So, heres the latest from the folks at Time.com. This time their lawyer lets us know how indisputably accurate their story is– only after having been revised twice because of myriad demonstrable errors we pointed out to them.

Let me suggest a way we can stop this back and forth. We both agree that tuna is generally healthfulTimes words, not mine. So lets not feature it on a list of the ten most dangerous foodsshall we?

Sounds like a simple enough solution. March 3, 2010 EMAIL

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

Re: Time.com — Tuna Tremors Dear Mr. Gibbons: Your letter of March 1. 2010 to Maurice Edelson was referred to me. You

have complained of Time.coms lack of response, but in fact the websites editor, Daniel Eisnberg, responded to you promptly and twice updated the piece to accommodate your concerns. This action is a far cry from your charge that Time appears unwilling to remedy or even address the harm that has been done.

The article is indisputably accurate. It points out that tuna can be adanger to pregnant women and children, in the same way it highlights that peanuts are aproblem for the 1% of the population that is allergic. The piece does not suggest thatpeople in general should stop eating tuna, or that the benefits of tuna do not outweigh the risks — just like peanuts, leafy greens and mushrooms are generally healthful. And the

fact that a California court ruled that tuna did not require a warning label is hardly dispositive, since other items on the list do not carry warning labels either.

Sincerely,

Robin Bierstedt

cc: Maurice Edelson

Daniel Eisenberg

John Huey

Sora Song

Richard Stengel

KGO-TV in San Francisco joins the legions of local news operations who have had reporters catapulted to the heights of Woodward and Bernstein by testing local fish for mercury with the help of agenda driven activists. And wouldnt you know it they didnt get the whole story quite right:

March 5, 2010

Kevin Keeshan

News Director

KGO-TV

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Keeshan,

I am writing to express serious concerns about Michael Finnys report on mercury in seafood from Wednesday March 3rd.

Finny is either unaware or intentionally fails to report that the 1.0ppm FDA standard that he basis his story on has a 1,000% safety factor built-in, rendering the slightly elevated samples he discusses not only safe but almost statically irrelevant.

Had Finny properly researched the issue with independent sources he would have found that the safety factor also known as an uncertainty factor, “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 sample Finny tested would have had to exceed the FDA’s level by ten times to begin to even approach a level of concern for the average consumer. For a reporter to be unaware of such a standard raises questions of competence, for a reporter to be aware of such a standard and fail to report on it raises questions of ethics. We hope your own internal review will determine which is at play in this case.

In terms of scouring Finny uses an agenda-driven environmental group; GotMercury, a lab that promotes and provides mercury testing to retail stores as part of its business model; Micro Analytical Systems (MASI) and a well know mercury activist; Jane Hightower as the primary subjects of his piece. From a standards perspective we wonder if this sourcing lives up to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics that insists reporters, always question sources motives and distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Could Finny not have pulled his own samples, taken them to an independent lab and contacted an independent researcher who has not build a practice on diagnosing patients with mercury related ills?

And finally with simple accuracy in mind it is troubling that Finny himself gives voice to a supposed accusation from the Western Fish Boat Owners that fish caught in international waters is the problem. This statement is almost nonsensical. Tuna and Swordfish are highly migratory predators that swim from the U.S.s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ: 200 miles from shore) into international waters constantly; they are not exclusive to one area. The size of any individual fish has more to do with its relative levels of mercury than anything else. With tuna in mind, to suggest a species that can swim as fast as 30 miles per hour and regularly traverses the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would have a lower-mercury, local brethren would be false. If certain fishermen are targeting smaller juvenile fish with lower mercury levels that are found inside the EEZ your viewers can rest assured there are just as many or more of those smaller varieties in international waters but for obvious sustainability reasons they are not targeted.

We look forward to the results of your review and ask that you publish an addendum to this repot on line.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Stephanie Adrouny

Assistant News Director

the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR.) Apparently CJR finds, in its latest edition, that the online version of many a magazine is lacking in the conventional copy-editing and fact-checking department. Interesting.

