So, I've received a response from the BBC trust, as follows :
I’ve now completed my investigation into your complaint about this programme. As you may know the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit is to carry out independent investigations where people are dissatisfied with previous responses received from the BBC, and to assess whether the output complained of represents a serious breach of the standards set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.
Your complaint concerns the accuracy of a claim made by Professor Dame Sally Davies in an interview embedded in the above report1 that “Butterscotch (flavour e-cigarette liquid) has had to be withdrawn because people got chronic lung disease”.
As mentioned in the stage 1 response you received, a BBC Inside Out investigation in 2014 carried out chemical analysis of several different flavours of e-liquid available in high street shops, and in one butterscotch flavour liquid they found traces of diacetyl, a chemical compound used as a flavouring in food manufacture. Evidence strongly links exposure to diacetyl, when heated and inhaled over a lengthy period (as in popcorn manufacture for example) with the contraction of the serious lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. The manufacturer in question had already discovered the presence of the compound in the liquid through its own testing processes and withdrawn the flavour from the market.
Professor Davies was responding to a question put by the interviewer about whether the ban on smoking in cars when children were present extended to vaping and she replied that “We don’t yet know about vaping. I mean clearly they put in flavourings - we don’t know the impact of those. Butterscotch has had to be withdrawn because people got chronic lung disease”. Given the wider context, the last sentence would have been quite clear had the Professor elaborated that people had got chronic lung disease from exposure in other circumstances to a chemical found in some butterscotch flavour e-cigarette liquid. However while the wording wasn’t ideal, and may have suggested a direct link between vaping and lung disease that has not been established to date, I think there is sufficient demonstrable concern about the potential harmful effects of chemicals used as flavourings in e-cigarettes for the statement not to have been seriously misleading, and it was qualified to an extent by “we don’t yet know about vaping…we don’t yet know the impact of those” (flavourings).
This was a relatively short interview, in which e-cigarettes were mentioned in passing, and I don’t believe it was necessary within the requirements of the guidelines on accuracy to have made this clarification within the interview itself.
I imagine you will be pleased to know that as a result of my discussions with staff at the BBC News website about the embedded video on the website they have taken the decision to edit the video to remove the section of the interview that makes reference to vaping, to avoid any further confusion about an established link between vaping and lung disease. For the reasons outlined above, however, I don’t believe the report itself amounted to a serious breach of the standards of accuracy outlined in the guidelines and I cannot therefore uphold your complaint.
I hope that goes some way to explaining how I reached my finding. However, ECU findings are provisional and we welcome comment on them for ten days following notification, so please let me know if there are points you’d like to make on this finding by 20 April and I’ll be happy to consider them before finalising it.
Basically, this response says 'We've listened to what you have to say and despite editing the video retrospectively, we don't admit there was anything wrong with it'.
Call me a cynic, but I call bullshit on that.
Sent a reply to them stating although I welcomed the video being edited, I don't consider this to be sufficient and I don't consider the matter closed. The fact that the video has been available in it's original form for a number of weeks, means that there's clearly a risk of current smokers having seen it and been put off vaping because of it.
Obviously, this could have the potential for long term harm. Because of this, I've again requested that another article is produced, clarifying the issues raised by Prof Davies and offering an accurate portrayal of the actual FACTS (as opposed to her private opinion masquerading as an official, government sanctioned position). I have also requested that Prof Davies be given the option to clarify whether her comments were just her personal opinion or not.
I've again pointed out that under it's charter, the BBC is required to offer balance and accurate coverage and by failing to do so, it's in violation of that charter.
Will probably be given the final brush off by the 20th of this month and the BBC will consider the matter closed.
If they think I'll consider that sufficient, they've got another think coming.
