Friday’s U.S. Geological Survey study on an apparent increase in mercury levels in the North Pacific has quickly become one of, if not the most misreported seafood story of the year. I’m confident it will end up earning this titlebased simply on the fact that it is not a study about seafood– in fact it didn’t even examine any seafood as part of its work. But journalists from here to Timbuktu are printin misinformed sound bite science from agenda drive sources whose press releases are openly manipulating the study.

On Friday we put out a statement to help journalists who might not realize that a study that didn’t test fish probably should be reported on as one whose conclusions were based on… fish. Sounds simple but you might be surprised:

• May 1, 2009, Washington, D.C.– The following is an official statement from Mary Anne Hansan, Vice President, Communications at the National Fisheries Institute concerning research published earlier today by a journal of the American Geophysical Union that concluded that levels of methyl mercury in the North Pacific Ocean are increasing:

“This study deserves hard scrutiny, especially because existing, peer-reviewed

research shows no mercury increase in ocean-going fish over the last 30 years.

What’s more, the authors of the study concede that they did not test levels of

mercury absorption in fish, which renders any conclusions or forecasts about

seafood incomplete and irresponsible. The fact remains that tuna is a safe and

healthy diet choice containing essential nutrients and that there is virtually zero

risk for ordinary consumption.”

And wouldn’t you know it not everyone got the message. Paper’s like The Oregonian got pretty close but publications like Greenwire just missed the boat completely. So we explained to Greenwire exactly what was wrong with its story and have asked its editors to set the record straight. Our letter to Greenwire follows.

May 4, 2009

Dan Berman

Editor, Greenwire

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Berman,

I am writing to draw your attention to some violations of journalistic standards in Noelle Straub’s May 1st 2009 report, “Study shows link between air pollution, contaminated seafood.”

To begin, the study most definitely did not show the “link” your headline claims. The report not only fails to ascertain a link, it did not even attempt to establish one. The study was about ocean water and not ocean fish. The mercury levels reported on were solely in ocean water and not in fish. Fish were not tested for mercury, period.

Your headline is a clear violation of