The 1080 debate

By Michael Edmonds 08/06/2011 1


This morning on TV1’s Breakfast show there was a discussion of a recently released report on the use of 1080, including the suggestion that its use be increased. Corin Dann spoke to Environment Commissioner Dr Jan Wright, who authored the report and anti-1080 campaigner, Clyde Graf.

Dr Wright gave a very reasoned explanation of the report explaining, that while the dropping of poison might seem intrinsically wrong that it was the best option we currently have for protecting our land from stoats, possums and rats. I thought her explanation came across as a clear balancing of the pro’s and con’s of the advantages and disadvantages of using 1080.

Mr Graf, on the other hand, immediately invoked the “all research is done by 1080 companies and is therefore biased” approach and produced more emotive arguments than rational. When challenged on several points by Mr Dann, his argument jumped from point to point and failed to address the questions.

From these two interviews I think that Dr Wright communicated her position much more rationally and clearly, while Mr Graf gave me the impression that he is representing a self interested minority who are using fear and implications of conspiracy, and not reason, to promote their opposition to 1080.

The interviews can be found here.


One Response to “The 1080 debate”

  • Morning Report covered this as well, and right now, Kathryn Ryan is talking to Charles Eason on the toxicology of 1080.
    Really, the science is clear.
    Peter Dunne, on Morning Report, came across as being particularly uninformed on this topic. He accused Forest and Bird’s Nicola Vallance of being ’emotional’. Er, how ironic. As you said, Michael.