A 183-word story just can't do much. And this story didn't.
The NY paper clearly picked up the story from the BBC and passed along erroneous information about basic information such as where the study was published.
But at the heart of the story was the improper and inaccurate use of causal language from an observational study that can't establish causation, but only association. It is wrong when the story states, "The diet...has a positive effect on mood."
This kind of research news via briefs and pickups from other news organizations is a waste of time and space.