April 28, 2016 โ A recent 20-page policy report from the Environmental Working Group included alarming news: According to a study they conducted, โnearly three in 10 of the women had more mercury in their bodies than the EPA says is safe,โ and rates were highest among women who ate seafood frequently.
Based on this, they issued a news release with the alarming headline of โU.S. Seafood Advice Could Expose Women And Babies To Too Much Mercury, Not Enough Healthy Fats.โ
That sounds like importantโand clickyโnews, and the media acted accordingly: At least a dozen different news outlets wrote about the study, including high-profile publications like The Washington Post (โWhy itโs still so hard to eat fish and avoid mercuryโ), TIME Magazine (โCanned Tuna Is Too High In Mercury for Pregnant Women: Health Groupโ), and CNN. (โStudy of mercury in fish brings call to strengthen government guidelinesโ)
Seafood industry fires back hostile response that, well, partially made sense
The seafood industry trade group National Fisheries Institute caught wind of the report and resulting news coverage, and fired back big time, with a news release, โMercury โStudyโ Out of Step with Real Science.โ They didnโt stop there, turning their ire specifically at TIME Magazine, asking โSeriouslyโฆ.what is wrong with TIME Magazine?โ
While itโs debatable whether this miffed tone helps or hurts the trade organizationโs public relations effort, NFI does have a point: The news coverage, in general, could have been stronger.
Before we get into what journalists could have done differently, we do want to stress that EWGโs study conclusionsโthat mercury contamination in fish is more widespread than government agencies acknowledgeโvery well may be true. Itโs just their report doesnโt prove this, certainly not on its own.