complaintbbc doherty
-
Upload
spin-watch -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of complaintbbc doherty
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
1/37
1
BACKGROUND NOTES TO THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS
COMMITTEE
Horizon: Jimmys GM Food Fight
BBC Two, 25 November 2008
Appeal by
1. The programme
This edition of Horizon was about how Jimmy Doherty, a pig farmer and one-timescientist who was first seen on TV as the subject of the documentary about hisfarming tribulations in Jimmys Farm, went to the US, Argentina and Uganda to findout if genetically modified crops could feed the world, or if they were a technologythat could start an environmental disaster.
2. The complaint
The programme failed to meet the requirements of due impartiality in several ways.
Stage 1
The complainant wrote initially to BBC Complaints on 6 December 2008
The complainant said he did not believe that the programme was a balanced review
of GM crops.
Subtly devised and edited its overall presentation and supply of informationserved biotech aims to try to rehabilitate GM in the minds of the Britishpublic. The programme appears to have been constructed under the guidanceof person(s) involved in GM biotech of its promotion
The complainant said the programme served to resurrect discredited claims andpretensions for GM crops
and failed to give balancing time/footage to serious scientific findings of
harm, legally enforced revelations of damage found in GM producers ownanimal feeding studies and farmers bad experiences of GM in India.
The complainant said that the published evidence in the case of Indian states was soextensive that it could only have been wilfully ignored by those involved in framingthe programme.
The complainant went on to list a number of specific examples.
The complainant concluded that Horizon
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
2/37
2
should take the trouble to resist producing industry framed propagandadressed up to give an appearance of balance. If Horizon insists on obligingbig money linked influences then its time the BBC bosses floated it off to thecommercial channels where its infomercials might sit more appropriately.
Jonathan Carberry, BBC Complaints, replied to the complainant on 12January 2009
Mr Carberry said that he understood that the complainant believed the programmewas biased in favour of the GM crops industry. He noted the specific examples thecomplainant had provided.
Mr Carberry said the question of GM crops and
whether its a technology we should support is one of the most topical
scientific questions of the moment.
Mr Carberry added that in recent months, the debate over GM crops had reached
an intensity beyond anything seen in the last decade.
Mr Carberry said that for the past ten years the prevailing public opinion of GMcrops had been negative. But with the world in the midst of a food crisis:
we felt it was the perfect time for Horizon to cover the issue and try to
bring some clarity to the issue by seeing how the evidence supports each sideof the debate.
Mr Carberry said that although the complainant disagreed:
we believe the film was carefully balanced to take in both sides of the GMdebate.
Mr Carberry went on to say that Jimmy Doherty met and interviewed prominentanti-GM campaigners in both Europe and the US. Mr Carberry added that theprogramme also investigated the evidence for both the environmental and health
risks of GM and
given those risks the programmes conclusion is that any futuredevelopment of GM should be done with great care.
The complainant replied to Jonathan Carberry, BBC Complaints on 12
January 2009
The complainant said he did not accept the rejection of his complaint.
The complainant went on to respond to the points made in the letter from BBCComplaints.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
3/37
3
The complainant responded to the paragraph in which Mr Carberry said that thedebate about GM crops had reached an intensity beyond anything seen in the lastdecade.
The complainant said this was because
the industry, its partner institutions, practitioners and promoters arecynically misrepresenting causation of major events to exploit them asjustifications for their hazardous technology and to overcome consumerreluctance. The co-option of willing media channels serves that end.
The complainant then went on to address the claim that this had been the perfecttime for Horizon to cover the issue and his assertion that the film was carefullybalanced to take in both sides of the GM debate.
The complainant said that the timing was perfect for the industry
but distinctly the broadcast gave carefully selected aspects which GMadvocates wish to present but certainly did not properly expose both side ofeach example in a balanced way.
The complainant next considered Mr Carberrys statement that Jimmy Doherty hadmet and interviewed prominent anti-GM campaigners in both Europe and the US.
The complainant said that the programme did not given a balanced amount of time
or include the most relevant questions. This was token attempt atbalance.(sic)
The complainant went on to respond to the programmes conclusion that any futuredevelopment of GM should be done with great care.
The complainant said that the programme had deliberately omitted to show theextensive negative consequences and events for the given cases.
You fully avoided the major catastrophes created by GM agriculturalapplications many serious adverse animal GM feeding studies hidden butnow exposed
The complainant also drew attention to the
hype and tragedy of the JICs GM purple tomato I have learned thatfor two years there has been a naturally bred Italian purple tomato, with theproclaimed traits. Why was this not mentioned?
The complainant concluded by saying that
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
4/37
4
the programme shows how easily Horizon becomes a conduit ofadvocacy for a multibillion problematic technology and misleads viewers.
Ciaran McConnell, BBC Complaints, replied to the complainant on 5
February 2009
Ms McConnell acknowledged receipt of the complainants letter and said it would beresponded to as soon as possible.
Gemma McAleer, BBC Complaints, replied to the complainant on 17
March 2009
Ms McAleer said the complainants concerns had been raised with the producer ofthe programme.
The programme producer said the aim of the programme had been to provide abalanced overview of the science relating to GM crop technology.
It did not set out to investigate the political and social issues
The programme producer said the programme was carefully researched and clearedthrough the BBC editorial policy department.
The programme producer said the programme appreciated there were passionateand deeply held views on both side of the GM debate.
The programme producer went on to quote the programme conclusions which said
Im still not sure we need GM crops in the developed world crops thatare being grown at the moment are not going to save the world. Theyregood for farmers and theyre good profits but while there are lingeringdoubts about the safety of GM, I think we need to proceed very carefully
The programme producer added a final conclusion that said that any real benefits
are 10, 15, 20, 50 years in the future
and went on to say that it was therefore difficult to see how
you can interpret the programme as being unbalanced in favour of GMfoods.
The programme producer said the conclusion that Jimmy Doherty reached at theend of the programme that supported continued research into GM crops wasnot an unusual one.
Given that it is generally accepted that food production has to increase tofeed a growing population it is not unreasonable to suggest that all
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
5/37
5
technologies with the potential to help should be carefully explored, includingtransgenic technology.
The programme producer said this same view had been widely expressed elsewhereand went on to give examples and web links.
The programme producer told the complainant that if he continued to haveconcerns with the programme, he should get in touch with the Editorial ComplaintsUnit (ECU).
Stage 2
The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU), the
second stage of the BBCs complaints procedure on 24 March 2009
The complainant said that links to endorsements of the pretensions of GM croppingdid not affect the complaint he had made.
The complainant said that he had noted the response claiming balance when theconcluding words of the programme were quoted, but the complainant added
a 45 minute programmes balance is not determined by a couple ofcautionary sentences from its presenter.
The complainant went on to say that
The structure and selected examples of GM cropping was a parade ofunchallenged supposed GM successes. Interviews with dissenters werewholly unmatched against these GM wonder stories.
The complainant said that no examples of major GM problems, contaminations orlarge failures affecting
these very crops were included, let alone even bigger ones with othercrops. Major issues attending the particular given examples were nothighlighted.
