A recent example of irresponsible and lazy journalism illustrates why science and health reporters need to be held to a higher standard.

In early October, the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine published a study exploring whether there is a link between seafood and mercury exposure during pregnancy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-like behaviors in children. The key finding in regards to the question that really matters — What happens when I eat fish as a whole food during pregnancy? was positive. Pregnant women who eat seafood more than twice per week, including traces of mercury, may lower their childrens risk for ADHD-like behaviors. While the study found that exposure to certain levels of prenatal mercury may be associated with higher risk of ADHD-like behaviors, eating fish can protect against this risk.

But rather than report the good news, many reporters hyped the fear:

• Times Alice Park warned, “The health risks of mercury exposure are well documented, and the harms for still-developing fetuses are particularly concerning.”

• HealthDays Randy Dotinga cautioned, In another sign of the possible dangers lurking in an environmental hazard, new research links mercury exposure in expectant mothers to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in their children.

• Medwire News Helen Albert alerted, Contaminated fish pose dietary dilemma for pregnant women.

These reports are in essence distorting the truth because they chose to selectively report the most negative, salacious findings outside of a far more positive accurate context. More importantly, this type of reporting has consequences. Misleading reports discourage, in this case, pregnant women from eating more fish and thus robs them of the health benefits. Keep in mind, the conclusion of the report was that eating more fish during pregnancy helps prevent ADHD symptoms later; reporting on it any other way is a fundamental distortion.

This is not the first time that journalists have confused the public by skewing scientific research about seafood. While covering a recent Nordic study whose authors created a model to estimate the effects of omega-3s and mercury on heart attack risk, Reuters reporter Kerry Grens focused on the potential risks of methyl mercury. But the model estimated the heart health benefits from omega-3s outweighed negative effects from mercury unless omega-3s were very low and mercury was very high. Since both omega-3s and mercury are associated with eating fish, this is an unusual combination, at least in Western countries, the authors explicitly say in the full-text study. Furthermore, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans clearly states: health benefits from consuming a variety of seafood in the amounts recommended outweigh the health risks associated with methyl mercury, a heavy metal found in seafood in varying levels.

Either through neglect or deceit, many science reporters have routinely twisted the facts about mercury and seafood to fit a predetermined narrative dictated by eco-activists to advance a narrow agenda.

For example, a report released by the Mercury Policy Project (MPP), an eco-activist group urged schools and parents to worry about, of all things, the amount of canned tuna kids eat. Tuna is one of the most affordable and available forms of the omega-3s and lean protein required for optimal development. And according to the report itself, its average mercury levels are well-below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration level of concern. Even though MPP transparently put its environmental agenda front and center, the media failed to question how the MPP paper derived its results or how it might negatively impact the health and development of children. Coverage of the report had real negative public health consequences with at least one San Marcos, TX school district removing tuna from its menu.

There are several possible reasons why science journalists report the activists narrative so uncritically. To some extent its out of sympathy for the cause. But mostly its laziness. MITs Seth Mnookin observes, Newspapers give lots of attention to those first, eye-catching results while spilling very little (if any) ink on the ongoing research that shows why people shouldnt have gotten all hot and bothered in the first place.

Concerning the ADHD study, Harvards David Ropeik noted, coverage of this new mercury study demonstrates something more worrisome about how the media cover risk in generalIts not just the alarmist way they report things, but also a matter of which stories and facts they report, and which ones they simply dont.

Any possible nugget of harm from mercury generates excitement, but the rising and demonstrable harm shown from low seafood and omega-3 consumption such as the FAO/WHO report that underscores the heart- and brain-health risks of avoiding seafood and the Harvard study that estimates 84,000 people die annually due to omega-3 deficiency.

The medias confusing messages not only ignore but perpetuate the serious seafood deficiency in the American diet. Fish makes up only seven percent of the protein we eat in the U.S., while the 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommend 20% of the protein we eat should be seafood.

We cannot afford to heed the medias uninformed nutrition counsel because very real consequences exist. The FDA estimates that just a 10 percent drop in the already low amount of fish men and older women eat would result in 4,000 additional heart disease and stroke deaths per year.

Journalists, as well as the activists who manipulate them, should be held directly accountable for that harm because the stakes are high and the cost of negligence can be measured in lives.

