Scientific studies that are outliers or in the end dont reach a causal conclusion or cant really be practically applied but at least appear to buck current knowledge are often fodder for headlines. When in reality they shouldnt be.

September 5, 3012

Peter Bohan

Editor

Reuters AmericaNews Service/Syndicate

3 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

USA

VIA EMAIL

Dear Mr. Bohan,

Last week, reporter Kerry Grens in her article, Mercury, oils from fish at odds in heart health (08.30.12), wrote about the publication of a research study out of Finland and Sweden. Ms. Grens presents the findings as if they call into question the scientific consensus about the well-documented heart health benefits of eating fish despite trace amounts of mercury commonly found in fish. The 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans unequivocally say Moderate, consistent evidence shows that the 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.

But the authors of the study themselves are careful to say that, only when data was modeled in such a way that mercury levels were very high and omega-3 levels were very low, was there a net negative effect on heart health. Because both S-PUFA and hair-Hg are associated with fish consumption, this is an unusual combination, at least in Western countries, the authors say. Ms. Grens report should have been promoted more as an examination of the theoretical possibility that the mercury and healthy omega-3 fatty acids found in fish might somehow be in conflict with each other at certain ratios not seen in the U.S., and not as a conclusion that mercurys deleterious properties had somehow eclipsed the omega 3s .

Many Reuters subscribers, including high profile news outlets, let Reuters editorial judgment stand in place of their own and did not research the origins and or the true conclusion of this study.

Raising the specter of potential risks in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that prove eating a wide variety of fish is essential to optimal health, is a tried and true tactic of todays media; hence the newsroom mantra, if it bleeds, it leads.

However, when it comes to advice about a nutritious food this isnt just a harmless attention-grabbing tactic. The World Health Organization recently urged communicators to not only emphasize the benefits of fish consumption on reducing CHD [mortality rates for heart disease] but speak to the CHD mortality risks of not eating fish for the general adult population. Research from Harvard University concludes that 84,000 cardiac deaths per year could be avoided by eating a variety of seafood 2 3 times a week. The authors of the very study Ms. Grens reported on say Our model indicated that even a small change in fish consumption (ie, by increasing S-PUFA by 1%) would prevent 7% of MIs [heart attacks], despite a small increase in mercury exposure. Confusing people and thus steering them away from seafood has the potential to contribute to an increase in the incidence of heart disease, the number one cause of death in the U.S.

This study does not change the overwhelming body of science that concludes the benefits outweigh the risks and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Especially when Ms. Grens own report cites the researcher as saying the study, can’t tease out cause and effect. The value of reporting on non-definitive studies should be considered beyond the curiosity effect that a man-bites-dog story generates. After all, the health of the audiences is at stake.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons,

Director of Media Relations

cc Brian Tracey

U.S. Managing Editor

Elaine Lies

Editor

Bob Tourtellotte

Editor

Heading into the Labor Day weekend more than one editor, reporter or producer has scanned the news horizon and found little to chose from, outside the hand shaking and baby kissing of a Presidential election in full swing.

Today, while digging into the proverbial health file CBS Radio found a story about fish, mercury and heart attacks. They reported with great haste that a new study found mercury in fish appears to counteract the heart healthy benefits of the omega 3s.

Fire up the air raid siren and alert the press.

One problem, the reporting was a bit misleading becauseumwell the study essentially found the opposite relationship between mercury and omega-3s.

The study of 1,600 men from Sweden and Finland found men with high levels of mercury in the body had an increased risk of heart attacks, while those with a high concentration of omega-3s had a lower risk. Reporting from other news outlets on the very same study noted, for men with more of the fats [omega-3s], it took higher levels of mercury to see an increased heart attack risk – suggesting the two compounds might have opposite effects on the ticker.

Whats more, not included in the CBS report were public comments made by a preeminent cardiologist/epidemiologist from the Harvard School of Public Health who said the results of study, probably don’t apply to most Americans, who have lower mercury levels than the men studied, and that few people have high mercury levels and low omega-3s, because mercury from fish often comes with the healthy fats.

Whoops.

To CBS Radios credit their executive producer saw the error and pulled the story off the air.

So, lets hope journalists will use this as a cautionary tale this Labor Day weekend where they will, undoubtedly, be confronted with mind numbing $4 dollar gas stories and redundant reach-the-beach forecast.

You cant eat politics. Or can you?

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington-based lobbying organization, has just published its own recipe book. In keeping the EWGs nanny state ethos, the organization wants to tell you what to eat and what not to eat via their guide, Good Food on a Tight Budget. While they include links to reputable third-party organizations like WIC and MyPlate, several of EWGs recommendations fly in the face of these very groups.

