Tilapia is a popular, farmed fish that is generally imported to the U.S. Its also apparently on the hit list of a University of Georgia microbiologist named Michael Doyle. You might have read recently that Doyle claimed “(Feces) is the primary nutrient for growing the tilapia (in China).”

Really? A published professor, who holds numerous food safety patents believes the primary food farmed tilapia is fed is chicken poop?

There no evidence that feces is the primary nutrient fed to tilapia in any commercial aquaculture operation anywhere on the planet. This comically out of touch statement must have either been in jest or is the exposition of a surprising ignorance.

The Global Aquaculture Alliance bristled at the embarrassing hyperbole when it was brought to its attention noting that, there is no merit or support for this claim. A typical tilapia feed, regardless of where it is produced, is mainly carbohydrate based and the main ingredients are soybean meal, broken rice or corn grains and wheat middlings, with a small quantity of fish meal added.

I wonder if there are any decorated microbiologists willing to go on the record about whether the combination of Pop Rocks and soda actually killed Mikey from those Life Cereal ads.

This weeks GAO report on imported seafood said a number of things and made a number of recommendations that by in large make sense. The report didnt break much new ground because the Food Safety Modernization Act, released in January, has FDA already working on much of what the report suggested they work on. So, while there was some hand wringing and hyperbolic headlines it wasnt quite the damning tome some might imagine. Its hard to be too exercised about new recommendations that the FDA has actually been working on for 5 months.

But never ones to miss an opportunity to tend to the fires of its scorched earth policy the special interest catfish lobby took this opportunity to bash imports and specifically rail against residues from unapproved drugs apparently found in some imports. For starters the catfish lobby is 100 percent right on this issueone positive sample is one too many. If its unapproved it should be in the productperiod.

But heres where the whiskered head of hypocrisy swims over and bites the catfish lobby. You see, while theyre out damning imports for positive test results the USDAs own draft rule on catfish regulation notes right there on pages 10438 and 10439 of the Federal Register that in April 2008 through March 2009 the Food Safety and Inspection Service tested 733 catfish samples for Unapproved Antimicrobials and guess what they found?; Five domestic samples had confirmed positive results and five imported samples had confirmed positive results Detects were at levels below regulatory concern.

You know what they say about catfish who live in glass houses right?

Theres been a bit of breathless reporting on the new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on what the FDA needs to do to improve oversight of imported seafood. In many cases the headlines replete with buzz words like risks, drug-tainted and harmful arent quite as impactful when you find the recommendations that the FDA be more risk-based and better leverage its resources have actually already been widely addressed in the Food Safety Modernization Act that came out in January. The GAO report recommends sampling based on targeted risk. That not only makes sense but goes to the core of how an effective HACCP system works.

So, keep in mind when reviewing stories like these; Report Faults FDA Over Risks From Imported Seafood, Something’s Fishy With FDA’s Oversight Of Imported Seafood, GAO: Could Drug-Tainted Fish Be Slipping Through the Safety Net?, FDA Told to Improve Oversight of Imported Seafood, Imported Fish Not Tested For Harmful Drug Residues: GAO that despite recommendations for improvement, HACCP is actually a very effective regulatory structure with a long track record of keeping seafood consumers safe.

In fact, a just published review of CDC data shows that there are 17 other food/pathogen combinations that present a risk to consumers before seafood is even mentioned. So, in keeping with that much lauded risk-based approach, the GAO writes about, it is pretty clear that at the outset seafood is not a tremendous food safety risk.

The GAO report certainly illustrates the need to fully fund the FDA. Unfunded mandates have been commonplace at FDA and were just now getting away from those, so to have GAO essentially note that FDA is doing more with less and needs to look to force multipliers like NMFS to bolster its efforts also makes sense.

Inside FDA resource allocation is key and Americans only eat 15.8 lbs of seafood a year so using a focused risk-based approach to regulating seafood is appropriate. It’s important to keep in mind when reading the GAO report that seafood and even just imported seafood is a small snapshot of FDAs regulatory world.

