April 22, 2008
Chronicle runs the NFI's letter to the editor
Regarding David Ellison's March 31 column "HOW SAFE IS THIS TO EAT?/Chronicle tests find mercury above guidelines in bluefin tuna at some local sushi restaurants": Houstonians deserve balanced, well-informed reporting when it comes to consumer and health issues. While Ellison's reporting on mercury in sushi achieved some of those goals, it failed to reach others.
The article states that the Food and Drug Administra-tion's guidelines for mercury in seafood are "nonbinding." That is incorrect. The FDA action level for mercury is in fact binding and can result in products being pulled off the shelves. Furthermore, the article fails to mention that there have been no cases of mercury toxicity in this country from the normal consumption of seafood.
GAVIN GIBBONS
National Fisheries Institute, McLean, Va
_____________________________________________________
April 18, 2008
VIA EMAIL
Steve Jetton, Houston Chronicle Assistant Managing Editor
Dear Mr. Jetton,
It has been eighteen days since I first contacted you to bring to your attention concerns over David Ellison’s Sunday March 30th report about mercury in sushi tuna.
As a reminder, I wrote to you to March 31, April 2, and April 7 and detailed a number of issues we found in your reporting, including but not limited to your paper’s claim that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) action level for mercury is nonbinding and that no federal agency can take action in cases where mercury levels are exceeded. This statement is unequivocally false. The FDA defines its action level this way: “Action levels and tolerances represent limits at or above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market.” Your paper’s reporting was inaccurate and should be corrected.
According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Houston Chronicle’s own ethics code (Published: January 29, 1999 Last Updated: February 17, 1999) states that, “employment by the Chronicle carries with it a responsibility to be constantly aware of the importance of ethical conduct.” Do journalistic ethics not compel you to correct misinformation published by your paper and brought to your attention numerous times?
Your lack of response and attention to this matter has prompted us to write a letter to the editor. Please find that letter attached. I continue to look forward to hearing from you about what steps the Houston Chronicle plans to take to correct the record.
Gavin Gibbons
cc John Wilburn
Jeff Cohen
Jack Sweeney
Matthew Oliver
Bob Steele, Poynter Institute
___________________________________________________
TO: The Editor
RE: Chronicle tests find mercury above guidelines in bluefin tuna at some local sushi restaurants 03/31/08
Houstonians deserve balanced well-informed reporting when it comes to consumer and health issues. While David Ellison’s reporting on mercury in sushi achieved some of those goals, it failed to reach others
The article states that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guidelines for mercury in seafood are “nonbinding.” That is incorrect. The FDA action level for mercury is in fact binding and can result in products being pulled of the shelves. Furthermore, the article fails to mention that there have been no cases of mercury toxicity in this country from the normal consumption of seafood.
But the real failure is beyond the reporting. These errors in fact and omission have been repeatedly brought to the attention of Chronicle editors, who have refused to correct the inaccuracies and continue to ignore requests for clarification.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
___________________________________________________
April 7, 2008
VIA EMAIL
Steve Jetton, Houston Chronicle Assistant Managing Editor
Dear Mr. Jetton,
It has been seven days since we first brought to your attention our concerns over David Ellison’s Sunday March 30th report about mercury in sushi tuna.
It is our sincere hope that this delay in response is the product of the time it takes to research the factual errors we highlighted in both our March 31st and April 2nd letters.
Let me take this opportunity to recap the specific errors in fact and or omission to which I am referring. Throughout the report on mercury in seafood your reporter failed to mention that no peer-reviewed medical journal in this country has ever reported on a single case of mercury toxicity as a result of the normal consumption of seafood. Your reporter was aware of this before publication but decided not to include it in his reporting despite the fact that his article focused on the health effects of eating tuna sushi as they relate to levels of mercury.
The article claims the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) action level for mercury is nonbinding and that no federal agency can take action in cases where mercury levels are exceeded, which is false. The FDA defines its action level this way: “Action levels and tolerances represent limits at or above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market.” Your paper’s reporting was inaccurate and should be corrected.
Thank you again for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you about what steps the Houston Chronicle plans to take next.
Gavin Gibbons
_____________________________________________________
April 2, 2008
VIA EMAIL
Steve Jetton, Houston Chronicle Assistant Managing Editor
Dear Mr. Jetton,
Thank you for your prompt review and response to my concerns over David Ellison’s Sunday March 30th report about mercury in sushi.
