The Doctors television show hopes to supply viewers with critical information to make informed and intelligent health care decisions.

But can the program, which is hosted by former Bachelor reality TV star Dr. Travis Stork and features three other telegenic professionals, really be considered a serious authority if it all too frequently promotes the latest diet trends, health fads and bogus medical claims?

Not a chance. The Doctors often blurs the lines between fact and sensationalism in order to fulfill its real mission: attracting television viewers. Celebrity and glamour, not facts, is what theyre after. No wonder the boring but essential truth rarely comes to light.

For example, their record on fish advice is dismal (see here, here, here and here). Their latest missteps happened during their Dallas episode. Yes, the episode where the medical doctors are all dressed up in cowboy costumes while discussing serious nutrition advice.

Travis Stork: ” . . . predatory fish . . . do have higher levels of mercury, and you have eat that in moderation. You really don’t want to go over it a few times a month. And certainly if you’re eating it a lot, and you develop any bizarre neurological symptoms, you should get your mercury levels tested.”

Andrew Ordon: “Rule of thumb, the bigger the fish, the more likely to have mercury. That’s important with kids and pregnant women.”

Lisa Masterson: “Especially pregnant women.”

James Sears: “Especially young kids. Any fish that eats a lot of fish is going to be high in mercury.”

A couple of facts The Doctors failed to mention:

1) Methylmercury is a naturally occurring element present in trace amounts in all fish.

2) There has never been a case of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of seafood recorded in any peer review medical journal in the United States.

3) The USDAs Dietary Guidelines for Americans urge people to double the amount of fish they currently eat from about 3.5 ounces per week to 8 ounces.

4) Seafood like canned tuna is a rich source of essential nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids that accelerate brain development infancy and help prevent heart disease later in life. Moreover, medical experts agree that any risk associated with eating seafood is far outweighed by the benefits.

Why doesnt The Doctors report this good news instead of spreading outdated, unfounded doubts? Perhaps it has something to do with the business of television ratings. TV tells stories, and stories depend on tension manufactured or otherwise to hold the attention of the audience. Perhaps to say there is no reason to be concerned about mercury in seafood simply isnt a sufficiently compelling story for afternoon TV.

Wed like to suggest an alternative storyline: there is a very real public health crisis in America because people dont have enough seafood in their diet and those who would discourage Americans from eating more fish are responsible for tens of thousands of preventable deaths in this country each year. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health told Time Magazine (the magazine describes him as co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies to date on the impact of fish consumption on human health), “I know I sound like I’m trying to downplay the risk but I really think we are experimenting with people’s lives when we give recommendations or write stories or reports that make people eat less fish.

That has all the elements of a gripping story tension, urgency, heroes, villains and loved ones at risk of untimely death. It also has the added benefit of being true. Hopefully Hollywood producers will jump on this surefire formula for afternoon TV success.

So, we noticed some changes in the offending Washington Post report and reached out to the Ombudsman again with some of our on going concerns. Here’s the latest:

November 27, 2012

Mr.Patrick Pexton

Ombudsman

Washington Post

Dear Mr. Pexton

We continue to watch the evolution of headlines associated with the article we initially brought to your attention under the heading: Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from. On the reporters WashingtonPost.com page the title became: The pros (mostly) and cons of seafood. Now we see the syndicated version sporting headlines like: Benefits of eating fish outweigh health concerns.

The current headlines, while accurate, are almost a complete 180 degree turn from the articles original theme. The 1,100 word diatribe is replete with reasons for caution and concern but finally reveals in the end that the benefits of seafood outweigh the risks.

While the headlines are now more accurate, the fundamental problems found in the original piece remain. Failing to report on well-documented, substantive science with regard to consuming seafood because it conflicts with a narrative that over emphasizes the risks is a fundamental journalistic failure.