FDAs HACCP system is an internationally recognized system which is, quite frankly, very effective. Theres a fundamental misunderstanding of FDAs system by some who suggest its all about, or should be all about, waiting at the dock to test seafood thats coming in. That’s not how HACCP works. Conversely it seeks to solve the challenges before they become problems at the dock and it does a good job of that. We welcome efforts to confront challenges as far from our boarders as possible and endorse GAOs recommendations.

So, while this report points out things FDA can do better or ways it should enhance the focus of its existing system it doesnt break much new ground or go much further than the issues that are being addressed in the Food Safety Modernization Act. Rather, the report simply says heres how you improve FDAs already existing HACCP system.

Its also important to understand that this report does not conclude imported seafood is unsafe. Reviewing levels of sampling or numbers of tests or comparing regulatory structures is fine and the FDA is, in the end, presented with a list of suggested improvements but such recommendations do not mean the product is unsafe.

From a past encounter with the New York Times, one that ended with a correction from the Times and a rebuke by the papers ombudsman, we know that the Old Grey Lady aint what she used to be. But Im not sure shes changed for the better.

Recently we brought some salient points up about the failure of the Times to abide by its own journalistic standards when producing its most recent report on fishthis time tilapia. And we heard back from an editor who, wherere not sure actually read our letter. Keep in mind her response is that she believes all of our points were well represented after when we just spent 700 words outline the clear, demonstrable lack of representation found in the article.

The dismissive, blind defense of the Times editorial process is one perhaps Jayson Blair himself would be proud of. Watch this space for more on our interaction with the Times and feel free to read our letter below and the editors response.

May 2, 2011

Jill Abramson

Managing Editor

New York Times

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Abramson,

We would like to bring to your attention several breaches in journalism standards contained in an article today by Elisabeth Rosenthal [Another Side of Tilapia, the Perfect Factory Fish].

In paragraph #7, Ms. Rosenthal claims tilapia contains a less healthful mix of fatty acids because the fish are fed corn and soy instead of lake plants and algae, the diet of wild tilapia. Ms. Rosenthal was made aware by NFI dietitian, Jennifer McGuire, MS, RD, that the American Heart Association (AHA) concludes that omega-6 fatty acids found in some vegetable oils, nuts and seeds are a beneficial part of a heart-healthy eating plan. She ignored both Ms. McGuires and AHAs expertise.

In paragraph #8, Rosenthal cites Dr. Floyd Chilton, a professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, as a source that claims tilapia may be detrimental. Ms. Rosenthal was made aware by me and Ms. McGuire that Dr. Chiltons public statements about the healthfulness of tilapia have in the past led to reports that bacon, hamburgers, and doughnuts are a better choice than certain fish and his communications on this issue have been rebuked by the medical community as potentially damaging to public health

In response to confusing media reports about Chiltons perspective in 2008, an international coalition of more than a dozen doctors spoke out to clarify that fish like tilapia are low in total and saturated fat, high in protein and clearly part of a healthy diet. In explaining the specifics of different types of fat, the researchers note (consistent with AHA) that omega-6s are not only found in fish like tilapia, but vegetable oils, nuts, whole-wheat bread and chicken. The coalition, that even included another expert from Wake Forest University itself, said unequivocally that while lean fish are not rich in omega-3 fatty acids, fish like catfish and tilapia, should be considered better choices than most other meat alternatives and, in addition to eating oily fish, our omega-3 needs can also be met by eating less-oily (lower-fat) fish more often. Ms. Rosenthal simply uses Dr. Chilton as an expert and ignores his past transgressions in the media that a long list of credible health organizations and independent researchers have spoken out against.

In paragraphs 10 and 11 Ms. Rosenthal explains the inspection and certification efforts of the WWFs Aquaculture Stewardship Council. She also mentions the appeal of certified aquaculture facilities to large corporate customers like Costco. She describes the programs growing popularity. But she omits facts the National Fisheries Institute brought to her attention that inspection and certification has been ongoing for years and the Worlds largest retailer Wal Mart and the countrys largest grocer Kroger both already only carry aquaculture products that are certified by the Global Aquaculture Alliance.

