Five weeks ago, a local Guangzhou newspaper suggested that some watermelons in the city's market might have been contaminated with injections of "hongyaoshui," which literally means "red medicinal water."

The news was immediately picked up by newspapers across the country, including some in Hong Kong. It was reported that melon farmers in South China's Hainan Province originally had orders from Hong Kong for some 1,000 tons of watermelons, but despite farmers' insistence that there was no way to make the injections and that it made no business sense to do so, the deals were cancelled.

In July, the melons ripened and became rotten in the fields due to cancelled deals from Hong Kong and inland provinces as well. Watermelon growers suffered a total loss of 30 million yuan (US$3.8 million).

Now probing into the cause of the farmers' plight, media critics point out that the media is to blame for its sham report.

When I read the original report, I discovered that it obviously did not follow the professional procedure of checks and balances. And I believe the media should be held responsible for the violation of its professional code of conduct.

The reporter didn't go to any professionals or experts in food quality, hygiene, medicine or chemistry for analysis and checks, nor did the writer give a voice to melon farmers or planters' association representatives.

The report was based on complaints from local residents, three of them using only their surnames, and without due professional qualifications. They each made different allegations as to what the additive in the watermelons was.

One said he believed the melon he bought was injected with water; another was told by her neighbours that some chemicals had been used to ripen the melons more quickly.

The third resident, who was said to work in an unspecified local medical university without identifying her profession, told the reporter that she took melon samples to some unnamed colleagues whose professions were not specified. She said these colleagues did some tests and found "food colouring" in the sample.

The reporter did quote the managers of two local farmers' markets and a watermelon peddler, in an attempt to achieve some balance. One manager said he feared some melon growers might have resorted to using chemicals to make their melons ripen faster, while the other manager and the peddler refuted the notion, saying injections only spoiled the melons without boosting the sales.

While we bring the media to the pillory, I believe government agencies in charge of quality, hygiene and markets should take the main responsibility.

The quality of food and hygiene affects the health of the general populace and the well-being of society. When the public has the notion that something they eat is not safe, these officials are duty-bound to investigate a potential health hazard and make an expert, official response and clear up the situation, even when no major illness breaks out.

Chemical analysis of the watermelons does not require advanced high-tech equipment.

However, it took two weeks from the report's publication for Shenzhen quality inspection, supervision and quarantine authorities to announce that watermelons had not been contaminated with sweetener, nor colouring, nor Merbromin  a red aqueous solution, called "hongyaoshui" in Chinese, used as a germicide and antiseptic.

Then in the next few days, similar official or expert probes were conducted in Hong Kong and Hainan with the same results.

The officials and experts said the melons were safe to eat. And watermelon prices have risen.

Clearly dereliction of these officials' duties caused the economic loss of the watermelon growers. While no related government agencies have explained why they were slow in their response, Liang Yakuan, chairman of the Hainan Watermelon Association, admitted that he and his colleagues had not expected that things could have gone so bad for the melon growers.

An ancient Chinese saying holds that, while good deeds may be kept within, bad news often travels thousands of li (miles). This is even more so now, in the age of information. But it is obvious that many in the government and public service domain still have little inkling of the power of information, even when the report was speculative without professional substantiation.

What is more, it is inexcusable when people's interests and public health may be at stake.