The complainant concluded
This Horizon piece is four star biotech pr and has more than thefingerprints of person(s) involved in the industry, John Innes Centre or likeinstitution. Horizon does not acknowledge them in its production
The complainant added
Pretence of balance in programme making is not good enough.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
6/37
6
Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU)
replied to the complainant on 25 March 2009
Mr Tregear said his understanding of the complaint was that
the programme lacked balance and impartiality because it was a paradeof unchallenged gm successes.
Mr Tregear added that he believed the relevant guidelines were those on Impartialityand Diversity of Opinion, including the sections on Achieving Impartiality andControversial Subjects. The section on Personal View and Authored Programmecould also be relevant.
The complainant replied to Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial
Complaints Unit (ECU) on 25 March 2009
The complainant said that while it might be convenient to reduce his complaint toone phrase, this was not acceptable to the complainant.
I do not find the efforts so far at dismissing my points of objection as validPlease read and understand all of my submissions. They have not beendiminished by earlier responses from your process.
Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU)
replied to the complainant on 26 March 2009
Mr Tregear apologised if the complainant believed that the summary of his complaintgave the impression that the points the complainant had made in previouscorrespondence were dismissed.
Mr Tregear said that in order to ensure that he had understood the complainantsspecific concerns, he would attempt to outline them.
Mr Tregear went on to say that in essence, the complainant appeared to besuggesting that the programme had failed to meet the requirements for dueimpartiality in several ways.
Mr Tregear went on to list eight concerns.
The first concern was that
the editing of the programme and the information included servedbiotech aims to try to rehabilitate GM in the minds of the British public. Itpresented aspects of the GM debate which the industry wishes to presentbut did not expose both sides to the same examination either in time on airor in the nature of the challenging questions posed.
The second concern was that
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
7/37
7
Contributors such as JIC Norwich, Doug Gurian-Sherman etc resulted in alack of balance in the presentation of an appropriate range of views. Theirareas of expertise and knowledge were not clearly presented to the viewer,resulting in a misleading impression being given.
The third concern was that
The programme presented discredited claims and pretensions for GMcrops and failed to balance this with serious scientific findings of harm; suchas experiences in India, North and South America.
Mr Tregear went on to say that the complainant said this evidence was
wilfully ignored or deliberately omitted e.g. rice contamination, adverse
animal GM feeding studies.
The fourth concern was that
The filming locations and scripts concentrated on claimed legitimacy for GMagriculture but failed to balance this with other examples.
Mr Tregear went on to quote the complainant who claimed
Not one experienced serious negative was shown.
The fifth concern was that
The programme did not explain the problematic consequences of producingGM food the emphasis was on the environmental and health benefits e.g.references to the sequences on sausages and purple tomatoes.
The sixth concern was that
no mention was made of the benefits of crops developed without GMmethods e.g. drought
The seventh concern was that
the programme gave the misleading impression that GM crops will solvethe worlds food shortage without explaining that food aid is often used forpolitical ends to encourage dependency.
The eighth concern was that
the programme amounted to industry framed propaganda .
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
8/37
8
Mr Tregear concluded that he intended to consider the points the complainant hadraised against the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion.
The complainant replied to Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial
Complaints Unit (ECU) on 26 March 2009
The complainant said he wanted to make some adjustments (shown in italics) to thesummary Mr Tregear had sent him.
On the first point, the complainant made the following adjustments
the composition andediting of the programme and the contentserved biotech aims to try to rehabilitate GM in the minds of the British public. It
gave selectedaspects of GM activitywhich the industry wishes to present asproof of a safe, environmentally and economically sound technology, but did not
expose the illustrated examples to available contradictory evidence on all counts.The programme carefully avoided many known different GM crop as well as same
GM crop failures.
On the second point, the complainant made the following adjustments
The FDA experience and inside regulatory knowledge of Doug Gurian-Shermanwas not declared, nor was his more extensive knowledge of risk and harm of GM
food ingestion elicited.This contributed to lack of balance in the presentation ofan appropriate range of views. Areas of expertise and knowledge were not
clearly presented to the viewer, resulting in a misleading impression beinggiven. Similarly interviews with Lord Melchett did not ask or attempt to draw outthe greater factual basis which discredits GM agriculture.
On the third point, the complainant made the following adjustments
The programme presented discredited claims and pretensions for GMcrops and failed to balance this with serious scientific findings and extensivehuman experience of harm, such as inAsia, North and South America.Alsomajor incidents of unapproved GM rice and corn contamination, involving extremely
high cost corrective measures. Many adverse animal GM feeding studies, human
health harm, livestock deaths, below par and even zero yields. The absence of suchevidence from the programme indicates something very odd about the research and
planning for it. It suggests influence other than chance or inadvertence.
The complainant agreed with the fourth point.
On the fifth point, the complainant made the following adjustments
The programme did not explain the problematic consequences of producingGM food claims were made as fact for claimed environmental and health
advantages e.g. to the sausage tasting and forlorn GM purple tomatoes, without
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
9/37
9
reference to successfully produced non GM ones. Ample statistics discredit yield
claims for current GM crops.
On the sixth point, the complainant made the following adjustments
No mention was made of the benefit of special trait crops already developedwithout GM methods e.g. drought tolerance
On the seventh point, the complainant made the following adjustments
the programme taken en bloc generates the misleading impression thatGM technology is a safe mode of cropping with yield advantage.
On the eighth point, the complainant made the following adjustments
it is industry framed propaganda dressed up to pass as balanced. the history and conduct of JIC in the development and promotion of GM
seeds, their contractual relationships with the major biotech companies is
unmentioned.
The complainant added another four points.
The first of the point added by the complainant was
the history and conduct of JIC in the development and promotion of GMseeds, their contractual relationships with the major biotech companies isunmentioned.
The second point added by the complainant was
The external guiding personality/ies in the design of the programme leadingto the inclusion and editing of the particular material is not openly declared.Who were they? Why are they not declared?
The complainant added that the earlier responses to his complaint did not addressthis.
The third point added by the complainant was
The concluding brief caveats from Jimmy Doherty do not erase from theviewers mind the preceding bulk of the programme.
The fourth point added by the complainant was
suggesting that everything is fine with GM agriculture, hindered only by
uninformed opponents. By failing to properly cover the factual challenges tothe GM idyll the Horizon programme itself reinforces this.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
10/37
10
Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU)
replied to the complainant on 16 April 2009
Mr Tregear told the complainant the Programme Producer, Mr Lachmann was
filming out of the country and was not back in the UK until May 5.
Mr Tregear said it was important to discuss the points the complainant had raisedwith the programme producer to give him an opportunity to respond.
Mr Tregear added he might not be able to conclude his investigation within thetimeframe originally set out.
The complainant replied to Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial
Complaints Unit (ECU) on 16 April 2009
The complainant said he wanted to repeat a question which he had posed when firstmaking his complaint which had not been answered
Is Horizon producer Michael Lachmann related to Sir Peter Lachmann?
Colin Tregear. Complaints Director, Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU)
replied to the complainant on 16 April 2009
Mr Tregear said he did not know the answer to the complainants question but
do not believe it is relevant to my investigation Mr Lachmanns role inthe making of this programme was clearly a significant one but I dont think itwould be appropriate to draw any kind of conclusion about his motives orjudgment based on who he may or may not be related to.
Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU)
wrote to the complainant on 14 May 2009.
