John Armstrong: Folic acid potato too hot for food minister

The political furore over putting folic acid in bread is not confined to arguing the scientific merits of putting folic acid in bread.

It is about much more than that. It is an argument about the morals of mass medication. That raises all the connotations of "nanny state" knows best . It is an argument about food safety. It is an argument about sovereignty - about little old New Zealand being told by big brother Australia what it is and is not allowed to do.

It therefore canvases many matters where political emotions run deep.

That is the reason why those trying to convince the public of the health benefits of folic acid have lost the battle. Once they were forced by snowballing public opinion into the position of having to prove the added ingredient would not cause cancer or other serious ailments, they never stood a chance.

In such circumstances, scientific logic and reason is the first casualty. That was something that Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson discovered too late, to her cost.

Her handling of this hot potato has been lambasted largely on the back of a less than impressive performance on TVNZ's Q&A programme the Sunday before last. Wilkinson seemed woefully under-prepared for the bombardment she received from interviewer Paul Holmes and the Greens' food safety campaigner, Sue Kedgley.

The latter has a lengthy track record on such issues and thus the credibility which Wilkinson, just eight months in the job, could not match.

While making it clear she was looking for a means for New Zealand to escape its transtasman obligations, she looked like a minister hostage to the advice of her officials and seemingly powerless. Her solution that the decision to mix folic acid into bread be reviewed after its introduction may have satisfied legal considerations but it seemed somewhat farcical.

However, her major political crime was to be guilty of sounding reasonable. She was trying to steer a course which was on balance closer to the opponents of folic acid than its supporters. But the debate had become too polarised. She got pilloried. She had no answer to Holmes and Kedgley's insistence she guarantee folic acid in bread was 100 per cent safe. That was because there is no answer. No one can guarantee anything is 100 per cent safe. She would have been politically foolish to have done so.

Exit Wilkinson. Enter the Prime Minister. The Government will release a discussion document tomorrow with three options - deferral, rejection or the status quo. But Key has already said he prefers deferral, bringing the matter to a close. If this is another example of Key's brute pragmatism, there are also lessons for his Administration.

First, something promoted as a good idea can end up being perceived by the majority as a bad idea. A government can suddenly find public opinion polarised and itself isolated from that mass view.

Second, Governments should be wary of decisions inherited from predecessors that have yet to be implemented.

Labour's unwavering backing for folic acid in bread might have meant the issue was dead in terms of parliamentary politics. However, it has turned out to be very much alive politically outside the Beltway.