People who buy magazines for tips and information on healthy living are looking for simple, clear, reliable advice to improve their health and wellbeing. Whether theyre reading nutrition tips or lifestyle how-tos, they expect the content to be accurate and current.

So its baffling that many of these publications dont correctly communicate factual information on seafood considered a superfood by the experts especially considering that U.S. government guidelines and scientific research are easily accessible online. Unfortunately, their incorrectly caveated advice and baseless warnings may actually cause their readers to suffer from dangerous health consequences.

Consider some recent examples:

• Prevention Magazine: 3 Surprisingly Unhealthy Seafood Picks. The article claims mercury is building up in some of America’s favorite seafood dishes as ocean pollution reaches unprecedented levels. This is false. Levels of mercury in commercial seafood are miniscule, mostly naturally occurring in ocean fish and just as they were nearly 100 years ago. And all of the top 10 most popular fish consumed in America have little mercury and fall well within FDAs safety threshold.

• Psychology Today: Nutrition Part One: Avoiding Harmful Foods. The author advises everyone to avoid seafood high in mercury, like tuna, marlin, swordfish, and shark. But according to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the general population can enjoy all varieties of fish without any restrictions. For pregnant and breastfeeding women and children it is suggested that they restrict their intake of four exotic and rarely eaten fish: tilefish, shark, swordfish and king mackerel. As for eating canned tuna, there are no restrictions for the general population and even pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as children can eat 6 ounces of canned albacore tuna or 12 ounces of light tuna weekly

• Better Homes and Gardens: 6 of the Healthiest Fish to Eat (And 6 to Avoid). The piece frequently references Monterey Bay Aquariums Seafood Watch program, even though the organization is not nutrition- or health-based but solely conservation-focused. Seafood Watchs recommendations are quite restrictive, and if people actually followed them, much of what Americans eat would be off limits. This is problematic because they are already entirely too deficient in seafood. Research from Tulane University and Harvard Medical School shows caveated guidance like that of Seafood Watch is difficult for consumers to follow which results in reduced fish consumption.

Clearly, these kinds of articles arent harmless. Peer-reviewed research shows that risk-centric messaging … result[s] in an overall reduction in the potential health benefits derived from [omega-3] EPA + DHA.As noted by the World Health Organization (WHO)/Food Agriculture Organization (FAO): The real concern about fish is that people arent eating enough of it.

But its not impossible to write accurately about seafood. A Washington Post article, Eat more fish; risks overstated, emphasized that eating seafood was a healthy choice for families despite the presence of naturally occurring mercury in all seafood and exposed eNGOs for not ignoring seafoods essential nutrients in their fear-based, risk messages. . Parade magazine also reported the latest science, noting, omega-3s (in fish) may lower triglyceride levels by as much as 35 percent and that your best bet for DHA and EPA omega-3s is a rich food source like fatty fish.

The best advice on seafood is not complicated at all: Americans eat too little fish for good health and choosing wisely is as easy as eating a variety of choices 2 to 3 times a week. There really is no excuse for getting this simple fact wrong.

LOL. Win. Cute. omg!!

No, this is isnt my latest text message conversation. These are actually some of the sections on Buzzfeed, a website that specializes in viral content on favorite cultural pastimes, animals in costumes and celebrity gossip. If you want to see The 20 Best Carrot Hugs Of All Time, 22 Animals Who Are So Over Your Wedding and 15 Awesome Things You Can Make With A Stupid Pizza Box, Buzzfeeds your best bet.

But if you want serious information on topics like food safety, immediately stop scrolling through these lists and turn to the real experts. Its shocking that Buzzfeed even attempts to provide readers (or should we say photo gazers) with useful knowledge and its no surprise that it fails miserably in this department.

Consider a recent post, 11 Horrifying Facts About Your Groceries. It is so full of patently false and distorted information on fish that the only horrifying fact about it is that it was written in the first place. Here are the problems:

• Tuna mercury poisoning is real. Author Kevin Tang cites Jeremy Pivens supposed case of mercury poisoning as proof.

