NFI Demands Corrections from New York
February 1, 2008
Mr. Pete Wells,
Dining Editor
The New York Times
VIA Email
Dear Mr. Wells:
Thank you again for taking the time to look into our request and engage in this dialogue. Allow me to cite the points that appear to be outstanding:
--Ms. Burros’ mix and match timeframe on the reference dose – sometimes it’s a week, other times several months, and then it’s long-term – seems to willfully avoid the most accurate description. The EPA specifically says that risk is possible only if exposure occurs “over a lifetime.” That’s why a correction had to be appended to her first article so why not just cite the advisory precisely?
--You say that you don’t know whether it’s true that not a single American has ever been clinically found to have mercury toxicity from fish consumption. I’d say that before you run a front-page story on the topic, that ought to be one of the first facts you should nail down. It’s easily confirmed by federal agencies and major medical organizations and the answer is this: zero.
--Your assertion that the “government is concerned about exposure to mercury through seafood consumption” is not a catch-all justification. The government is concerned about all sorts of risks, large and small – but if you don’t provide readers with some accurate measure of that risk, it simply instills fear. As I write, a satellite is literally falling from the sky. However, this pronouncement is followed by important context that “most, if any, debris that survives the intense heat of re-entry would likely fall into the oceans, which cover more than 70 percent of the planet!”
--You argue that you won’t quote us criticizing Ms. Burros because you believe her reporting is fair. But the January 30th article was about the impact of her reporting. Consumers told us they thought her reporting was biased, harmful and alarmist, which is what we conveyed to her. So, you can report that people panicked in a crowded theatre but we can’t say who yelled fire?”
--Neither Dr. Gochfeld nor Dr. Hightower – whom you cite as having patients with mercury toxicity – have produced any certifiable, clinical evidence that any of their patients suffered harm from fish consumption. That point remains unanswered.
--In her January 24 story, Ms. Burros cited 13 sources that affirmed purported harms from mercury and not a single source that differed – although many medical, scientific and dietary experts disagree with that premise. We asked whether you regard that as balanced coverage and that question too remains unanswered.
As I’m sure you are aware, we are not the only party in the public discourse that has noted the flaws in Ms. Burros’ reporting. Among others, one of the leading media critics in the country, as well as one of the top science writers on the issue of mercury, have both published thorough rebukes of Burros’ reporting. To my knowledge, she has offered no reply. Readers can judge that silence for themselves.
On stories that affect public health, the bar for responsible journalism ought to be at its highest. Ms. Burros failed those standards in every
major respect:
--The story was slanted. It quoted exclusively from one side of a hotly disputed topic. When she finally got around to calling us, a week later, she distorted our quotes because they took issue with her reporting.
--The coverage was inaccurate. Burros’ characterization of EPA’s testing model completely differs with EPA’s publicly stated levels of concern, daily consumption over a lifetime, and had to be corrected in the first article. And yet that same mistake was later repeated. What’s more, the most recent and relevant science was omitted entirely.
--The reporting was reckless. Federal agencies and medical organizations have frequently warned that incomplete information on fish consumption leads many consumers to alter their diet in harmful ways, specifically by avoiding fish altogether. We heard exactly that from many consumers and many of your readers said much the same in the comments section on your website.
Again, readers can judge these points for themselves and we intend to carry that public discussion forward. NFI wants a full, open and accurate discussion of the safety of fish consumption. For a paper that claims those same virtues, it’s a shame that the Times won’t join us in that effort.
Thank you again for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Hansan
National Fisheries Institute
CC: Clark Hoyt
Poynter Institute
Business Media Institute
Arthur Allen
_____________________________________________________
January 31, 2008
Mary Anne Hansan
Vice President
National Fisheries Institute
Via email
Dear Ms. Hansan,
I am still investigating some of the issues you raised in your letter of January 28. In the meantime, I can answer the concerns in your most recent letter, concerning the article by Marian Burros published on January 30.
