Health

Will New Zealander’s need to rethink their stance on GE foods and Nuclear Power so we can keep up with the rest of the world?
Published on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

First off, I need to state that I am a complete fence sitter when it comes to GMOs and Nuclear power. The way I see it is that in an ideal world, we would enjoy the potential benefits while we fully manage the risks. But reality is always less simple.

It has occurred to me of late that in the not too distant future, New Zealanders are going to have to think quite seriously about the potential of GMOs, nuclear power and other technologies that will enable us to meet our carbon emission targets, growing power demands and attempts to stay in the game, let alone keeping ahead of it.

British scientist Dr Robert Winston has said that we need to be more open to new technologies so we can keep pace globally. He’s not wrong. Last week at the annual Food and Grocery Council conference, two of the keynote speakers highlighted changes that may need to take place if we are to feed the world and ensure human intelligence keeps pace with computers.

If GMOs are the only means of preventing billions of people starving to death, it will be pretty hard to keep it in the box. Then on the flip side, movies like Food Inc paint the food industry as giant manipulators of the world in order to reap the profits. Are we equipped to reconcile these positions and at the same time solve these very real problems?

Honest and transparent communication will become even more critical, but often the truth is too boring. We truly need a media who report, not sensationalise the realities of these positions. With shrinking newsrooms under increasing commercial pressures and the more experienced journalists often being let go, this is sadly less likely to happen. Perhaps the emerging social media sphere will evolve into a forum based on true expertise?

New technologies always raise new questions. Would a science that enabled a paraplegic to walk be halted because it breached our moral ethics? Currently there is already a scientist in Europe who uses himself as a human guinea pig – or should I say android, to test mind driven robotic implants.

The reality of new technologies being able to solve some very serious and imminent problems is upon us. And as clean, green nuclear free New Zealand, how well are we informed to be able to manage these dilemmas?

As the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, had we invented Viagra we would be sitting very pretty economically. But we didn’t! So what’s next? Which companies will have the intestinal fortitude to take on people power for causes that they believe are for the good of the people? This is an interesting dilemma but who is debating it?
A Fish Supper
Published on Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

I love my neighbour, I’d be stupid not to. His name is Greg and he cleverly caught the pictured four and a half pound snapper on the Hauraki Gulf on Sunday.

He and his cousin went out at dawn, apparently pausing somewhere about 40 minutes from our houses, to pull up ten fish and casually make their way home again.

Yesterday, on Labour Day Monday, Greg made a fragrant bed of manuka shavings, rubbed the biggest of the catch with brown sugar and salt, and smoked it.

We ate the fish still warm from the smoker with dill potatoes, bread and butter and a salad of greens from my garden.

It was a wonderful meal; the fish was moist, perfectly flaky with just the right hint of smokiness.

In New Zealand we are so close to where our food comes from we sometimes take it for granted.

We shouldn’t, we are blessed with the best food in the world. Wild, farmed or cultivated, we have enviable standards of production, a stunning range and seasonal freshness.

But one doesn’t just have to hunt and gather for the good stuff, our supermarkets, green grocers, butchers, bakers and fish mongers are a treat.

For a comparison and a reason to thank our lucky stars go and see Food Inc, an American documentary that seeks to highlight the underbelly of US food production and agricultural processes. It’s a frightening portrayal if indeed it is a fair and accurate one, well worth a look.
No nonsence nanoscience
Published on Friday, September 25th, 2009

What a week when we’ve just witnessed the miracle of our very own John Key on Letterman , and a scientist tells us that immortality is only 20 years away.

The 61-year-old American, who’s been right before, says that at the rate our understanding of genes and computer technology is accelerating, new nanotechnologies will be capable of replacing worn out organs inside a couple of decades.

If that’s not tempting enough, nanotechnology is also being attributed with the ability to extend our mental capabilities to such an extent that humans will be capable of superhuman wonders like being able to write whole books in a matter of minutes.

But wait, at a recent liability symposium nanotechnology was highlighted as an emerging risk, despite the fact material and particles on a molecular or atomic scale are already in daily use in consumer products.

So nanotechnology, where small appears to be the new big, heralds in exciting new boons, but also signals some potential and as yet not-even-imagined pitfalls.

For example haven’t we been down this road before is with asbestos. This former wonder product has a fatal legacy and has delivered a hefty bill to the insurance industry because of mesothelia disease. This illness was unknown when the product was released for use.

So while some scientists may look forward to a world where humans have cyborg limbs thanks to nanobots, our suggestion is to tread wearily when claims of immortality are bandied about. Imagine going to hospitals to have a new liver dropped in like some car part….wait there could be something to this.
Critics are emboldened in a crisis, so don’t fall for making excuses
Published on Monday, September 21st, 2009

The Sunday Star Times yesterday reported that Auckland’s new community laboratory company, Labtests (which won the contract from DML) believed that some of the complaints it was receiving about its service were the result of “propaganda”.

Its chief medical officer, Dr Michael Coglin, said that some complaints were being encouraged by the company’s critics and were without merit. The suggestion was that people’s confidence in the service could be undermined by this “propaganda”.

