The editors at Time have made change after change to this story, trying to bring it up to their standards, but perhaps a forest-for-the-trees issue has set in. You see, you can report the facts to the letter of the law 24 hours a day 7 days a week and still tuna wont be one of the top ten most dangerous foodsthats the simple fact.

For those of you who are joining us just now, here’s a list of all of our previous and subsequent posts on this subject.

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right (II)

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right (III)

I Wonder If Time.com Has A Subscription To

As of this moment, we’ve yet to receive any sort of response from Time on the below communication.

March 1, 2010

Maurice Edelson

General Counsel

Time Inc.

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Edelson,

We have not heard back from you on the points we broached in our three letters of last week to Mr. Eisenberg, two of which you were copied on. Your silence on this issue is of concern to us because the issues we raised are both serious and substantive.

The fact of the matter is that Time published a falsehood about tuna, namely that it is among the ten most dangerous foods and included it on a list with eight foods that could be deadly if consumed, an obvious commercial disparagement with no basis in fact.

We would like to bring to your attention, specifically, a California court ruling from last year on the very issue of tuna and its safety as a product. The appellate court ruling states in part, following a six-week bench trial, with a parade of expert witnesses, the court upheld a previous court ruling that, the amount of methylmercury in canned tuna does not rise to the threshold level that would trigger the warning requirement for this chemical; and virtually all methylmercury is naturally occurring.( The People ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al., A116792) Why would the state of California continue to rule tuna does not require a warning label if it was a dangerous food?

Since Time appears unwilling to remedy or even address the harm that has been done, our next step is to consider pursuit of all legal options at our disposal.

As you know, we have requested that Time remove tuna from its list and website. At this point we are left to interpret Time.coms lack of response as a refusal to take those corrective measures. Accordingly, we will proceed to seek relief in other avenues. If you have any other thoughts to offer, we would be glad to hear them.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Daniel Eisenberg, News Executive Editor

Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor

John Huey, Editor-in-Chief