I understand your reluctance to correct or clarify issues you feel were “thoroughly discussed” in the article. However, I must respectfully but strongly disagree with you on two points of absolute fact that were either omitted or misreported in the article.
No peer-reviewed medical journal in this country has ever reported on a single case of mercury toxicity as a result of the normal consumption of seafood. Your reporter was made aware of this fact but decided not to include it in his reporting. In an article that serves to review what can only be described as a matter of public health it is essential that the real and theoretical risks be put in their proper perspective. To report on the health effects of eating tuna sushi as they relate to levels of mercury and not mention that there have been no cases of mercury toxicity in this country as a result of normal consumption of seafood borders on negligent.
Furthermore, the article claims the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) action level for mercury is nonbinding and that no federal agency can take action in cases where mercury levels are exceeded, which is false. A simple Google search of the words FDA action level returns this definition from the FDA’s own Web site: “Action levels and tolerances represent limits at or above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market.” To allow inaccurate reporting to remain on the record is a clear violation of journalism standards.
Thank you again for your attention to this important matter.
Gavin Gibbons
cc John Wilburn
Jeff Cohen
Bob Steele, Poynter Institute
Also at NFI:
Enviro-Lobbyists Push Prop65 Scare Story, Encourate Seafood-Deficient Diet
NFI Challenges USA Today on Sushi and Mercury Toxicity
NFI Challenges NY Times of Sushi and Mercury Toxicity
NYT Public Editor Criticizes Times' Mercury Story
NY Times Got Sushi Story Wrong
Inaccurate Sushi Story Causes Public Harm
______________________________________________________
04/01/08
Dear Mr. Gibbons,
John Wilburn asked me to respond to your letter. After reviewing the story, I don’t believe any of the points raised in your letter warrant a correction or clarification. It appears to me that the issues you mention were thoroughly discussed.
Thank you for your help in the reporting of the story.
Yours truly,
Steve Jetton
Assistant Managing Editor
______________________________________________________
March 31, 2008
VIA EMAIL
John Wilburn, Houston Chronicle Managing Editor
Dear Mr. Wilburn,
I am writing in regard to the story David Ellison wrote for the Sunday March 30th edition about sushi and mercury toxicity. There are a few issues I would like to bring to your attention.
They are as follows:
In paragraph 6 I am identified as a spokesman for the seafood industry after being quoted as saying that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) action level includes a 10-fold safety factor. It is never made clear that the 10-fold safety factor is not merely my opinion or an industry position. It is a fact. To suggest that my statement is simply a part of the seafood industry’s argument that exceeding the FDA’s guidelines does not put consumers in danger of mercury toxicity is flawed.
The FDA will tell anyone who will listen that there is a 10-fold safety factor built in to its action level. It should be clarified that my statement, "there's a tenfold safety factor, so 1.0 parts per million is 10 times lower than any level that would be associated with risk to begin with," is not simply an industry argument but a scientifically verifiable fact.
In paragraph 14 Mr. Ellison writes, “The FDA randomly tests fish for mercury…but no federal agency can take action in cases in which mercury levels exceed the FDA's nonbinding guideline of 1 ppm.” This is patently false. The FDA’s guidelines are binding and the FDA is in itself the federal agency with the ability and mandate to take action. It stretches your reporter’s credibility when he suggests the FDA’s own spokeswoman would assert that her agency’s “action level” is something federal regulators would not be allowed to take action on.
In paragraph 27 I am quoted as saying, “a person would have to consume a piece of high-mercury fish every day over the course of his or her life to be at risk of mercury toxicity,” a point that is then challenged in the next paragraph by Ernest D. Lykissa, of ExperTox.
While those are my words, again the irrefutable science behind them is not explained. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines the oral Reference Dose (RfD) for mercury as an, “estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.” My statements stand on sound science and not mere conjecture and should be presented as facts not arguments that are up for debate.
Lastly, Mr. Ellison fails to mention that not a single American has ever been medically diagnosed with mercury toxicity as a result of the normal consumption of seafood. This is a fact that I made him well aware of and stands to challenge the very idea omnipresent in his story; that people are somehow at risk from eating sushi tuna. Again, sound science tells us that there is not a single case of mercury toxicity in this country related to the normal consumption of seafood that has ever been reported on in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Failing to mention this simply buys into the hysteria being pushed by activist groups pursuing an ideological agenda that is neither concerned with the facts or public health.
It is my sincerest hope that these transgressions will be publically addressed and corrected by your paper. Thank you again for your continued attention to this matter.
Gavin Gibbons
cc Steve Jetton
