Adjudication No. 650 (June 1993) [1993] APC 42

ADJUDICATION No. 650 (June 1993)

The Press Council has upheld in part a complaint by the Fibreglass and Rockwool Insulation Manufacturers Association of Australia (FARIMA) about a front page article in the City Messenger (Adelaide) headed "EXPOSING THE RISKS IN ADELAIDE'S HOMES -- We're ignoring the danger of fibreglass, says campaigner".

The article quotes a named "anti-fibreglass campaigner" from Sydney. Neither the campaigner's credentials nor the specific "medical studies" referred to by him are detailed in the article.

FARIMA maintains that the content of the article breaches the Press Council principle that requires a newspaper to take all reasonable steps to ensure the truth of its statements.

These grounds fail since the paper's true statement was that the campaigner had made the allegations; there was no obligation on the paper to establish the truth or otherwise of his claims, nor, indeed, was it equipped to do so.

FARIMA also claims that no effort was made with either itself or any of its member companies or health and safety organisations to establish the industry's views on the matter before publication.

The association alleges that the campaigner was previously a seller of a competitor's insulation product but that this interest was not declared. It alleges that his views are in line with those of competitors of fibreglass manufacturers.

The association claims that there is now overwhelming evidence of no health risk to workers regularly exposed to fibreglass insulation under the current conditions of manufacture and that there are no risks to householders who take normal advertised precautions.

FARIMA submits that it supplied to the City Messenger immediately after the appearance of the article a copy of a booklet produced for the Australian building industry on current occupational health and safety data regarding fibreglass/rockwool. This booklet is relevant to the distinction which the association believes must be made between regular exposure of workers to fibreglass insulation and exposure of householders.

In reply, the newspaper does not accept that it breached Press Council principles. The visit of the campaigner was considered sufficiently newsworthy to warrant an interview and the newspaper submits it "had a responsibility to publish his allegation as a valid contribution to community debate on an issue of public health".

The reporter who wrote the story was unaware of the existence of FARIMA and referred to its absence of listing from the Adelaide telephone book by way of justification. However, the original article had contained the views of a spokesman for Worksafe Australia, whom the reporter considered an appropriate authority to counter-balance the views expressed earlier in the article.

In the Press Council's view this did not provide the balance which a report on a matter of public concern should have had.

The newspaper says that deadlines and other commitments prevented publication of FARIMA supplied material any earlier than three weeks after the initial article.

Given the prominence of the original story and the headline used, the newspaper might have taken steps to have published a reply more promptly. The Press Council acknowledges the practical realities of publishing a suburban paper with limited copy space but the issue was a significant one and likely to cause some public concern, particularly in relation to the use of fibreglass in homes.

The Council accepts that the paper did publish the FARIMA view three weeks after the original report, but it appeared on page 6 as compared with the original page 1.

The Council believes that the basic problem was caused by a failure to distinguish between working with fibreglass, as opposed to its passive use around the home.