The editors at Time have made change after change to this story, trying to bring it up to their standards, but perhaps a forest-for-the-trees issue has set in. You see, you can report the facts to the letter of the law 24 hours a day 7 days a week and still tuna wont be one of the top ten most dangerous foodsthats the simple fact.

For those of you who are joining us just now, here’s a list of all of our previous and subsequent posts on this subject.

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right (II)

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right (III)

I Wonder If Time.com Has A Subscription To

As of this moment, we’ve yet to receive any sort of response from Time on the below communication.

March 1, 2010

Maurice Edelson

General Counsel

Time Inc.

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Edelson,

We have not heard back from you on the points we broached in our three letters of last week to Mr. Eisenberg, two of which you were copied on. Your silence on this issue is of concern to us because the issues we raised are both serious and substantive.

The fact of the matter is that Time published a falsehood about tuna, namely that it is among the ten most dangerous foods and included it on a list with eight foods that could be deadly if consumed, an obvious commercial disparagement with no basis in fact.

We would like to bring to your attention, specifically, a California court ruling from last year on the very issue of tuna and its safety as a product. The appellate court ruling states in part, following a six-week bench trial, with a parade of expert witnesses, the court upheld a previous court ruling that, the amount of methylmercury in canned tuna does not rise to the threshold level that would trigger the warning requirement for this chemical; and virtually all methylmercury is naturally occurring.( The People ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al., A116792) Why would the state of California continue to rule tuna does not require a warning label if it was a dangerous food?

Since Time appears unwilling to remedy or even address the harm that has been done, our next step is to consider pursuit of all legal options at our disposal.

As you know, we have requested that Time remove tuna from its list and website. At this point we are left to interpret Time.coms lack of response as a refusal to take those corrective measures. Accordingly, we will proceed to seek relief in other avenues. If you have any other thoughts to offer, we would be glad to hear them.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Daniel Eisenberg, News Executive Editor

Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor

John Huey, Editor-in-Chief

Time.com has once again edited its piece on tuna. Thats two sets of corrections in two days. But were really at a point where the piecemeal editing and backtracking has exposed grave flaws in not only the reporting on this issue but the editorial process that went into publishing it.

With all the tweaks and rewrites associated with it Time.com appears to have lost sight of an important part of our ask of themto take the story down. Again and again in letter after letter we have exposed misreporting and erroneous sourcing and asked them to remove it from their site so that it may undergo a private review with Times standards in mind— thus far it has clearly not lived up to those standards.

Let me help Time.com and its editors, and at this point lawyers, put this to bed:

• Time.com reports that tuna is one of the 10 most dangerous foods consumers can eat and places it alongside 8 foods that can apparently killincluding one that contains a toxin 1,200 times deadlier than cyanide and one whose poison can lead to coma or death. Has Time.coms research and extensive editorial review of this issue lead it to conclude that tuna is in fact one of the 10 most dangerous foods consumers can eat? If the answer is no it should be removed from the list immediately. Period.

Heres a look at our latest letter to Time after it issued its second set of corrections–

February 25, 2010

Daniel Eisenberg

News Executive Editor

Time.com

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

Thank you for your note and, yes, we noticed this morning that Time has clarified the item on tuna. But you have not addressed the most important substantive points in the letter I sent you yesterday.

The edits notwithstanding, the item remains disparaging and journalistically irresponsible in several respects. Specifically:

The item cites tuna as one of The top ten most dangerous foods. This is simply false by any measure. There is not a single case in the published, peer-reviewed medical literature in this country of anyone suffering mercury toxicity from eating tuna. Cases of Scombroid, the other potential harm cited, are rare and can occur in raw fish that is mishandled, and are not a unique property of tuna, as readers are led to believe.

The FDAs public guidance also advises that consumers should not eliminate or curtail seafood consumption and instead recommends specific regular intake a contrary fact that Time willfully omits.

It is willful because, as you know, Time itself reported the public health harm that occurs from alarmist and incomplete reporting on seafood consumption. Again, the omission of these facts previously reported by the magazine demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truth.

