When we deliver the real facts about mercury in fish, backed up by the latest science, it appears groups like Oceana don’t like it too much. Case in point; back on September 17th the Fort Myers News Press published an opinion column submitted by NFI. In it we took issue with a previous News Press health column that relied on Oceana data to suggest, erroneously, that consumers should be concerned about mercury in seafood because the “problem” is “worse than we thought.”

Well, wouldn’t you know it Oceana is up in arms about our little fact-finding expose. Their breathless rebuttal to our column was published today. In it a “senior campaign director” claims NFI should stop “cherry-picking” information that supports our arguments and then goes on to cherry-pick outdated information that supports their arguments.

Oceana starts by writing that NFI needs to examine research that suggests sensitive individuals should avoid high-mercury fish. Well, we’ll do ya one better – not only have we reviewed that research we suggest those sensitive subpopulations, like pregnant women, refer to the FDA/EPA advice on seafood consumption which says, avoid eating four fish that tend to be higher in mercury. They are: shark, tilefish, swordfish and king mackerel. Is Oceana finding fault with NFI for referring those populations to the federal advisory?

Oceana then mentions a 2006 mercury conference that concluded mercury is dangerous to human health and “one of the most potent neurotoxins known, having a number of adverse health effects in animals and humans.” Oceana has conveniently cherry-picked a fact from this outdated conference, a fact that is actually universally accepted and has no bearing on the debate at hand. We argue that the trace amounts of mercury consumers are exposed to in seafood is not the public health crisis Oceana would have you believe, not that mercury is not a neurotoxin.

After peripherally mentioning some 2006 science Oceana’s column then attempts to recast the up-to-date, independent science that we provided as evidence in our column. They start by noting that the work of Dr. Emily Oken and Dr. Dariush Mozzafarian from Harvard University suggests that sensitive subpopulations basically follow FDA/EPA advice on seafood consumption. But as I mentioned before, we too refer those populations to the federal advisory so their point is vague at best.

And there’s more, Oceana distorts the facts when they claim that Oken’s work suggested mercury offsets the benefits of fish for babies. What Oken’s work concluded was that higher fish intake among mothers was associated with higher infant cognition, with the highest scores found among infants of women who eat more than two weekly fish servings and that no benefits were conferred on the infants whose mothers ate little or no fish.

Next, Oceana asks why we’re still debating the science. Well, we’re debating it because Oceana insists on using alarmist rhetoric to promote 2-year old conferences from Wisconsin, while we insist on using ground truth science to promote 2-week old studies from Harvard. They also suggest that our concern with the science is based on the fact that “tuna is big business.” Let’s put just how big the tuna business is in perspective for these folks and let the numbers speak for themselves: the latest data reveals Americans eat about 109 pounds of beef a year, 75 lbs of chicken and 2.7 lbs of canned tuna.

Oceana then insists it is not a “lobbying organization” but an ocean conservation group. Well, they sure have a funny way of showing it. You see, a review their 2006 annual report shows they spent roughly ten times the money in support of communications, fundraising and general and administrative costs (about $3.2 million) as they did for actual marine science (about $367,000). I’ll let those numbers speak for themselves too.Or if that’s not enough,you can always read Oceana’s quarterly lobbying reports found hereas part of the Lobbying Disclosure Act Data Base.

The group then suggests that since New York Times writer, and Oceana favorite Marian Burros, urged women of childbearing age and kids to avoid eating large predatory fish that some how means her January 23rd article about mercury in seafood was not discredited. But it was. In fact Time Magazine, Slate.com, The Center for Independent Media and the Times’ own public editor discredit it. And with the latest science in mind it should be noted that the Times main problem with Burros’ article was that it was, “less balanced than it should have been, given the state of existing research.” While the Times updates its research maybe Oceana should too.

Speaking of research Oceana again touts the findings of its report Hold the Mercury and notes that the testing was done by an “accredited lab.” I could have my morning bagel tested by an “accredited lab,” that doesn’t make me an “accredited scientific organization or medical body.” What’s more they don’t address the facts that we exposed in our column, specifically that, “Oceana[s] survey concluded that the average mercury content for tuna, both fresh and sushi, was below the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limit.” They don’t address it because it’s true-cherry picking from their own study?

The horror.

Pot… meet my friend Kettle.

Oceana then launches into its old standby whereby it calls for stores to post the FDA’s advice at seafood counters so “shoppers” are protected. Even though they know and have acknowledged in their own writing that the targeted advisory is only meant for very specific sensitive subpopulations and not “shoppers” broadly.

The group also claims NFI’s arguments are “tired” and designed to “sow confusion,” a message that is borderline plagiarism. You’ll remember we wrote back on August 15 that, “Oceana continues to operated in that gray area between skillfully under informing and blatantly misinforming.” While our phraseology is clearly more artful it does suggest that even with perceived adversaries imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

They also write that NFI will likely “attack this column.” While the word “attack” may be a bit strong, and quite frankly stray into the paranoid arena, it should be noted that we agree with Oceana on this point-when they peddle old quasi-science and sky-is-falling rhetoric to advance their agenda we will be there, waiting to correct and contextualize as needed.