GotMercury? and the Sea Turtle Restoration Project are attacking the tuna marketing campaign, Tuna The Wonderfish. Their claims are flat out lies, and the people behind Got Mercury? should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing a radical agenda at the expense of the health and well being of millions of Americans.

Tuna is an affordable, healthy choice for Americans who want more omega-3s in their diet and less saturated fat. Tuna is part of a healthy diet, which is exactly what the ads say. The message and ads are accurate and appropriate for all audiences. The U.S. Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) advice to pregnant women is to eat two seafood meals a week. That could mean 12 ounces of chunk light tuna or, as the FDA explicitly states, 6 ounces of albacore tuna. There have been no documented cases of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the U.S.

With its latest effort, GotMercury? and their parent organization have sealed their reputations as organizations that care more about sea turtles than human beings. The Sea Turtle Restoration Project has crossed the line before in this area. They have deliberately distorted the results of quasi-scientific tests on fish. Their goal is to present reporters with alarming stories designed to terrify audiences about mercury poisoning. But while they claim that they merely want to protect the public from harm, the result only scares people into eating less fishthereby depriving millions of its proven health benefitsso fewer sea turtles are accidentally harmed by commercial fishing.

During the 2010 holiday season, Got Mercury? demonstrated its blatant disregard for the neediest in our society when it launched a campaign to stop people from donating canned tuna to food banks. 6 million needy Americas depend on food banks every year to help feed their families. In turn, the seafood industry has donated more than 25 million pounds of fish to food banks in the last 15 yearsthe equivalent of about 133 billion tuna sandwiches. If Got Mercury? had gotten their way, how many millions of people would have gone hungry at the time when they were most desperate for help?

But as weve mentioned before, concern about the health and well being of millions of people is only of secondary concern when youve got a narrow ideological agenda. I guess we shouldnt be surprised that an outfit like Got Mercury? is willing to spin liesno matter how bigover and over again.

So many times we see main stream news media getting the story about seafood wrong. And now it appears the researchers and, for the most part, contestants on a new Fox game show have a better base of seafood knowledge than some network reporters we’ve come across.

This Holiday season it would appear Consumer Reports is re-gifting. Remember back in 2006 it did a story about mercury in canned tuna? Well, its latest scare story on canned tuna is simply a retread of that report and, not surprisingly, once again does a disservice to its readers by using tried and true tactics to exaggerate concern.

Consumer Reports begins the article by announcing its findings that from the new tests it performed it can announce that white tuna usually contains more mercury than light tuna. That is not news. Thats publically available information that has been known since mercury in fish was first studied. Rather than taking 42 cans to a lab, Consumer Reports could have used Google to find that out. What Consumer Reports should have led with is the fact that none of the canned tuna it tested exceeded the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) allowable limit for mercury. In fact its own study found average mercury levels in light tuna that were lower than the average found by the FDA.

Throughout the article, Consumer Reports talks about FDA limits but applies an EPA consumption metric in order to suggest consumers should eat less canned tuna. It is an old trick that exposes Consumer Reports willingness to use rhetorical sleight of hand in order to get the predetermined results it wants.

The EPAs Reference Dose (RfD) for mercury, which Consumer Reports uses in its calculations, is defined as the level of daily exposure over the course of a lifetime that is not likely to cause harmful health effects. Consumer Reports suggest its a limit that if exceeded during a single week will result in harmthis is false and misleading.

The real bottom line is that Consumer Reports and its recommendations about canned tuna consumption are out of step with mainstream science and nutrition advice. Without citation, it cherry picks limited parts of old studies it order to create the appearance of concern. By suggesting limited consumption of a food numerous, prestigious science-based organizations are calling on people to eat more of, Consumer Reports marks itself as a truly non-credible source for nutrition advice.

Consumer Reports suggestion that pregnant women limit the amount of fish they eat, outside of the FDAs four fish to avoid, is reckless and has the potential to harm public health. Peer-reviewed science shows that pregnant women who limit or avoid seafood may actually be introducing risks from omega-3 deficiency. Advising pregnant women to cut canned tuna out of their diet and for others to limit their consumption based merely on a magazines editorial opinion is irresponsible.

Oh and heres a little gem thats worth noting. Despite all the hand wringing about tuna at Consumer Reports they served it at their Holiday Party this year.

Our position on Got Mercury? has always been pretty clear: its misleading and misguided crusade is not designed to help consumers but simply to cause them to eliminate fish from their diet because of the organizations real concern over sea turtles (not public health.) That means some consumers, are missing out on the proven health benefits of fishan affordable food that could help them lose weight and boost cardiac health.