The complaint was considered in relation to the Editorial Guidelines, in
particular the guidelines on Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion. The
ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds:
Mr Tregear said that he had watched the programme, discussed the complainantscomplaint with the programme makers and carried out some additional researchinto the points the complainant had raised.
Mr Tregear told the complainant he would deal with each of his specific points inturn.
Mr Tregear also noted that the complainants
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
11/37
11
overarching concern is that this programme failed to meet the requiredlevel of impartiality..
Mr Tregear went on to say that it was worth noting the specific section of theguideline on Achieving Impartiality.
This makes it clear that achieving due impartiality depends on a variety offactors including the type of programme, the subject matter, and theapproach that the programme takes.
Mr Tregear said that in this case, he believed this raised two specific issues whichwere relevant
the authored nature of the programme and the controversial subjectmatter.
Mr Tregear said the programme was presented as a
personal investigation into the issues raised by GM food by the farmer,Jimmy Doherty, who is well known for promoting traditional methods offarming.
Mr Tregear said this approach was signposted at the start of the programme whenMr Doherty explained:
Now I love the way that I farm. But I am a realist and I realise that the way Iproduce food wont feed the world. But a lot of people think the only way to do that
is to use biotechnology, GM crops. And Im not sure about that. I dont know if its
safe or not. I dont know what the consequences are. But what if the answer to
feeding the hungry is to use biotechnology?
Mr Tregear said he believed the audience would therefore have been aware that theviews expressed by Mr Doherty, and the conclusions he reached, were his own,based on the people he spoke to and the information he gained.
Mr Tregear continued
the second point is that the personal nature of Mr Dohertys investigation has to be set against the subject matter.
Mr Tregear said the issue of GM food was one which was highly contentious andprompted strong opinions. It was also a subject on which there was a wide range ofopinion.
I therefore think that regardless of Mr Dohertys personal impressions, itwas necessary for the programme to ensure that the programme was fair and
open-minded when examining the evidence and that it presented an objective
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
12/37
12
analysis of the issues, recognising there is a wide range of views on thesubject.
Mr Tregear added that the issue of what to include in a programme had long beenregarded as a matter of editorial judgement for programme makers and not
something on which it was appropriate for the ECU to express an opinion.
The only exception .. is where the failure to include certain facts or pointsof view leads to a lack of even-handedness and objectivity.
Mr Tregear said he therefore proposed to address the complainants concerns aboutwhat was excluded from the programme on that basis.
Mr Tregear said he would address each of the complainants specific points, using thesummary that was previously agreed, although in a slightly changed order and with
some points taken together.
Mr Tregear addressed the first three points:
1. The programme was industry framed propaganda dressed up topass as balanced.
2. The composition and editing of the programme and the contentserved biotech aims to try to rehabilitate GM in the minds of the
British public. It gave selected aspects of GM activity which the
industry wishes to present as proof of a safe, environmentally andeconomically sound technology, but did not expose the illustrated
examples to available contradictory evidence on all counts. The
programme carefully avoided many know different GM crop as well
as same GM crop failures.
3. The filming locations and script concentrated on claimedlegitimacy for GM agriculture but failed to balance this with other
examples. Not one experienced serious negative was shown.
Mr Tregear said the aim of the programme was to investigate the science relating to
GM crops and food, and consider whether technology might be the answer to thegrowing demand for food worldwide.
Mr Tregear said this was clearly explained at the start of the programme, in thesection Mr Tregear had referred to.
Mr Tregear went on to say that Mr Doherty was well know as someone whopractised environmentally friendly and sustainable farming and began theprogramme expressing his concerns about the safety of GM foods and his doubtsabout its potential benefits:
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
13/37
13
Im wondering if its a technology that we should all adopt. A lot of people if they
hear that would think its a bit strange because of the way I farm. Im all about
traditional breeds, free range, that whole wholesome thing. But in terms of science
and coming from a science background, I think the technology is fascinating. There
needs to be a lot of science done on GM so weve got a better understanding, but I
dont think its right to straight away brush it aside as the devils work. Because youcant have an opinion about something until youve seen all the facts; so Im here to
see all the facts.
Mr Tregear said it seemed to him that this set the tone for the programme
an open minded analysis of the facts behind the science.
Mr Tregear said he was sorry that the complainant believed the programmepresented
a one-sided view which amounted to a parade of unchallenged GMsuccess stories but I have to say that wasnt the impression I gained.
Mr Tregear went on to say that he noted the first reference to GM described it as
as one of the most controversial solutions to world food shortages andthroughout the programme Mr Doherty consistently reminded viewers thatopinion is divided on benefits, and the risk, of GM crops.
Mr Tregear gave the example of when Mr Doherty went to Argentina to see thewide scale production of genetically modified soya beans and he explained thepotential benefit that
Farmers can grow more beans using less herbicide. Its made soya farming much
more profitable and Im wondering if its a technology that we should all adopt
Mr Tregear said that Mr Doherty had added that because the GM crops were grownacross such a vast area, farmers were able to maximise their profits.
Mr Tregear also pointed out that Mr Doherty had balanced this by referring to the
need for more research into GM to ensure a better understanding of the risks andsaid
there is a downside to the soya boom huge areas of natural forest are being
burned down and cleared to make way for more fields.Mr Tregear said this seemed to him
an appropriately even-handed and objective approach which avoided givingthe kind of one-sided impression you suggest, and one which was maintained
throughout the programme.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
14/37
14
Mr Tregear said that Mr Doherty went to Bavaria to join an anti-GM demonstrationand talk to those who support direct action, but also visited an Amish communitywhere some farmers were using a type of corn which had been modified to make itresistant to insect attack.
Mr Tregear said that half way through the programme, Mr Doherty offered thefollowing analysis:
Ive seen how it (GM) can offer great potential for the future. Ive seen how it has
affected a countrys economy. Ive seen a bit of the bad side. But for me, in theory
at least, the science is amazing and it offers an element of hope. But theres a
couple of things that really bug me. One is the effect on human health over a long
period if were eating the stuff. And two, the effect on the environment, which we
dont really know about yet.
Mr Tregear said he was satisfied that
such qualified comments were sufficient to avoid giving the misleadingimpression that GM is irrefutably safe and environmentally sound.
Mr Tregear went on to consider the complainants claim that the programmedeliberately did not feature any incidences of GM crop failures and said thecomplainant had cited this as further evidence of bias.
Mr Tregear said he had put this claim to the programme makers. The programme
makers told Mr Tregear that the content of the programme was
based on peer review scientific studies, and they were unable to find anexamples of the kind to which you refer that could be substantiated by peerreviewed evidence or research.
Mr Tregear said that in the complainants correspondence, the complainant referredto cases of farmers bad experience with GM in India, South and North America but
from what I can establish, such evidence is largely anecdotal orcircumstantial.
Mr Tregear added that the programme did reflect some of the main concerns aboutGM and went on to give the example about the possibility of cross contamination:
But there are also other concerns about GM crops impact on nature. One of the
biggest is gene flow. Pollen from GM plants can cross-fertilise other closely related
species and can spread the modified genes into the environment. Gene flow is a
real concern and there have been documented cases of it around the world. So far
the insecticidal BT genes from GM cotton hasnt crossed into wild plants. But the
scientists have to consider the consequences if it does happen.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
15/37
15
Mr Tregear said the point was repeated by Lord Melchett in the programme, as wellas Lord Melchetts concerns to the potential threat to wildlife.