In reiterating the fact that the content of the article blatantly contradicts one the Post published more than seven months ago (Eat More Seafood; Risks Overstated), I again ask that you review the reporting and editorial oversight that accompanied this article.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Director, Media Relations

National Fisheries Institute

Its not clear how anyone actually becomes a celebrity fitness guru. There are no classes to attend or tests to pass that we can find.

So any advice you hear from a celebrity fitness guru is best kept in the same category as a National Enquirer headline: Interesting, but Dont Bet Your Life On It.

Case in point: renowned fitness and nutrition expert Harley Pasternaks advice on eating fish.

Back in August, Mr. Pasternak wrote on People.com that tuna rates sky-high in mercury. Not true. According to the FDAs own study of mercury levels found in commercial fish, canned light and white tuna contains levels that are seven to 10 times lower than the FDAs limit. And that FDA limit contains a built-in 1,000 percent safety factor. The infinitesimal amount of mercury in tuna doesnt even come close to this limit.

Yet again, Mr. Pasternak botched his advice on mercury in fish, this time on the Ricki Lake Shows Pregnant and 40 episode. He instructed breastfeeding women the very group that should be eating 8 to 12 ounces of seafood per week according to the latest USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans to stay away from fish with mercury without offering any specifics.

Here are the essential facts: Government guidelines urge women who are pregnant, might become pregnant, or are nursing mothers to eat 12 ounces of seafood per week because of all the health benefits it provides to developing babies (better neurological and developmental outcomes). Pregnant women should only avoid four rarely consumed commercial species:shark, king mackerel, swordfish and tilefish. All of the top 10 most popular fish consumed in America including canned tuna are low mercury fish.

Instead of scaring women about seafood, Mr. Pasternak should have looked out for their babies health by encouraging them to eat the recommended amount of fish.

Celebrity fitness gurus would be well advised to put down their National Enquirers and pick up a good book on nutrition. They might learn something thats actually true.

Carolyn Butlers article in The Washington Post, Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from, takes good news about the health benefits of eating seafood and buries it under a cascade of frightening precautionary warnings. As a result, readers are likely to be more confused about how much seafood they should eat than before they picked up their newspaper.

More seafood or less? The answer, according to considerable medical research, is clear: The more seafood, the better. Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found that eating just 1 to 2 servings of fish a week reduced the risk of death from heart disease by 36 percent, and overall death by 17 percent.

The bottom line is the benefits of eating seafood far outweigh any hypothetical risk. But Ms. Butler doesnt reveal that key finding until literally the last line of her article. To get there, readers must first traverse an obstacle course of precautionary data. The result is a story that raises unfounded doubts about the safety of seafood.

In the letter below, we ask the Washington Post ombudsman to investigate how this confusing article ever made it into print. We know the Post can do better.

November 19, 2012

Mr.Patrick Pexton

Ombudsman

Washington Post

Dear Mr. Pexton

I am writing about todays article titled Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from. Unfortunately the article is an outdated recitation of hand wringing about seafood that ends, rather than begins, with the conclusion that the benefits of seafood outweigh the risks. Such transparent burying of the lead for the sake of reporting on apparent conflict does your readers a disservice.

This conclusion is buried behind approximately 1,100 words revealing an apparent need for caution and concern. This conclusion is also not unique. In fact it is the conclusion reached by the latest USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans; the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks. The weight of such a conclusion is supported by published, peer-reviewed, ground truth science. The sniping found in this report comes from activist groups, like Food and Water Watch, who are often found in the midst of debates that are actually about trade. They routinely fall on the side of protectionist forces for whom making imports look bad through hyperbole about health is a cottage industry.

I question the editorial oversight that went into this piece and point out that, more than just confusing for your readers, it is blatantly contradictory that the Post would print in its April 2^nd edition an article title Eat More Seafood; Risks Overstated and then follow that up with this piece that overstates the risks.

Beyond overstatements this report fails to mention or explore some important issues, either out of ignorance or in order to maintain a narrative that over emphasizes the risks.