There has never been a case of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the U.S. published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Fact is, thanks in large part to scaremongering like Pivens, Americans are entirely too deficient in seafood and miss out on countless health benefits. And when Piven first went on his shameful whirlwind publicity tour, we debunked his scaremongering over and over and over and over again. Even the Hollywood press called his bluff.

• Whether the fish is canned or fresh, doctors don’t recommend more than 5 ounces of tuna a week.

This is completely fabricated advice. According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which were developed by doctors, nutritionists, and scientists, pregnant and breastfeeding women and children should consume 8 to 12 ounces of seafood per week from a variety of seafood types including canned light tuna and up to 6 ounces per week of canned albacore tuna. Meanwhile, the general population has no restrictions.

• Farmed salmon is prone to parasites and contains eight times the level of cancer-causing PCB.

There are no nutrition or safety-based reasons to suggest wild over farm-raised seafood. Farmed and wild seafood are subject to the same regulatory measures for product safety. Currently, two-thirds of the salmon Americans eat is farm-raised and both types of sourcing are important for sustainability. The levels of dioxins found in farmed salmon are below the safety levels set by the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Union (EU) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA limit for dioxins in seafood is 2,000 parts per billion. The average farmed salmon has 37 parts per billion, well below the FDA limit.

• In 2011, the FDA said it inspected only 2% of imported seafood.

Reporters and editors who quote this statistic with no context have a fundamental misunderstanding of the FDA food safety model that governs imported seafood. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point model ensures that the safety of food is accounted for at several control points along the value chain, not just at the point of entry. The 2% are targeted shipments that are singled out for further review.

Bottom line? Fish is safe. Serious Buzzfeed articles are not.

Doctors have long known that fish is an essential part of a healthy diet and leading nutritionists have warned that Americans aren’t eating enough of it. That’s becauseeatingfish can help prevent heart attacks and strokes, it helps with cognition, and it contains vital Omega-3s. But what are medical degrees, PhD’s, and decades of experience compared to the incandescent intellect of a Hollywood celebrity?

Stars like Naomi Campbell, Megan Fox, and Kim Kardashian have been speaking their mind on seafood and they aren’t going to let barrierslike facts, science, and common sense hold them back.Here is where some science journalists could step in andapply some real scrutiny. Notice in the clip when Jeremy Piven is challenged with some basic questions by Diane Sawyer of ABC News, he has nothing to offer but a flashy smile. We are confident that Americans are smart enough to know goofball advice from celebrities when they hear it. But here’s hoping that other journalists that cover science and nutrition can step in when celebrities start acting like doctors — off the screen.

Seafood industry trade media reports that Greenpeaces harassment campaign against grocers has picked up again butyawn the abuse never actually stops. I couldnt help but think of the movie Groundhog Day, in which Bill Murrays character says, “I’ll give you a winter prediction: It’s gonna be cold, it’s gonna be grey, and it’s gonna last you for the rest of your life.”

The same goes for Greenpeaces annual survey of retailers seafood sustainability practices. It will always be a cheap publicity tool to rank and spank supermarkets without cause and it will always fail to resonate with the public and media. Just like every other empty-headed Greenpeace PR gimmick used to beg for donations, bully retailers and scare consumers.

Perhaps thats because Greenpeaces multi-issue extremists arent sustainability experts, just greedy fundraisers who want to keep the party, on that $40 million boat, going. Even without facts or reputation in their favor Greenpeace activists still think that retailers will take their arbitrary, unscientific and ultimately ridiculous demands seriously. Educated retailers get itthe exact same crew thats gallivanting on the deck of a fundraising yacht are the folks dictating seafood sustainability policies via a silly supermarket ranking survey.

Dont be surprised if the next Greenpeace activist dressed in plushy a costume looks a little too much like a groundhog because some things never change.

I cant do it anymore.

Thats what oceanographer and former chief scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sylvia Earle said this week when an ABC Nightline reporter asked her if she eats fish. The piece focused on her year stint at an underwater base called Aquarius, where she studied coral reefs in Key Largo. And although she grew up in a seafood-loving family and she herself has eaten more than my share now she says she cant do it anymore because shes concerned about all the pesticides and mercury floating out here.

Thats too bad for Sylvia. Youd think that a former prize-winning chief scientist would know better.

