Something's in the water at the ABC

Eucalyptus nitens is a naturally-occuring species in Melbourne’s water supply catchments which meet the needs of 4 million people, and there should be little difference in leaf chemistry between these natural forests and the trees growing in Tasmanian plantations beyond natural variations due to age.

To be fair, “Something in the Water” used a term that is frequently used by the plantation industry. However, it was derelict in not seeking clarification from the industry as to what genetic improvement actually means.

Wrongly implying that plantation management is a factor in the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease: In “Something in the Water”, it was intimated on several occasions that there may be a link between plantation management and the initiation and spread of the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD). This allegation was first made by Drs Bleaney and Scammell in 2004 when considerably less was known about DFTD. Since then research by the Menzies Institute and the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program has shown that DFTD is not caused or influenced by the use of pesticides in the management of forestry plantations. Unfortunately, the program failed to draw this research to the attention of its viewers.

Arguably, if all these matters had been properly addressed, there would be far less of a story to be told and certainly far less hysteria surrounding the issue. A cynical view is that Australian Story elected not to fully address these matters so as not to invalidate an otherwise “good” story.

Certainly, Australian Story appears to have made little effort to canvas views about these matters beyond the opinions of Drs Bleaney and Scammell. They did not even contact the peak Tasmanian forest industry body, FIAT, until Thursday, February 11, just days before the first episode was to be screened on the following Monday, February 15.

It is thought that the program was actually filmed last year, but was held over to be screened during the Tasmanian election campaign. If true, this suggests that although the ABC obviously believed there was a serious public health issue affecting the people of St Helens, they deemed it to be less important than delaying the screening of the program to help facilitate a particular political outcome.

This delay has potential health implications that may be being further exacerbated. In the wake of the program, when the Tasmanian Director of Public Health sought to test the hypothesis and asked for Drs Bleaney and Scammell’s data, he was referred to their lawyers. Government Senator Kerry O’Brien later raised this in the Senate, where he observed:

What is most concerning is that these claims, which apparently are not allowed to be properly examined by the public health authorities, are out there in the public arena. There are aquaculture operators who have to sell their product in an environment where an untested claim suggests there is a toxic substance affecting the product they are growing. On that ground alone, one would have thought there was some obligation by those who produce the material to allow it to be publicly tested. Equally, there is the suggestion that this toxic substance, as it finds its way into public drinking water, is going to affect public health. One would have thought that, on public health grounds, Dr Bleaney would have accepted the need for a public examination of those claims, lest the public be alarmed by claims made in the media.

If the ABC was genuinely acting in the public interest they would have alerted the Director of Public Health to the details of Bleaney and Scammell’s updated hypothesis months ago when they first became aware of it. If this hypothesis is subsequently proven to be wrong, its over-zealous promotion by the ABC will have considerably damaged Tasmania’s clean and green image - and consequently its socio-economic fabric - for little more than a self-serving grab for political relevance.