Cropping industry demands ‘responsibility from media’ after ABC’s coverage on paraquat

Major figures in the Australian cropping industry have accused ABC Landline of abandoning long-standing journalistic principles and exhibiting “very poor” reporting after the program aired a story linking a commonly used herbicide to Parkinson’s disease. In a report published August 31, and a program which aired the day after, ABC Landline interviewed two Victoria-based potato farmers who live in a community that has a “cluster” of Parkinson’s patients in the area. One of the farmers, David Jolliffe, had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s for almost a decade, and another farmer, Mr Jolliffe’s nephew, Ben Myers, was concerned about the health implications of using chemicals such as paraquat. The story also included interviews with two US scientists who say peer-reviewed research has pointed to paraquat causing Parkinson’s. Syngenta, a company which patented paraquat in the 1960s, has long since denied any link between Parkinson’s and the herbicide, and has cited its own catalogue of research to back it up. When questioned by ABC Landline, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority CEO Scott Hansen said there was no evidence that showed paraquat caused undue risk if it was used in accordance with warning labels. Paraquat is banned in European Union countries and is classed as a schedule seven poison, which means a license is needed to purchase it. Landline was critical of the APVMA, which is also currently conducting a review into paraquat and diquat to potentially restrict high applications of the substances. The review is not related to any concerns regarding connections to neurological diseases. WAFarmers Grains section president Mark Fowler penned a public letter to Landline, which he shared via social media on August 31. In it, he slammed the report as “deeply flawed” and “an attempt to politicise” a topic that should stay in the realm of scientific opinions, as opposed to spilling out into the sphere of “anti-chemical” activism. Mr Fowler also said it was a “double standard” to call on the APVMA to ban paraquat, when the herbicide’s benefit to farming outweighs the potential risks. “Most chemical exposure issues arise from misuse,” Mr Fowler said. “It appears no different here.” The Landline program showed one farmer handling paraquat without a face shield or goggles and splash apron, protective equipment that Syngenta’s official handling guidelines recommends to wear when handling concentrated paraquat products. Another farmer diagnosed with Parkinson’s also mentioned being covered “head to toe” in pesticides from being a crop marker as a child, a historical practice that would go against today’s regulations. Landline infers that his Parkinson’s came from using paraquat, despite him stating he had used a wide range of chemicals over his lifetime. “How can they (Landline) say with any confidence that paraquat is the cause?” Mr Fowler said. Mr Fowler said it was important for programs such as Landline to bridge the “increasing gap in relationship and understanding between the bush and city”. “Sadly, Landline has elected to go the other way and use it as a platform to attack conventional agriculture,” he said. “They seem to think they are the Four Corners for agriculture.” Croplife Australia also released a statement saying it was “disappointed” in ABC Landline. “This flagship program has long played an important role in connecting its audiences with the farmers and rural industries dedicated to ensuring fresh, safe and affordable food for Australians,” Croplife said. “It is unfortunate to see the platform instead link cherry-picked, isolated case studies to scientific opinion to support its sensationalised narrative.” Mr Fowler ended his letter by saying the reporting could have “profound consequences” for Australian farming communities and systems if it led to more people calling for a ban on paraquat. “We desperately need to see some responsibility from our media and some statesmanship from our Government.” In response to the criticisms, an ABC spokeswomen told the Countryman that the “ABC stands by its investigation and reporting on this story and rejects any assertion the journalists involved have a conflict of interest or that the content is ‘activism’”. “The story explored, in a transparent and balanced way, the regulation and approval of a common farm chemical. It brought new information to the attention of the chemical regulator and heard from world leading scientists about their concerns. “The ABC will continue to pursue questions of diligence, safety and public interest in its reporting.” The APVMA declined to comment.