It would appear CBS News has gone into full hunker mode. You know the type deny, deny, deny. Well, we’ve got some legitimate questions that we want the Black Rock folks to answer and we’re going to keep asking them. Have a look at their latest letter to us and our response:

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

Dear Mr. Gibbons:

I am writing in response to your January 19 and 20 letters complaining about the EARLY SHOW’s January 18, 2010 report on Bisphenol A (“BPA”).

Your letters claim the CBS report conveyed the erroneous impression that “eating a single tuna fish sandwich elevated Kelly Wallace’s BPA blood levels to 5 times the average.” In support, you refer to the fact that Health Canada, which sets acceptable exposure to BPA according to how much food is consumed, “determined that the amount of BPA in canned foods, like tuna, does not rise to the level of concern.”

As you are aware, there is an ongoing dispute among reputable scientists as to whether acceptable BPA exposure limits should be measured according to assumptions based on how much food people consume, or according to how much BPA is in a person’s blood. Many scientists, including University of Missouri Professor Fred Vom Saal, believe that the level of BPA in the blood is the more appropriate measure. Indeed, the FDA has recently decided to re-evaluate BPA’s safety, in part, in order to look more closely at the issue of how BPA fluctuates in the bloodstream of various populations.

CBS’s “non-scientific experiment”, which featured Professor Vorn Saal’s NIH approved method for measuring BPA in the blood, was intended to highlight the concerns of these scientists (and apparently the FDA) that high levels of BPA in the blood may be harmful.

In that regard, we are confident that the report was journalistically sound, CBS took care to emphasize that “BPA is still considered safe” by the FDA and that “BPA has not been proven harmful.” We also made clear that the point of our experiment was to show how hard it can be for the consumer to avoid exposure to BPA, since BPA is in “so many things we encounter every day.” Thus, we concluded our report, not by telling viewers to avoid any particular product, but by saying that the best approach for the consumer was to enjoy everything in moderation.

Finally, I would note that our report never stated that Ms. Wallace’s BPA levels from her initial test were the sole result of her eating a tuna sandwich. But you should be aware that, according to Professor Vom Saal, his testing would support that claim had it been made, as he measured the unmetabolized BPA that had entered Ms. Wallace’s bloodstream in the few hours prior to the test, during which period she ate nothing but the tuna sandwich..

In light of the above, CBS does not believe any action on our part is warranted.

Sincerely,

Linda Mason

Our response to CBS:

January 22, 2010

Linda Mason

Senior Vice President

Standards and Special Projects

CBS News

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Mason,

Thank you for your response to our letters of concern regarding Kelly Wallace‘s report on the January 18^th edition of the Early Show and her “non-scientific” experiment that clearly suggested a direct cause and effect relationship between Wallace’s personal BPA levels and the consumption of a single tuna sandwich.

You note in your response that there is a dispute among scientists as to whether acceptable BPA exposure limits should be measured, “based on how much food people eat, or how much BPA is in a person’s blood stream.” While this might be a balanced characterization of the current state of the science, why was it never mentioned in Wallace’s report?

You also note that the point of the report was to illustrate “how hard it can be for the consumer to avoid exposure to BPA, since BPA is in so many things we encounter every day.” In Wallace’s report the appearance was created that the only BPA Wallace supposedly came in contact with was via the tuna sandwich.

Wallace never reported having had her blood drawn and tested before she ate the tuna sandwich. Therefore, there is no way for viewers to know what her initial levels were. Without those results to establish a baseline reading, it is virtually impossible to know what impact eating that single tuna sandwich actually had on the levels of BPA in her blood.

In order to provide a clear, open and journalistically sound view of the alleged impact of eating a single tuna sandwich on Wallace’s BPA blood levels, we ask that you immediately release the results of any and all lab tests that were performed in the creation of your report.

Additionally you note that the report was designed to highlight the concerns “that high levels of BPA in the blood may be harmful.” If that is the case why weren’t Wallace’s final levels, whatever they may have been, compared to measurements the CDC would consider a safe level of exposure?

I find it particularly surprising that you would defend the piece by noting that “our report never stated that Ms. Wallace’s PBA levels from her initial test were the sole result of her eating a tuna sandwich.” Is CBS suggesting that is not the clear and demonstrable impression left by the report?

In the January 5, 2005 Report of the Independent Review Panel, CBS’s own assessment board found a paramount problem with the 60 Minutes segment titled “For The Record,” was that it created “misleading” impressions (p127). In this case, whether intentional or not, the impression is clearly left that the increase in BPA levels in her blood were the “sole result of her eating a tuna sandwich.” That is at best not supported by her experiment and at worst misleading.

I ask that you provide a transparent and public accounting of Wallace’s levels throughout the experiment and reevaluate this report.

Thank you for your continued attention to this serious issue.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Bill Felling

National News Editor

Andy Schotz

Society of Professional Journalists

Ethics Committee Chair