Yesterday a California appeals court ruled that the mercury found in canned tuna doesn’t reach the standard for concern as defined by proposition 65 and therefore there is no need for warning signs on the product-as the Attorney General’s offices had argued (Note here: argued twice-this is the second time that courts have shot down the state’s argument.)

The judges wrote, “…substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that methylmercury in tuna is naturally occurring, thereby removing the Tuna Companies from the reach of Proposition 65.”

So, there you have it. A safe healthy American staple won’t carry an unnecessary warning label.

After more than three years of court wrangling and untold California tax dollars flushed down the drain you would think news outlets like KPIX in San Francisco would report the story and move on. But instead of just licking their wounds, they continue what amounts to advocacy against what are now two court verdicts.

In reporting on the decision reporter Sue Kwon claims erroneously that her own tuna consumption experiment caused her mercury levels to rise to “levels known to cause reproductive harm.” This is just flat out false. Kwon’s levels reached 17.2 micrograms per liter and the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed 58 micrograms per liter the level of mercury in the blood that approaches risk (*gg.)

What’s more the station published an “update” on the case on its website with the hours-old news that the State was considering appealing the ruling. Three years worth of legal fighting and two judgments later the possibility that the twice defeated attorney general might consider an appeal is considered the new lead of this story by KPIX-in order to avoid more expressive language I will say KPIX’s reporting has been disappointing.

*gg: An earlier reference to 580 micrograms per liter was in error, it should have read 58