The amazing thing about the internet is the immediacy. In real time things can unfold right before your eyes for better or worse. Take our interaction with the local NBC affiliate in San Diego.

This afternoon NFI was made aware that the station was planning to air a story about canned tuna that had been preproduced by Good Housekeeping. Were well aware of the story and have been working to get Good Housekeeping to pull or update it with the real facts and perspective.

So, now you have a news director in San Diego who has a package hes getting ready to run that he knows is erroneous. The gauntlet has been thrown. Our letter (below) clearly challenges him to have his producers do the research that Good Housekeeping did not do.

Whats he gonna do?

Realize the errors we have pointed out are genuine or ignore us and run the risk of airing a flawed story?

Clock is ticking

September 10, 2010

Greg Dawson

Vice President of News

KNSD-TV (NBC San Diego)

225 Broadway

San Diego, CA

92101-5010

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Dawson,

Im writing you to express my concern that you are planning to run a pre-produced package about canned tuna that was supplied to your station by Good Housekeeping.

The thoroughness and accuracy of the reporting done by the Good Housekeeping Research Institute is in dispute. The study they are reporting on has a number of fatal shortcomings that have been publicly addressed by the National Fisheries Institute (click here and here) and reported on by news outlets like the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Consumers should not be concerned by the UNLV study that Good Housekeeping has based its report on. Canned tuna continues to be a safe and healthy source of lean protein packed with heart-healthy omega-3’s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) level of 0.5 parts per million of mercury (ppm), referenced in the report, is not relevant. The EPA levels are applicable to sport-caught fish found in lakes, streams and other internal waterways where the EPA has jurisdiction and are designed to help that agency regulate industrial facilities and their emissions.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration level of 1.0 ppm is designed for consumption of commercial seafood like tuna. Furthermore, the FDA’s level of 1.0 ppm has a built-in 1,000% safety factor. The FDA says such a standard, “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 can would have to exceed the FDA’s level by ten times to begin to even approach a level of concern. Even the highest levels reported in the UNLV study did not come remotely close to that point.

The Good Housekeeping report does not highlight the fact that the average mercury level for all brands was well below the FDA’s level and that there is a 1,000% safety factor built in to that level, an egregious failure in reporting this story.

We asked that your producers fully research the actual regulatory science behind the mercury levels. With a minimum amount of investigation they will find that the levels Good Housekeeping should have used for comparison come from the agency that actually regulates food, the FDA.

We ask that you not air a story that contains clear, demonstrable errors.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

CC: Chuck Westerheide

Assistant News Director