Carolyn Butlers article in The Washington Post, Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from, takes good news about the health benefits of eating seafood and buries it under a cascade of frightening precautionary warnings. As a result, readers are likely to be more confused about how much seafood they should eat than before they picked up their newspaper.

More seafood or less? The answer, according to considerable medical research, is clear: The more seafood, the better. Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found that eating just 1 to 2 servings of fish a week reduced the risk of death from heart disease by 36 percent, and overall death by 17 percent.

The bottom line is the benefits of eating seafood far outweigh any hypothetical risk. But Ms. Butler doesnt reveal that key finding until literally the last line of her article. To get there, readers must first traverse an obstacle course of precautionary data. The result is a story that raises unfounded doubts about the safety of seafood.

In the letter below, we ask the Washington Post ombudsman to investigate how this confusing article ever made it into print. We know the Post can do better.

November 19, 2012

Mr.Patrick Pexton

Ombudsman

Washington Post

Dear Mr. Pexton

I am writing about todays article titled Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from. Unfortunately the article is an outdated recitation of hand wringing about seafood that ends, rather than begins, with the conclusion that the benefits of seafood outweigh the risks. Such transparent burying of the lead for the sake of reporting on apparent conflict does your readers a disservice.

This conclusion is buried behind approximately 1,100 words revealing an apparent need for caution and concern. This conclusion is also not unique. In fact it is the conclusion reached by the latest USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans; the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks. The weight of such a conclusion is supported by published, peer-reviewed, ground truth science. The sniping found in this report comes from activist groups, like Food and Water Watch, who are often found in the midst of debates that are actually about trade. They routinely fall on the side of protectionist forces for whom making imports look bad through hyperbole about health is a cottage industry.

I question the editorial oversight that went into this piece and point out that, more than just confusing for your readers, it is blatantly contradictory that the Post would print in its April 2^nd edition an article title Eat More Seafood; Risks Overstated and then follow that up with this piece that overstates the risks.

Beyond overstatements this report fails to mention or explore some important issues, either out of ignorance or in order to maintain a narrative that over emphasizes the risks.

At one point the reporter notes studies that show farmed seafood contains higher levels of organic pollutants and even mentions PCBs specifically. She does not however cite studies that show all seafood is responsible for only 9 percent of the PCBs in the American diet, while vegetables are responsible for 20 percent (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 63:118, 2001.) Nowhere does she or her sources raise the specter of the risks associated with vegetables.

At another point the reporter mentions without citation elevated mercury levels in tuna and swordfish. She doesnt cite the levels or explain what elevated means. She also fails to report the fact that the Food and Drug Administrations allowable level for mercury (1ppm) contains a built in 1,000 percent safety factor that was developed to keep acceptable levels, ten times lower than the lowest levels associate with adverse effects. Without exploring this or explaining this she keeps her risk narrative intact.

In the Posts report on seafood in April a doctor from Harvard School of Public Health notes that people tend to be more frightened by the threat of a harm than encouraged by the promise of a benefit. People get confused; they get the wrong message. In this case the Post has allowed a reporter to deliver a message that flies in the face of the very latest in nutrition science, following in the unfortunate media tradition captured by the saying, if it bleeds it leads.

I ask that you review the reporting and editorial oversight that accompanied this article.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Director, Media Relations

cc: Liz Spayd

Managing Editor

Shirley Carswell

Deputy Managing Editor