**Follow recent conversation with USA TODAY** ______________________________________________________
The American public deserves accurate, balanced information about fish consumption which public health experts widely agree is a vital part of our diet. USA TODAY instead relied on agenda-driven activists, erroneous data and one-sided reporting in its October 30 cover story. We have requested that USA TODAY address these inaccuracies and will hold USA TODAY publicly accountable.
November 1, 2007
Mr. Val Ellicott, Editor
Gannett News Service
7950 Jones Branch Road
McLean, VA 22102
Dear Val:
Larry Wheeler’s October 30 cover story about fish consumption contains a number of errors, distortions and other breaches in basic journalism standards.
Specifically:
•The article states, “As many as 600,000 babies may be born in the USA each year with irreversible brain damage because pregnant mothers ate mercury-contaminated fish, the Environmental Protection Agency says.” That is false – and in several respects. First, the EPA has never made any such assertion. One official from EPA, Kathryn Mahaffey, extrapolated that figure at EPA’s Fish Forum conference in 2004. The agency itself subsequently disavowed connection with the assertion – and placed a disqualifying reference to it on their public website. What’s more, there is not a single documented case of any child in this country with mercury levels above RfD – let alone with resulting brain damage.
•The third graph states, “Medical researchers are just beginning to explore such mercury exposure in adults, which can leave some people struggling through life in a disorienting “fish fog.” That is entirely wrong. Medical and scientific researchers have, in fact, been studying the effects of mercury for decades. It should also be noted that there is no medical condition known as “fish fog.” It is not a term used in the medical community and there is no documented evidence that anyone has such a condition.
•Wheeler points out that, “mercury from coal-burning power plants has risen [since 1990].” That may be so, but there is also strong and widely-accepted research that mercury levels in fish such as tuna has not changed in the last 30 years. If Wheeler seeks to draw a connection with mercury and fish, why was that data withheld from readers?
•Further down in the piece, Wheeler reports that, “physicians and public health officials acknowledge it is extremely difficult to ‘prove’ a direct link between eating a tuna steak and high blood mercury levels.” This is disingenuous in the extreme. In sound medical research, a thesis can be proven or it cannot. The fallacy that correlation equals causation is one of the fundamental pitfalls that science avoids – and yet Wheeler has apparently built an entire article on that basis. Worse still, why are none of these physicians or health officials quoted?
•Instead, Wheeler blithely asserts that “anecdotal evidence isn’t hard to find.” Well, neither is it hard to find people who believe that maladies are caused by cell phones, lipstick, fluoride and the lunar eclipse. That doesn’t make it so – in questions of public health, as you should know, it is the actual science that counts.
•That’s why Wheeler’s reliance on college student Luke Lindley and physician Jane Hightower is so unreliable and irresponsible. Lindley’s symptoms could have derived from any number of causes – starting with his admittedly odd and unbalanced dietary habits. The larger problem, however, is that Hightower has never released any public data to support her contention that fish consumption has harmed her patients – in fact, she has repeatedly refused to release the information she touts. Her journal study shows a correlation between fish consumption and mercury levels – but that is a widely known phenomenon. But there is absolutely no medical evidence whatsoever that any Americans have experienced mercury toxicity from eating fish.
•Wheeler’s description of the screening processes also misleads readers. “Fish and shellfish are not routinely screened for mercury,” Wheeler reports. That is erroneous. Fish producers conduct systematized screening for a battery of contaminants, including mercury, throughout the industry. In addition, the FDA conducts its own screening tests and publishes the results on its public website. Asserting that the FDA’s tests are not “routine” is a canard – testing of that sort must be non-periodic precisely to ensure their efficacy.
•In addition, writing that “FDA rarely exercises [mercury ‘action level’] misleads readers. The reason it happens rarely is exactly because those action levels are so rarely exceeded.
•A National Academy of Sciences study is wrongly cited and inapplicable. That study did not make any correlation with fish consumption, as Wheeler infers. Rather, it had to do with a study group in the remote Faroes Islands that consumed mostly whale meat. Also obscured from readers is the more extensive and recent research published in medical journals such as the Lancet. Those studies demonstrate that the risks from mercury in fish are infinitesimal – and that the harms from avoiding fish are in fact the primary medical worry. How does Wheeler justify ignoring that directly relevant research?
•Instead, Wheeler makes vague and alarming references such as, “there are only government estimates of how many [babies] actually have unhealthy blood mercury levels.” But babies have indeed been studied by medical researchers and negative correlations have not been found – nor has there been a single case of toxicity in this country.
•The sourcing on the piece is a central problem. By my count, Wheeler quotes six sources critical of fish consumption – each with an activist or political axe to grind. By contrast, he quotes two sources that differ with his thesis – but negatively qualifies those quotes by citing business revenue figures. How do you justify citing financial figures for some sources but not others? Readers deserve to know where everyone in the debate is coming from, don’t they?
•Even the usage in the piece is sloppy and reckless. Descriptions of “harm” from mercury are riddled with so many qualifiers – “maybe,” “suggesting,” “can,” “appears to be” – as to render them useless. In a front-page article so critical to public health, how did these phrases get past editors?
We intend to bring these journalism transgressions to the attention of both media critics as well as various public commentators on these issues. In the meantime, we look forward to hearing what corrective action you will take to set the record straight.
Sincerely,
John Connelly
President
National Fisheries Institute
______________________________________________________
Update – November 5, 2007 - Gannett News Service Offers Limited Response
Late Friday afternoon (11/2), we received a call from the managing editor for the Washington, DC bureau of Gannett News Service, Laura Rehrmann. In the interest of accuracy, we asked Ms. Rehrmann if we could conduct the conversation fully on the record so that we could present her explanations verbatim. She refused – as had reporter Larry Wheeler on a call two days earlier.Ms. Rehrmann said that it would require another full week before Gannett could confirm the accuracy of its reporting and promised to contact us again next Friday, 11/9. She offered a qualified explanation for only two of the twelve specific problems we pointed out in the story.
On the first point (letter to Gannett) Ms. Rehrmann suggested it was difficult to tell whether EPA had in fact officially distanced itself from the estimates of one EPA toxicologist that 600,000 infants were at risk. We pointed out to Ms. Rehrmann (as we had in our letter) the source documentation from EPA’s own website which states, “This estimate is preliminary [and] EPA is still reviewing these new studies and their potential implications. This recalculation does not impact or change the established Reference Dose (RfD).” Despite this manifest information, Ms. Rehrmann said only that she would try to call EPA for confirmation.
Ms. Rehrmann also said she hadn’t yet confirmed whether “fish and shellfish are not routinely screened for mercury,” as the article stated. We pointed out to her the link on FDA’s webpage where the findings from those screenings, along with those from the National Marine Fisheries Service, are posted. Ms. Rehrmann said only that she wanted to look for further confirmation.
We pointed out that this sort of fact-checking should probably have taken place prior to publication of such sweeping allegations. Ms. Rehrmann declined to reply. We further asked for explanations on the ten additional and specific transgressions of Gannett’s own standards that we pointed out in our letter and Ms. Rehrmann again offered none.
We will continue to hold Gannett and USA TODAY to their promise of journalistic accountability and will post further updates as they occur. It is troubling, to say the least, that journalists would be so resistant to the clear substantiation that has been presented to them – and that they would not want to be quoted directly about their work. Their erroneous coverage, after all, risks alarming the American public on a crucial matter of public health.
______________________________________________________
November 8, 2007 - NFI Responds to Claim Industry Had Ample Opportunity to Contribute to Story
NFI refuted USA TODAY Managing Editor Laura Rehermann’s assertion reporter Larry Wheeler provided NFI with both ample time to respond and space to discuss the facts about mercury and canned tuna.
November 6, 2007
Laura,
I understand you are looking into the points raised in our letter and look forward to your reply. For the sake of accuracy, I hope we will be able to conduct that dialogue on the record. Previously, both you and reporter Larry Wheeler asked we not quote your explanations nor cite what you had said verbatim. When you consider journalism’s principles of openness and the fact that we have been forthcoming to your questions, that seems to be a troubling double standard.
I would also like to clarify a point raised in a previous conversation. You indicated that Larry Wheeler had afforded our organization several weeks to reply to his inquiries since his story appeared more than a month after he first called us. That is not so. Our PR firm took contemporaneous notes when Wheeler first called on Monday, September 17th. He said he was “handing my editor a copy of the piece at 5pm today.” He went on to say he would fill the “hole” in his story if we responded no later than 3pm on Tuesday, the 18th.
Of course, we had no idea when you intended to actually publish the story and I fail to see how we could have interpreted Wheeler’s remarks as anything other than a make-or-break deadline. Needless to say, had we been given more time we would have been glad to provide information that could have helped avoid many of the problems that resulted in the story.
Again, we look forward to hearing back from you this week.
Mary Anne Hansan
______________________________________________________
November 9, 2007 - USA TODAY Fails to Correct or Respond
Nov. 8, 2007
John Connelly
President
National Fisheries Institute
7918 Jones Branch Road, #700
McLean, VA 22102
Dear Mr. Connelly:
Thank you for your letter of Nov. 2. We take complaints seriously and carefully reviewed the concerns you and Ms. Mary Anne Hansan raised about Larry Wheeler's Oct. 30 story.
We have determined that the EPA's best and most current estimate of the number of U.S. newborns with in utero mercury exposure in excess of the EPA reference dose is 410,000. Gannett News Service will move a correction on that figure today and USA TODAY will run it in Friday's paper.
We have concluded that there are no other errors in Mr. Wheeler's story.
In researching this subject, Mr. Wheeler drew on a wealth of sources, including: fish consumption advisories issued by state and federal agencies; interviews with state and federal officials, scientists, physicians, power plant executives, fishermen, environmentalists and spokesmen for the Edison Electric Institute; articles in health and environmental journals; and information from Ms. Hansan of the U.S. Tuna Foundation. We also summarized the latest health advisory on fish from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. That advisory acknowledges the health benefits of eating some fish and offers warnings to those people most at risk from methylmercury.
We consider the finished product fair and even-handed.
Linda Mathews
Senior enterprise editor
USA TODAY
(703) 854-5581
email: lmathews@usatoday.com
Laura Rehrmann
GNS Managing Editor
(202) 906-8147
email: lrehrmann@gns.gannett.com
November 9, 2007
Dear Ms. Rehrmann:
It is troubling that you have opted not to provide any substantive response to the specific questions we raised in our letter to you. Those points highlight clear and apparent contradictions of Gannett’s own, written standards on objectivity, accuracy and sourcing. Even if you differ with us on the merits, we think we are at least owed an explanation for your rationale — particularly considering the gravity of the assertions in the story and its prominent space in print.
We intend to continue pressing this case publicly so that readers, observers of the issues, and American consumers can see for themselves that Gannett’s reporting in this instance is unreliable.
In the meantime, we are astonished at the correction you proposed and ran. That, too, is demonstrably erroneous. The figure you cite, that 410,000 infants are exposed to mercury above the EPA reference dose, is taken from a presentation delivered by one (1) EPA scientist, not the agency itself. In fact, here is what EPA had contributed as a slide in the beginning of that presentation: "The Findings and Conclusions in This Presentation Have Not Been Formally Disseminated by U.S. EPA and Should Not Be Construed to Represent Any Agency Determination or Policy". We are unaware of any change in EPA's position.
Therefore, obviously, this is not an EPA estimate as you assert. As far as we can tell, this raises only two possibilities. One, that you are unaware that EPA disavowed the figure. Or, two, that you saw the disclaimer and are representing it to readers nevertheless. We would like to hear an explanation but either way it appears you are going to have to run a further correction.
We would be grateful if you could reply to these requests as quickly as possible.
Regards,
Mary Anne Hansan