You take issue with the article's characterization of the Environmental Protection Agency's reference dose for oral exposure to methyl mercury as applying to a "long-term diet." As you point out, the time span cited by the agency is a lifetime. It strikes me that "long-term" is a fair characterization of a human lifetime. No correction is necessary.
You also claim that you have been quoted in a way that distorts your meaning. I can see no substantive difference at all between what we reported and what you claim your transcript shows. You also object that the article did not give details on your objections to our reporting. What the article tried to do is concisely set out the core of your association's position on the health risks posed by mercury in seafood. What it did not do is repeat your accusation that Ms. Burros's reporting is inaccurate and misleading. The reason for this is simple: we believe the reporting is both accurate and fair. If we determine that there were any errors in the reporting, will will correct them promptly. But we are under no obligation to repeat criticisms of our reporting that we believe to be groundless.
As for your contention that we failed to mention the "additional protection" built into the EPA and FDA calculations on mercury, I refer you to my letter of January 25. Finally, I have not investigated your assertion that "not a single American has ever been clinically found to have mercury toxicity from fish consumption." Whether this is true or not, the fact remains that the United States government is concerned about exposure to mercury through seafood consumption and has set the guidelines that Ms. Burros cited in her reporting.
Sincerely yours,
Pete Wells
Dining Editor
The New York Times
_____________________________________________________
January 30, 2008
Mr. Pete Wells
Dining Editor
The New York Times
VIA Email
Dear Mr. Wells:
I find myself astonished that Marian Burros has a further article today about mercury and seafood that, again, contains basic journalism flaws. We are still awaiting reply from you on the problems in her last story. Allow me to add these specifics to our concerns:
Ms. Burros refers to an EPA standard that holds, “a long-term diet of even two or three pieces [from your study] would exceed the [mercury] levels considered acceptable.” As we have pointed out to you explicitly, and as can be verified on EPA’s own website, there is no such standard applying to “long-term diet.” The EPA reference dose (RfD) on this matter does not apply to a week nor to several months nor to long-term diet, as Burros has variously described it. It applies to a theoretical risk that would occur from fish consumption over the course of a lifetime. We would like to request a published correction on that error.
Ms. Burros truncated and thus distorted my words when she quoted me saying, “what we are hearing is a lot of consumer confusion about what to believe when it comes to seafood.” What I fully said to her was this: “There is a lot of consumer confusion about what to believe when it comes to seafood. There are well-documented benefits, independent scientific studies that demonstrate the benefits of seafood. Consumers intuitively know seafood is good for them and yet they are very confused because they are reading stories that are singularly focused on mercury. So the reporting is inconsistent and it’s alarmist.”
In fact, Ms. Burros asked me to repeat what I had said for clarity. To which I replied: “They are asking us to set the record straight on the alarmist and inaccurate reporting that is going on about seafood. They all know that there is a huge amount of documentation and science to support the benefits of seafood and they don’t understand why stories like yours obscure this in the press.” For Ms. Burros to omit the reasons I stated to her – and thus leave the impression that consumer confusion was general and not specific – is unprofessional and unacceptable. We have a verbatim transcript of those remarks which we would be glad to share and we would like to ask for a published clarification. Similarly, she reports that some retailers have “received faxes from [NFI] criticizing the article in the Times.” But the reasons why we are making that critique are never explained or summarized for readers. You may differ with our complaint but I don’t see how you can justify withholding the rationale for our complaint from readers – especially since Burros’ brings the criticism reader’s attention to begin with. Again, that is disingenuous and misleading. Again, we think a clarification is warranted.
Finally, I think readers would be right to wonder why Ms. Burros’ reporting omits mention or is consistently at odds with what the EPA and FDA have publicly stated time and again. The amount of additional protection built in to EPA’s and FDA’s mercury calculations is ten times higher than Burros’ reports and is never mentioned. She has failed to note that not a single American has ever been clinically found to have mercury toxicity from fish consumption. Don’t you think those facts are somewhat relevant in an article that warns about potential harms from fish consumption?