Given that eight of the other food items on your list are potentially fatal to consumers, the seriousness of your assertions are hard to overstate. They are also an obvious commercial disparagement. Accordingly, we renew the request that you remove tuna altogether from your list of dangerous foods.

Otherwise we will be obliged to set the record straight publicly, including reporter Alyssa Fetinis self-described reliance on source material from a political activist group. We will also have to pursue all legal remedies at our disposal.

I appreciate your prompt attention to the matter.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Maurice Edelson, General Counsel

Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor

Attrition is defined as, the wearing away of a surface, typically by friction or abrasion. In the case of our on-going challenge to Time Magazine to print the true story on tuna I have to wonder aloud if, in this case, simple attrition and not adherence to standards has forced a modicum of contrition.

You see- we emailed, we called and we blogged about Time.coms bush-league mistakes in reporting about tuna and finally, begrudgingly the reporter made 4 substantial corrections in a write-up that was originally less than 150 words.

Four corrections to a piece that could fit on an index card is a pretty poor showing for such a vaunted publication. So weve contacted Time.com again and insisted (again) that the publication simply remove the piece from their site and undertake a thorough review so readers will know why a 2008 article in the same publication reviewed the Danger Of Not Eating Tuna and then a 2010 article named it one of the 10 Most Dangerous Foods.

Poor research, sloppy sourcing and contradictions are the hallmarks of this story. Rather than dribbling out piecemeal corrections you would think a publication dedicated to the highest of journalism standards would note its flawed foundation and pull it.

We will continue to ask Time.com to get it right or get rid of itediting by erosion will not do.

Well, Time.com sure made some significant changes to that tuna article it botched yesterday. But heres the questionis begrudgingly editing an erroneous report in order to come more in line with the actual facts enough? In this caseno. The report was fatally flawed from the beginning and, as we requested, should not just be corrected piecemeal but should be removed from the site altogether and the process that allowed it to be published should be carefully reviewed. Time.com may be done talking to us but were not done talking to Time.com:

February 24, 2010

Daniel Eisenberg

News Executive Editor

Time.com

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

Thank you for acknowledging receipt of our Letter to the Editor. The problems in the piece however are more than just a difference of opinion. Time.com has published an article that is both demonstrably misleading and commercially disparaging toward our product. Whats more, the article is at odds with specific perspective previously reported by Time, which demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth.

Here are the specifics:

The piece cites a New York Times article saying that some tuna contained mercury levels so high that the FDA would be justified in removing the fish from the market. In fact, that story required a correction indicating that the reporter had overstated the risk by a factor of seven. The papers own public editor also penned a column rebuking the reporting and the supervising editor was quoted saying that it was overstated. Thats not just critics thats the paper itself conceding that their reporting was in error.

The piece falsely states that, The FDA has also warned against the likelihood of fresh tuna lovers falling prey to Scombroid, a mild food poisoning caused by the toxins emitted from improperly refrigerating the fish. In fact, Scombroid is not unique to tuna.

Eight of the ten food items that are included in the list alongside tuna can be fatal if not consumed properly. Yet there has never been a single case of mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of tuna found in any published peer-reviewed medical journal.

As you know, a representative from the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) contacted reporter Alyssa Fetini directly about our concerns. Despite an initial unwillingness to address obvious and demonstrable errors in her reporting Fetini:

• changed the title to Tuna Tremors from Tuna Terrors
• changed her reporting on the FDA/EPA advice to reflect that only a sensitive subpopulation was the target and not consumers broadly
• noted that the New York Times piece she originally cited had been accused by critics of being flawed
• edited the Scombriod section to note it is a mild food poisoning

This article is less than 150 words and has already undergone four significant corrections. But it is the entire premise of the piece that is flawed and should be removed.

Whats more, your reporter told our representative that despite not sourcing her work as coming from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), her original list was based in part on a list complied by CSPI, not the American Association of Pediatrics, as was strongly implied in the original article.