At one point the reporter notes studies that show farmed seafood contains higher levels of organic pollutants and even mentions PCBs specifically. She does not however cite studies that show all seafood is responsible for only 9 percent of the PCBs in the American diet, while vegetables are responsible for 20 percent (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 63:118, 2001.) Nowhere does she or her sources raise the specter of the risks associated with vegetables.

At another point the reporter mentions without citation elevated mercury levels in tuna and swordfish. She doesnt cite the levels or explain what elevated means. She also fails to report the fact that the Food and Drug Administrations allowable level for mercury (1ppm) contains a built in 1,000 percent safety factor that was developed to keep acceptable levels, ten times lower than the lowest levels associate with adverse effects. Without exploring this or explaining this she keeps her risk narrative intact.

In the Posts report on seafood in April a doctor from Harvard School of Public Health notes that people tend to be more frightened by the threat of a harm than encouraged by the promise of a benefit. People get confused; they get the wrong message. In this case the Post has allowed a reporter to deliver a message that flies in the face of the very latest in nutrition science, following in the unfortunate media tradition captured by the saying, if it bleeds it leads.

I ask that you review the reporting and editorial oversight that accompanied this article.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Director, Media Relations

cc: Liz Spayd

Managing Editor

Shirley Carswell

Deputy Managing Editor

November 19, 2012

Mr.Patrick Pexton

Ombudsman

Washington Post

Dear Mr. Pexton

I am writing about todays article titled Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from. Unfortunately the article is an outdated recitation of hand wringing about seafood that ends, rather than begins, with the conclusion that the benefits of seafood outweigh the risks. Such transparent burying of the lead for the sake of reporting on apparent conflict does your readers a disservice.

This conclusion is buried behind approximately 1,100 words revealing an apparent need for caution and concern. This conclusion is also not unique. In fact it is the conclusion reached by the latest USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans; the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks. The weight of such a conclusion is supported by published, peer-reviewed, ground truth science. The sniping found in this report comes from activist groups, like Food and Water Watch, who are often found in the midst of debates that are actually about trade. They routinely fall on the side of protectionist forces for whom making imports look bad through hyperbole about health is a cottage industry.

I question the editorial oversight that went into this piece and point out that, more than just confusing for your readers, it is blatantly contradictory that the Post would print in its April 2^nd edition an article title Eat More Seafood; Risks Overstated and then follow that up with this piece that overstates the risks.

Beyond overstatements this report fails to mention or explore some important issues, either out of ignorance or in order to maintain a narrative that over emphasizes the risks.

At one point the reporter notes studies that show farmed seafood contains higher levels of organic pollutants and even mentions PCBs specifically. She does not however cite studies that show all seafood is responsible for only 9 percent of the PCBs in the American diet, while vegetables are responsible for 20 percent (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 63:118, 2001.) Nowhere does she or her sources raise the specter of the risks associated with vegetables.

At another point the reporter mentions without citation elevated mercury levels in tuna and swordfish. She doesnt cite the levels or explain what elevated means. She also fails to report the fact that the Food and Drug Administrations allowable level for mercury (1ppm) contains a built in 1,000 percent safety factor that was developed to keep acceptable levels, ten times lower than the lowest levels associate with adverse effects. Without exploring this or explaining this she keeps her risk narrative intact.

In the Posts report on seafood in April a doctor from Harvard School of Public Health notes that people tend to be more frightened by the threat of a harm than encouraged by the promise of a benefit. People get confused; they get the wrong message. In this case the Post has allowed a reporter to deliver a message that flies in the face of the very latest in nutrition science, following in the unfortunate media tradition captured by the saying, if it bleeds it leads.

I ask that you review the reporting and editorial oversight that accompanied this article.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Director, Media Relations

cc: Liz Spayd

Managing Editor

Shirley Carswell

Deputy Managing Editor

Food reporter, Michele Henry, writes in todays Toronto Star: Choosing to put fish on your dinner plate might seem like a smart, healthy, even responsible choice. But surrounding these creatures is a roiling sea of controversy

No theres not.