But the latest announcement from Got Mercury? has taken things a step further and perhaps too far. Its demonstrable evidence of just how far they’ll go to force their beliefs on sensible Americanseven if it means using the most vulnerable members of society to do it.

Earlier this month, as millions of Americans donated canned food to charities around the country in anticipation of the Thanksgiving Day holiday, Got Mercury? issued an announcement asking organizations not to distribute donations of canned tuna. The reason: the group’s exaggerated claims about trace amount of mercury in the fish.

The announcement shows us just how desperate the radicals at Got Mercury? have become. Canned tuna is unique because it provides a rare combination of nutrition and affordability. No other lean protein can provide such a powerful array of Omega-3 fatty acids and Vitamin D. Substituting for it in America’s food banks isn’t just impractical, it’s impossible. And denying it to people who come to food banks for help at the holidays is cruel and counterproductive.

But it’s not as if considerations like those matter to Got Mercury?. It would appear that the only thing that matters is their radical agenda, and they’re not above using the poor to make their point, no matter who gets hurt.

Lets start with a question. How do you produce a story about seafood from overseas, yet never leave the U.S.? I ask that because that is just what NBC reporter Jeff Rossen and producer Robert Powell did on the November 17 edition of the Today Show. The duo was full of accusations and innuendo but never bothered to actually investigate the story.

Rossen based his reporting on a video produced by a special interest lobbying group with a history of using government regulation to avoid competing with imported products. Rossen admitted hes never been to places like Vietnam, Thailand or Malaysia to investigate the practices he alleges.

Im not the VP of standards for NBC but it would seem such allegations should be thoroughly investigated before being repeated. At the very least this reporter/producer team should have followed the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics that warns to Always question sources motives. Nowhere in the piece does Rossen point to the motives of those producing the video.

No place in the story, which has seven separate clips of Alabama Agriculture Commission Ron Sparks or his staff complaining about imported seafood, does Rossen provide his viewers the context that Mr. Sparks was running for Governor in a state with heavy catfish interests.

Messrs. Rossen and Powell surely know how video can be misused: In the 2002 documentary, Bowling for Columbine, Rossen was seen snapping at a producer while obsessing about his hair in between takes, before returning to somber-TV-reporter-mode once the television cameras started to roll at a murdered 6-year-olds funeral (see the Quicktime version of NEWSBREAKERS Presents: COLLARED halfway down the page.)

Rossen and Powell have been working on the story for weeks. And like other stories that Mr. Rossen and Mr. Powell have produced, this one has been recycled too. When the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) learned that they were working on this retread we reached out to them in hopes of ensuring their viewers understood the full story, including FDAs seafood inspection process.

Nine days before NFI president John Connelly sat for an interview with Rossen we sent Powell a six-page letter with 23 attachments that explained the fact that this story is being pushed by domestic catfish farmers who want to keep imported seafood out of the U.S. We also included a description of how the FDAs Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulatory system works and why concerns over only 2% of imported seafood being inspected are misplaced.

FDAs HACCP system solves problems at their source, whether in Alabama or an exporting country 5,000 miles from the US border. The 2% inspection rate that Rossen seemed to not understand was an additional inspection, targeted at companies that may have had problems in the past. Put another way, wouldnt you focus your search for misbehaving teenagers in the high school detention hall and not at Glee Club practice?

Included in the research was a detailed chart based on independent Centers for Disease Control data illustrating that fish (both domestic and imported) is among the safest foods American enjoy. None of the major food recalls in the past 10 years have involved imported seafood. Think about it . all the recalls and food safety scares of the past 10 years there has not been one significant seafood recall during that time.

We shared with them independent writings from a former USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety in which he clearly states that the issue Rossen and Powell were reporting on was not a public health issue, [but] a trade issue.

We carefully explained FDAs HACCP regulatory system and even presented Powell with the opportunity to interview a leading independent authority on HACCP from Cornell University with 24 years experience as a Seafood Technology Specialist.

Two independent domestic seafood organizations wrote to Powell before we sat for the interview and noted that they recognized NFIs commitment to food safety based on ground truth science is unmatched in the seafood industry and that NFIs commitment to seafood safety includes domestic products and imported products.

In addition, NFI has pointed out our leadership of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, a coalition pushing for increased funding for FDA. And NFI has been singled out by Senator Durbin for our support of enhanced food safety legislation that would strengthen FDA. In this story, Rossen and Powell took the use of creative editing to new levels in efforts to fit imported seafood into their preconceived notions of good guys and bad guys.

When Powell falsely claimed, following the interview, that FDAs HACCP regulatory system had nothing to do with unapproved antibiotics, but only food borne illnesses, we suggested that he seek the council of an independent expert who would provide him the correct information. Chapter 11 Sec. 123.6 of the HACCPs Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Control Guide clearly addresses unapproved antibiotics.

