Errors in mercury story harm public health

To the Editor,

I am writing to draw your attention to some errors contained in “Something’s Fishey” [Mar. 7]. Here are the specifics:

The entire article is based on specific concerns found in a New York Times story on mercury in tuna that ran on Jan. 23, 2008. The story the reporter is referring to has been widely discredited by Time, Slate.com, the Center for Independent Media and the Times’ own public editor. To refer to the story without putting it in its proper perspective only serves to feed into a climate of confusion that ultimately hurts public health. The article refers directly to the Times article four times throughout the piece but never once mentions the fact that the paper’s own ombudsman writes that the original article “was less balanced than it should have been, given the state of existing research.”

In paragraph three, the story states, “so is it worth listening to this report at all? For some students, it’s a definite yes.” The article proceeds from this point on without ever mentioning that a renowned Harvard cardiologist quoted in Time magazine suggests the article is in fact not worth listening to. This lack of balance should be addressed.

In paragraph eight, the story states, “canned tuna may also contain unsafe levels of mercury.” There is no attribution to this assertion and it is patently false. According to the FDA, canned light tuna averages around 0.1 ppm, while canned albacore averages around 0.3 ppm. Both of these averages are well below the FDA action level of 1.0 ppm. Consumers should feel confident that canned tuna remains a safe and healthy part of the American diet and to suggest that it is not is simply inaccurate.

In paragraph 17, the story states, “a 1991 study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that the risk of getting sick from eating seafood is approximately one in two million servings.” This would have been a good place for the reporter to note that there has never been a single case of mercury toxicity in this country from normal consumption of seafood. This is a fact that is not reported in this or any paragraph of the article.

In paragraph 21, the story states, “So there you have it. Another inconclusive verdict on what constitutes healthy food.” The American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, and U.S. Dietary Guidelines are not “inconclusive” about whether fish is a healthy food. Fish is a safe and healthy food and experts agree. Your writer suggests that because a publically and professionally discredited, poorly sourced, unbalanced and sensationalist scare-story raised concerns about mercury levels that the jury is out on the health benefits of seafood.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute