Friday's U.S. Geological Survey study on an apparent increase in mercury levels in the North Pacific has quickly become one of, if not the most misreported seafood story of the year. I'm confident it will end up earning this title based simply on the fact that it is not a study about seafood-- in fact it didn't even examine any seafood as part of its work. But journalists from here to Timbuktu are printin misinformed sound bite science from agenda drive sources whose press releases are openly manipulating the study.
On Friday we put out a statement to help journalists who might not realize that a study that didn't test fish probably should be reported on as one whose conclusions were based on... fish. Sounds simple but you might be surprised:
"This study deserves hard scrutiny, especially because existing, peer-reviewed
research shows no mercury increase in ocean-going fish over the last 30 years.
What's more, the authors of the study concede that they did not test levels of
mercury absorption in fish, which renders any conclusions or forecasts about
seafood incomplete and irresponsible. The fact remains that tuna is a safe and
healthy diet choice containing essential nutrients and that there is virtually zero
risk for ordinary consumption."
And wouldn't you know it not everyone got the message. Paper's like The Oregonian got pretty close but publications like Greenwire just missed the boat completely. So we explained to Greenwire exactly what was wrong with its story and have asked its editors to set the record straight. Our letter to Greenwire follows.
May 4, 2009
Dan Berman
Editor, Greenwire
VIA Email
Dear Mr. Berman,
I am writing to draw your attention to some violations of journalistic standards in Noelle Straub's May 1st 2009 report, "Study shows link between air pollution, contaminated seafood."
To begin, the study most definitely did not show the "link" your headline claims. The report not only fails to ascertain a link, it did not even attempt to establish one. The study was about ocean water and not ocean fish. The mercury levels reported on were solely in ocean water and not in fish. Fish were not tested for mercury, period.
Your headline is a clear violation of The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, which states reporters should "Make certain that headlines... do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
What's more the content of your article is erroneous and makes a leap that may be hinted at by the report but is certainly not concluded by it. In fact peer reviewed sciences shows just the opposite. That while levels of mercury found in the ocean may have ebbed and flowed in the last thirty years the levels of mercury in ocean fish have not. The study failed to reveal this fact and apparently your reporter failed to research it.
Throughout the article your reporter allows misinformed sources to broadly misstate the conclusions of the study, unchallenged:
"This unprecedented USGS study is critically important to the health and safety of the American people and our wildlife because it helps us understand the relationship between atmospheric emissions of mercury and concentrations of mercury in marine fish," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement. This is wrong.
The report's conclusion may theorize that "such increases could have serious implications for resulting contaminant burdens in pelagic marine fish..." but it does not reach this as a scientific conclusion because it never tested any fish.
"This study gives us a better understanding of how dangerous levels of mercury move into our air, our water, and the food we eat, and shines new light on a major health threat to Americans and people all across the world," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. This too is wrong.
The report did not test how or if the mercury in question moved into the food we eat. It simply did not reach that conclusion or better our understanding of that process in any way because it did not investigate that process.
We respectfully ask that you review Straub's work with the highest of journalistic standards in mind and issue a correction.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
