Thanks for the post -- I would hazard to assume that not everyone here
on the list reads the NY Times.
While the issue may be "old news" to many of us, it might be worth
noting the politics behind the scenes from a John Q. Public
perspective. Specifically, why the big public dust-up between federal
agencies over something as apparently arcane as fish consumption
guidelines? The editorial suggests that it's linked to attempts by
the outgoing Administration to weaken federal regulatory oversight,
but the Times did a disservice by not following up with some actual
reporting. The more informed readers such as anglers might also
wonder why this is apparently only between the EPA and FDA, without
input from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This story
could thus also provide some insight into the nature of the divisions
of responsibility between federal agencies, the ones affecting
fisheries in this case.
The domestic economic downturn may limit the resources that a paper
like the Times can devote to an issue like this, but I would suggest
that omitting the background and briefly stating a complex problem in
an editorial may simply confuse the public readers rather than educate
Quoting William Silvert <[log in to unmask]>:
> The following editorial in the New York Times on December 23, 2008, is
> old news to most of you, but may still be of interest.
> So Is Fish Safe to Eat or Not?
David W. Kerstetter, Ph.D.
Research Scientist and Adjunct Faculty
NSU Oceanographic Center
8000 North Ocean Drive
Dania Beach, Florida 33004