Considering that we have advised both you and Ms. Burros of many of these particulars in advance of the publication of this latest article, the breaches in standards and facts seem particularly egregious. I would be grateful for a swift reply and, if at all possible, some assurance that stricter editorial care will be taken in the future.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Hansan
National Fisheries Institute
CC: Clark Hoyt
Poynter Institute
Business Media Institute
Robert Lichter, Statistical Assessment Service
_____________________________________________________
January 28, 2008
Mr. Pete Wells
Dining Editor
The New York Times
VIA Email
Dear Mr. Wells:
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to the points we made in our request for corrections and clarification. Grateful though we are, however, the explanations you have offered still fall short of your own written standards on accuracy and objectivity. We intend to ask the Times public editor to look into the matter but in the meantime let me broach the points in your reply.
Let me be clear about what has happened here. The Times published an article that parrots the outlook on mercury in fish held by environmental activist groups. That outlook is a matter of sharp dispute and is contested not just by us but also many other credible sources in the medical and scientific communities. Although she is well familiar with them, Ms. Burros ignored those sources and thus misinformed and alarmed readers. Your paper claims to be objective, balanced and accurate – yet Ms. Burros’ article plainly fails those standards.
Here are the specifics. You assert in your letter, as in the article, that “methylmercury is tied to health problems in humans.” Yet no person in this country has ever been clinically found to have suffered health problems as a result of methylmercury through fish consumption. Those harms to American consumers through fish consumption are hypothetical. The article, obviously, is about fish consumption – and thus readers deserve to know that the health problems as related to fish consumption have never actually occurred, no matter what kinds of mercury toxicity have happened in other contexts.
You write that Ms. Burros explained the EPA reference dose in relation to a “regular diet of six pieces a week” and then as “weekly consumption over a period of several months.” That characterization of the RfD remains patently improper. The EPA’s website explicitly states that the reference dose is relevant to potential harm in human health only if exceeded over a lifetime. Again, that’s not a week and not several months. In other words, if a consumer ate fish from your study that exceeded the RfD and over a period of several months, that is nowhere near enough to put them at any health risk -- as the primary sanctioned agency, FDA, plainly states and will certainly confirm. What’s more, no matter how you name the 10-fold uncertainty cushion, the fact remains that consumers would have to exceed the RfD by 10 times to be at potential health risk – a critical fact that was obscured from readers.
Or, here is how one of your own sources, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian put it in a subsequent article in Time Magazine: “if six pieces of tuna sushi a week would put you at the limit, that means you would have to eat 60 pieces to get to the level where the EPA determined risk is occurring.” He also told Time Magazine that, “Both our report in 2006 in JAMA and the Institute of Medicine report, which were completely independent and came out at the same time, came to the same conclusion: There's no consistent evidence right now for significant health effects from mercury in adults.”
The unnamed EPA official that Ms. Burros enlisted for fact-checking is wrong. Here, verbatim, is what the EPA officially says – in the most authoritative, internally and externally cross-checked description – about the reference dose: “In general, the RfD is 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.”
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm
Your source, Dr. Bolger, an FDA toxicologist, refers to how mercury enters the environment in a general sense. What we are citing is the source of mercury in tuna, which was what the article was about. As Ms. Burros ought to know, the most authoritative and most recent analysis of this matter comes from the attached Princeton University study (Kraepiel A.M.L., Keller K., Chin H.B., Malcolm E.G. and Morel F.M.M. (2003) Sources and variations of mercury in tuna. Environ. Science Technol 37, 5551-5558), which analyzed the difference in mercury levels in tuna from 1971 and 1998 and found no difference. Since mercury concentrations in the atmosphere increased over the same period of time, if mercury in tuna originated wholly or partly in the atmospheric deposition of mercury, the increase in atmospheric mercury should be reflected to a measurable extent in the fish. Since they did not increase, Krapeil, et al, concluded that mercury concentrations in tuna are not responding to atmospheric pollution. These results confirmed previous studies that compared mercury concentrations in museum samples. One study (Miller, G.E., Rowland, F.S., Steinkru, Fj, Grant, P.M., Guinn, V.P., Kishore, R. Science 1972, 175, 1121-1122) found no difference in the mercury concentrations of tuna caught between 1878 and 1909 and tuna caught in 1972.