Readers are given the impression that aquaculture certification is a new and growing trend. While it is growing, its been around for years and major companies have long endorsed it. The WWFs Aquaculture Stewardship Council may be new but the added food safety and sustainability aspects of such certification are not new at all.

In paragraph 23 many biologists are reported to be worrying about tilapia farming leaving lakes dead and species extinct. However, only one is quoted. I cant help but wonder how many were contacted for the article. In the case of the afore mentioned Dr. Chilton we provided 16 voices that stood in contrast to his often found hyperbole but none were used to counter him.

Paragraph 34 notes that the Mayo Clinic advises patients that tilapia and catfish, dont appear to be as heart-healthy as other fish. In our contacts with Ms. Rosenthal, prior to publication, we actually provided her with a statement from Mayo Clinic dietitians who said specifically of the tilapia debacle in 2008, I’m going to continue to eat fish at least twice weekly. I’m going to choose a variety of fatty fish including tilapia and catfish along with others especially high in the good fats such as salmon, tuna and mackerel. This clear endorsement of tilapia by the Mayo Clinic was reiterated by registered dietitian Jennifer McGuire and is not reflected in the article.

We look forward to your review of this report.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

CC: John Geddes

Managing Editor

Jim Roberts

Assistant Managing Editor

Gerald Marzorati

Assistant Managing Editor

Philip Corbett

Associate Managing Editor

Greg Brock

Senior Editor

Dana Canedy

Senior Editor

Arthur Brisbane

Public Editor

From: Keenan, Sandra [mailto:**************]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:39 AM
To: Gavin Gibbons
Subject: tilapia farming

Dear Mr. Gibbons,

Thank you for the input on the tilapia farming story. With a careful reading, you will find that all the points you make about tilapia and the industry are well represented in Ms. Rosenthal’s balanced, measured and expertly sourced piece.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.

Best,

Sandy Keenan
environment editor/The New York Times

After years of confusion about eating seafood during pregnancy, a respected and knowledgeable nutrition voice is helping to clear the air.

In an article for the Huffington Post, Dr. Andrew Weil, founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, addresses misunderstandings surrounding fish consumption for moms-to-be and nursing women, and he drives home one very crucial point: Research now suggests that the benefit to a baby’s neurological health from omega-3s appears to far outweigh the potential for harm from small amounts of mercury in fish tissues, despite the continued misinterpretation of the 2004 FDA advisory on seafood recommendations.

Weil backs up this claim with published studies and medical specialists who all agree that a seafood diet of at least 12 ounces a week (except tilefish, shark, swordfish and king mackerel) is safe, healthy and essential for a babys brain and nervous system development.

So as Weil says, If you are pregnant, eat fish!

In this mornings USA Today the paper reports on Greenpeaces flawed and oft ignored retailer rankings. But whats caught my eye about the piece is not what they write but who is writing. It would appear to be Kim O’Donnel, perhaps the same Kim ODonnel who used to write for the Washington Post. Back in 2008 she reported on the original rankings and came across a little nugget that picked up some buzz of its own. You see, when she talked to the intrepid fundraisers at Greenpeace back then they told her we’re not recommending any species of fish to consumers.

So, theyre ranking retailers left and right on seafood sustainability and have been for years, yet they dont recommend any seafood to consumers.

The gall of NFI not being afraid of Greenpeace. How dare NFI not cower in the corner at the specter of teenage volunteers clad in rainbow gear disagreeing with us, while their fearless captains sit firmly ensconced behind a $300,000,000 budget back at the Hall of Justice.

The horror, the horror.

Did Johnson have it wrong, and the last refuge of a scoundrel is running from the facts? Once again Greenpeace whacks away indiscriminately in hopes that people will get caught up in its style and ignore its lack of substance.

Typical.

Their suggestion that the seafood community does not support NFIs approach to exposing opportunists like Greenpeace for its non-science based yammering is beyond belief (although maybe we can get some advice from a group that has to raise about $700,000 every day just to keep the lights on). The fakes at Greenpeace really dont like the spotlight turned on them, do they? It’s used to getting its way by bullying industry. Well, heres a voice that says were not afraid of you.

