Sometimes the Globe gets it right, other times it does not.

In the Sept. 25 editorial "Mercury levels in canned tuna should prompt caution among parents, schools," the paper cited a Mercury Policy Project study that was not a peer-reviewed, published study at all, but an opinion piece heralded as science.

The study ignored a multitude of published research showing the benefits of eating seafood. This omission had some asking what type of analysis was done in order to put the actual risks in perspective.

The answer was revealed when the lead author, Ned Groth, was interviewed by Food Chemical News: "Additionally, there are some questions to be asked about the report. Groth admits his organization didn't conduct a survey to find out how commonly tuna is served in schools, adding that he's heard 'anecdotal' references to the frequency of tuna served in lunches of a friend's grandson in New Jersey."


Shame on the Globe for not noting this.

Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
McLean, Va.