Seafood is the premiere food source of essential omega-3 fatty acids. High in nutrients and protein and low in saturated fat, fish provides DHA, which helps to reduce risk of heart disease and is vital for developing baby brains and eyes. Research shows that low seafood consumption is the second biggest dietary contributor to preventable deaths in the US, taking 84,000 lives each year. Plant-based omega-3 fatty acids and fish oil supplements havent been proven to provide the same benefits.

All commercially-caught fish are safe for Americans to eat. While mercury occurs naturally in trace amounts in ocean fish, most fish, including the top 10 most consumed in America, have levels well below the FDAs limit of 1 parts per million (ppm). Pesticides (I suppose she is referring to PCBs) also accumulate in fish, but we consume more PCBs from dairy, beef, fruits and vegetables than from fish. Health organizationssuch as Institute of Medicine (IOM), Food Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), American Heart Association and the Academy for Nutrition and Dieteticsacross the world recognize that the nutritional benefits of seafood far outweigh any minimal risk of contaminants in fish. In fact, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that all adults (especially pregnant women) eat seafood for at least two meals each week.

Whats happening at CBS? Last night, someone forgot to fact-check this online headline: Study finds unsafe mercury levels in 84 percent of all fish. That new study was neither published nor peer-reviewed, which makes it opinion. And opinion presented as fact is a huge no-no in journalism.

But it didnt stop there, CBS Evening News reporter, Tony Guida then gave environmental activists a free-pass on the networks Sunday night broadcast. Here are a few of the doozies:

“Eating fish is the principle way we get mercury poisoning.” Guida

Fact: There has never been a case of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the U.S. published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

“Tuna and swordfish contain the most mercury.” Guida

Fact: Ten species of fish albacore and skipjack tuna among them make up 90% of the seafood Americans eat. All ten species are well below the FDA’s threshold and its 10-fold safety factor.

“Many of the tuna fish we eat, by example, swim in the South China Sea. And that’s mercury pollution that comes into our cans and our pantries every day.” Linda Greer, director of NRDCs health and environmental program

Fact: While tuna do swim in the Western Pacific Ocean, they also swim off the coast of Florida. Tuna are highly migratory fish.

Fact: Trace amounts of naturally occurring mercury in ocean species of fish come primarily from thermal vents and volcanoes that dot the ocean floor. Its been this way for hundreds of millions of years. Theres even scientific evidence that traces of mercury in commercial seafood are largely unchanged in the last 100 years.

After a good two minute scare story, Mr. Guida lets on that this story is less about a silent epidemic and more about a global treaty to eliminate mercury pollution. As weve said here, here, and here we can all get behind that, but the end cannot justify the means.

By trying to crank up the urgency by suggesting that mercury in fish isnt naturally occurring and is solely the result of mercury emissions, batteries, light bulbs, and gold mining, CBS serves up the ultimate red herring.

Read more about our efforts to get CBS to correct the record below:

Patricia Shevlin
Executive Producer
CBS Evening News
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

VIA EMAIL

Dear Ms. Shevlin,

I am writing to alert you to the significant reporting oversights in your 01/13/13 Evening News story titled U.N. aims to reduce mercury levels. Tony Guida and the CBS team failed its viewers with a story containing blatant inaccuracies, nuances, and erroneous reporting that goes against the Society of Professional Journalists Codes of Ethics.

In the segment, Mr. Guida says, Eating fish is the principle way people get mercury poisoning. This is not true. Eating fish is the primary way people are exposed to trace amounts of naturally-occurring mercury, but erroneously tying that to mercury poisoning is wrong and irresponsible. When people eat fish, they take in a whole food packed with vitamins and minerals, including selenium. Research finds that the selenium found in fish works to counteract the mercury (see attached). The ability of Se (selenium) to decrease the toxic action of Hg (mercury) has been established in all species investigated to date. Keep in mind there are no cases of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in any peer-reviewed published journals. However, there is science that shows low seafood consumption is the second-biggest dietary contributor to preventable deaths in the U.S., taking84,000lives each year (for perspective, low intake of fruits and vegetables takes 58,000 lives each year).

