As I mentioned before, the Vegas article just felt a little incomplete so I reached out to the Managing editor today with a request that the Review-Journal print an addendum and a correction. We shall see. Aditionally I’ve submitted a Letter to the Editor which is also included in this posting.

January 29, 2010

Charles Zobell

Managing Editor

Las Vegas Review-Journal

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Zobell,

I am writing you regarding Keith Rogers’ report titled “Study: Mercury in canned tuna high.” There is an omission and a correction that bare inclusion in an addendum that I respectfully request you publish.

As you know, the National Fisheries Institute alerted Mr. Rogers to the fact that “there have been no cases of mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in this country ever reported in peer reviewed scientific literature.” This fact is absolutely key to reporting on this issue and is the basis of the Letter to the Editor that I submitted today (see attached.)

Environmental research like the UNLV effort, and reporting on it, often purports to be in search of a fix for a public health issue that is not demonstrably broken. It is impossible to report on a scientist’s efforts to apparently better protect people from methyl mercury levels that are not making them sick.

Meanwhile, the UNLV report and your paper’s reporting claims canned tuna makes up 35% of all seafood consumed in the United States. This is wrong and I specifically pointed this out to Mr. Rogers before this article was printed. If you review the data from National Marine Fisheries Service, as we have, you will find that currently and in the year the UNLV tests were done canned tuna makes up a much smaller percent of the seafood consumed in this country. In 2006 Americans at 16.5 lbs of seafood per capita and 2.9 lbs of that was canned tuna, making canned tuna 17.5% of all seafood consumed that year. Likewise, in the very latest available data, in 2008 you will find Americans ate 16 lbs of seafood per capita and 2.8 lbs of that was canned tuna, making canned tuna again approximately 17.5% of all seafood consumed.

We ask that you allow for a proper perspective on the lack of incidences of actual mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of seafood and that you correct the reported percentage consumption attributed to canned tuna.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

Here’s a draft of the Letter to The Editor that we submitted:

TO: Editor

FR: Gavin Gibbons, National Fisheries Institute

RE: Study: Mercury in canned tuna high

While UNLV students — whose focus is the environment– investigate mercury in tuna (Study: Mercury in canned tuna high, January 29, 2010), independent doctors and researchers at the Food and Drug Administration, Harvard University, and Johns Hopkins-whose focus is nutrition-have looked at fish consumption and found that the benefits of eating fish far outweigh any other perceived concerns.

Furthermore, in spite of UNLV’s research, the simple fact is there have been no cases of mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in this country ever reported in peer reviewed scientific literature. None.

The real public health problem is the fact that Americans aren’t eating enough fish to enjoy the proven health benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids, something which could help avoid thousands of premature deaths due to heart disease and stroke. By refusing to report on the big picture, the Review-Journal has inadvertently contributed to exacerbating an actual public health problem.