The issue before the Tribunal was whether e-tv news had not contravened the Broadcasting Code by 
having caused a health scare based on BPA in baby bottles, which was not justified in the light of the debate on the matter.
Held, by the majority, that the news item made it clear that (1) the warning was that of the Cancer Association of South Africa; (2) Government had not “yet’ banned the use of BPA in baby bottles;(3) Government had advised manufactures to adopt a BPA-free policy; (4) bottles which do contain BPA have a sign on them indicating this, which means that the manufacturers are fully aware of the BPA, yet nevertheless continue to distribute such bottles; (5) the advice from the NUK representative which based his opinion clearly on probabilities as to which bottles contain BPA (transparent = probably containing BPA; milky, probably not containing BPA). He then also refers to the signs on the bottle which indicate whether the bottle does contain BPA or not. Accordingly: In essence the news insert cautioned against baby bottles with BPA, but also clearly conveyed that Government has only advsed manufacturers to follow a BPA-free policy. The Respondent also has, as part of its duties, the duty to caution. Ultimately the effect of the item as a whole was not to scare, but to inform and caution. If e-tv news had not referred to what government had said about BPA, the broadcast of the item would, however, have amounted to a contravention of clause 34.2(b).
Accordingly the Complaint was not upheld by the majority of the Commissioners.