Sometimes agenda-driven writers or fast-talking physicians will pepper their work with enviro-half-truths just to get a message out there… or maybe they’re doing 10 other things besides their nutra-muscle-building-get-slim-quick web site and don’t have time to do the proper research in order to accurately answer consumer questions.

But a recent posting on CNN.com didn’t fit into either of those laughable categories. In fact it was a posting by a legit doc who doesn’t appear to be shopping the cure for obesity, hypertension, erectile dysfunction and blindness in one delicious daily drink. And that’s what made it all the more concerning. Have a look at our latest letter to CNN.com:

January 12, 2010

Meredith Artley

Managing Editor

CNN.com

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Artley,

I am writing to draw your attention to several issues regarding basic journalistic standards as they relate to the information provided on CNN.com by Dr. Melina Jampolis in her response to a reader’s question titled “Is farm-raised salmon as healthy as wild?”

Jampolis begins her response noting that, “many people are confused about salmon consumption, which may lead them to eat less and miss out on all the terrific health benefits, especially when it comes to heart health.” She is correct – the US Food and Drug Administration recently estimated that if older men and women ate just 10% less fish, there would be an additional 4,000 deaths from heart disease and stroke a year. There are measurable consequences to seafood misinformation, and unfortunately the rest of her response is riddled with it.

Jampolis begins by quoting the American Heart Association’s recommendations for seafood consumption, and this is her first and last reference to an official health or nutrition organization. The next three full paragraphs exclusively source an environmental organization. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is not a public health organization and is not qualified to give nutrition guidance. Jane Houlihan is trained in Civil Engineering, and not surprisingly, her advice conflicts with nutrition science and the recommendations of leading health and nutrition organizations. Her organization’s stated goal is to “protect the health of the environment,” not human health; therefore, EWG is a wholly unsuitable source for CNN.com to utilize for nutrition advice in a health column.

As I am sure you know, the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists must “test the accuracy of information from all sources.” A cursory review of the independent, peer-reviewed research on the risks and benefits of eating salmon provides balance to the EWG’s opinion about pollutants and PCBs. Jampolis’s job as a journalist and physician nutrition specialist is to research and find out if her source’s rhetoric actually matches the science.

Had she done such research she would have found that EWG’s claims about the levels of PCBs in U.S. salmon are not supported. Independent, peer-reviewed published research from Harvard University, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reports that common everyday items like butter and even chicken contain far more PCBs that farmed salmon. The Harvard researchers also note that seafood broadly, not just farmed salmon, makes up only 9% of the PCBs in the average American diet, while products like vegetables make up 20%.

• “Although major sources of exposure to PCBs and dioxins are meats, dairy products, and vegetables, considerable attention has been given to fish sources.” – JAMA 2006;296:1885-1899

I would be surprised if I read on CNN.com that a doctor who specializes in nutrition would suggest, as she has for farmed salmon, that Americans limit their consumption of vegetables to once a week in order to avoid the 20% of PCBs that they contribute.

The Harvard research goes on to calculate the benefits and risks of eating farm-raised salmon. It concludes the health benefits of eating salmon – wild or farmed – are significant.

• “CHD benefits outweighed cancer risks by 100- to 370-fold for farmed salmon.” – JAMA 2006;296:1885-1899

To compliment limited wild stock, a large majority of the US salmon supply is farm-raised. To frighten consumers away from this available, affordable, rich source of omega-3s is irresponsible and damaging. The Harvard article concludes, “Avoidance of modest fish consumption due to confusion regarding risks and benefits could result in thousands of excess CHD deaths annually and suboptimal neurodevelopment in children.” Jampoliss article uses environmental activist rhetoric as reason to suggest readers limit their consumption of farmed salmon, while actual peer-reviewed science suggests the opposite.

We ask that you remove this column from your web site and address our concerns with sourcing, oversight and the journalistic integrity of CNN.com that are posed by this example.

Thank you for your attention to accuracy.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Roni Selig

Health & Medicine Senior Executive Producer