Paul Geenberg tells his readers he’s been trying to come up with a “seafood three-liner that would be as concise, elegant and free from exceptions” as the one writer Michael Pollan came up with when he penned; “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” (Three Simple Rules for Eating Seafood, Sunday Review 06/14/15.)

The problem is, that while delicious and even romantic, seafood isn’t that simple and that’s why Greenberg admits he hasn’t been, “entirely successful.” While we’re not quite in the Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle territory here, I suspect we’re in the neighborhood but that’s for the food blogs to debate.

It’s agreed, Greenberg hasn’t been entirely successful but perhaps it’s not just the complexity of seafood but the sources and methods he uses that have contributed to this failure.  His column is right about a number of things but his zeal to illustrate seafood shortcomings that match his narrative take him on a path that misinforms readers.

He damns shrimp farming in Southeast Asia for causing “damage to coastal mangrove forests.” Shrimp aren’t farmed in mangroves anymore, it’s a charge that’s almost comically antiquated and bemoaning it is met with eye rolls from aquaculture scientists in the know.

He cites a Consumer Reports article when fearmongering about mercury in canned tuna but never mentions the FDA blasted that report over flawed methodology because it “overestimates the negative effects and overlooks the strong body of scientific evidence published in the last decade.”

The quest is not unique, for years groups have been tried and failed to do what Greenberg attempts here; dumb seafood science down. Wallet cards, red lists and certifications abound but Americans still enjoy the same fish. Perhaps a larger understanding of the importance of seafood in the American diet and its nutritional impact is the place to start. If Americans understood why they should eat more seafood, what and how to eat it might an easier conversation.