We call on responsible journalists and professional science writers to apply their skepticism and critical thinking not only to the subjects they are covering but also to the coverage of their less conscientious colleagues. Only by self-policing its ranks and challenging the faulty analyses of careless reporters will the profession defend its reputation for diligence and impartiality and maintain its authority to interpret scientific matters for the public.

It doesnt surprise me anymore when people get information about seafood wrong and tuna in particular. But it does surprise me just how wrong they get it.

Lets take for instance Andrew Freeman on TakePart, hes an apparent expert on nutrition whose degree in history from UCLA and recent posts on prison overcrowding and a house in the UK made entirely of waste seem to back that credential up.

Andrew has decided that canned tuna is not healthy because it contains high levels of mercury. He doesnt define what high levels are but instead refers to a marginalized report from Consumer Reporters Magazine as his source.

But since it would appear Andrew simply read one article, before making his proclamation, lets take a look at the levels found in that particular article. The levels fell somewhere in the neighborhood ofum well a thousand percent lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects. So, he could have done some research or just asked the FDA.

Oh, and his assertion that Bluefin tuna are especially dangerous given their size is a puzzling one, seeing that Bluefin tuna are not used in canned tuna period.

NBC has changed the headline–

From: Linda Dahlstrom
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:11 PM
To: Gavin Gibbons; Michael Wann
Subject: RE: Issue with a current Headline on NBCNews.com

Dear Mr. Gibbons,

Thank you so much for your note calling my attention to the incorrect headline that we published on our story about ADHD. You are right our headline did not represent the studys conclusions. Ive corrected the headline and also added a correction note to the story itself. The new headline reads: Moms fish eating may affect childs ADHD risk, study says.

Once again, thank you for alerting us to this problem.

Best regards,

Linda Dahlstrom

Health editor, NBCNews.com

Remember that time (read: this morning) when we put out a media alert warning reporters, producers and editors not to the botch the headlines associated with any report on a new study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine that reviewed mercurys potential effect on ADHD?

We were pretty specific about the pitfalls of misreporting or mislabeling any such article but some folks just dont listen. Have a look at NBCNews.coms take on the study:

October 9, 2012, 2012

Michael Wann

Managing Editor

NBCNews.com

VIA EMAIL

Dear Mr. Wann,

NBCNews.com is currently featuring a Reuters article that is running under the headline Too much fish during pregnancy linked to child’s ADHD. This headline is simply wrong. In fact the new study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine being reported on by Reuters actually concludes the exact opposite of your headline. Mothers who ate more fish during pregnancy had children with a greatly reduced chance of ADHD.

Here is a stanza from the very story featured on your website, The children appeared to be 60 percent less likely to exhibit impulsive or hyperactive behaviors if their mothers ate two or more servings of fish per week.

As you know the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states, Make certain that headlines do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

The NBCNews.com headline goes beyond oversimplifying or even misrepresenting, it contradicts the very conclusion of not only the study but the reporting it promotes.

Here is a sample of other headlines reporting the same story today;

Eating fishin pregnancymay protect child from ADHD: research

Limit FishWhile Pregnant? Study Questions Advice

Eating fish while pregnantcan help cut ADHD risk in kids

Eating at least two servings of fishper week lowers ADHD risk in newborns by 60pc

Prenatalfish consumption may reduce risk of ADHD-related behaviors

With accuracy in mind we ask that you change this headline as soon as editorially possible.

Thank you.

Gavin Gibbons

Director of Media Relations

National Fisheries Institute

cc: LindaDahlstrom

Deputy Health Editor

Because his friends at Greenpeace told him it was so, food columnist Mark Bittman then told his readers that Fish Aggregating Devices used by tuna companies kill countless numbers of [other] animals in their quest for cheap tuna.

And then some of the top fishery scientists in the world, whose work is published by outlets like the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation, stepped up and noted that despite Bittmans hyperbole, catching young tuna around FADs does not necessarily result in overfishing. Additionally, [a] study finds that levels of non-tuna bycatch are comparable or less than in other industrial fisheries. [They then] argue that if certain bycatch problems can be solved, and if FAD fishing is properly monitored and managed,this method of fishing could be one of the most environmentally responsible.

Ooops.

Food critic says tuna industry uses a method that kills countless critters and real life scientists say that method could be one of the most environmentally responsible. Who do you believe? The people who do the research or the guy who promotes Greenpeace without ever questioning what they tell him?

Keep in mind when scientists, in this case toxicologists, were surveyed, 96 percent said they believed Greenpeace overstates risks. So, there we have nearly 100 percent of the scientists surveyed saying Greenpeace overstates risks, which for most people means lies.