However heartfelt, this was an extraordinary statement. No one expects Dr Coglin to be a media or crisis expert, but it is difficult to comprehend that his advisors have not shared with him the anatomy of an issue or crisis. What he is experiencing is as normal as it is real, and any organisation that handled an issue of this nature the way Labtests has was surely headed for a crisis.

On changeover-day plus-one, they were virtually boasting that everything was running smoothly. The reality was different and got worse.

It is a fact that in any crisis, critics are emboldened. Remember the lab contract was competitive and contentious, so there were many with strong held views. In this type of situation, people who would normally say nothing speak out, thereby encouraging others. Extraneous matters suddenly assume some relevance, or at least appear to. But at times like this, it is not the company in crisis that adjudicates on what is relevant and what is not. That lies with its critics and the media.

What can you do about it? Not a lot. Stay humble and avoid enflaming the situation with attacks on the critics. At a time like this you can’t do better than follow the C.A.P formula: show Concern for what is happening, constantly update people on your responsive Actions, and, if you get the chance, provide some Perspective. But here’s a warning, never leave your “perspective” floating out there alone, or it will be interpreted as an excuse. Dr Coglin’s comment looked much like an excuse.
Organics will prosper – never mind the science
Published on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

There is no reason at all to believe the “organic” brand has been seriously damaged following the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) finding that there is essentially no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced foods.

Yes, in the wider market organic foods may have lost some of their lustre, but purchases of “brand organic” or “sub-brand organic” will remain loyal. Brands are about emotion, not science. Devotees of “brand organic” may have lost their nutritional leverage, but actual belief that they’re better for the environment has always been the big trust factor for organics (whether this is true or not). This is why organic purchasers will opt for often wilted produce over fresher conventional. Organic will continue to be an emotional rebellion against general agriculture regardless of how the science stacks up.

Paradoxically in New Zealand at least some of our best fruit and vegetable operators have adopted and adapted the lessons of organic production, so that the margin between the two systems are ever narrower.

The beneficiaries of the FSA research are those who’ve generally resisted the allure of organics, as their scepticism has been rewarded. They now feel less guilty, rather than more virtuous.

The triumph of emotion over science was revisited in the past week by the Prime Minister’s science mentor, Sir Peter Gluckman in the past week in an interview that touched on folate.
He was lamenting that science was the victim in the campaign against folic acid in bread, because the science was sound, and the opponent had undermined the decision by the use of shonky science.

And we continue to hear strident complaints about the importation of food and ingredients from China, when there is no scientific evidence for such complaints.

So, when it comes to food, decisions are closer to the heart than the head.
An orchestrated litany of fables
Published on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

The teenager who sold raunchy photos of his mum on TradeMe after discovering them in the family garage caused something of a kafuffle this week.

After his TradeMe inspired notoriety, Michael Chal appeared on Close Up last Wednesday to give an account of his TradeMe experience.

Soon after this appearance, Close Up learned that despite Chal’s assurances to the contrary, it had been duped. The programme’s producer, Mike Valintine, seemed more than a tad miffed about the deception, and was reported as saying Chal “lied through and through”. This behaviour was described as “despicable”, and the Chal was called a “fool”.

After this outburst, and the headlines labelling Chal an “internet liar”, it was surprising to see him, together with his co-conspirator, again on Close Up last night. Here we learned that Chal had not lied, he’d merely presented a fable. Just like 20-year-old French Rugby centre Mathieu Bastareaud!

Chal and his mate proudly told us that they’d had job offers arising from their fables. So, the end does justify the means after all, and liars do prosper. Social media is setting new standards, but let’s be careful where this takes us, as Michael Chal’s story was nothing but an orchestrated litany of fables.
A beautiful advocacy campaign to behold…
Published on Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

As a communicator, I’m always impressed when I see the roll out of a good campaign which ‘works’. And I’d rate the current efforts by the anti folic acid advocates as an A+ effort.

Putting aside that we’ve been adding folic acid to breakfast cereal for years without any fuss (came as a complete surprise to me too) and that we went through the whole shall we/shan’t we debate under a previous Government with barely a protest banner in sight, a month before Folic Acid day looms traditional and social media is alive with for and against arguments.

First casualty was naturally those who know the true facts. Now we’re really on to the serious stuff which us lay people can understand.

These are the sound bytes about you needing to eat 11 slices of bread a day for it to be effective (is that thick or thin slices by the way?); children will be getting a quarter more than recommended ‘safe’ levels; and let’s not forget the perennial ‘high doses have been shown to increase the prevalence of cancer among laboratory mice’.

Even that most astute media personality Paul Holmes referred to the folic acid debate twice within three days on his ZB comments slot.

If nothing else the campaign has shown how slow the Government is to react to lightening rod issues. It didn’t see the train coming, and when it did it stood there paralysed in with indecision.

I don’t pretend to understand the rights and wrongs of this issue. However, I’m inclined to the view that we should proceed while the ‘experts’ work it out. After all, the chance of me ending up with cancer is a very minute ‘maybe’ (probably less than from second hand smoke), while we know that it’s a certainty some children will be born with spina bifida if we put it off.