Mr. Guida goes on to claim tuna and swordfish contain the most mercury. This broad and sweeping statement provides no context for readers to know or understand what the most mercury means. He failed to explain that the FDA limit is 1 parts per million (ppm) and that canned light tuna has just 0.1 ppm and canned albacore (white) tuna has 0.3 ppm, all well below the FDAs safety guidlines. He also failed to mention that the FDA limit has a 1,000 percent safety factor built in. Some simple fact-checking would have shown that canned light tuna is on FDAs list of fish and shellfish low in mercury.

Mr. Guida adds to this sweeping generalization by saying which can permanently damage the brain and kidneys. We would be very interested to see his research, or any research, that determines fish containing 0.1 ppm of mercury can permanently damage the brain and kidneys. Its important to keep in mind that Americans eat 15 lb. of seafood per capita while others, like Japan, eat nearly ten times as much as thatyet there are no outbreaks of mercury poisoning, or permanent damage to the brain and kidneys, from the normal consumption of commercial seafood.

Linda Greer, director of NDRCs health and environment program, is featured in the segment saying, Seventy-five percent of the fish that we eat in the United States is imported. Many of the tuna fish we eat swim in the South China Sea, and thats mercury pollution that comes into our cans and our pantries every day. Simple fact-checking, again, would show the percentage of fish the US imports is not seventy-five percent. More important, concerns about mercury levels based on where tuna, a highly migratory species, swim are flawed and cannot be generally applied. Resulting from volcanic activity along the seabed (which has been occurring for millions of years), commercially caught seafood has always contained minimal traces of mercury regardless of pollution levels. In fact, levels of mercury in commercial seafood are just as they were nearly 100 years ago.

We dont challenge the claim that mercury levels in the ocean may be increasing, but we do challenge the suggestion that mercury levels in fish are increasing. The FDA notes that mercury levels have remained the same when it says, Studies of fish, including tuna and swordfish that were up to 90 years old (Miller et al., 1972; Barber et al., 1972) report levels consistent with today’s levels.

A story with inaccuracies, nuances, and erroneous reporting like this has the potential to scare people away from fish, a food that provides nutrients that Americans are becoming increasingly deficient in. According to a peer-reviewed study, risk-centric messaging reduces fish consumption. resulting in an overall reduction in the potential health benefits derived from [omega-3] EPA + DHA. The USDAs 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans are clear when they say, Moderate, consistent evidence shows that the health benefits from consuming a variety of seafood in the amounts recommended outweigh the health risks associated with methyl mercury.

The seafood community wants a cleaner, healthier environment just as anyone should. The issue is that activists who scare people away from seafood to gain traction for their own agendas contradict scientific consensus and the latest nutrition advice. CBS does a disservice to viewers by excluding the ground-truth science that says seafood is one of the healthiest foods on earth. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics calls on producers not to oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. Please keep clear, accurate, and independent science in mind during on-going reports of mercury in seafood. The best way to start that process would be to remove this story from your website and produce a more balanced and accurate piece.

Please let me know how you plan to address these editorial issues. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

Lynsee Fowler

Communications Coordinator
National Fisheries Institute

cc: Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews
Vice President of News

I have never insisted that people watch Greenpeace videos. Usually theyre hyperbole-filled fundraising pitches or violent cartoon animations, but the latest eye-opening creation is simply too good to pass up. Therefore, I implore you to watch this video and our response.

Its an example of the top-notch strategic decision making that is a Greenpeace hallmark and a great look at where donations actually go. And for retailers well for retailers it speaks for itself. While serious sustainability organizations are working with scientists and industry to craft policies that promote ecological conservation, Greenpeace is cruising around the world on a party boat.

The video features scantily clad crewmembers, nightclub dancing, aerial helicopter shots, underwater scenes and, yes, the perfunctory hot tub scene. Yet in promoting and soliciting donations for the construction of the newest Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace claimed the money would go towards bolt(s) a soap dish and even a piece of her sail. Curiously, they never mentioned the hot tub.

Lets muse about the decision making that went into this video, shall we? A group of activists who apparently have nothing to do but sunbathe and clean the decks of their $30 million yacht decide that the best use of Greenpeaces dough is to produce a video that shows them in the throes of a donor-sponsored, high seas dance party.

