A Newsweek blogger has taken exception with my math on a recent challenge we issued to KPIX TV. And you know what? She was right. I botched my conversion of micrograms per deciliter vs. micrograms per liter, a mistake that I readily admit and have corrected wherever it could be found earlier.

However, I disagree with Sharon Begley’s characterization of me as a “true artist” of distortion. I also find strange her near hysteria in suggesting that a misplaced decimal point was part of a plot to conceal the truth… when the truth is– with or with out the decimal– my point still stands as fact.

Despite Ms. Begley’s insistence that this is evidence of industry distortion, it does not change the fact that the real distortion comes from activists who refuse to acknowledge the 1,000 percent “uncertainly factor” created by the EPA itself. Kwon was still 41 points below the level that even approaches risk; she had no symptoms, no ill effects and the activist doctor in her piece even suggests that despite all the tuna she was eating she still wouldn’t even have exceeded that 58ppb level. I acknowledge my unintentional miscalculation and simply highlight the fact that it doesn’t change the problems I have with the story, whether it’s 58 or 580 Kwon’s levels were 17 — no reason to report that the sky is falling. Let’s see if KPIX acknowledges its errors as readily as I have mine.

Remember Kwon filed a report that essentially tells viewers they are in physical danger from eating tuna. Yet the concern of the Newsweek blog appears to be that NFI is somehow “attacking” journalists. Reporters make a point in public. NFI responds in public. How can that be construed as “intimidation?”

Ms. Begley hints at another critical point– many Americans do indeed curtail or eliminate fish altogether from their diet – but that is happening as a direct result of the “warnings” and “danger” that they see in the press. Yet independent doctors, dietitians and researchers agree that seafood provides essential nutrients — without which cognitive development is held back. In the various activist campaigns against food and beverages, that makes the assault on seafood distinct. If a person eliminates, say, pizza or soda from their diet, as many nutrition activists urge, there would be no negative health repercussions. But if you cause people to eliminate fish from their diet — by, say, scaring them into thinking it is loaded with “toxins” — you are causing a negative impact on public health.

The fact is we don’t challenge every report that mentions risk. But we do challenge reports like the front page story from the New York Times last year that overstated mercury concerns in fish and had to be corrected and then further rebuked by the Times own ombudsman-that is, before being discredited by multiple independent media critics.

Newsweek readers should be clear about what’s taking place in the public discourse on this issue: a whole host of activists are targeting seafood to advance their agenda. Yet the prevailing science continues to trump that agenda – In January the FDA released a draft report that outlines the fact that the benefits of seafood far outweigh the risks associated with trace amounts of mercury. Just this past Wednesday a California appeals court upheld an earlier ruling that said there is no reason for canned tuna to carry warning labels.

Contrast those sources with ones like actor Jeremy Piven whose claims about health effects are unproven and have been widely ridiculed – despite his infomercial doctor’s diagnosis. And Dr. Jane Hightower whose claims of anecdotal connections between eating fish and vague symptoms like headache, memory loss and fatigue have gone unproven even by her own research. And then there is the chorus of groups whose clear agenda is environmental health not human health who are suddenly experts on mercury.

Taken as a whole this points to a central problem with slanted reporting on seafood consumption- reporters are intentionally omitting the contrasting and prevailing view on the issue. Yes, there are a few doctors who have made mercury toxicity a cause clbre but there are many more who believe otherwise – just as there are many American families that are relying on seafood to enhance their diet and overall health. Why are none of those voices included in these scare stories? And yes NFI has every right to take part in this discussion too. It is enormously telling that some would take exception to NFI challenging a reporter. Are mainstream media writers and local news reporters the only arbiters of truth in this debate?