Mr Tregear said that the scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman explained at length theconcerns about the threat to human beings from eating food derived from GM.
Mr Tregear concluded that the
overarching impression which I think viewers would have gained was one ofuncertainty about the potential benefits of GM.
Mr Tregear added while there didnt seem to be any scientific evidence to prove thatcommercially grown GM crops were harmful to people, animals or the environment,there was still widespread concern about the risks. Mr Tregear added that this wascovered in Point 10
Mr Tregear said that Mr Doherty had explained in his conclusion that GM cropscould help to feed the world and tackle disease but there were also potentialdangers.
As he said while there are lingering doubts about the safety of GM I think weneed to proceed very carefully.
Mr Tregear concluded that bearing this in mind, he did not believe the programmewas one-sided or biased in the manner which was suggested by the complainant and
therefore he was not upholding this aspect of the complainants complaint.
Mr Tregear went on to consider the fourth point.
4. The programme taken en bloc generated the misleadingimpression that GM technology is a safe mode of cropping with
yield advantage.
Mr Tregear said the programme addressed both the potential benefits and thepossible drawbacks of GM crops and foods.
there were numerous occasions when Mr Doherty highlighted theconcerns about the safety of GM.
Mr Tregear said the programme included interviews with Lord Melchett and anti-GMprotestors in Germany who explained their concerns about cross contamination.
the programme explained that many African leaders rejected supplies ofGM maize because of concerns about the safety of GM (even when facingwidespread famine); it explained that all GM crops (such as the purpletomato and the GM banana trials in Uganda) have to undergo lengthy and
rigorous testing before they can be used commercially.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
16/37
16
Mr Tregear said there were interviews with experts who spoke about the threat towildlife and the environment, and the unknown dangers of eating foods producedfrom GM ingredients.
Mr Tregear again quoted Jimmy Doherty
This is the question that concerns me most about GM crops: are they safe to eat?
There are 300 million Americans who had better hope that theyre safe because
theyve been eating them for more than 10 years, even though some people worry
they might cause allergies or even cancer.
Mr Tregear said that he was unable to agree with the complainant that theprogramme misled the audience about the safety of GM.
Mr Tregear said the complainant had also claimed that the programme gave the
misleading impression that GM crops produce higher yields.
Mr Tregear said he was unable to find any such reference in the programme andnoted that
none of the GM crops currently cultivated have been modified toincrease yield: the modifications are to increase resistance to herbicides andinsects.
Mr Tregear concluded he therefore did not have grounds to uphold this aspect of
the complainants complaint.
Mr Tregear then considered the fifth point.
5. The programme presented discredited claims and pretensions forGM crops and failed to balance this with serious scientific findings
and extensive human experience of harm such as in Asia, North
and South America. Also major incidents of unapproved GM rice
and corn contamination, involving extremely high cost corrective
measures. Many adverse animal GM feeding studies, human health
harm, livestock deaths, below par and even zero yields. The
absence of such evidence from the programme indicates somethingvery odd about the research and planning for it. It suggests
influence other than chance or inadvertence.
Mr Tregear said the programme certainly highlighted some of the potential benefitsof GM and
that seems to be both reasonable and necessary in a programme whichset out to examine the science behind GM crops.
Mr Tregear said however, that he was unable to agree with the complainantsdescription of discredited claims and pretensions
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
17/37
17
which seemed to suggest that the programme makers knowingly misledthe audience.
Mr Tregear said he had already referred to the numerous occasions when the
programme highlighted the widespread doubts about GM such as crosscontamination and the possible threat to the human health
which I believe was sufficient to address this particular concern.
Mr Tregear said he was unable to find any serious scientific findings which confirmedthat GM was responsible for harm to the human health.
Mr Tregear noted that the complainant had referred to the US Centre for DiseaseControl
which suggests the arrival of GM food is linked to a rise in food allergieswithout citing any evidential basis for this claim.
Mr Tregear said if the complainant wanted to direct him to specific studies orreports, he would be happy to review this point.
Mr Tregear went on to point out that the general concern about the possibledamage to animal health was acknowledged by the programme when Mr Dohertyexplained
some GM varieties grown in the laboratory have caused allergic reactions in
animals.
Mr Tregear said as far as he could establish, the cases of rice and corn contaminationappeared to be due to the unauthorised mixing of GM and conventional seeds.
This raised issues of procedure and regulation rather than anything to dowith the science or efficacy of GM crops and so I think it was legitimate notto include it in the programme.
Mr Tregear concluded he was unable to uphold this aspect of the complainantscomplaint.
Mr Tregear than addressed the sixth point.
6. The history and conduct of JIC in the development and promotionof GM seeds, their contractual relationships with the major biotech
companies is unmentioned.
Mr Tregear said the John Innes centre was one of the largest plant research
institutes in the world and one of the leading centres in plant genetics.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
18/37
18
It describes itself as an independent, international centre of excellence inplant science and microbiology.
Mr Tregear said his understanding was that the majority of the funding came fromthe tax-payer through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC).
Mr Tregear added that it might also receive funding from industry
but that is normal practise in many areas of scientific research.
Mr Tregear said the centre was featured in the programme to explain the sciencebehind the genetic modification of plants in a way which the audience would be ableto understand
and that seems to be entirely legitimate.
Mr Tregear said he believed viewers would understand that an organisation whichcarried out work into GM was likely to do so because of the potential benefits
and would therefore expect it to be positive about the science.
Mr Tregear concluded that he did not believe there were grounds to uphold thiscomplaint.
Mr Tregear addressed the seventh point.
7. The FDA experience and the inside regulatory knowledge of DougGurian-Sherman was not declared, nor was his more extensive
knowledge of risk and harm of GM food ingestion elicited. This
contributed to a lack of balance in the presentation of an
appropriate range of views. Areas of expertise and knowledge
were not clearly presented to the viewer, resulting in a misleading
impression being given. Similarly interviews with Lord Melchett did
not ask or attempt to draw out the greater factual basis which
discredits GM agriculture.
Mr Tregear said the programme-makers told him they had chosen to include DougGurian-Sherman in the programme because he was one of the most respectedscientists in his field.
Mr Tregear said he was introduced in the following way:
Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman is a biologist from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an
organisation that campaigns for greater regulation of GM crops.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
19/37
19
Mr Tregear said he appreciated that it would have been better if the programme hadmentioned Dr Gurian-Shermans experience working for the US Food and DrugAdministration and the Environmental Protection Agency
and on balance I think you are probably right, but I think the main
question is whether the description used by the programme was accurateand gave a fair impression of Dr Gurian-Shermans expertise.
Mr Tregear said he believed it did and added that he believed the extensive interviewwith Dr Gurian-Sherman provided further evidence of his knowledge and expertise.
Mr Tregear gave an example where Dr Gurian-Sherman explained why he wasconcerned about GM
Well I try to avoid eating genetically modified crops, not because I think that these
particular crops are necessarily harmful but because Im not confident enough inour food testing to know and to be confident if they are or not. For instance in our
Food and Drug Administration theres no set tests, theres no long term testing,
theres no required testing in animals to see if the animal is going to be harmed
which we can extrapolate potentially to humans. And you know, some people would
say we Americans have been eating this for ten years and look nobodys gotten sick.