Sure, why not?

It will attract attention and maybe encourage volunteers to sign up. Because its realistic to think that far from shopping petitions on cold city streets, if I join Greenpeace Ill get to see the world from the deck of a booze cruise. Yea, and the donations will just come rollin in.

Lets not forget Aaron Gray-Blocks account of life aboard Greenpeaces flagship vessel:

It’s not a holiday as some colleagues in Amsterdam have suggested with a smirk — no, I will not be sitting in a hammock in the sun with a cocktail in my hand.

The boat appears to be filled with a bunch of high-flying, yoga posing, carefree pursers who look more likely to report to *Captain Stubing than a scientist.

Greenpeace is a fundraising machine that has to bring in $700,000 a day just to keep the lights of this multi-national corporation on. And in addition to detracting from actual sustainability work being done with its antics, it sometimes takes a break to spend donations on videos like this. Thank you Greenpeace for giving us this glimpse of your hard work.

*For those featured in this video who were not born in the era of Captain Stubing we should explain the reference; he was the captain of a fictional but famed cruise ship known as The Love Boat.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) is considering an international ban on vaccines containing thimerosal, a type of ethylmercury.

In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued multiple editorials in Pediatrics to warn readers and reporters about the dangers of banning vaccines that contain the preservative. Their science-based appeals echo the World Health Organizations report declaring that a ban would have a major negative impact on vaccine supply, global public health and food production.

Its ironic, then, that some of the same journalists that eschewed the publics irrational reaction to vaccines that have kept us free from disease for decades, wouldnt apply that same logic to trace amounts of methylmercury found in all seafood. Instead, a handful of outlets generate renewed still irrational and unfounded fears for a diet rich in fish.

NPR, for example, claimed, scientists determined the form of ethylmercury in thimerosal is far less dangerous than methylmercury, the form found in seafood. TIME alleged methylmercury builds up in fish and can remain in the bodies of people who consume fish for long periods of time, causing damage to the central nervous system. Ethylmercury, the form of mercury found in thimerosal, may be less toxic to people.

This kind of reporting is as irresponsible as a celebrity going on TV talk shows to claim vaccines cause autism. Just as doctors and scientists have completely debunked that controversy, they also have closed the debate around naturally occurring methylmercury in fish. Proof of mainstream scientific consensus for the health benefits of a fish-rich diet, is reflected in our own 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should consume at least 8 and up to 12 ounces of a variety of seafood per week.

In fact, there are a number of important parallels between the two false health scares:

Faulty reporting, with deadly consequences: Seth Mnookin, professor at MIT and author of the Panic Virus, observed, If the press had avoided falling into the canard that on the one hand, on the other hand reporting is equivalent to objectivity, a worldwide vaccine scare might have been averted. The media-induced hysteria caused parents worldwide to stop vaccinating their children, putting them at risk for highly infectious diseases. Vaccination levels are still far below what they should be. Similarly, reporters who warn about the risk of eating fish instead of noting the many benefits of seafood are also jeopardizing the publics health. A study from the Harvard School of Public Health showed that some 84,000 Americans die each year because they dont get enough of the omega-3s found in fish.

Activists push faulty agendas: Andrew Wakefields study claiming a connection between vaccines and autism the catalyst for the anti-vaccine movement was fully retracted by the journal that published it. But that hasnt stopped anti-vaccine activists from propagating the myth. (Generation Rescues J.B. Handley once said, To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one.) Likewise, activist groups such as the Mercury Policy Project, Got Mercury? and the Environmental Defense Fund perpetuate falsehoods about mercury in fish to advance their agendas. Reporters, unfortunately, continue to transcribe those claims without checking with government authorities or nutrition experts whose work would debunk those claims.

Study after study after study: Scientists conducted scores of studies in peer-reviewed journals to determine that there was no link between autism and vaccines. As the Institutes of Medicine found, epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Scientists also conducted scores of studies showing the omega-3 fatty acids in seafood protect adults from heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers, and leads to optimal neurological, cognitive and behavioral development in babies. Yet the media still uncritically report on activist studies that use questionable methodology and anecdotal evidence.