Ms. Henrys own expert source tells her as much: We cannot live without omega-3s our bodies cant manufacture this good fat from scratch omega-3s lower our risk of dying from a heart attack by 9 percent they reduce inflammation, regulate heartbeat, decrease blood pressure, make blood less likely to clot, relax the artery walls may reduce risk of depression, dementia, cognitive decline, arthritis, schizophrenia And its vital for fetal and infant brain development.

Thats what passes for a roiling sea of controversy north of the border?

Wheres the roiling controversy over her other source, David Jenkins and his sustainability pronouncements. Jenkins is far from a marine biologist, rather hes the Canada research chair in nutrition and metabolism at the University of Toronto. And while Dr. Jenkins is internationally recognized for creating the Glycemic Index, hes completely wrong when he says that ocean fish will run out by 2050 if we keep eating as much as we do currently. That bit of hyperbole has been debunked by none other than the ecologist researcher who first predicted it.

Michele Henry, also known by her blogging nom de plume Potty Mouth Mom, muses: I wonder how long it will take [the kids] to realize their mother has scrambled eggs for brains?

Guesses anyone.anyone?

A few weeks back, NFI issued A Call for Responsibility to end journalists reckless and lazy practices of colluding with agenda-driven activists, distorting scientific truth, championing inferior research and causing irrational fear among consumers.

You may have read it.

Fortunately, the failures of journalists who report on poorly conducted or shirt sleeve research are getting more attention, hopefully increasing pressure to curtail unbalanced and uncritical journalism. Calls to ignore phony health scares rather than perpetuate them are actually mounting.

Baylen Linnekin from Keep Food Legal is the latest heavyweight to shame the news media for promoting shoddy research without noting that the science and the reporting on said science may ultimately be bad for your health. In his Reason article, The Sorry State of Food-Related Public-Health Research and Journalism, Linnekin writes:

Increasingly it appears to be the case that there are two types of public-health publications pertaining to food. There is bad research. And then there is bad reporting on bad research. the seemingly rote regurgitation by journalists of sketchy research, often coupled with brainless quotes from a small sample of go-to researchersare no less common.

Hats off to someone who uses the power of the pen to highlight just how far off track some members of the Fourth Estate have gone.

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge.

— Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Scarlett (1887)

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes series, must have been turning in his grave Thursday night when the latest episode of Elementary aired on CBS.

The character of Watson, played by Lucy Liu, remarks: I was thinking sushi tonight.

The modern-day Sherlock Holmes, played by Jonny Lee Miller, answers: Salmonella, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, mercury poisoning, Anisakis simplex: all illnesses contractible from eating raw fish.

Huh? It seems Mr. Holmes knowledge of homicides is as remarkable as his ignorance of sushi particularly when it comes to mercury.

Mr. Holmes should have known that no peer-reviewed medical journal has ever reported a case of mercury toxicity in the U.S. attributed to the normal consumption of commercial seafood.

Rather than mumbling gibberish about sushi, Mr. Holmes would have been wiser to answer: Sushi? Great idea, Watson. A recent Harvard study showed that some 84,000 cardiac-related deaths could be prevented each year if Americans ate more seafood. In fact, the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish lower the risks of cardiovascular and eye diseases, and are essential to the healthy neurological and cognitive development of children in utero.

Youll want to order extra, Watson. Its elementary.

Mainstream researchers, doctors and dietitians agree that fringe eco-gurus who promote mercury in seafood scare-stories are more and more exposed by ground truth science these days. When the extensive scientific review that went into the USDAs Dietary Guidelines concludes that the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks, even for pregnant women the debate is pretty much over. Or when the most up-to-date and authoritative review of seafood science from the World Health Organization says the real risk is in not eating enough seafood, you know theres been a sea change in the scientific community. And when the Washington Post prints an article that says, Eat more fish; risks overstated, you know the train has left the proverbial station and only the steadfast fear mongers remain on the platform. Now, it appears theyll have some company while they wait for the next Pullman to marginalizedville; Jenny McCarthy.

