewed published studies showing that patients with kidney impairment suffer from fluoride toxicity. For example, although their fluoride retention may be higher, their fluoride intake still most likely is lower than any dangerous threshold.

A review of the studies on the topic from 2007 concluded “There is no evidence that consumption of optimally fluoridated drinking water poses any health risks for people with Chronic Kidney Disease, although only limited studies addressing this issue are available.” http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/2763.full Our story was about the current available science (highlighted by our narration: “We now have more than 50 years of research data on the subject. So what does the science say? Should we be adding fluoride to our water supplies?”. There is no current evidence that patients with kidney disease are at risk of fluoridation toxicity.”

...

Finally, you complain that the program’s reference to [Ms Haines] as a member of the anti-fluoride lobby was ‘dismissive’ and suggest this was a deliberate attempt to denigrate [Ms Haines]. In response, the program notes that Queenslanders for Safe Water, Air and Food Inc is a lobby group and that as president of that organisation, it is accurate to describe [Ms Haines] as a lobbyist. The program further notes that [Ms Haines’s] history as a medical laboratory assistant does not give [Ms Haines] the credentials to speak as a research scientist on dental health or the health effects of fluoride in the water. I also note that [Ms Haines’s] organisation’s website notes that QSWAFI has “been actively lobbying state governments to not force fluoridation on the public” (http://www.qawf.org/?TabID=28). In the 7.30 segment from February this year, [Ms Haines] states: “We've been campaigning for six years now. And I’ve spent six years already, I'm happy to spend another six.” I am satisfied that the program’s description of [Ms Haines] as a lobbyist was reasonable and accurate and did not infringe editorial standards for impartiality.

ABC’s submissions to the ACMA

The ACMA sought comments from the ABC in relation to the impartiality provisions of the Code with respect to:

The weight of evidence - Any scientific views or evidence, in Australia or elsewhere in support of the case against fluoridation of water supplies, ie in opposition to the evidence and hypothesis in favour of fluoridation presented in the program;


http://www.qawf.org/?TabID=28

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/2763.full

Fair treatment /open mindedness - What efforts the ABC took to present any such scientific views or evidence in the program, in addition to the views of anti-fluoride groups

Opportunities over time – What efforts the ABC will take or has taken over time for such scientific views or evidence to be presented.

In response to the ACMA’s request for comment, the ABC submitted:

In gathering information for this segment, the program primarily relied upon the National Health and Medical Research Council’s 2007 systematic review of fluoride and health (available here - http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh41). Systematic reviews are fundamental to scientific knowledge and understanding. The University of York’s Centre for Reviews and Dissemination provides the following explanation of systematic reviews:

Health care decisions for individual patients and for public policy should be informed

by the best available research evidence. Practitioners and decision-makers are

encouraged to make use of the latest research and information about best practice, and

to ensure that decisions are demonstrably rooted in this knowledge. However, this

can be difficult given the large amounts of information generated by individual studies

which may be biased, methodologically flawed, time and context dependent, and can

be misinterpreted and misrepresented. Furthermore, individual studies can reach

conflicting conclusions. This disparity may be because of biases or differences in the way

the studies were designed or conducted, or simply due to the play of chance. In such

situations, it is not always clear which results are the most reliable, or which should be

used as the basis for practice and policy decisions.

Systematic reviews aim to identify, evaluate and summarise the findings of all relevant

individual studies, thereby making the available evidence more accessible to decision makers.

When appropriate, combining the results of several studies gives a more

reliable and precise estimate of an intervention’s effectiveness than one study alone.

Systematic reviews adhere to a strict scientific design based on explicit, pre-specified

and reproducible methods. Because of this, when carried out well, they provide reliable

estimates about the effects of interventions so that conclusions are defensible. As well

as setting out what we know about a particular intervention, systematic reviews can

also demonstrate where knowledge is lacking. This can then be used to guide future

research.

(http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf, footnotes omitted.)

‘Sense about Science’ has published a straightforward factsheet which provides some further explanation about the benefits of systematic reviews – see http://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/SenseAboutSystematicReviews.pdf.

The NHMRC’s systematic review provides a comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and safety of fluoride. It noted that previous systematic reviews indicated that water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries has little effect on fracture risk; that there is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence or mortality; and that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on other possible negative effects. On the basis of this systematic review, the NHMRC recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L, depending on climate.

A further specific reference was made in the Catalyst segment to a 2011 Harvard University which looked at the link between bone cancer and water fluoridation. This study was referenced


http://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/SenseAboutSystematicReviews.pdf

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh41

because although the NHMRC review was very comprehensive, at the time it was conducted the picture in relation to cancer and water fluoridation was somewhat uncertain. The 2011 Harvard University study – described by Professor Moore as ‘a very, very thorough review, large number of subjects, a highly credible bit of work’ – clarified this and concluded that there was no significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk.

Had any systematic reviews indicated that controlled fluoridation of water supplies was associated with negative health outcomes, the program would have had no hesitation in drawing attention to these studies. Should such evidence emerge from future systematic reviews, the ABC will consider appropriate coverage. At present, however, the findings of systematic reviews are usefully summarised here - http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/systematic.htm - and clearly indicate that the program’s coverage of this issue followed the weight of reliable, relevant scientific evidence and complied with the ABC’s editorial standards.