This is not an academic exercise. Propagating false health scares have real consequences. Children are endangered, and people die.

Activists may not know what theyre talking about. But reporters should certainly know better.

Presumably, Ellis Conklin was trying to be funny when he reported in the Seattle Weekly that Sushi Could Make Us Dumber Than Breadsticks. Whats really dumb is believing that a notorious activist group with a single-minded anti-mercury agenda is an objective authority on anything involving science.

Conklin quotes Ned Groth of the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) on the dangers of mercury in sushi. There does appear to be evidence now that adverse effects occur from normal amounts of seafood consumption, Groth claims. What evidence might this be? It comes from a report drafted by none other than Groth himself.

Groth is the same researcher who once admitted that his survey on mercury in school lunches was based on anecdotal evidence from a friends grandson in New Jersey.

Ultimately, anti-mercury activists like Groth dont care about sushi or seafood. They want to eliminate coal-fired power plants and theyre willing to manufacture frightening news about popular foods to advance their cause.

But seafood, unlike french fries or jumbo soft drinks, is a healthy and affordable source of protein and essential nutrients. Scaring people about seafood means fewer people will get the nutritional benefits they need.

The irony of Conklins article is that actual, peer-reviewed scientific research has found neurological advantages for infants and children whose mothers consumed seafood during pregnancy and while breastfeeding. For adults, more seafood means less heart disease, less fat, and more Omega-3 fatty acids that aid cognitive ability.

Conklin may have thought he was writing a funny article about sushi and intelligence but readers are left with a conclusion that is the polar opposite of reality. And [Moreover?] by allowing his column to be hijacked by an agenda-driven activist with questionable credentials, Conklin is complicit in discouraging Americans from eating the healthy seafood they need.

The consequences are not funny at all.

Readers should expect only the best journalism from the Washington Post, a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper; and Slate.com, a recipient of the prestigious National Magazine Award for General Excellence. Or, at the very least, they should expect clear, accurate and reliable reporting. Yet thats not what theyre getting.

The outlets have failed their readers miserably in recent weeks by publishing unbalanced articles and flat out false information about the safety of seafood. Even worse, they have resisted correcting the record when errors and problematic reporting has been brought to their attention.

For example, Slate’s article, “Do Coal Plants Really Kill People?” bywriter Amanda Schaffer misleads readers with incomplete, inaccurate information on seafood that conflicts directly with the advice of leading medical organizations.

Ms. Schaffer cites a university study that came to worrisome conclusions about mercury in fish. This is not slightly inaccurate . . . its completely wrong. The studys actual conclusions which you can find with a simple a Google search are hardly worrisome:

. . . eating lots of fish carries no detectable health risk from low levels of the substance, even for very young children and pregnant women.

Even though the conclusions of the study Slate cited are the opposite of what Slate reported, Slate has not fixed the error or even acknowledged our requests that they do so.

Then there was the Washington Post, which recently published the article, Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from. The article manages to turn basic journalism on its head burying the most important information at the very bottom: Eating seafood is good for your health.

Getting to that conclusion requires a Herculean effort: slogging through 1,000 words of unscientific blather. How many busy readers have the time and patience to do that? Its the kind of reporting that leaves readers more in the dark than they were before they started reading it.

Like Slate, the Post has refused to correct the record.

What makes these two stories troublesome is that they are contributing to a national health crisis: Americans dont eat enough seafood, and the consequences are deadly.

According to Harvard researchers, 84,000 Americans die of heart disease each year that could have been prevented if they had eaten a diet rich in fish. So when journalists report misleading information that discourages Americans from eating more seafood, theyre partly responsible for those preventable deaths.

There is an unwritten contract between journalists and the public. Journalists commit themselves to reporting only accurate and unbiased information and in return the public agrees to take those journalists seriously.

Of course, reporters will make mistakes just as everyone else does. But ethical journalists correct their mistakes as part of their commitment to accuracy. So what does it mean when a journalist refuses to correct or clarify the record even after an error or other problem has been brought to their attention? It casts doubt not only on the trustworthiness of the reporter but on the outlet as well.

And when their reporting impacts public health, journalists should be held accountable for the lives put in jeopardy by their carelessness.