This morning the foodies over at the Washington Post posted this blog about “Spanish mackerel” that missed the mark. So we gave the editors a heads up. Have a look at our letter below:

September 9, 2009

Mr. Joe Yonan

Food Editor

Washington Post

Via Email

Dear Mr. Yonan,

I am writing to bring to your attention concerns about Bonnie Benwick’s writing on Spanish mackerel; About Mackerel.

It would appear from her reporting Ms. Benwick contacted an environmental activist group about Spanish mackerel’s mercury content and then based consumption guidance on their recommendations as opposed to reaching out to a qualified independent scientific or public health source. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would have been an optimal choice or, considering the targeted nature of the article, even The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Fish Watch program.

Had Ms. Benwick sought an appropriate source she would have avoided the error present in her reporting. Regardless of the Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) erroneous assertion that the fish she is writing about contains “high mercury levels” it does not. In fact the FDA’s publicly available research on Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish lists South Atlantic Spanish mackerel’s mercury concentration at a paltry 0.182 parts per million, nowhere near a level of concern.

The EDF often seeks to distort consumption advice and public health messaging in order to further its own environment health agenda. In this case it is plainly obvious that their distortions have infiltrated Ms. Benwick writing. Keep in mind she passes along EDF consumption advice to curtail mackerel consumption when she is writing about a low mercury fish, of which the largest on record weighs 13 pounds.

The only independent federal fish consumption advice concerning mercury and mackerel is aimed at Women who may become pregnant, women who are pregnant, women who are breast feeding and young children, that targeted advice relates only to King Mackerel, a giant fish weighing 100 pounds that is found at depths of up to 590 feet. To confuse the two and or homogenize consumption advice, as EDF apparently has, is a complete distortion.

Thank you for your timely attention to this letter. We look forward to your response and correction.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Bonnie S. Benwick