Further on October 27^th Mr. Powell claimed to have already talked with FDA about this issue prior to our interview. An inquiry with the FDA found no record of such a conversation prior to October 27th.

When Mr. Connelly sat for a 40-minute interview with Rossen, things started badly and then went downhill from there. Before the interview even began, our request for a simple glass of water was rejected. With the reporter noting that they didnt have any water for you. During the course of the interview, Rossen repeated one question 14 separate times. Click here for a transcript of the full interview. Such badgering leads us to believe Rossen either didnt get the answer he was looking for, had what we can only politely conclude was a poor grasp of the subject matter, or was pushing the special interest agenda highlighted in the video we mentioned at the outset.

It would appear that Rossens professional decorum has left a lot to be desired over the course of his career, and not only during our interaction:

• In 2005, Rossen was seen manhandling an individual who had wandered into camera range while the reporter was doing a live shot. It was a scene one blog called a J-school anger management training film.

How seriously should viewers take a reporter that spends most of his time covering gossip stories and who then pretends to investigate important stories like food safety? Rossen has been busted by the New York Daily News for recycling other stories as his own. Yesterday he left his usual beat covering “Snooki,” Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohans latest stint in rehab to report on the regulation of imported seafood.

Aside from the reporters poor etiquette we contend that Rossen and Powell ignored facts and important resources presented to them throughout the production of this story. Their zeal to produce a report about a danger to consumers appears to have clouded their journalistic integrity. Even in the face of an overwhelming amount of research that showed there was another very legitimate perspective on the tale they were trying to tell, they failed their viewers, opting for sensationalism over reliable reporting.

On this mornings edition of the Today Show, reporter Jeff Rossen and producer Robert Powell appear to have willfully ignored evidence that imported seafood is safe.

Ignoring the Facts

The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) provided Rossen and Powell the following resources, weeks before the story aired, in order to help ensure the Today Show had accuracy, balance, objectivity and proper sourcing;

• An analysis of Centers for Disease Control statistics that illustrates fishbe it domestic or importedis (a) among the safest foods Americans eat and (b) not included in any of the major food recalls of the last decade;
• Independent writings from a former USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety in which he clearly states that arguments about the healthfulness of imported seafood stem from trade issuesnot [from] a public health issue;
• A thorough and accurate description of the Food and Drug Administrations Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulatory system;
• Contact information for a leading independent authority on HACCP from Cornell University, who was willing to be interviewed for the story to explain the screening and safety protocols;

Additionally Rossen and Powell;

• Received letters written by two independent domestic seafood organizations that stated, NFIs commitment to food safety based on ground truth science is unmatched in the seafood industry and that NFIs commitment to seafood safety includes domestic products and imported products. This runs totally counter to the impression left by Rossen and Powells piece.
• Insisted they read and reviewed a six page letter (complete with 23 attachments) that explained the genesis of this faux food safety scare being pushed by domestic catfish producers whose goal is to erect barriers to trade through regulation.
• Have based their reporting on an advocacy video produced and promoted by a special interest lobby working to exclude imports from the U.S. market.

Despite being in possession of all of these documents and having access to an independent expert, it is our contention that the reporter and producer willfully neglected the facts in favor of a more sensational and less accurate story, pushed by domestic catfish producers.

Motives

The real story behind this story is and has always been domestic catfish farmers trying to keep imported seafood (primarily from Vietnam) out of the market by claiming there is a food safety problem with the competition. Rossen and Powell were educated about the history and origin of this campaign that they apparently became an unwitting promotional vehicle for. They were even provided clips from independent sources that made this point;

• In July 2009 The Wall Street Journal wrote that there have been no reported cases of Vietnamese fish sickening American consumers This is an attempt at protectionism-by-regulation from domestic catfish producers and their supporters in Congress.
• In May 2009 The Journal noted that, this is protectionism at its worst, and that, there are no serious concerns about the safety of Vietnamese fish imports.

Rossen and Powell were made aware of the connection to the anti-competition, special interest agenda of the domestic catfish lobby. Despite being presented with ample evidence documenting the safety of imported seafood, we believe the story they produced demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth.

The Facts

Rossen only briefly mentions that FDA targets its inspections and attention towards companies or countries that have had problems in the past. Instead he narrowly focuses on FDAs 2% border inspections. Doesnt it make sense to look for misbehaving kids in high school detention? This is what FDAs system does.