Well for one thing we clearly dont know that. You cannot determine whether or not
these crops are causing any harm unless youre actively surveying the population
and doing the right kind of studies.
Jimmy Doherty then asked Dr Gurian-Sherman if he thought
we should turn our back on GM technology then? Do you think its too much to
worry about ?
Dr Gurian-Sherman replied
I think until, we have a safety testing regime in place for food safety I think we
should really slow down and really think twice about commercialising these crops.
Mr Tregear said he was not able to agree with the complainants analysis on the
interview with Lord Melchett either.
Mr Tregear said Lord Melchett was a leading campaigner against GM crops in the UKand represented one of the main organisations opposed to GM.
He explained in clear and direct terms why he believes there areunacceptable risks in developing GM crops.
Mr Tregear went on to say that Lord Melchett had described GM as
really uncertain, imprecise, risky technology there are real risks to human healththat havent been investigated and there are risks to every other sort of farming
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
20/37
20
that doesnt want to grow GM because its going to be contaminated and it comes
in and blasts away organic for instance.
Mr Tregear said he seemed to him that both experts were allowed to express theirconcerns
clearly and eloquently..
Mr Tregear said he was not able to uphold this part of the complainants complaint.
Mr Tregear addressed the eighth point.
8. The complainant said the programme did not explain theproblematic consequences of producing GM food - claims were
made as fact for claimed environmental and health advantages e.g.
to the sausage testing and forlorn GM purple tomatoes, withoutreference to successfully produced non-GM ones. Ample statistics
discredited yield claims for current GM crops.
Mr Tregear said he had already explained that in his opinion, the programme gavesufficient weight to the arguments against GM crops and presented these concerns inan objective and even handed manner.
However, Mr Tregear said he wanted to address the complainants specific concernsabout the sequences involving the sausages cooked in GM soya oil and the purple
tomato with high levels of anthocyanins.
The sequences of shoppers in Norwich being offered sausages cooked ineither oil or GM oil was a simplistic device to demonstrate the current publicresistance to GM food and see what factors might make people change theirattitude.
Mr Tregear said when offered the choice between GM and GM-free, all those askedopted for GM-free.
Mr Tregear went on to say that all that changed when Mr Doherty explained some
of the potential benefits of GM
This one could be potentially better for the environment..
However, Mr Tregear considered it was unlikely that viewers would have beenunduly influenced by such an unscientific survey.
Mr Tregear said that in the case of the purple tomato
The scientist responsible for its development, Professor Cathie Martin,
explained the potential health benefits but I dont accept that her claims werepresented as fact.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
21/37
21
Mr Tregear went on to say that even she acknowledged public concerns about safetyand the need for further testing
I want what I have produced to be useful and beneficial to people. But I want
people to be reassured that they are safe to eat, and while there are concernsbecause theyre genetically modified then we should go through the appropriate
testing.
Mr Tregear went on to quote the conclusion on this point from Jimmy Doherty
Despite Cathies hope for her tomatoes, it is uncertain if they will ever make it to
market. In twelve years the EU have only licensed one GM crop to be grown
commercially and that is maize like the variety I saw in Germany. For now at least
the scientists have lost the battle over GM in Europe.
Mr Tregear concluded that he did not agree that the claims made about the potentialbenefits of GM crops were presented as fact. Mr Tregear said he would not upholdthis point of the complainants complaint.
Mr Tregear addressed the ninth point.
9. No mention was made of the benefits of special trait crops alreadydeveloped without GM methods e.g. drought tolerance.
Mr Tregear said the programme was about the science of GM crops and its possibleapplications.
I therefore do not believe it was necessary to include details ofdevelopments in conventional agriculture in order to achieve the necessarybalance.
Mr Tregear said the balance required was between the arguments for and againstGM and he believed the programmed addressed this appropriately.
Mr Tregear added that
However, I would point out that the programme did say that GM was notthe only potential answer to the worlds food problems.
Mr Tregear gave the example when Jimmy Doherty explained that food productionwas continually declining in Africa but said
No one is suggesting that GM is the only solution to Africas problems.
Mr Tregear concluded he was not upholding this complaint.
Mr Tregear addressed the tenth point.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
22/37
22
10.The concluding brief caveats from Jimmy Doherty do noterase from the viewers mind the preceding bulk of the programme
suggesting that everything was fine with GM agriculture, hindered
only by uninformed opponents. By failing to properly cover the
factual challenges to the GM idyll the Horizon programme had
itself reinforced this.
Mr Tregear said that he believed Mr Dohertys summary at the end of theprogramme was a considered conclusion based on the evidence he had gathered.
It reflected his enthusiasm for the potential benefits of GM but also repeatedsome of the concerns which had been raised previously in the programme,both in Mr Dohertys script and in various interviews (with contributors whoare regarded by their peers as informed experts).
Mr Tregear said he hoped that the extracts of the programme he had transcribedhelped to demonstrate that the anti-GM view was given appropriate weight.
Mr Tregear concluded that he did not believe the programme gave an inaccurateimpression of the science behind GM or that viewers would have been misled.
Mr Tregear also pointed out that
all the studies by leading independent scientific organisations appear tohave reached the same conclusion: there is no evidence that GM crops
currently produced commercially have any negative effect on human oranimal health, but all future crops should be extensively tested to make surethey are safe before they enter the food chain.
Mr Tregear went onto quote from the World Health Organisation report in 2005, a2002 Royal Society Report, and a recent study from the International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development.
Mr Tregear concluded with a quote from a recent media interview from ProfessorRobert Watson, the head of the International Assessment of AgriculturalKnowledge, Science and Technology for Development about the role he saw for
biotechnology.
The only part of biotechnology that is really controversial is transgenics. I think the
first question we have to ask is if you are a small scale farmer in Africa are
transgenics the only answer and the answers no. There are manyif they had
access to the best seeds, access to the best nutrients, access in some cases to the
other inputs such as water for irrigation , they could significantly increase their
productivity. Could the form of biotechnology thats controversial, transgenics, play a
role, yes it could potentially play a role. We are going to have think through how we
can increase productivity, how we can have more temperature or drought tolerant
or pest tolerant plants, biotechnology,, even modern biotechnology may play a roleso weve got to continue doing research but we must ask ourselves the question:
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
23/37
23
What are the risks and benefits? And it needs to be, it has to be nuanced, we have
to ask it in specific systems, we have to ask is it publicly acceptable, who benefits, is
it the farmer, is it the seed companies, is it the consumer? I believe we should
continue to invest in all forms of biotechnology but make sure we ask the questions
about the risks and benefits on a case by case basis.
Mr Tregear said that although he had not upheld the complainants complaint, hewould he happy to consider any additional points the complainant might want to add.
The complainant replied to Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial
Complaints Unit (ECU) on 8 June 2009
The complainant said the BBC appeared to recognise that GM plant developmentwas a contentious subject but had chosen to disregard why it was so.
This enables the error of entrusting influence and guidance on programmeconstruction and editing to person(s) who have a major commitment tofurthering GM plant activity and acceptance. I realise this may be the easiestthing to do when making science programmes.
The complainant said that recombinant DNA technologys manifest hazards anduncertainties
which had caused it to be put back in the cupboard in the 1970s couldnot be adequately addressed.