Today the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) reports on McCarthys new newspaper column and the reception its getting in the scientific community.

The Chicago Sun-Times created controversy this month by hiring Jenny McCarthyan actress-model, author, and activist who promotes the discredited idea that vaccines cause autismto blog online five days a week and write a weekly print advice column about sex, love, dating, and parenting.

Like McCarthy and her vaccines cause autism theory, mercury scare mongers have for decades terrified consumers in the U.S. with unsubstantiated tales. This they did while ignoring the fact that people in Japan eat as much as 10 times more fish per capita than Americans but dont have the apparent epidemic of neurological problems that they should, if the tales were true. CJR explains the fear of giving McCarthy yet another platform this way:

It was the possibility that McCarthy might be writing parenting advice that most worried people. Despite popular support for the theory, science is certain: There is absolutely no link between vaccines and autism.

Whats more the director of the Women in Science & Engineering Program at the University of Illinois at Chicago, derides McCarthy in the CJR as having, built a career on anti-science rhetoric noting for someone of her stature to have a platform like this is really dangerous.

Meanwhile the CJR points to the headline on a blog post about McCarthy, written by a former medical writer at the San Jose Mercury News that reads, Chicago Sun-Times Hires Jenny McCarthy as Columnist. Science Weeps.

As the anti-mercury, scare-story crusaders continue their journey into obscurity it would behoove them to take a look in the mirror. Staring back they may find the reflection of Jenny McCarthy. A pretty faade, no doubt, but one that hides an ugly underside of marginalized anti-science.

KNBC-TV in Los Angeles has an investigative reporting segment called Get Garcia, Get Results– it’s a catchy little local news moniker that I’m sure the promotions guys just love. But the problem is Garcia’s producer didn’t didnt tell the whole story. Read on:

October 30, 2012

Mr. Keith Esparros

Director of Content

KNBC-TV

VIA EMAIL

Dear Mr. Esparros,

I am writing to bring to your attention a clear violation of journalistic standards and ethics that came to our attention as a part of a report that aired on your station titled Get Garcia: How Mercurial is Your Fish?

The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) served as a resource on this story for producer Robbi Peele. With full and complete knowledge of the facts Ms. Peele failed to include in her story information that significantly changes the perspective we find in the reporting and serves to distort the narrative.

NFI provided her with important, independent, peer-reviewed, published science that makes up the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) federal nutrition policy on mercury in fish.

I, personally, sent Ms. Peele the source material for the FDAs mercury limit on August 23, 2012 3:34 pm (Eastern.) I am happy to share with you that email as well and any and all email exchanges we had in preparation for this story. Please keep in mind the science and the policy I provided her is not ours at NFI but is the FDAs.

Nowhere in Ms. Peels package does she report the simple, independent, verified detail that the FDAs own explanation of its mercury limit highlights the fact that it includes a built-in 1,000 percent safety factor FDAs action level of 1 ppm for methyl mercury in fish was established to limit consumers methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects (page 5 of 7.) A fish that approaches or even slightly exceeds 1.0ppm is actually still at a level nearly 10 times lower than the level where researchers have detected harm. Ms. Peele was aware of this scientific fact months before this story aired and she chose not to include it in her package.

Again, the science cited is not NFIs but is part of the independent, peer-reviewed, published science that makes up the FDAs federal nutrition policy on mercury in fish.

To publically raise health concerns about individual test samples that your producer knew fell well inside the 1,000 percent safety factor established by FDA scientists is not only a failure of journalistic standards but a clear violation of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics that calls on producers not to, oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. The context here is clear, accurate, independent science.

Please let us know how and when you intend to addresses this editorial issue on the air.

Thank you for your commitment to accurate and ethical reporting.

Gavin Gibbons

Director of Media Relations

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Mr. Todd Mokhtari

Vice President of News