If subsequent research shows the cancer risk is too high, then let’s pull it then. Until then my vote goes for the yet to be born generation.
Because we’re worth it
Published on Friday, July 10th, 2009

It’s with some dismay that we read that women in this country earn on average 12 per cent less that their male counterparts. And now, over three decades since legislation designed to remedy the un-equal pay, the unit set up to address the problem has been scrapped.

This country has built a reputation for fairness. New Zealand led the world in giving women the vote, enshrining the 40 -hour working week and protecting the community’s safety with ACC. So why has the push for pay parity fallen off the menu?

We hear it is because we have no successful role models to aspire to. This claim wears a bit thin when we’ve had near 30 years of the ‘girls can do anything message’, a woman Prime Minister, Governor General and Chief Justice to boot.

Mai Chen is actively addressing the ‘no role models’ claim by heading the New Zealand Global Women group. This fine collection of power women is in serious catch up mode if they want to inspire a fresh crop of lady-leaders because the situation is actually getting worse.

In 2004 New Zealand was ranked 4th in female representation in business management, now we have dropped to 10th place. Fran O’Sullivan in the NZ Herald points out that just 54 out of 624 director positions on NZX companies are held by women.

Invisible glass ceilings have been blamed for keeping women down, sticky floors too, and that women bully each other, or are too cooperative and empathetic to truly succeed. We hear that men are genetically privileged so especially tall ones get the top jobs, that they are bred to lead. Women who take time out of their careers to have children can blame biology for losing their place in the promotion queue.

Surely the communication message is quite simple: an equal day’s work deserves an equal days pay no matter how you put your trousers on in the morning. Alternatively as one leading business woman suggested more than a decade ago, if women’s pay can’t go up, perhaps men’s pay should come down!
Pondering the swine flu
Published on Friday, June 19th, 2009

There are two things I ponder about the swine flu. Can the precautions we take make any real difference? How long will our media sustain the almost-hourly case count, particularly as later today our overburdened health authorities’ switch from their containment strategy to a management strategy?

Well, actually there is a third question, none of us wants to appear selfish, but if and when we contract this disease, will there be any Tamiflu tablets left?

To give them credit, our media have made a good fist of passing on to us the handy hints for avoidance and treatment from the Ministry of Health. However the media’s serious interest won’t last. My cue for this is the Australian media. Victoria has become the swine flu capital of the South Pacific, and it appears they’ve stopped counting long since. Their focus now is on quirky stories like the stir-crazy Australian lacrosse team quarantined in South Korea.

The media for good or for ill want to take polarizing positions. So one news organisation will run the ‘swine flu’ is overhyped angle and use the not related comparison of ‘y2k’ as evidence, their competitor will focus on the growing disruptive cost of the flu and its victim count. Then they’ll swap angles until they get tired.

It seems that an important frontier of managing this flu is the workplace, and the key to this is clear communications to staff and management about their obligations to their workmates, i.e. keep away if you’ve got flu symptoms. These messages need to be reinforced, particularly among those segments of the workforce where staying at home may mean being out of work and unpaid. Maybe such people will have to be cut some slack in the interests of their workmates?

I don’t think we will all get swine flu, or even 60% of us, if we take care of ourselves and others.
Giving is in the blood
Published on Thursday, June 11th, 2009

It seems every day brings a new cause to support. Charities are constantly pushing their barrow into our lives with some national awareness month, week, day, hour, minute, second…whatever. Ads with desperately cute but painfully sad looking children appear everywhere, designed to tug at the heart strings – and more often than not the wallet. Amongst this torrent of worthy persuasion, is a communications professional poised to bombard every newsdesk in town to drive their message home.

For all not-for-profits the challenge of influencing journalists and convincing media decision-makers of the value of your cause is relentless. Sometimes it can be met with an air of indifference. Indeed a recent conversation with one particular journalist went something like this… “I need something more newsworthy. Find me someone who’s dying!”

In working at Network PR I’ve been able to work for the NZ Blood Service (NZBS), and I know from personal experience the importance of blood donation. My grandmother passed away twelve years ago after a long illness, but without the people who donated the blood she regularly received, she would have died a lot sooner.

World Blood Donor Day is the NZ Blood Service’s main annual campaign and happens to be celebrated in this country on Friday 12 June. The campaign is largely driven by the World Health Organisation who decides on its annual theme. As in other years, we have the challenge of creating attention.

One of the pluses for the New Zealand Blood Service is its point of difference: it is not seeking money. And in the current climate this is quite significant. People who donate blood save lives – simple as that. And all it costs is about an hour of time.

Currently around 4% of New Zealanders donate blood without incentive or remuneration. Some have their own personal stories for this. Others simply donate for no other reason than it’s a good thing to do.

Annually around 42,000 people need this blood, many unexpectedly, others regularly. Statistically there is a good chance we’ll all have a need for blood at some point.

As far as I’m concerned that’s the best reason of all for taking special note of World Blood Donor Day and the work of the NZ Blood Service.