Dr Rolleston told global media conglomerate Bloomberg that while testing the threats of 1080 in the supply chain was running into "tens of millions", this was incidental, when compared to the value of preserving our country's image as a trustworthy source for both food security and safety.
The Fonterra botulism scare in 2013 had set the tone. New Zealand was growing and maintaining a global reputation for transparency with this latest scare evidently handled with greater accountability and assertiveness.
Still, the mainstream media focus on why the Government had gone public three months after the threats were received by Federated Farmers and Fonterra was understandable, but then easy to clarify.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters had suggested it was a timely diversion by the Prime Minister to detract the media away from the Northland by-election.
The reality is, the Government was acting in accordance with what was essentially a criminal investigation. The point is, how often does a person or organisation who receives a blackmail threat go public?
That's impossible to assess, as some might choose never to approach the police. Those that do rely on the police to investigate the matter privately to find the blackmailer/s and end their demands, bringing them to justice.
In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, reputation is paramount -- any negative perception or leaked misinformation can travel fast across the internet, especially social media.
This could be catastrophic to our exports and wider economy.
Professor Stephen Hawking has recently opined that our reliance on information technology could backfire as terrorists or hackers infiltrate websites and other social media to spread misinformation, compromising governments and their interests.
One should also consider the three-month period afforded MPI time to find a suitable regime to test for the presence of 1080 in infant baby powder, allowing the regime to be internationally audited and approved.
Had authorities immediately gone public, they would have had no way of reassuring the country or trading partners they were acting on the blackmail threats.
Besides, the blackmailer/s claimed it was the end of March they would be carrying out the sabotage, not in November. It's also possible the police, in their wisdom, were confident of making an arrest or arrests beforehand.
Not going public would have seen the authorities immersed in a game of Russian roulette. Imagine the damage if the blackmailer/s went public, claiming they had not only sent a threat, but carried it out.
The Government would have certainly lost credibility and trust amongst not only New Zealanders, but overseas markets.
In the weeks since the Government announcement, the New Zealand public have remained fully supportive of the declaration. The outrage and disbelief at the threats united the country, with even 1080 activists disgusted.
While there is obviously opposition to the use of 1080, and perhaps indifference from wider society as to why it's used, the majority of New Zealanders are not swayed by the irresponsibility and horrendous nature of these threats.
If any positivity has come out of this situation, it is that our food security systems have advanced through the work, and subsequent resources employed towards this threat -- and that can only enhance our reputation overseas.
As Dr Rolleston reiterated on a number of media interviews, transparency and openness is just as vital to building our brand overseas as maintaining our well-earned reputation as a quality food producer. Without that accountability, we can't claim to offer the other.