In relation to the ABC’s reference to Ms Haines in the segment, the ABC submitted:

...

Ms Haines’ history as a medical laboratory scientist does not give her the credentials to speak as a research scientist on dental health or the health effects of fluoridated water. She was described in the program as a lobbyist. This description was accurate; did not unduly favour one perspective over another; and was presented with due impartiality.


http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/systematic.htm

Attachment FList of experts referred to by complainants

Emeritus Professor Paul Connett from USA,

Professor Mark Diesendorf (UNI NSW)

Ms Merilyn Haines, Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc and retired Medical Laboratory Scientist

Professor Mark Diesendorf https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/associate-professor-mark-diesendorf

Associate Professor Niyi Awofeso http://med.unsw.edu.au/people/associate-professor-niyi-awofeso

List of opposition in other states of Australia


List of studies provided by the complainants

Dr Mark Diesendorf – letter re fluoridation advising that fluoridation is ‘unsafe, ineffective , and unethical’

Affidavit of Albert Schatz Ph.D in Circuit Court case – Safe Water Association, Inc, vs. City of Fond DU LAC

Gerald Steel New York Attorney – Fluoride

Fluoride – New Grounds for Concern – The Ecologist Vol. 16, 1986 Fluoride – New Grounds for Concern by Mark Diesendorf and Philip R.N. Sutton

Hopkins DDS – letter re Fluoridation concerns

Policy position on ingested fluoride and fluoridation - International Academy of Medicine and Toxicology

Richard Sauerheber letter re FDA concerns – 7/3/13

Professor Trevor A Sheldon – Letter re University of York Review – 9/10/04

A Review of the 2010 Fluoride Literature – 2011 – Tara Blank, Ph.D. – Fluoride Action Network

Fluoride Increases Lead Content in Blood – 2010 – journal Toxicology - Sawana RMM (a), Leite GAS (a), Saraiva MCP (a), Barbosa Jr. F (b), Tanus-Santos JE (c), Gerlack RF (a)study

Fluoride and Human IQ studies - Review of 23 published studies - (Harvard Review July 2012): http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

Slides of Dr Michael Foley’s presentation to Japanese Dentists - How to Introduce Fluoridation

Documents obtained from NHMRC pursuant to a Freedom of Information request









http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an

%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking

%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf


Gerald Steel PE – Olympia WA – Summary – International Academy of Oral Medicine

and Toxicology.

Phyllis Mullenix:


Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: The legal fiction of water fluoridation – David

Shaw – Medical Law International – http://mli.sagepub.com

Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia – Niyi Awofeso – 2012 – Oxford

University Press.

Fluoride toxicity is more acute in the presence of iodine and magnesium deficiency.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/374/files/374264-270.pdf

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=904

Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820538

Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.5650051392/abstract

Professor Cummins on Fluoride and Genotoxicity (2012):

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Drinking%20Water%20Fluoridation%20%20is

%20Genotoxic%20and%20Teratogenic.pdf

Calcium sensitization induced by sodium fluoride in permeabilized rat mesenteric

arteries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20221280

Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery

disease http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Abstract/2012/01000/

Association_of_vascular_fluoride_uptake_with.3.aspx

'The Fluoride Deception' - http://www.amazon.com/The-Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-

Bryson/dp/1583227008


the 2006 publication on Osteosarcoma by E Bassin et al

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity : a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis “ by

researchers Anna Choi et al published in the US Federal govt journal Environmental

Health Perspectives.

The Case Against Fluoride by Connett, Beck and Micklem



http://mli.sagepub.com/






Attachment GConsiderations to which the ACMA has regard in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character

The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion.

In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context, i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer.

The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.

Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.

The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.

Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.


Attachment HIn determining whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under Standard 4 of the Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations:

The meaning conveyed by the relevant material is assessed according to what an ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed. The Court’s interpretation of the ordinary reasonable viewer has been detailed above in the considerations under accuracy.

Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgement, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter in respect of what is broadcast. In this regard:

The ACMA applies the ordinary English meaning of the word ‘impartial’ in interpreting the Code. The Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition)9 defines ‘impartial’ as: ‘not partial; unbiased; just’. It defines ‘partial’ to include: ‘biased or prejudiced in favour of a person, group, side, etc., as in a controversy’. ‘Bias’ is defined as: ‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question’.

The ACMA considers that a helpful explanation of the ordinary English usage of the term ‘bias’ is set out by Hayne J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng10 as follows:

‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.11 It may be occasioned by interest in the outcome, by affection or enmity, or, as was said to be the case here, by prejudgement. Whatever its cause, the result that is asserted or feared is a deviation from the true course of decision-making, for bias is ‘anything which turns a man to a particular course, or gives the direction to his measures’.

A perspective may be quite reasonably favoured if all the evidence supports it; it is only where the favouring is undue in some way that the Code is breached.

A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of Standard 4.1 has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

Presenters and reporters can play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language. The manner in which a report is presented or reported can influence the conclusions that an ordinary reasonable listener would draw from a broadcast.

The nature of current affairs reporting requires reporters and presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis of important issues. However, while probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgement.

9 Online edition at http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au 10 (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 [183] Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 [100] agreeing.11 Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), meaning 3(a).


http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/