You disagree that the sourcing was one-sided. So, let’s consider all the sources sequentially, calling those who cite or affirm dangers “negative” and those who differ with that thesis “positive.”
Dr. Michael Gochfeld – Negative
Dr. Joanna Burger – Negative
Drew Nieporent – Negative
Tim Fitzgerald – Negative
Dr. P. Michael Bolger – Neutral
Andy Arons – Negative
Eric Bromberg – Negative
Koji Oneda – Negative
NYC Dept of Health – Negative
Dr. Kate Mahaffey – Negative
Dr. Phillipe Grandjean – Negative
[Sidebar Story – “Studies Link Other Ills to Mercury, Too”]
Dr. Eliseo Guallar – Negative
National Academy of Sciences report – Negative (through a selective citation)
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian – Neutral
Dr. Ellen Silbergeld – Negative
Dr. Jane Hightower – Negative
Although there are many authoritative and credible sources and institutions, private and government alike, in the medical and scientific communities that challenge the risks posed by methymercury exposure through fish consumption, there is not a single voice in the article to support that view. Instead space was provided for 13 different sources, both lay and expert alike, to advance the notion that fish consumption is somehow harmful. Ms. Burros is, or certainly ought to be, aware of these sources and studies and yet omitted them. Do you honestly regard that as balanced coverage?
I also fail to understand why you think it improper to characterize some of those sources as “self-interested” or “activists.” Environmental Defense describes itself as exactly that. Dr. Grandjean has publicly campaigned for EPA to lower its reference dose. Dr. Hightower lends frequent cooperation to self-described activist groups like Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility. Dr. Mahaffey has also campaigned about her own, individual analysis of purported dangers during pregnancy. Don’t readers deserve to know that these sources are advancing a specific public policy agenda – and one with which many other respected experts strongly differ?
Our complaint about Dr. Gochfeld – that he should substantiate whether any of his patients suffered mercury toxicity through fish consumption – remains unanswered. The same applies to Dr. Hightower – who has consistently refused to release any certifiable clinical evidence that any of her patients suffered harm from fish consumption. For the Times to allow them to tout their credentials and expertise in the absence of that verifiable evidence is completely irresponsible. Let me ask again: how is it possible that such serious allegations (which, after all, would be the first medical proof of its kind) were allowed in the paper without verification?
You note that Environmental Defense was described as “an advocacy group.” That’s not the full description. Instead they were described as “an advocacy group that works to protect the environment and improve human health.” National Fisheries Institute shares those goals, as evidenced by our work on sustainability and advancing understanding of the health benefits of fish. In the future would you be willing to apply the same descriptor to us as you do to Environmental Defense?
Contrary to what you state, the article clearly inferred that the fish industry was a contributing party to the purported harms posed to consumers. To suggest otherwise, readers would have to believe that the restaurants and stores the Times visited boated the ocean and caught the fish themselves. Responsible journalism should have required contacting either NFI or one of our members.
What’s more, the article did indeed suggest, repeatedly through sources, that certain fish should be eliminated or minimized in the diet. Environmental Defense, to cite just one such example, said “no one, no matter his or her age, should eat bluefin tuna.”
We would be glad to hear any further explanation you would care to offer. I appreciate the offer to consider a letter to the editor but first it is essential to set the record straight in the corrections section.
Thank you again for your attention to the matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Hansan
National Fisheries Institute
CC: Clark Hoyt
Poynter Institute
Business Media Institute
Robert Lichter, Statistical Assessment Service
_____________________________________________________
January 29, 2008
Dear Ms. Hansan,
I have read your latest letter forwarded by Jim McCarthy yesterday and will reply as soon as I am able to investigate a few of the new points you have raised. The New York Times takes all requests for corrections seriously so please be assured that I am moving as quickly as I can.