Perhaps most disturbing, your reporter told our representative that Time.com top ten lists were designed to be tongue-in-cheek. Rather than tongue-in-cheek, we find this item journalistically unsound and commercially disparaging, in that it broadly and incorrectly seeks to characterize an inherently healthy product as not just potentially harmful but among the most dangerous and deadly foods you can eat.

Absent immediate and more appropriate corrective action by Time, we intend to vigorously contest this matter publicly and point out Time.coms willful misconduct in ads, through media critics, and possibly through legal action.

Thank you for your continued attention to this serious issue.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Maurice Edelson, General Counsel

Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor

When I think if Time magazine, or even Time.com for that matter, I dont think of agenda driven hacks or sloppy sensationalists trying to out do the competition. I think of solid journalists who, for the most part, let their work speak for itself. For cryin out loud, this is the publication that names the Person of the Year. Youll probably sense my disappointment in the following letter although it may be masked by a dash of snarkieness brought on by frustration. Have a look:

February 23, 2010

Daniel Eisenberg

News Executive Editor

Time.com

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

I am writing to draw your attention to several issues regarding a failure of basic journalistic standards as they relate to Time.coms article on the Top 10 Most Dangerous Foods.

The issues begin with generous editorial hyperbole and a lack of proper sourcing and end with out right inaccuracy. It is a great concern of ours that such a respected news outlet would allow for such substandard reporting.

For starters the list of Dangerous Foods subtitled eat at your own risk lists tuna at number seven under the header Tuna Terrors. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states clearly that reporters and editors should make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. Even Time.coms own reporting does not suggest there is an imminent risk of anything close to terror associated with tuna. This type of tabloid exaggeration is beneath Time.com and should have been recognized by editors as a lazy attempt at alliteration that was wholly inaccurate.

The initial impression left by the compilation Time.com published is that the list is somehow part of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy statement on hotdogs when there is scarcely even a tangential tie to the AAP story.

Further more the text of Alyssa Fetinis write-up on tuna is rife with errors. In the very first paragraph she reports that the U.S. government advisory warned consumers against eating too much of the fish out of concern that the high mercury levels could damage the nervous system and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. This is absolutely false.

The FDA and EPA jointly advised not consumers broadly but a very specific sensitive subpopulation made up of women who might become pregnant, women who are pregnant, nursing mothers and young children to avoid 4 rarely eaten fish Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel and Tilefish. The very same advisory states that women and young children should eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish including as much as 12 ounces of light tuna and up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.

In the very next sentence Fetini cites an incriminating 2008 New York Times investigation: about mercury in tuna. The lack of research done into this particular part of the repot is confounding on a number of levels. First, the very New York Times report she refers to has been publicly criticized for its journalistic and scientific failures by not only Slate.com and The Center for Independent Media but the Times own ombudsman, who wrote that the original article missed and was less balanced than it should have been, given the state of existing research.

Whats more Time.com itself published an article the day after the New York Times report titled The Danger of Not Eating Tuna, in which a noted expert is quoted as saying overall, the dangers of not eating fish [including tuna] outweigh the small possible dangers from mercury. How is it that Time.com goes from publishing a thorough well-researched interview with a renowned Harvard cardiologist who says, I really think we are experimenting with people’s lives when we give recommendations or write stories or reports that make people eat less fish, to calling tuna a terror?

Unfortunately the issues do not stop there. In the final sentence of the report that calls tuna a terror readers are told that theres a danger from Scombroid. How much of a danger and what that entails is never reported. For starters the CDC notes that for this illness, the majority of patients have mild symptoms that resolve within a few hours and that treatment is generally unnecessary. Likewise, the latest available CDC statistics on Scombroid toxin show that a little more than a hundred Americans are sickened by it annually and thats from all sources, not just tuna. While literally thousands fall ill from Salmonella, commonly found in things like beef, poultry and vegetables. A Terror?

We ask that you immediately remove this portion of your Top 10 Most Dangerous Foods report and review it with your editorial standards in mind.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor

Examiner.com is an interesting publishing model that hints at the future of journalism; citizen reporters lending their eyes, ears and expertise to an evolving, organic news site. But what can sound good in theory can go completely off the tracks in practice. The proverbial inmates are running the asylum over at Examiner.com and its coverage of seafood science is evidence of that.