The publication purports to be a guide for families at risk of hunger. Heres another group that has been supporting people at nutritional risk since 1972 the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC recently updated the foods it offers and expanded the type and amount of canned fish, specifically for breastfeeding women. What does the EWG guide say about canned fish? They say fresh or frozen salmon are best reason unknown and canned light tuna should be limited to one serving per month because it may contain industrial pollutants.

That advice is flat out wrong. All forms of salmon are excellent sources of omega-3s, required for brain and heart health. And tuna, migratory ocean fish, are largely unaffected by the inland industrial plants EWG targets with its advice. In fact both salmon and canned light tuna are listed by the FDA as particularly low in mercury.

Another group with nutrition expertise featured in the EWG Guide, but whose recommendations are blatantly ignored is USDAs MyPlate. MyPlate says, twice a week, make seafoodfish and shellfishthe main protein food on your plate and encourages people to do so by eating a variety of fish species in a variety of forms. For example, canned seafood, such as canned salmon, tuna, or sardines, is quick and easy to use.

But of course, if EWG made it that simple and encouraging, what would become of the fish fear they need to promote in order to fuel their war against coal-fired power plants? The fact that environmentalists would scare people away from eating healthy, affordable types of seafood at a time when Americans eat far too little fish to begin with in order to promote a narrow agenda, is all you need to know about politically-correct cooking.

And what would EWG rather have you eat? Why, dig into the guide and youll find that goat is the worlds most commonly eaten meat. See recipe on page 25.

To frighten viewers, horror films rely on eerie mood music, spooky narration and fake blood lots of fake blood.

One could comfortably assume that production of a Freddie Kruger film would be a far cry (or should I say, blood-curdling scream) from the straight-up broadcast of infotainment programming. But the newsroom mantra, if it bleeds it leads, is not an excuse for the folks at America Now to spill misinformation all over the set.

The hosts, Bill Rancic and Liza Geebons might as well be horrors hapless camp counsellors telling a fireside ghost story: How safe is your seafood? But this isnt a thriller (literally or figuratively) or at least it shouldnt be. According to its website, America Nowis a fast-paced daily newsmagazine show. But if they were going for scary, the only thing frightening about their August 6 broadcast was the grotesque number of factual errors in the story:

• Overfishing in U.S. fisheries mak[es] us dependent on imported seafood from other countries where food safety standards are less strict. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)s Status of Stocks 2011 report says otherwise, noting that most U.S. fisheries are not in an overfished state. Of the stocks with overfishing status, 86 percent are not subject to overfishing, while 79 percent of stocks with overfished status are not overfished. 27 stocks are fully rebuilt, 51 stocks are rebuilding and 6 more stocks are planned to regrow in the future.

• The FDA also tests seafood for mercury poisoning, which can cause severe neurological damage in humans. No peer-reviewed medical journal has ever documented an American suffering from mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of commercial seafood. To safeguard the public health, the FDA enforces a mercury level of 1.0ppm, which is a built-in safety factor of a 1000 percent. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as well as numerous medical organizations and nutritionists, encourage Americans to eat more seafood because the benefits of consumption far outweigh the risks associated with exposure to methylmercury.

• The FDA is only able to test about 2 percent of our seafood. This statistic gets thrown around to suggest seafood is under regulated, but the claim doesnt hold up. The Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP), the FDAs management system, implements safety protocols, carries out monitoring procedures, identifies risk of pathogens and regulates proper handling well before fish enters our docks. The 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act also calls for further scrutiny, including coordination of inspections of foreign facilities to increase the percentage of imported seafood and seafood facilities inspected. If that isnt enough, third-party certification programs exist to uphold safety standards in imported fish.

• Food-borne illnesses like salmonella and listeria are commonly found in fish. According to a published review of CDC data, fish is one of the safest foods you can eat.

Whats truly terrifying in all of this is the real risk to human health when we fail to eat the recommended quantity of seafood 2-3 meals a week to get essential nutrients like omega-3s. When you dont, perhaps you turn into a zombie?

On the green living site Care2, Dr. Michael Greger tries his level best to encourage pregnant women to stop eating canned tuna. He builds his case using a 2010 University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) study that examined mercury levels in the three major brands of canned tuna.

Theres just one problem: The study is seriously flawed. In fact, we debunked its methods and findings not once, but three times (here, here, and here) when it was first published.