Yours sincerely,
Pete Wells
Dining Editor
The New York Times
_____________________________________________________
January 25, 2008
Mary Anne Hansan
Vice President
National Fisheries Institute
7918 Jones Branch Road
Number 700
McLean, Virginia 22102
Dear Ms. Hansan,
Thank you for your letter of January 23 concerning the article by Marian Burros about mercury in tuna sushi, published on Wednesday. Please allow me to offer a response to each of the points you raise.
You note that the chart accompanying the article refers to a measurement that "the Environmental Protection Agency calls a weekly reference dose." You are absolutely correct that the EPA does not have a "weekly reference dose." Our chart should have been worded differently. The agency has a daily reference dose. We will publish a correction on this point as soon as possible.
However, the article itself, "High Mercury Levels are Found in Tuna Sushi," was quite clear that the EPA's guidelines applied to regular, long-term consumption. The first sentence read, "Recent laboratory tests found so much mercury in tuna sushi from 20 Manhattan stores and restaurants that at most of them, a regular diet [emphasis added] of six pieces a week would exceed the levels considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency."
Later in the article, Ms. Burros explained the EPA's guideline in greater detail, noting that 49 micrograms of mercury was "the amount the Environmental Protection Agency deems acceptable for weekly consumption over a period of several months [emphasis added] by an adult of average weight…." These two references, separately and together, unambiguously state that the agency's guidelines apply to a long-term diet, not consumption in a single week.
Before publication, an EPA official reviewed this wording, and suggested a clarification, which was incorporated in the article. I therefore cannot agree with you that Ms. Burros's characterization of the EPA reference dose was "misleading."
You refer to a "ten-fold safety cushion" in the FDA's action level and ask how it is possible that the article failed to point this out. The article stated, accurately, that the agency is empowered to remove tuna from the market if it contains mercury concentrations in excess of the action level. This definition of the action level speaks for itself and does not need to be qualified with a footnote explaining how the agency arrived at the number it uses. The article did not discuss the health implications of the action level, only the power it gave the agency to seize food products. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the action level as providing a "ten-fold safety cushion." The same FDA statement you cite, from "Mercury in Fish: Cause for Concern?", goes on to say that FDA toxicologists "consider the 1 ppm limit to provide an adequate margin of safety. This doesn't mean that it is safe to regularly and frequently eat fish that contain 1 ppm methyl mercury [emphasis added]."
You also identify what you call a "ten-fold safety factor" in the EPA's mercury reference dose and request an explanation of how this was not included in the article. A close examination of the EPA's position shows that the mercury reference dose was calculated with a ten-fold uncertainty factor, not a "safety factor." The uncertainty factor reflects both variability and uncertainty in the risks being assessed. It does not mean that "an individual would need to consume 26 pieces of tuna per week over the course of an entire lifetime before accumulating the lowest level associated with adverse health effects."
You assert that "nearly all the mercury in tuna enters the environment as a naturally occurring element from undersea volcanic activity." This is contradicted by the FDA in a reprint of an article on its web site, which states, "According to FDA toxicologist Mike Bolger, Ph.D., approximately 2,700 to 6,000 tons of mercury are released annually into the atmosphere naturally by degassing from the Earth's crust and oceans. Another 2,000 to 3,000 tons are released annually into the atmosphere by human activities, primarily from burning household and industrial wastes, and especially from fossil fuels such as coal." The article stated that "mercury enters the environment as an industrial pollutant." This statement is correct.
You ask for a clarification of the article's characterization of methylmercury as "the form of mercury found in fish tied to health problems." Methylmercury is a form of mercury found in fish. It is also tied to health problems in humans. No clarification is needed.
As to your concerns about the sources for the article, I strongly disagree with your characterization of them as "grossly one-sided." It is also untrue that "Aside from the EPA and restaurants whose sushi was tested by the Times, the only sources consulted are experts with clear self-interest and or activist groups engaged in both lobbying and fundraising against coal fired power plants, a source of mercury."