The complainant said that if they were there would be no market and no technology
and of course no patent monopoly over the worlds food stock, InsteadUS corporate-government collusion created tailored legislative evasion ofproper safety.
The complainant went on to say that all key US government departments andofficials had vigorously promoted GM adoption in Britain and around the world.
Both Thatcher and Blair eagerly obliged. Likewise has the European
Commission
The complainant went on to say that he believed taxpayer funding of plant scienceinstitutions was shifted by government funding policy in the Thatcher era
to privatise research serving the ends of primary client/partners, themultinational plant biotech companies.
The complainant added that this determined what work got done and channelledpublic grant to fulfil corporate objectives.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
24/37
24
The complainant went on to give his views about the John Innes Centre which hesaid was a
high level example with previously identified over-commitment to GMtechnology. It has no credible claim for its staff or activities as independent
on the issue of GM techniques in plant breeding..
The complainant added that the extensive contracts between such institutions, theirvarious entities and corporate clients were not transparent to the public. Thecomplainant said that the UK government was no more than a co-operative tool forthe biotech industry.
We have industry convenient legislation and taxpayer expenditure tofacilitate GM crop development and pushing of public opinion in favour ofGM foodstuffs and crops.
The complainant said that the advisors selected by the government were those withinterest and connections served by JIC, SCRI and others.
The complainant questioned if Jimmy Doherty had selected the topics, locations andfootage as well as authoring his script and came to the conclusion that Mr Dohertyhad not done this.
The complainant concluded
The editorial judgement in all matters appears to have been heavilyinfluenced by person(s) active in the promotion of GM plant science.
The complainant appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC)
of the BBC Trust, the third and final stage of the BBCs complaints
procedure on 8 June 2009
The complainant said he did not find the response from the Editorial ComplaintsUnit to be sufficient.
The complainant repeated the points he had made in his letter of 8 June 2009 to
Colin Tregear, Complaints Director, Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU).
The complainant went on to comment on several points made in the findings fromMr Tregear.
The complainant included several weblinks in his appeal.
The complainant started with Point 3, Argentina
Mr Doherty explained the POTENTIAL benefit that farmers CAN grow more beans
using LESS herbicide. Its made soya farming MUCH MORE PROFITABLE and Imwondering if its a technology that we should all adopt.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
25/37
25
However, he balanced this by referring to the need for more research into GM to
ensure a better understanding of the risks and said there is a downside to the soya
boom huge areas of natural forest are being burned down and cleared to make way
for more fields.
The complainant commented on the words POTENTIAL.. CAN grow MORE usingLESS herbicide.
But this is not the straightforward statement saying there is actual benefit nor that it does grow more and does use less.
The complainant went on to say
This is a GM spinster classic. They cant say the latter because it isnt true.
These claimed benefits have been shown as putative.
The complainant said that such producer and biotech claims abounded but theevidence was different.
Herbicide tolerance and weed resistance has caused nothing other thanincrease in application of both linked herbicides and supplementary sprayingwith higher powered herbicides to cope with the vicious circle problem.Costs have correspondingly risen and get passed on. Yields are not greater.
The complainant went on to quote several weblinks.
The complainant commented on the Norwich sausage tasting.
Jimmys few follow on words cannot make a balance to this travesty oftruth. Need for more research to understand the risks.
The complainant added
When we faced an already out of control hazardous technology that is anabsurdity. The risks are well known and long stated its just that they are
systematically ignored.
The complainant commented on several statements from Jimmy Doherty including
but a couple of things bug me the effect on human health over a long
period.. and the effect on the environment, which we dont really know about yet.
The complainant said
So what does Jim do about these bugs? Does he explore or discuss any of
the many recording findings of environmental damage or disadvantage which
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
26/37
26
we do know about perhaps even the UK farm scale trials which led to UKgovernment rejection of GM oil seed rape in 2005?
The complainant again listed several weblinks.
The complainant next considered the following statement from Mr Tregear
I put this point to the programme makers the programme was based on peer
reviewed scientific studies.
The complainant commented
which peer reviewed findings support the wonder stories of the GMtomato and GM banana? Let alone the MORE and LESS fantasy of GM soya? The programme was built on selected examples of biotech hype then
dressed to give semblance of balance.
The complainant included several weblinks about peer review.
The complainant next considered the fourth point in Mr Tregears findings
The programme addressed both potential benefits and the possible drawbacks of
GM
The complainant said this was
more potential, wheres the Actual, after near 20 years? And thepossible drawbacks No it briefly mentioned a few drawbacks, otherwiseknown as major risks but went nowhere near all the serious negatives.
The complainant considered the fifth point in Mr Tregears findings, the major GMcontamination events
due to unauthorised mixing of GM and conventional seeds.. issues of procedure
and regulation rather than anything to do with science or efficacy of GM..
The complainant said they were very much to do with the behaviour of
GM constructs, their facility to contaminate and lack of integrity in thebiotech industry and its doings.
The complainant highlighted 16 listed UK incidents on the GM ContaminationRegister.
The complainant commented on the seventh point in Mr Tregears findings whichconcerned Lord Melchett and Doug Gurian-Sherman
allowed to express their concerns..
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
27/37
27
The complainant asked if Lord Melchett believed he had a fair opportunity to offerhis concerns
and that it was part of a balanced programme? I understand that he did
not so believe and may even have made a complaint about the balance of theHorizon programme
The complainant concluded
I do better understand from Mr Tregears researched and advisedresponses how the BBC can be co-opted into producing, broadcasting thenjustifying an unbalanced and misleading programme covering a contentioussubject. Their trimming it to give an appearance of balance fails to do so.
Ruby Seehra, Team Assistant, BBC Trust replied to the complainant on17 June 2009
Ms Seehra told the complainant his complaint would be reviewed in order todetermine if it qualified for appeal by the BBC Trusts Editorial StandardsCommittee.
On 4 August Michael Fadda, editorial assistant , BBC Trust emailed the complainantto ask him if he could formulate his appeal to the Trust in a thousand words or lessin order for this note and the ESCs deliberations to be focussed on the core of the
complaint.
The complainant replied on 6 August with in effect the first thousand words of hisprevious letter to the Trust. The investigation and consideration part of the note at(4) below essentially address the issues raised in this second letter.
3. Applicable editorial standards
Section 4 Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion
Introduction
Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies
across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins
via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to
reflecting a diversity of opinion.
The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce
comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in
the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies
that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and
impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of
public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
28/37
28
forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy
other than broadcasting.
Special considerations apply during the campaign periods for elections.
In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:
we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide rangeof subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale
across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political
or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public
policy.
we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range andconflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly
unreflected or under represented.
we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject,at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial
reasons for doing so.
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide anopportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not
misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply.
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversialsubjects.
the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect oureditorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public
face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the
perceptions of our impartiality.
our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs,may provide professional judgments but may not express personal
opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other
BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such
matters
we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views duringan interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response
to our questions.
we should not automatically assume that academics and journalists fromother organisations are impartial and make it clear to our audience whencontributors are associated with a particular viewpoint.
Achieving impartiality
Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to
achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of
output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and
approach is signposted to our audiences.
Impartiality is described in the Agreement as "due impartiality". It requires us to be
fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the materialfacts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
29/37
29
not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on
every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality.