Following is a refresher for Dr. Greger because he clearly missed the facts the first time around:

Canned tuna, like all other commercial seafood fished from the ocean, contain trace amounts of naturally occurring methylmercury emitted largely from underwater volcanoes not mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The latter unfortunately pollutes inland waterways (rivers, lakes and streams), which accounts for the mercury found in sport-caught fish.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdictional oversight of inland waterways and the fish therein, but not the oceans and not the commercial seafood caught offshore. The agency responsible for the safety of the seafood we purchase at our local store or eat at our favorite restaurant is under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In short its misleading to apply EPA standards to commercial seafood.

Logically, this means that FDA guidelines apply to canned tuna. What the disputed UNLV study found, and what Dr. Greger didnt disclose, is that the average mercury levels of all three brands were well below the FDA’s reference dose for acceptable levels of mercury. Even still, pregnant women have nothing to worry about; the FDA builds in a 1,000% safety factor to ensure safety and assuage fears.

The bottom line is that not one case of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the United States has ever been reported in peer reviewed scientific literature. Americans, especially pregnant women, dont eat enough seafood as is. There is no way that increasing their seafood intake to the levels recommended by medical and government guidelines is going to result in any of the scary health problems described by Dr. Greger.

You may have heard some breathless reporting about radiation in tuna recently. But the fact is the actual scientific testing done does not conclude there is a food safety or public health concern related to radiation and tuna of any kind.

For starters the tuna tested was bluefin tuna which is not used in canning. In fact per capita Americans eat about the weight of a few paper clips worth of bluefin tuna each year.

Far from raising concern about the safety of sushi tuna, experts say this study is actually reassuring The finding should be reassuring to the public. As anticipated, the tuna contained only trace levels of radioactivity that originated from Japan. These levels amounted to only a small fraction of the naturally occurring radioactivity in the tuna, and were much too small to have any impact on public health. Thus, there is no human health threat posed by consuming migratory tuna caught off the west coast of the United States. Timothy J. Jorgensen, associate professor of radiation medicine at Georgetown University.

Reporters should keep in mind that the levels were talking about are really diagnostic research levels and not levels that would even be tested for normally.

Heres some perspective, researchers at the University of Texas Health and Science Center (in Houston) estimate you would need to eat between 2.5 and 4 tons of bulefin tuna in a year to get a dose (cesium-137) of radiation that exceeds health limits.

Remember the time journalists misread that CDC report and wrote that imported seafood was a danger and a growing one at that? Right but then they looked closely at it and found they were conflating illnesses with outbreaks which means the report actually said imported seafood was only responsible for one tenth of one percent of illnesses from all food, not just imports.

Yay, I remember that sigh.

Lets hope editors do too. Because theres a new report from the California State Water Resources Control Board that has nothing to do with commercial seafood, the stuff you find in grocery stores and restaurants, and is completely out of step with the FDA, USDA and mainstream, published, peer-reviewed science.

The State Water Board tested sport-caught fish and found average mercury levels of 0.44 parts per million. Levels it claims are of high concern.

The FDAs action level is more than twice the level dubbed of high concern by the State Water Board and the federal level includes a ten-fold safety cushion. Adverse affects from mercury have only been seen at levels more than a thousand percent higher than the ones California authorities are raising concerns about. This goes beyond the precautionary principal and strays into a fundamental misunderstanding about benefits and risks.

Lets put this in perspective; a State Water Board, whose mission is to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of Californias water resources has concerns about mercury levels in fish. While the newly revised USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans say, the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks, even for pregnant women. Oh and the Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization and other platinum standard public health organizations tend to agree.

So, the ball is really in the medias courtreport the whole story or feed the vortex of misinformation about mercury and seafood in search of an alarming headline.

Oh and the Water Board also mentions PCBs without offering any actual consumption context. The fact is that seafood, all seafood, makes up 9 percent of the PCBs found in the average American diet. While vegetables make up 20 percent. It doesnt appear the Water Board has offered an opinion on vegetable consumption, on using water to irrigate vegetables or even which vegetables might be good for grilling this Memorial Day weekend.

In 1973, The Washington Post was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service for its Watergate investigation, due in large part to its focus on the details. Nearly 40 years, later the digital version of the Post illustrates how far its come or fallen.

This weeks blog post The end of fish, in one chart chirps about the ills of commercial fishing and gleefully cites a recent study that finds commercial fish stocks are on pace for total collapse by 2048, leaving only jellyfish left in the ocean.