Let me put too fine a point on it Greenpeace gets reporters and columnists who dont ask tough questions to write about its various campaigns, ones who would not be likely to reach out to the top scientists in the field of tuna sustainability– even when writing about tuna sustainability. Then they take those articles and show their supporters how well their campaigns are doing and ask for more money to support said campaigns. But the campaigns never end; so just how well could they be doing? Its a cycle that involves a lot of Green.

Reporters and columnists, dont end up as a pawn in this cycle… or do and just admit it.

New York Times Blogger Mark Bittman was once a journalist. He once was held to a standard higher than — these are my friends and this is my opinion. But that was many moons ago and now he peppers his musings about paprika and potatoes with a hearty dose of his own food politics, regardless of facts, figures and God forbid science.

Today he can be found chirping about his buddies at Greenpeace and their thinly disguised fund raising campaign that apparently seeks to educate consumers about fish aggregating devices. Yes, fish aggregating devices. Just like coupons and sales, fish aggregating devices are on the lips of every consumer who Bittman knows. A true common man.

While he extoles the virtue of a world without fish aggregating devices, in lock step with his hand-delivered Greenpeace talking points , Bittman excludes any mention of the work already being done by responsible, mainstream environmentalists through the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), a group created through a partnership between WWF, the worlds leading conservation organization, and canned tuna companies from across the globe.

Nowhere does he mention the commitments these companies have made, the global recognition they have earned, or the money they have expended researching the very thing he is complaining about: fish aggregating devices. While Bittmans hip friends are protesting in the parking lot with outstretched hands, hoping to reel in a few bucks, reasonable and responsible environmentalists are sitting at the table working on sustainability solutions. Oh and dont think Greenpeace hasnt been invited to take a seat at that table because they have (check out the clock here that counts the days since Greenpeace was invited to stop being an environmental parasite and start working with the adults.)

We know Bittman knows about ISSF and its work because weve made his editors aware of it, but still he hides behind the cloak of opinion and hands over his column to his friends without asking any tough questions.

This isnt the first and perhaps its not the last time well have to point out that using Greenpeace as the sole source, for even an opinion piece, flies in the face of the current mainstream understanding of tuna sustainability. Such work is contrasted by acclaimed science writer Wilson da Silva who pens, Greenpeace was once a friend of science, helping bring attention to important but ignored environmental research. These days, its a ratbag rabble of intellectual cowards intent on peddling an agenda, whatever the scientific evidence.

And once again their fund raising machine has found a home in Mark Bittmans column.

Last week when Mercury Policy Project (MPP) released its agenda driven ramblings in the form of a report on mercury in canned tuna, a number of questions were raised about this opinion piece that was neither peer-reviewed nor published. The fact that the report completely ignored the multitude of studies showing the benefits of eating tuna and the harm that comes when people dont eat enough seafood had some asking just what type of risk analysis MPP had done in order to put the actual risks in perspective.

Well, now we have that answer and it is, not surprisingly, a new low in quasi science. Youll remember the reports lead author Ned Groth was featured in various news outlets including the venerable Food Chemical News. Lets take a look at what he told them:

Additionally, there are some questions to be asked about the report. Groth admits his organization didnt conduct a survey to find out how commonly tuna is served in schools, adding that hes heard ‘anecdotal’ references to the frequency of tuna served in lunches of a friends grandson in New Jersey.

Really? MPP is basing its current study on anecdotal references to the frequency of tuna served in lunches of a friends grandson in New Jersey? Is that the threshold used by FDA, USDA and CDC? I wonder if Dr. Margaret Hamburg at FDA immediately consults that organizations vast library of anecdotal food safety literature authored by a friends grandson in New Jersey before ordering a risk assessment for any number of products. Im sure she does. It sounds like the platinum standard in science.

Just to be clear and just so all the reporters who covered this story know the Mercury Policy Project chose not to research the actual exposure risk associated with its findings and in fact made up its own policy recommendations based on what its lead researcher heard about a friends grandson in New Jersey.

Might I suggest that reporters who are not outraged by this admission recheck their own standards for reporting?

Consumer Reports discredits itself by echoing the already discredited report on canned tuna that the Mercury Policy Project (MPP) publicized on Wednesday. Its just the latest unscientific attack on tuna by this self-described consumer organization. MPPs report is merely the opinion of a group of agenda-driven activists and not peer reviewed science but you wouldnt know that from Consumer Reports (CR) one sided recitation of the group’s talking points.

