So, here’s the latest from the folks at Time.com. This time their lawyer lets us know how “indisputably accurate” their story is-- only after having been revised twice because of myriad demonstrable errors we pointed out to them.
Let me suggest a way we can stop this back and forth. We both agree that tuna is “generally healthful”—Time’s words, not mine. So let’s not feature it on a list of the ten most “dangerous foods”—shall we?
Sounds like a simple enough solution. March 3, 2010 EMAIL
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
Re: Time.com -- “Tuna Tremors” Dear Mr. Gibbons: Your letter of March 1. 2010 to Maurice Edelson was referred to me. You
have complained of Time.com’s “lack of response,” but in fact the website’s editor, Daniel Eisnberg, responded to you promptly and twice updated the piece to accommodate your concerns. This action is a far cry from your charge that Time “appears unwilling to remedy or even address the harm that has been done.”
The article is indisputably accurate. It points out that tuna can be adanger to pregnant women and children, in the same way it highlights that peanuts are aproblem for the 1% of the population that is allergic. The piece does not suggest thatpeople in general should stop eating tuna, or that the benefits of tuna do not outweigh the risks --- just like peanuts, leafy greens and mushrooms are generally healthful. And the
fact that a California court ruled that tuna did not require a warning label is hardly dispositive, since other items on the list do not carry warning labels either.
Sincerely,
Robin Bierstedt
cc: Maurice Edelson
Daniel Eisenberg
John Huey
Sora Song
Richard Stengel