The detail left out by the author is that the recent study was published 6 years ago and has been updated. The new study, by the same author, stands in opposition to the original statistic. In fact for years independent experts have blasted the 2048 statistic and the way it was reached saying it, “threatens the very heart of the scientific process,” and was “fallacious and inappropriate to appear in a scientific journal,” not to mention “just mind boggling stupid.”

So, the statistic is fallacious, inappropriate and mind bogglingly stupid, but its fit to print in the Washington Post. Ben Bradlee must be welling up with pride as the outlet whose muckraking helped bring down a president fails to Google a statistic before going to print.

The Western Farm Press recently asked in a headline, when does trade and commerce trump food safety? and then linked to a story about the now infamous catfish provision from the 2008 Farm Bill. Cavalierly linking to a Beltway write-up on this wasteful, duplicative inspection program in a manner that suggests Western growers and agribusinesses in the region might consider supporting the provision exposes an unfortunate lack of understanding.

For starters the 2008 catfish provision is a fake food safety scare designed to benefit domestic catfish producers by regulating their competition out of the market. Switching catfish inspection from FDA to USDA and then falsely calling imports, like the pangasius fish, catfish, erects a trade barrier but doesnt make the food any safer.

And who bears the brunt of the trade fallout from such a move? The very growers and agribusinesses who read this publication, thats who.

A literal whos who from the agricultural world has spoken out strongly against the catfish provision in correspondence directly with the USDA. Opponents include American Soybean Association, Cargill, Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Hormel Foods, National Council of Farmer Coops, National Meat Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Federation, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Smithfield Foods, United States Dairy Export Council, United States Grains Council, United States Meat Export Federation, USA Poultry and Egg Export Council and of course the Western Growers Association.

So lets answer the question posed by that headline– When does trade and commerce trump food safety? It doesnt because this provision has never been about food safety; it has always been about a campaign to unnecessarily exclude imports from the market, a strategy that would ultimately restrict U.S. agricultural exports to growing foreign markets.

A Huffington Post column by Moms Clean Air Force Senior Director and Co-Founder Dominique Browning is a perfect example of poorly sourced, emotionally based nutrition advice that scares people away from eating seafood. You really dont have to go any farther than the title to recognize the absurd rhetoric signaling that the column is bogus: A Worried Mother Does Better Research Than the FBI.

But if you do, youll see that she expresses her concern as a mother that air pollution, mercury, and other chemicals find their way into our seafood. I agree that we should improve the environment, but disparaging seafood and scaring people away from eating it in order to advance her groups agenda is intolerable. Not only that, she contradicts the latest medical and government advice encouraging people to eat more seafood so that they dont lose out on essential nutrients and protections from disease.

But Ms. Browning sure fooled the Huffington Post. We pointed out these egregious errors to the outlets top editors three times. In each instance, we asked them to run a rebuttal column from Jennifer McGuire, NFIs registered dietitian, to untangle the inaccurate advice for readers and hold the Huffington Post accountable to its own editorial standards on disseminating factual information. We were met with a deafening silent refusal.

Since the Huffington Post wont clear things up, we will:

Its not just that eating a variety of seafood twice a week is a beneficial thing to do for our heart and brain health, which according to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, it unequivocally is. A number of scientific studies and guidance, including this 3-minute video from the Energy & Environmental Research Centerof the University of North Dakota, have recently started to emphasize the fact that not eating enough seafood can be a real health risk. Here are some examples:

Public Library of Science Medicine Low seafood consumption is the second-biggest dietary contributor to preventable deaths in the U.S., taking 84,000 lives each year (for perspective, low intake of fruits and vegetables takes 58,000 lives each year).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization For the general population: When you eat fish, it reduces your risk of dying from heart disease. And when you dont eat fish, you might miss out on this heart health protection.For pregnant and breastfeeding women: When you eat a variety of fish, it helps boost your babys brain development. And when you dont eat fish, your baby might miss out on this brain boost.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Babies of mothers who eat the least seafood during pregnancy took longer to meet developmental milestones like crawling, climbing stairs, and drinking from a cup compared to babies of mothers who eat seafood-rich diets during pregnancy (2 ounces per day on average).

Currently Americans eat only 15.8 pounds of seafood each year, compared to 110 pounds of red meat and 73 pounds of poultry. The North American diet contains the second-lowest percentage of fish in the world (7%), although the 2010 Dietary Guidelines say that 20% of the protein we eat should be seafood. The positive effects of eating seafood are too many and the risks of a seafood-deficient diet too harmful to not heed current expert advice.

As the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics explains, not all nutrition advice is created equal.With the wide array of disease-preventing powers provided by seafood, it is essential to sort out fact from fiction.