NFI encourages its members to engage with responsible ENGO partners and they have. The more seafood companies and retailers experience real sustainability partnerships the more Greenpeace is marginalized. Retailers who get a look behind the green curtain find a paper tiger who claims credit for things it didnt do.

So, while the latest round of rankings return to their coveted place in obscurity, the seafood community and its partners look to the future which for Greenpeace is yet another fundraising campaign.

Greenpeaces retailer rankings have grown into a groundhog day of sorts and have led consumers to, by in large, simply ignore them. Likewise, despite the new stance by Greenpeace that has the group lauding all of the apparent progress that propels the rather random reordering of stores on the list, perhaps these days even retailers get it that far more Americans know who Snookie is than have any idea that Greenpeace ranks retailers based on their seafood sourcing policy. Nonetheless, Greenpeace has ranked em again for the fifth time, an exercise I have in the past referred to as a matter of apparent strategic compulsion.

The truth is rankings like these are a tired tactic that Greenpeace trots out every so often in order to blackmail retailers. The constant threat of Do what we say or well bash you in the press is hardly responsible engagement.

When it comes to seafood sustainability Greenpeace doesnt really do anything, it just make lists and raises money for itself. It doesnt fund science. It doesnt forge meaningful partnerships with retailers like other groups have. It just makes lists and solicits donations. That actually makes sense when you have to raise $700,000 a day just to keep the lights on. Raising funds becomes of paramount importance.

Its really time that the focus on the seafood sustainability movement by Greenpeace becomes more about the sustainability of the seafood and less about the sustainability of the movement.

Are journalists trending towards facts over fear in their stories about Japan and seafood? If the Associated Press is any bell weather that may be the case. APs Q and A includes this:

Q. Will ocean creatures be harmed by the discharges of the radioactive water?

A. Experts say animals very near the plant may face problems like higher rates of genetic mutations, but that this would probably happen within only maybe a half a mile or so.

Hmmm half a mile. And Japan is what, 5,000 miles away?

Got it.

And according to another AP article, it’s this distance and the vastness of the Pacific Ocean that will serve as a very effective safety net. Experts agree that “releases of radioactive water into the ocean near Japan’s stricken nuclear complex shouldn’t pose a widespread danger to sea animals or people who might eat them.”

Theres been a lot of hand wringing in the media lately about seafood from Japan. You know, the seafood t hat makes up a total of less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the seafood we eat in the United States.

Some of that nervous pontification by intrepid reporters has led to some rather embarrassing reporting mistakes, like the story ABC News did where it tracked tuna migrating from Japan to the West coast of the U.S. and there was much hand wringing to be had. However, their cartoonish, over simplified, migration exaggeration failed to take into account that right now the tuna are nowhere near the affected area and likely wouldnt come within a thousand miles ooops.

Today Food Safety News does a very good job of cutting thought the hyperbole and getting to the facts. A professor of Radilogic Physics at the Mayo Clinic (who also happens to be Chairman of the American College of Radiology’s Safety Committee) explains that, “If someone were to eat seafood or seaweed within one kilometer from the discharge point for a year, they would get the equivalent of 1/10 of their normal background radiation and I think the key here is that detection doesn’t mean harm.

Its a solid article that stands out amongst a sea of misinformation.

Only one bone to pick– Food and Water Watch is quoted, never one to shy aware from an opportunity to scare consumers and bash the FDA. They are out with their tired old line about the FDA not being equipped to test all the seafood coming in from Japan. Lets get some perspective peoplethere is essentially no seafood coming in from Japan right now and, again, when it does come in it makes up less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the seafood we eat in this country. FDA, EPA, NOAA and other Federal agencies are already coordinating as part of this regulatory effort (an effort that will not shut down if the government closes.)

So, who should you look to as a source on food safety and radiation from Japan, an expert in Radilogic Physics from the Mayo Clinic or a lobbying operation in D.C. that employs a former environmental consultant with a law degree, a policy analyst, a researcher and a legislative coordinator (yes, another lawyer)?

Im going with the Mayo Clinic ya know just to be safe.