To David Gyngell, Channel 9 CEO, and 3aw Mornings producer Heidi Murphy,

I demand that Neil Mitchell and the other presenters involved apologise and be held accountable for their irresponsible and insensitive remarks on Channel 9 News Now regarding the World Health Organisation announcement that processed meats are a carcinogen following a meta-analysis. Their opinions are presented as fact and encourage poor diet practices which are detrimental to public health in Australia. I have addressed some of their comments below:

“I found a woman in the United States, Susanna Jones, the oldest woman, 116 years old has had bacon every day of her life… She had bacon on her birthday cake at 116 years old and she’s doing well. Moderation in all things surely.” This prime example of anecdotal evidence has no place on a program that purports to be news. There are smokers who live to 100 and don’t get lung cancer, but the evidence is in the statistics. Eating red and processed meat, just like smoking, decreases an individual’s expected life span.

“Yes, and that [potential impact on Australian meat industry] I think is the real issue here.” It is unacceptable to claim that an industry must be protected at all costs. It would be laughable to claim that the asbestos industry in Australia should have been protected once evidence began to show that asbestos was causing cancer.

 “I really don’t think that bacon is the prime suspect.” It is irresponsible to state an opinion as if it is fact. Processed meats such as bacon are indeed one of the leading causes of cancer and heart disease.

“We’re always being told… don’t eat this…” – “Don’t listen.” This medical advice being provided from a news anchor is simply dangerous. Being told to not listen to health advice is in no way acceptable.

“Chocolate was bad for a while and now it’s good. It’s cyclical.” This is not an excuse to ignore medical advice and science. The scientific consensus is the best answer we have at this point in time, and it would be ill advised indeed to suggest people try to follow the counter-consensus.

“A little of what you fancy does you good.” No it doesn’t. This sort of statement simply does not belong in a news segment.

Are these presenters more qualified than the medical scientists and WHO staff who have put together this report?

I demand that those involved in this segment are either sacked or retrained before being allowed back on the job. This includes program staff, not just the speakers. Furthermore, if this type of opinion is allowed to continue on a program, I demand that it be labelled as an opinion or discussion piece instead of news. The Channel 9 News logo in the corner of the screen is damaging, for viewers and for their own reputation.

I’m extremely disappointed with Channel 9 for this segment and hope that the staff responsible are made accountable for their part in misleading the public and damaging public health.

Michael Dello-Iacovo