First, I would like to point out that Ms. Burros consulted many sources that she did not cite by name. Second, those she did cite by name do not fit your characterization.
To be specific: The main article and an accompanying article, "Studies Link Other Ills to Mercury, Too," included quotations from Dr. P. Michael Bolger of the Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health and chairman of the department of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark; Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School; Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, professor of environmental health sciences and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; and Dr. Michael Gochfeld, professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Dr. Gochfeld is also the former chairman of the New Jersey Mercury Task Force.
The two articles also cited a report by the New York City Department of Health, another report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and a study by an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health among other peer-reviewed academic studies.
You claim that Dr. Michael Gochfeld "stands to benefit from alarmist stories about mercury" because of his clinical practice. I disagree with your implication that a doctor with a clinical practice is incapable of holding an objective opinion in his field of expertise. Nevertheless, the article did mention Dr. Gochfeld's clinical practice so that readers could take it into account in evaluating his statements and opinions.
You also state that Kate Mahaffey of the EPA is engaged in "pure speculation" when she says that an unexpectedly high rise in blood mercury levels "appears to be related to consumption of larger amounts of fish that are higher in mercury than we had anticipated." I do not know what basis you have for calling Dr. Mahaffey's professional opinions "pure speculation" but I do know that Ms. Burros asked her about the foundation for those opinions. She concluded that they were more than purely speculative.
Ms. Burros may not have mentioned the "fundraising agenda" of Environmental Defense, but her article clearly identifies the organization as an advocacy group. This disclosure enables readers to draw their own conclusions about any possible bias in the statements of people working for the group.
You quote the portion of the standards guidelines of The New York Times that states, "We seek and publish a response from anyone criticized in our pages." Ms. Burros did just that. Each of the restaurants named in the article was given space in print to respond. But your implication seems to be that the National Fisheries Institute and its members were criticized in the article. They were not.
The article reported on high mercury concentrations in bluefin tuna and the accompanying article discussed the possible health implications of mercury in the diet. Neither article suggested that the fishing industry was to blame or that people should eat less fish. In fact, the accompanying article stated: "No one is recommending that people stop eating fish. In fact, health professionals and researchers encourage eating seafood selectively, choosing species, like salmon and sardines, that have high omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of mercury."
I do understand and appreciate that the National Fisheries Institute has its own perspective on many of the issues surrounding Ms. Burros's articles. If you would like to set forth the organization's point of view for readers of The New York Times, I encourage you to write a letter for publication.
We will, as I stated above, publish a correction on the EPA reference dose. On all the other issues you raise, we stand by the articles as published.
Thank you again for your letter.
Sincerely yours,
Pete Wells
Dining Editor
The New York Times
_____________________________________________________
January 23, 2008
Mr. Nick Fox
Mr. James Gorman
VIA Email
Dear Sirs:
We would like to bring to your attention several errors and other breaches in journalism standards contained in an article today by Marian Burros [High Mercury Levels are Found in Tuna Sushi].
Here are the specific factual errors:
• The chart accompanying the article indicates a measurement that “the Environmental Protection Agency calls a weekly reference dose.” There is no such “weekly reference dose” issued by EPA. Instead, the reference dose in question is explicitly intended to apply to a hypothetical daily intake over the course of an entire lifetime. Here is how the EPA phrases that definition on their public website: “In general, the RfD is 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.” By inventing a “weekly” measurement and thus inferring that a limited intake has potential consequences, Ms. Burros doubly misleads readers.
• The reporting also omits the fact that the FDA’s methylmercury “Action Level” (1.0 part per million) has a ten-fold safety cushion. Specifically, the FDA states publicly that the Action Level “was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.” How is it possible that an article purporting to examine potential harms fails to note what the main agency cited on the matter has to say about those risks?
