When I think of The Economist I think of cerebral types who get it. But it looks like even highbrow intellectuals can demonstrate a poor judgment and even poorer execution when writing about seafood. The latest fish tale titled Hold The Sushi misses the mark so badly it’s, quite frankly, disheartening. If The Economist wants to continue to claim it’s the, “leading source of analysis on international business and world affairs” it might want to consider raising its standards a bit. Our letter is below:

August 27, 2009

John Micklethwait

Editor in Chief

The Economist

Via Email

Dear Mr. Micklethwait,

I am writing to bring to your attention concerns about The Economist’s reporting on a new United States Geological Survey (USGS) study concerning mercury in fish. The reporting used in production of this story ignored basic journalism tenets and serves unfortunately to confuse readers about the study rather than inform and educate them.

The very start of your report is in error. The title “Hold the sushi” suggests that the following reporting will in some way refer to fish or seafood used in sushi; it does not. The report ostensibly covers the USGS study, a study that does not involve fish used in sushi. I will assume your reporters are familiar with Mercury in Commercial and Sport-caught Fish: Apples and Oranges, “…there is no new news to share about mercury in fish. Mercury is a naturally occurring metallic substance. Minute quantities of mercury are in air, water, soil, and all living matter. The study confirms what has been known for years – that mercury is ubiquitous.”

The UC Davis white paper also draws attention to your reporter’s lack of understanding about the differences between recreational and commercial fish, including their respective mercury standards and the levels at which they are consumed by Americans. Further along in paragraph four, your reporter writes that “mercury levels are high in marine fish.” Nowhere does your reporter even attempt to explain the fact that the FDA and EPA employ distinct standards for mercury in commercial seafood and recreational fish. EPA’s recreational fish standards are meant to be protective of recreational, tribal, ethnic, and subsistence fishers who typically consume fish and shellfish from the same local bodies of water repeatedly over many years. The FDA action level defines the extent of contamination at which FDA may regard seafood as adulterated and represents the limit at or above which FDA may take legal action to remove products from the marketplace, and includes a 1,000% built in safety factor.

Still in paragraph four, the reporter mentions a previous USGS study that she and I spoke specifically about. She notes that it forecasts rising mercury levels in the Pacific Ocean. I specifically explained to her that that study did not in any way test or refer to fish. That was a water study not a fish study. Independent studies clearly show that despite ebbs and flows in mercury levels in ocean water the amount of mercury in commercial seafood has remained steady for decades. She was made aware of this and chose not to report it.

In paragraph five she writes, “consumers are now trying to understand how the USGS study’s findings should influence their eating habits.” During our conversation I explained to her that recreational and subsistence fishing in internal streams makes up such a small amount of the fish consumed in this country that it is almost incalculable, yet she insisted on suggesting “consumers” broadly are now utilizing the study to drive their eating habits. She then uses ABC’s Good Moring America as an example of a popular news program covering the story. She fails to note an important point contained in that coverage and is ignorant of ABC’s corrective work done on the accompanying online piece.

First, in asking an ABC News medical contributor to read a statement provided by the National Fisheries Institute Dianne Sawyer says, “This is key. Heads up everyone.”

• “It is important to note that this study is not about commercial seafood but recreationally-caught fish; not the kind Americans are likely to find at their grocery stores or restaurants.”

Secondly, the 25 paragraph online piece that accompanied the television broadcast was edited down to 18 paragraphs after Christopher Francescani, senior producer for Good Morning America digital and Greg Macek, ABC News attorney, reviewed concerns NFI had with, among other things, the very melding of commercial and recreational fish in its reporting.

Still in paragraph five your reporter allows, from the way her reporting reads, apparently the only person she interviewed for the article to defame the tuna industry completely unchallenged. Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group claims in your publication that the FDA has “historically been in the pocket of the tuna industry.” NFI is eager for The Economist to explain how a reporter can allow that type of unsubstantiated statement to go completely unchallenged.

For starters, we would like your reporter to explain the specifics, including evidence presented, of said allegation and explain why, despite being contacted for this article, NFI was not allowed to respond to such a false and defamatory statement.

Thank you for your timely attention to letter. We look forward to your response.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Frank Quigley