May 12, 2009
Ms. Abigail Walch
Vogue Magazine
VIA Email

Dear Ms. Walch:

An article published in the May issue [Mercury Rising, Bronwyn Garrity] contains several outright falsehoods along with irresponsible distortions that do a terrible disservice to readers and the public. We would like to ask for a formal correction along with an explanation for how this kind of reckless journalism could have gotten past the editors. Let me be specific:

Garrity writes: The avalanche of evidence about the dangers of mercury in seafood is undeniably scary. Well, no, it isnt. First of all, both the latest and consensus science from parties such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), respected medical journals including The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and universities including Harvard University and the University or Rochester among others all show unequivocally that benefits of seafood consumption far outweigh any potential risk of illness from mercury. Whats more, our organization, which is the leading authority on commercial seafood, would have sharply disputed Garritys error but we were never contacted by her nor, apparently, did she seek even basic research from our website.

Garrity further asserts: Every new study links [mercury in seafood] to something I dont want: joint pain, hearing and vision problems, memory loss, fertility problems, immune disorders, gum disease, gastrointestinal disorders, lowered IQ and developmental problems in children, and even heart attacks the number one killer of American women. That is false in several respects. The one study that links seafood consumption to adverse medical symptoms was published by a San Francisco doctor with a vested interest in that analysis, Jane Hightower. There exists no other peer-reviewed scientific or medical study that establishes a link between seafood and any of the maladies that Garrity cites. In fact, quite the opposite. The most recent and overwhelming volume of research shows that seafood consumption improves outcomes and preventative health for most of the physical conditions Garrity lists. So, not only is there no avalanche but in truth the medical literature is entirely contrary to what Garrity reports.

Garritys piece purports to be an objective assessment and yet there is not one source that contests her (demonstrably false) thesis about harm from seafood. She cites the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data for recreational fish, for instance, but not the federal agency that actually oversees public health regulation and the safety of ocean fish — the FDA. That agency, FDA, has long advised Americans to eat two servings of fish per week and said just last month it was concerned that the public isnt eating enough seafood. Garrity cites agenda-driven activist groups like Oceana, National Resources Defense Council and Mercury Policy Project (without noting their financial or ideological motives) and yet ignores the many groups including ours that actively dispute the assumptions of those parties.

Garritys suggestion that readers obtain blood testing is also baseless and medically unnecessary. Thats because there has never been a single diagnosed case of mercury toxicity in this country from fish consumption anywhere in the medical literature. Mercury is a naturally occurring element in the oceans (another fact Garrity omits) but the core issue is risk and harm neither of which are substantiated in any of the material or references that Garrity cites.

To be even more candid, the article includes so much boilerplate material from those activist groups and references to unnamed friends that it appears to us that those activist groups probably encouraged Garrity (who herself has a history of ideological activism) to write the piece and pitch it to you in the first place. Is this in fact what occurred?

It is understandable and praiseworthy that Vogue Magazine would seek to broaden its editorial content to include important lifestyle and health issues affecting women. But this article makes a mockery of that effort and fails in almost every journalistic respect on objectivity, balance, accuracy, and sourcing. Obviously, Garritys assertions are disparaging to our commercial enterprise but she has also misled readers and done a serious disservice to what should be a serious public health discussion.

Again, we would like to ask for an explanation for how this kind of irresponsible material (or mid-dinner, Google-fueled freakout as Garrity herself puts it) got past editors and also for a formal, published correction on the errors cited above. Thank you in advance for your attention to the matter.

Sincerely,
Mary Anne Hansan
Vice President
National Fisheries Institute
703/752-8896

CC: Laurie Jones, Managing Editor