But is that really a surprise, coming from a group whose former in-house expert on environmental health and risk assessment approached NFI with his proverbial hand outstretched, looking for a paid consulting gig? Thats right CRs former risk assessor for mercury AND THE PRINICPAL AUTHOR OF THE NEW MPP REPORT, approached NFI about teaming up with him.

Ned Groth wrote, Im hoping we can discuss the possibility of my working with NFI on risk communication about mercury in seafood. He wasnt shy about it either, noting Ill attach some personal references, should you decide to check me out further. To assuage any fears we might have about working with him he assured us that, it may surprise you that our perspectives have much in common.

If Consumer Reports truly cared more about consumers and less about attracting attention with sensationalized reports authored by its former employees — the organization would be urging Americans to eat more tuna, not frightening them away from it.

The Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization, American Heart Association and other groups stress that consuming a wide variety of seafood is integral to a healthy diet for both adults and children.

The omega-3 fatty acids found in tuna, for example, help childrens brains and eyes develop normally. A recent study showed that some 84,000 cardiac-related deaths could be prevented each year with proper servings of fish in the diet.

Yet Americans consume the second-lowest percentage of fish in the world (7 percent), while the USDAs 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) recommend 20 percent of the protein we eat should be from seafood. Currently, adults eat less than half of the 8 to 12 ounces of seafood, two to three times a week, recommended by the DGAs, and children eat even less, even though they should be increasing their intake of a wide variety of fish.

Thats why its irresponsible for Consumer Reports to join activist groups in manufacturing a scare about mercury in tuna. There is no peer-reviewed evidence documenting that even one person in the United State has ever experienced mercury poisoning from eating the recommended amount of commercial fish.

Consumer Reports has developed expertise in rating cars, TVs and toasters but its far out of its element here. Our advice to Consumer Reports: Stick with what you know.

Our advice for Consumer Reports readers: Buyer beware.

Todays report from the Mercury Policy Project is not a peer-reviewed scientific study but rather simply the opinions of agenda driven activist groups. The report completely ignores the multitude of studies showing the benefits of eating tuna and the harm that comes when people dont eat enough seafood.

Todays report will do far more harm than good for Americas children. The fact of the matter is, research shows children are not eating nearly enough seafood, let alone just canned tuna, for optimal health.

By just about any measure, tuna is one of the healthiest foods on earth. It is a nutritious food rich in essential nutrients including protein, vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids.

To suggest children eat less tuna is nothing short of irresponsible. This effort is a classic example of an activist group with a solution in search of a problem.

As the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics explains, not all nutrition advice is created equal. Todays report is a case-in-point. Its suggestions completely contradict the guidance offered by reputable nutrition organizations and government experts including the USDA (Dietary Guidelines for Americans), FAO/WHO and countless others.

The USDA specifically states: A well-balanced diet that includes a variety of fish and shellfish can contribute to heart health and children’s proper growth and development. So, women and young children in particular should include fish or shellfish in their diets due to the many nutritional benefits.

Americans diet already contains the second-lowest percentage of fish in the world 7 percent although the USDA guidelines say that 20 percent of the protein we eat should be seafood. It is reckless for anyone to be warning Americans away from seafood.

The overall effect of eating seafood has been exhaustively reviewed and findings are crystal clear: The real risk associated with fish is not eating enough.

If youre ever in Ms. Gordons Catskills neighborhood when the power goes out, knock on her neighbors door. Rather than use mass care authorities like the Red Cross to craft her survival tips (published in the Huffington Post), she relies on the National Resource Defense Councils (NRDC) Preparing for Disaster checklist.

To her credit, Ms. Gordon knows that shelf stable canned or pouched tuna is a lifesaver when the electricity goes out (which is why supermarket shelves look like this before a hurricane). But in a moment of irony, Ms. Gordon shifts from preparedness to paranoia, fearing not only the impending storm but trace amounts of naturally occurring mercury found in tuna.

Why is it that Im thinking the 1.7 million people who lost power in the Gulf during Hurricane Katrina and had no clean drinking water to sustain themselves with while sifting through the $100 billion in losses, were not kicking themselves for failing to head to Whole Foods for boutique canned tuna before the storm?

Death toll from Katrina; 2,000. Death toll from canned tuna; Zero.

Just sayin.