Threat appalling and despicable

It has variously been called blackmail, eco-terrorism, economic treason and ''the lowest of the low''.

Whatever name it goes by, the threat to contaminate infant formula with the poison 1080 is utterly despicable.

Not only does it threaten babies and scare mothers, it also targets this nation's most valuable source of income, dairy.

Coming as it does after the botched botulism false alarm and the mishandled DCD scare, in a financial sense the dairy industry, the Government and New Zealand are under intense pressure.

All are watching to see what the damage to markets will be.

Will Chinese social media make a meal of any risk? Will competitor nations and companies ferment doubt? How will the story run in the coming week?

Meanwhile, whatever the assurances, parents cannot help but be worried. Rationally, the chances of 1080 being put in milk powder are minuscule.

Contamination was not threatened to begin until the end of March, the milk supply chain is relatively secure, any tampering with milk powder tins would be easy to spot, large quantities of 1080 would be difficult to obtain, about 45,000 tests for 1080 have already taken place.

Nonetheless, human beings - understandably - base primary responses on emotion, not reason.

Is it any surprise the whiff of danger sets off a mother's alarm?Generally, the authorities are avoiding too much criticism for their handling of the crisis.

Although the letters containing a small amount of 1080 powder were received last November, the Government, police, Fonterra and everyone else decided to keep the news from the public.

It was a calculated gamble, perhaps made reasonable by the deadline for 1080 drops to cease being the end of March. In the interim, authorities reportedly worked assiduously on testing, improved security and strategies and with supermarkets and overseas.

Remarkably, although upwards of 1000 people would have known in some form about the threat by yesterday, no-one gave the game away.

We are told an announcement was due next week, but was brought forward after strong media inquiries.

It is always easy, especially in hindsight, to criticise powers that be in most situations. This time, however, it is fair to say the response was reasonable.

The delay, while risky, allowed various measures to be put in place, and then the matter was ''front-footed''.

Any suggestion that no announcement at all was the best strategy is wrong and foolish. Information at some stage would have leaked and the resultant publicity would have been much worse.

Any short-term gain from withholding information would have well and truly been lost in New Zealand and internationally through the loss of trust.

Totalitarian governments might be able to get away with putting the lid on food blackmail threats, most of which are, indeed, likely to be hoaxes.

But one would hope that is not the way democracies, albeit they flawed, operate.

New Zealand does have relatively strong food safety systems and will only secure a good reputation long-term by being upfront.

Imagine, too, the repercussions if, somehow, contamination occurred and a baby suffered while the authorities - but not the public - knew of the threat.

There is no doubt 1080 is an unpleasant chemical. It kills dogs, deer and all sorts of other creatures besides.

For all that, however, and until a better option can be found, New Zealand needs it to battle possums and other pests.

It is, simply, the most effective tool and our mountainous terrain means aerial drops are essential. Without 1080, birdsong would disappear from much of our bush.

What this episode again demonstrates is this country's agricultural vulnerability, whether it be from accidental biosecurity dangers or wilful acts.

Basically, all New Zealand can do is keep working to secure its borders and its food production systems.

The person, or persons, responsible for this outrage has spurred anger, anxiety and economic harm, as well as setting back the anti-1080 cause

. It would, however, be unfair to taint others with the actions of one extremist.

Even the most ardent advocates of the banning of 1080 recognise the threat is appalling.

Add a Comment