Controversial subjects
In the United Kingdom controversial subjects are issues of significance for the whole
of the country, such as elections, or highly contentious new legislation on the eve of
a crucial Commons vote, or a UK wide public sector strike.
In the nations and regions of the UK, controversial subjects are those which have
considerable impact on the nation or region. They include political or industrial
issues or events which are the subject of intense debate or relate to a policy under
discussion or already decided by local government.
In the global context, some controversial subjects such as national elections or
referendums will obviously have varying degrees of global significance but will be of
great sensitivity in that country or region in which they are taking place. We should
always remember that much of the BBC's output is now available in most countries
across the world.
We must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due
weight in the period during which a controversial subject is active.
Personal view, authored programmes & websites
We have a tradition of allowing a wide range of individuals, groups or organisations
to offer a personal view or opinion, express a belief, or advance a contentious
argument in our programmes or on our websites. Personal views can range from the
outright expression of highly partial views by a campaigner, to the authored view of a
specialist or professional including an academic, scientist, or BBC correspondent, to
those expressed through contributions from our audiences. Each can add to the
public understanding and debate, especially when they allow our audience to hear
fresh and original perspectives on well-known issues.
Content reflecting personal views, or authored by an individual, group or
organisation, or contributed by our audiences, particularly when dealing with
controversial subjects, should be clearly signposted to audiences in advance.
Personal view and authored programmes and websites have a valuable part to play in
our output. However when covering controversial subjects dealing with matters of
public policy or political or industrial controversy we should:
retain a respect for factual accuracy. fairly represent opposing viewpoints when appropriate. provide an opportunity to respond when appropriate for example in a pre-
arranged discussion programme.
ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives is included inoutput of a similar type and weight and in an appropriate time frame.
Conflict of Interest
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
30/37
30
The BBC's reputation for impartiality and objectivity is crucial. The public must beable to trust the integrity of BBC programmes and services. Our audiences need tobe confident that the outside activities of our programme makers or presenters donot undermine the BBC's impartiality and that editorial decisions are not influencedby any commercial or personal interests.
Conflicts of interest can arise for anyone who appears on air or has responsibility forthe content of a programme or service or associated activity. Presenters, reporters,producers, editors and researchers are all affected. There may be particularsensitivities concerning on-air talent. For editorial staff the greater the level ofresponsibility the greater the need to avoid any possible conflict of interest. Eachprogramme department or team will need to identify its area of vulnerability.
The BBC should be satisfied that everyone involved in editorial decisions andprogramme making is free from inappropriate outside commitments. The principles
apply equally to freelances or staff. It is also important that independent producersshould not have any interests which could undermine the integrity and impartiality ofthe programmes or websites which they produce for the BBC.
It may also be appropriate to consider whether the position of families and closepersonal contacts presents a likely conflict of interest.
4. Investigation and considerations.
I have watched the programme, read the transcript and conducted some internetresearch. I have had conversations and email exchanges with the production teamand with Editorial Policy.
I would first like to deal with the conflict of interest allegation by the complainant.
The latest version of his complaint concludes:
I still await clarification of the relationship between Horizon producerMichael Lachmann and gm activist Sir Peter Lachmann.
And the letter is imbued with the suggestion that this relationship secretly defined
the agenda and impartiality of the programme:
The 'editorial judgement' in these matters appears to have been highlyinfluenced by person(s) (unnamed) involved in the promotion or advocacy of gmplant science.
And:
They have thereby entrusted influence and guidance on programmeconstruction and editing to person(s) who have a major commitment to
furthering gm plant activity and acceptance.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
31/37
31
And:The process and responses thus far show how the BBC can be co-opted intoproducing, broadcasting a misleading programme covering a contentious sciencesubject, dressed as 'balanced' and thereafter referring to essentially the sameeminence gris to proclaim it justified.
I thought this a serious set of allegations, core to the complaint, and addressed it indetail. I spoke toAndrew Cohen, Editor of Horizon, who told me that Sir PeterLachmann is indeed the father of Michael.
Sir Peter, a Cambridge Professor of Immunology of great eminence, chaired theRoyal Society expert group which produced the Society's first report on GM cropsin 1998. Entitled 'Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use', it concluded thattechnology had the potential to offer benefits in food quality, nutrition and public
health, and had important implications for agricultural practice both in Britain and inthe developing world.Since then, Sir Peter has been involved in several heated debates over GM.
Andrew Cohen had asked Michael Lachmann to make the film without any priorknowledge of his fathers involvement in the GM issue:
Michael then told me immediately about his father and we discussed it. Iwanted clarification so we referred it to editorial policy to Sue [sic]
Pennington. I myself thought that we employed Michael himself and not hisfather but I was critically aware of the delicacy of the subject and heembraced that so absolutely that it would have been wrong to remove himfrom the project
There was then a meeting between Su Pennington at Editorial Policy and MichaelLachmann at which the conflict issues were discussed fully.
He came to me and said "Should I take myself off the project though I don'thave views one way or the other on GM?" He had never entered the debate norbeen part of any movement.
Su Pennington said that it seemed to her in principle clear that just because a relativeholds beliefs or has a specific job, that doesn't mean his son would share his beliefsor is conflicted. She added:
His job is as a science producer on Horizon - which means he has to take anindependent view under the editorial guidelines. It would have been wrong tosay he could not do it because of who his father was. It would have beenunfair to him to take him off the programme with no evidence of bias.
She thought he had done exactly the right thing in declaring the connection:
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
32/37
32
Knowing Michael's declaration, we were extra keen to make sure thateverything was completely even- handed in that programme.
The Committee will want to discuss whether there was a conflict of interest thataffected the programme as broadcast. It may want to examine the demonstratedpropriety of immediately revealing a connection, consulting the Editor of theprogramme and also Editorial Policy. It may wish to consider if any other step wasrequired. Amongst the possible steps would have been removing Michael Lachmannfrom the programme. The Committee may wish to examine if this would have beenan appropriate step and whether it would have been a proportionate response giventhe full disclosure.
There is no mechanism for making such a disclosure of connection transparent to
viewers, but it would have been possible to make it clear to the complainant that fulldisclosure had been made and editorial policy advice taken, considerably earlier inthe complaints process.
I will address the rest of the complaint as it occurs in the complainants revisedletter to the Trust.1. The BBC appears to recognise that gm plant development is a contentioussubject, but the Horizon makers have particularly chosen to disregardWhy This isSo.
Michael Lachmanns response is that this is what the whole programme is about.
The Committee will note that questions about the safety and efficacy of GM occur inthe script and questioning throughout the programme.
Here for example near the beginning:
I realise know that the way I produce food wont feed the world. But a lotof people think the only way to do that is to use biotechnology GM crops.
And Im not sure about that I dont know if its safe or not I dont knowwhat the consequences are. But what if the answer to feeding the hungry isto use biotechnology?
And here from about 10 minutes in.
So far Ive seen different stories in terms of GM. Ive seen how it can offergreat potential for the future. Ive seen how it has affected a countryseconomy. Ive seen a bit of the bad side. But for me in theory at least- the
science is amazing, and it offers an element of hope.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
33/37
33
But theres a couple of things that really bug me. One is the effect on humanhealth over a long period if were eating the stuff. And two the effect on theenvironment which we dont really know about yet.
