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 isn’t. 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. What’s more, our organization, which is the leading authority on commercial seafood, would have sharply disputed Garrity’s 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 don’t 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.
• Garrity’s 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 isn’t 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.
• Garrity’s suggestion that readers obtain blood testing is also baseless and medically unnecessary. That’s 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, Garrity’s 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

———————————–

May 14, 2009

Dear Ms. Hansan,

Thank you for your recent email regarding Vogue’s article Mercury Rising by Bronwyn Garrity (May, 2009). We believe the story provided readers with a valuable service by raising awareness about the significant benefits as well as the potential risks of consuming seafood. As it happens, I am a fish-eating vegetarian who regularly enjoys fish and shellfish several times a week and do so with an understanding of the pros and cons of my decision. We hope this piece, along with all of our health coverage, empowers readers with vital information and the necessary tools to make their own informed choices.

I hope you continue to read the magazine, and thank you for your interest.

Sincerely yours,

Abigail Walch

Abigail Walch, Senior Editor
VOGUE
4 Times Square, 12th floor
New York, NY 10036

——————————————

Mary 14, 2009

Dear Ms. Walch,

It is puzzling that you ignored the specifics in my letter which plainly show several errors and omissions in Garrity’s reporting. We are all ears if you have any doubt about those particulars but to disregard them altogether fails the most basic standards of responsible journalism. Whether you personally enjoy eating fish is not the point — the fact remains that Vogue readers have been badly misled about health assessment of seafood as a result of your article.

If Vogue is unwilling to publish corrections and clarification, we are obliged to take our case public about the flaws and misinformation in the magazine’s reporting. We will be sure to copy you when our press release goes out.

You are right that Vogue has an important voice in the coverage of women’s health, but this article makes a travesty of your efforts at serious journalism. The public health issues at stake are too important to let misinformation and agenda-driven reporting go unchallenged.

Sincerely,

Mary Anne Hansan