It was two weeks ago that I blogged in defense of domestic catfish producers. I noted that a pointed allegation, published in Seafood Source, designed to smear the industry should have been attributed and took the import vs. domestic debate back into untenable territory. While it was far from Rodney Kings iconic request; cant we all just get along? It was an attempt to take a stand against destructive tactics. Now, the domestic catfish industry has taken its caustic crusade against pangasius to a new level, employing destructive tactics that target far more than just pangasius.

This week a TV ad sponsored by the Catfish Farmers of America (CFA) will begin running on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. The opening salvo of the commercial asks, Did you know that only 2% of imported seafood is inspected? and ends by asking the President to help fix this problem and make our familys health and safety your number one concern.

Domestic catfish farmers have chosen to make enemies of 83% of the seafood community by purposely and publicly distorting the fact that the highly-effective, integrated system set up by FDA to regulate imported seafood is designed to prevent food safety problems well before the product gets here, rather than simply relying on inspections. Its a system thats so effective bipartisan food safety legislation seeks to expand it to other food groups. But you wont hear that from them.

CFA has chosen to align itself with bottom-feeding, special interest lobbyists, like its strategic consulting firm that boasts about how its team diverted focus to government standards, rather than their client, Jack in the Box, after four young children died and hundreds became sick from eating at the restaurant chain. Sounds like quite a commitment to food safety.

Furthermore, I find it odd that I read so often, like in todays USA Today, that the American catfish industry has hit hard times of late and that the cost of raising catfish is sinking the industry.

Really?

So, CFA members cant make ends meet but they can scrape together hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce and air TV spots that bash imports?

CFAs faux food safety scare is the crown jewel in a manipulative operation filled with destructive tactics that will cause collateral damage to many parts of the seafood community.

Over the past few days, the world has been riveted as each of the 33 miners who have been trapped underground in Chile since Augusthas made it to the surface. It’s an incredible story, and one where canned tuna played a small, but significant role.

The miners were able to stay alive because they had access to emergency supplies of food and water,including canned tuna. Why tuna? Tuna is ready to eat right out of the can. Packed with essential nutrients, it has a long shelf life (up to four years) and is easily digested.

Over the past few years, our own government has stressed the importance of disaster preparedness. One lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina is that while help may be on the way, it could still take some time to reach those in need. At a time like that, a small supply of canned tuna could make a big differenceit certainly did in Chile.

The kids over at GotMercury? have taken their thoroughly middle school science fair like research and crafted some new suggestions for consumers. Are you ready for them?

Dont eat swordfish or tuna.

And whos making this proclamation? Not a doctor or a dietitian but a Campaign Coordinator for the Turtle Island Restoration Network.

Ahhhhh, yes. Sea Turtle campaigners always an accurate and trusted source for diet and health advice.

While gold standard, peer reviewed, independent science is saying Americans eat too little seafood and should be encouraged to eat more for better brain development in babies and heart health in adults, extremists at GotMercury? are insisting consumers eat less. While the final report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, made up of the countrys top nutrition experts, is saying eating fish can save lives consumption of two servings of seafood per week is associated with reduced cardiac mortality from [coronary heart disease] or sudden death in persons with and without [cardiovascular disease] GotMercury? has a campaign coordinator telling consumers to eat less fish. If this isnt evidence of just how outside the mainstream GotMercury? is then no such evidence exists.

Oh and did you know that the fourth of four simple steps you can take to protect yourself and your family is donate to GotMercury.org? Yes, thats right. Protect your familys health by giving money to an organization committed to mobilizing people in local communities around the world to protect marine wildlife and the oceans and inland watersheds that sustain them.

I feel healthier already.

Theres an old saying about opinions and everybody having one thats not fit to print but the reality is opinions are important and so are opinion pieces like the one that ran Monday in Seafood Source titled Only the Lawyers Win. It was a look at the latest chapter in the story about efforts to keep Vietnamese pangasius out of the U.S. market. It was right on the money in function but it strayed into dangerous territory in form.

About eight paragraphs in, from the sheath of anonymity, the author pulls a sharp and pointed allegation that smears domestic catfish producers the same way theyve sullied the imports they so publicly lobby against. The allegation claims summer crop dusters routinely bomb catfish ponds with herbicides and pesticides.

Ive written many times about the facts of this case and one of those facts is domestic, farm raised catfish is a delicious, healthy fish, safely harvested in the U.S.

I have railed against the Catfish Farmers of America for misrepresenting data and warping anecdotal stories of woe into food safety scares that have little or no validity, calling their tales deep friend distortion. And I stand by those allegations. But I cant stand by and let unnamed sources use the destructive tactics of our proverbial, so-called adversaries against them.

Everyone writing about this topic would do better to stick with named sources and facts rather than innuendo.