So, its been a few days since we blogged about Good Housekeepings write-up on tuna and we thought perhaps it was time to reach out directly to the folks who affix that well known seal to products we use everyday. Lets see how they respond and keep in mind the integrity of that seal is based on the magazines interest in waging a campaign against misrepresentations (their words, not mine.) The article and the research itself is based on misrepresenting the EPA mercury limit as one thats applicable to everyday commercial seafood.

September 2, 2010

Ms. Samantha Cassetty

Nutrition Director

Good Housekeeping Research Institute

300 West 57th Street

29th Floor

New York, NY 10019

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Cassetty,

Im writing to you to express my concern about the thoroughness of the reporting on the news item on tuna and mercury that ran in the September 2010 issue (Is Your Tuna Toxic, September 2010). No one at the Good Housekeeping Research Institute contacted the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) about this item despite the fact that NFI very publicly addressed the shortcomings of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV) study when it was first published. News outlets like the Las Vegas Review-Journal contacted us not only for background on the research but comment as well. We even blogged about it (click here and here.) Our position on this issue is clear and on the record. Even a minimum of research would have discovered that.

Consumers should not be concerned by the UNLV study. Canned tuna continues to be a safe and healthy source of lean protein packed with hearty-healthy omega-3’s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) level of 0.5 parts per million of mercury (ppm) referenced in the report is not relevant. The EPA levels are applicable to sport-caught fish found in lakes, streams and other internal waterways where the EPA has jurisdiction and are designed to help that agency regulate industrial facilities and their emissions.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration level of 1.0 ppm is designed for consumption of commercial seafood like tuna. Furthermore, the FDA’s level of 1.0 ppm has a built-in 1,000% safety factor. The FDA says such a standard, “was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.” This means a single can would have to exceed the FDA’s level by ten times to begin to even approach a level of concern. Even the highest levels reported in the UNLV study did not come remotely close to that point.

A failure to highlight the fact that the average mercury level for all brands was well below the FDA’s level and that there is a 1,000% safety factor built in to that level represents an egregious failure in reporting this story. Independent research also shows that reporting that exaggerates the risks of mercury leads many Americans to avoid eating fish altogether, something that would explain why researchers at Harvard recently concluded that 84,000 people die each year because they dont get enough of the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish. Meanwhile, no evidence of a case of mercury poisoning caused by the normal consumption of commercial seafood in this country has ever been recorded in peer reviewed medical literature.

I know I dont have to remind you that your readers have come to rely on Good Housekeeping and the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. To consumers, both the seal and the brand represent testing that is thorough and complete. However, it seems clear to us that your reporting on the UNLV study was anything but that. Whats worse, you published a story that could very well contribute to an existing public health problem.

NFI requests an explanation of how such reporting made its way into the pages of Good Housekeeping.

Please note that NFI regularly shares communications like these with the public, and we intend to do so in this case as well.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

CC: Rosemary Ellis, Editor in Chief

Sarah Scrymser, Managing Editor