A week never goes by without NFI having to endure another epic of distortion from Examiner.com. Examiners like Amy Jenkins, who is not a fisheries scientist, a doctor or a dietitian but a writer for the Sierra Club, regularly launch into distorted rants about which fish you should or should not eat to stay healthy. Jenkins, like so many before her, is an environmental activist, not a public health advocate. Her misguided conflation of EPA and FDA mercury standards is classic activist rhetoric that ignores the conclusion of the FDA’s Report of Quantitative Risk and Benefit Assessment of Consumption of Commercial Fish and turns a blind eye to the independent Harvard University study published in the Journal of The American Medical Association that clearly found, “the benefits of fish intake exceed the potential risks.

The overwhelming majority of science finds the benefits of eating seafood and high omega-3 fish, like canned tuna, outweigh any concerns associated with the trace amount of methyl mercury found in fish. Real scientists know this and real editors ask questions of their writers. Until Examiner.com starts asking questions in pursuit of the facts it will continue to relegate itself to the pile just south of junk science called junk journalism.

I have some medical advice that Dr. Oz might be interested in hearing about.

You see, its quite possible that his ears are burning these days and that might mean one of two things; one, he might need tympanometry which tests for ear infections or two, he might just need to log on to the internet because it would appear people are talking about him and he doesnt know it.

To help him with this condition I wrote to his Executive Producer and of course his lawyer.

Have a look:

February 17, 2010

Laurie Rich

Executive Producer

ZoCo Productions, LLC

VIA Email c/o Jackie Barth

Dear Ms. Rich,

I am writing to draw your attention to an ongoing discussion about Dr. Ozs January 26, 2010 segment on fish consumption and mercury happening on the internet and how ZoCo Productions has responded to our continued concerns. Yesterday TheTVNews.TV compared the ZoCo response to our concerns and Historys (A & E) response to our concerns about another seafood related story. As part of its daily video report, also available on YouTube, 2 minutes and 24 seconds into the webcast The Big Picture segment features host Jeff Grimshaws analysis, as transcribed below:

• Todays installment of The Big Picture, analysis and commentary, is aptly entitled A Tale of Two Fish Stories. Fish story number one recently aired on the Dr. Oz show and it dealt with some alleged unseen health risks associated with certain seafoods. Fish story number two was to air on Historys Modern Marvels and it too contained some precautionary rhetoric about seafood. In stepped National Fisheries Institutes Director of Media Relations, Gavin Gibbons, supplying scientific proof what he called demonstrable evidence of errors in both stories. And with what he called public perception of a valuable source of protein on the line heres where the two stories divergeDr. Ozs group was said to have stone walled the inquire and then proceeded to bring in its legal staff. On the other hand History was extremely responsive and although they could not pull the East Coast airing of Modern Marvels they did preempt West Coast and all subsequent airings pending the validation of the NFI objections. Like all news gathering organizations on a shortened multi-platformed news cycle the TVNews-dot-Tv lauds the actions taken by History; bold, responsive and committed to getting the story right. By the same token we hope that media entities like the Dr. Oz show will emulate History and will strive to put accuracy in reporting as the paramount criterion above air schedules, reputation and everything else. Whats your opinion? Wed like to know.

We continue to be concerned about the serious scientific inaccuracies featured in the segment and implore you to produce a new segment on fish consumption and mercury that features truly independent doctors and researchers who are experts, not activists, like; Dr. Joshua Cohen, PhD from the Tufts New England Medical Center; Dr. Nicholas Ralston, PhD from University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center; Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, MD from the National Institute of Health; Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, MD from Harvard School of Public Health; Dr. Eric Rimm, D.Sc. from Harvard School of Public Health or Dr. Gary Myers, M.D. from University of Rochester Medical Center As you know we have already begun to correct the record with this YouTube video and will continue to share the independent science with interested parties.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc C. Denise Beaudoin