This interrogative approach continues all the way through. This is the programme
conclusion:
My journey into the world of GM has been a real eye-opener and the onething that stands out for me is how its an issue divided the world.
In Europe people prepared to take the law into our own hands to protestagainst the technology but in much of the rest of the world theyreplanting it on more and more land every year.
Which is the right way to go?
Well I dont think the crops that are being grown at the moment are going tosave the world. Theyre good for farmers and theyre good profits butwhile there are lingering doubts about the safety of GM I think we need toproceed very carefully.
But we do need to proceed. The prospects of foods that could help preventcancer or resist drought or even disease show the potential that GMtechnology could have.
I think its madness that we turn away from this technology.
It might not be here at the moment but 10-15 20 50 years time I meanthat technology could be so useful. It has great potential to feed the hungry
But that will only ever happen is we carry our some experiments and I thinkif youre for GM or against it youve got to be for understanding -whatever your argument is youve got to be into finding out knowledge and without testing well never know well live in the darkness.
So the ESC could conclude that in calling for more investigation, the programmeis lacking in impartiality. But would that be a breach of the guideline on dueimpartiality? The audience might legitimately expect a science programmes to callfor more scientific investigation: its what scientists do. It is calling forunderstanding and knowledge - is this a breach of the impartiality guidelines?
2. Recombinant dna technology's manifest hazards and uncertainties whichcaused it to be put back in the cupboard in the 1970s are not openly and adequatelyaddressed.
The programme producer told me thatrecombinant DNA technology wasn't 'putback in the cupboard' in the 1970s. He said that that was the decade in which therecombinant technology was invented and revolutionised biological science.
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
34/37
34
Michael Lachmann told me:I assume he is referring to a voluntary moratorium that was placed on therecombinant technology in 1974 - until a conference could be held to discussand assess the potential hazards of what was at the time a very new
technology. That conference was held at Asilomar in Monterrey1975 andlaid the way for the future of recombinant DNA technology by lifting themoratorium and laying down the guidelines through which the researchshould proceed safely.In the 35 years since then the technology has become one of the most powerful techniques in modern science - as well as facilitating basic science it is usedto create medicines and vaccines, it creates the yeast that ferments yourwine and the chymosin that goes in all hard cheeses. Recombinant DNAtechnology is everywhere without there being widespread concern overits 'manifest hazards and uncertainties'. So I don't really see how these
'concerns' about recombinant DNA in particular are relevant to us.
What there are concerns about is the use of the technology in GM cropsthat are then grown freely in the environment - and we do address theseconcerns in the programme. They are brought up by Lord Melchett, DougGurian-Sherman, and by Jimmy himself in discussion of gene flow and itspotential consequences - and are part of the reason why Jim comes to theconclusion that crops that are being grown at the moment are not going to savethe world. Theyre good for farmers and theyre good profits but while there are
lingering doubts about the safety of GM I think we need to proceed very carefully
Does the ESC think the programme demonstrated due impartiality inaddressing concerns about GM foods in relation to recombinant DNA
3. One example from the Horizon prog. - The JIC 'tragic tale of the unloved gmpurple tomato' - skilfully managing not to mention that there was already aconventionally bred Italian one - without a hazardous gene jumble!
Just to remind you, the relevant script was:
JD
When will people be able to start buying this crop then?
CM
When the regulations allow us to do it. And that means we have to gothrough a lot of tests because its a genetically modified crop.
JD
But conventionally you dont have to do any testing. It can go straight out tomarket and people can eat it.
CMYes
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
35/37
35
JD
But you have to go through rigorous testing.
CM
Yes
JD
How does that make you feel because you obviously spend a lot of timedoing this?
CM
Umm - Sanguine I want what I have produced to be useful and beneficial topeople. But I want people to be reassured that they are safe to eat, andwhile there are concerns because theyre genetically modified then we should
go through the appropriate testing.
CommDespite Cathies hope for her tomatoes it is uncertain if they will ever makeit to market.
In twelve years the EU have only licensed one GM crop to be growncommercially and that is maize like the variety I saw in Germany.
For now at least the scientists have lost the battle over GM in Europe.
The response from Michael Lachmann was:
The GM tomato is an exemplar of the power of the GM technique. TheItalian tomato is not comparable with the GM one. The Italian tomatoes onlyproduce anthocyanins in the skin of the fruit not the flesh and theycontain a maximum of 5% of the amount of anthocyanins produced by theJohn Innes tomatoes. And they havent been through any health or testingstudies as the John Innes tomatoes have.
In correspondence with another complainant who went direct to the programme he
gave a fuller response:
The programme pointed out the GM tomatoes will have to undergo a fullhealth safety and environmental risk assessment. There is ample evidencethat a diet rich in flavonoids, like anthocyanins, has a preventative effect onmany diseases including cancer.21
There is also evidence that these GM tomatoes have a positive health impactin mammalian systems. They have been tested on cancer prone mice andwere found to significantly extend their life-spans.22 We were unable to
include these results in the programme because at the time of completionthey had not been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. As
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
36/37
36
you will know from the press coverage the paper has subsequently passedpeer review and been published.
It is irrelevant that similar purple tomatoes have been bred by other means inItaly. However you should note that the Italian tomatoes are not the same.
They only produce anthocyanins in the skin of the fruit not the flesh andthey contain a maximum of 5% of the amount of anthocyanins produced bythe John Innes tomatoes.
The ESC will want to consider whether the script and interview containedenough questioning and balancing material to be duly impartial. Does theomission of the Italian tomatoes which are not GM from a section specificallyabout GM production go to impartiality?
4. While a supposedly 'impartial' Jimmy Docherty fronted the Horizon
programme, who identified the particular gm examples, locations and footageand authored his autocue script?
Who carefully avoided including reference to any of the many gm crop failures and'collateral' damage, as routinely done by the industry and its academic acolytes?
The programme was called Jimmys GM Food Fight and was clearly intended tobe seen as the presenters views and exploration of the issues. Is it authored underthe guidelines? The producers opinion is that it clearly was. He told me that therewas no autocue script written for Jimmy Docherty and that the presenter had
authored the whole piece though of course there had been discussions with theproduction team. Michael Lachmann told me that the team had set up the locationsbut that the presenter had essentially decided what he wanted to say at them andthat the opinions expressed were his own.
He told me:
We made sure he saw both the pro-side and the anti-side. And that hetalked to people from both sides.
While there were no specific references to gm crop failures there were severalinstances of reference to possible dangers and disadvantages and two extensiveinterviews with those opposing GM development. The script contained qualifiers andappeared to make very few unqualified assertions about the benefits of GM.
The ESC may want to decide whether this was an authored programme withinthe meaning of the guidelines and whether these were obeyed for its duration.
4. A broadcaster and its staff unable to withstand biocorporate-governmententicements, or resist donning biotech blinkers in order to relay gm hype, is destinedto repeat its public disservice
-
8/9/2019 complaintbbc doherty
37/37
I can find no evidence of biocorporate government enticements and do notknow on what this statement can be based unless on the perceived conflict ofinterest addressed above.
Its rather a serious allegation but one that is rather difficult to investigate without
some specifics of enticements being offered or accepted in this case.
The ESC may consider that this last complaint is an expression of thedissatisfaction the complainant has with the programmes impartiality generally. Itmay not therefore require specific consideration under the guidelines.