• Similarly, the EPA’s mercury reference dose also incorporates a ten-fold safety factor – which Burros also omits. Using that measurement, applied to the highest-mercury sample in her analysis, an individual would need to consume 26 pieces of tuna per week over the course of an entire lifetime before accumulating the lowest level associated with adverse health effects. Again, it seems incredible that this specific context from the federal agencies cited was not included in the piece – and we’d like an explanation for how that got past Burros’ editors.
• Burros asserts that “mercury enters the environment as an industrial pollutant. In fact, nearly all the mercury in tuna enters the environment as a naturally occurring element from undersea volcanic activity – a scientific fact easily verified. Times readers deserve to know the full truth of that fact – which was apparently obscured by Burros and her sources at Environmental Defense.
• Burros writes, “methylmercury [is] the form of mercury found in fish tied to health problems.” The distinction -- between hypothetical health consequences from consuming fish and mercury toxicity in general-- needs to be clarified for your readers. There is not a single documented case of mercury toxicity from eating fish in the United States.
Here are the specific problems with the sourcing:
• Ms. Burros knows well that the issue of risk associated with methylmercury exposure is one of serious contention. Yet, the sources she uses to characterize that risk are grossly one-sided. Aside from the EPA and restaurants whose sushi was tested by the Times, the only sources consulted are experts with clear self-interest and or activist groups engaged in both lobbying and fundraising against coal fired power plants, a source of mercury.
• Despite the availability of well regarded, independent, objective laboratories Burros chose to have her Sushi samples tested by Dr. Michael Gochfeld. As part of his own work Gochfeld treats patients for issues related to mercury. Because Gochfeld’s research and practice stands to benefit from alarmist stories about mercury he should not be considered an objective clinician in this case. What’s more, we suspect that it is highly unlikely that any of Gochfeld’s patients have mercury toxicity from fish consumption—and if that’s the case a published clarification is called for.
• Kate Mahaffey from the E.P.A tells readers that a rise in blood mercury levels in this country “appears” to be related to Americans eating fish that are higher in mercury. This is pure speculation and is in fact refuted by the latest consumption data that shows lower
mercury seafood like shrimp, salmon and tilapia are some of the most popular.
• Environmental Defense is a political activist group with scant expertise in the medical science of food consumption. Burros omits mention of their fundraising agenda, instead describing them disingenuously as “work[ing]…to improve human health.” Yet, the “advice” they offer is at odds with what every major medical, health and government agency has publicly recommended.
Allow me to point out the Times guideline on standards states that, “we seek and publish a response from anyone criticized in our pages. But when the criticism is serious, we have a special obligation to describe the scope of the accusation and let the subject respond in detail. No subject should be taken by surprise when the paper appears, or feel that there was no chance to respond.
To say that we were taken by surprise is putting it mildly. Though this article was apparently weeks in production and directly involved our membership, we never received a call from Ms. Burros. Accordingly, we would like to ask for an explanation of how these many breaches in basic journalism standards could have occurred – as well as a formal, published correction on the errors cited above.
If, as the Times guidelines on integrity states, “the acid test of freedom from favoritism is the ability maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute” – then that’s one measure that Ms. Burros has undoubtedly failed.
Kind thanks in advance for your prompt reply.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Hansan
National Fisheries Institute
CC: Clark Hoyt
Poynter Institute
Business Media Institute
______________________________________________________
January 25, 2008
Michael Gochfeld, M.D., Ph.D.
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute
170 Frelinghuysen Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854
01/23/08
Dear Dr. Gochfeld,
I am writing in relation to your participation in the New York Times article titled “High Mercury Levels Are Found in Tuna Sushi” by Marian Burros, published January 23, 2008.
As we review the findings of this article, I would like to request a copy of the full research and methodology used to test the samples provided to you by the New York Times.
I can be reached at bblakistone@nfi.org or 703.752.8887.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Barbara Blakistone, Ph. D.
Director, Scientific Affairs
National Fisheries Institute
cc: Joanna Burger, Ph.D.
Audrey Gotsch, DrPH, CHES
