In case you missed this Washington Post article about the forthcoming, new, Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Its worth a read.

Interestingly enough theres some targeted advice for doctors and dietitians that might actually translate to the people who report on said doctors and dieticians — “We can’t load people down with different messages,” said the USDA’s Robert Post. “We have to focus on practical, simple, easily applied messages that show action that consumers can take.”

Expect there to be some practical, simple, easily applied messages about seafood in those guidelines that may help cut down on some of the noise and disinformation created by those with agendas outside the realm of getting Americans to eat better.

September 29, 2010

Mr. Jay McGraw

Stage 29 Productions, LLC

2401 Colorado Avenue, Suite 110

Santa Monica, CA 90404-3585

Dear Mr. McGraw,

On June 8, 2010, I wrote you to express my concern that Dr. Travis Stork misstated the FDA advisory concerning seafood and mercury during a segment of The Doctors that aired nationwide on June 7, 2010. I offered the expertise of our staff dietitian on background so that your producers and on-air talent could correctly understand the advisory and accurately convey those guidelines to your viewers. Its disappointing that we never heard back from you or any representative of your program.

The Doctors September 21 episode aired another segment on fish and mercury. During the broadcast, Dr. Stork referred viewers to the show’s Web site for a list of fish his viewers should avoid eating; it reads in part:

“Fish has long held a vaunted place in a healthy diet. However, environmental pollutants release the element mercury, a toxin, into the worlds lakes, rivers and oceans, which accumulates and contaminates the fish supply. As a result, people are advised to consume no more than 12 ounces of seafood per week, or no more than three sushi rolls, and to avoid fish high in mercury. Check local advisories about the safety of fish in your local waters.

Pregnant and nursing women are cautioned to avoid seafood altogether.

Having distorted the FDAs advisory a second timeafter we corrected you and clarified those guidelines in writing is a shameless if not reckless threat to public health. We feel that you are obliged to revise the content published on the Web site and make an on-air correction clarifying that:

• The FDA advisory on seafood and mercury, including advice to limit consumption to only 12 ounces per week, is only for “women who are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, are nursing, or young children.” It is not for the general population;

• No credible scientific source anywhere advises pregnant and nursing women to eliminate seafood from their diet. In fact, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that pregnant and nursing women ought to be eating more seafood in order to spur cognitive development in their babies. By passing along erroneous information like this, you are actually causing harm to pregnant women and their young children and are helping to create a public health problem;

• Local EPA advisories don’t apply to the fish that you buy at your local grocer or fish store, they only are concerned with sport-caught fish. That is an important distinction, but one that your program didn’t bother to make; and

• As for the claims about sushi, those stem from a 2008 article in the New York Times that NFI thoroughly debunked, a story that was also criticized by the newspaper’s own public editor. In the immediate wake of the story, Time, Slate and the Center for Independent Media all called the New York Times to task for printing a story that was needlessly alarmist.

The FDA advisory does not need your programs interpretation and should be posted to your Web site as published; it clearly states the following for women who are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, are nursing, or young children:

1. Do not eat exotic fish like Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury.

2. Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish. Up to six ounces of that total can come from albacore tuna.

3. Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas.

Continuing to ignore our outreach and failing to make these corrections to the Web site and on-air, exposes your show as one that is not earnestly interested in delivering reliable, accurate medical information.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Andrew Scher

Executive Producer

Things have gotten rather quiet over at Good Housekeeping so we thought we’d ping ’em one more time. Keep in mind this isa publication that brags on its website that it”exercises strict editorial judgment.”

September 29, 2010

Ms. Sarah Scrymser

Managing Editor

Good Housekeeping

300 West 57th Street

29th Floor

New York, NY 10019

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Scrymser,

Earlier this month, we wrote to Samantha Cassetty, Director of the Good Housekeeping Research Institute, concerning an article that appeared in the September 2010 issue (Is Your Tuna Toxic, September 2010). In short, we were disappointed that Good Housekeeping chose to publish only one of the studys two key findings. In doing so, your story neglected to mention the standards on mercury and seafood consumption enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the regulatory body that has actual jurisdiction over commercial seafood.

Consumers should not be concerned with or by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas study referenced in the article for the following reasons:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates mercury levels in sport-caught fish found in lakes, streams and other internal waterways where the EPA has jurisdiction; the agency does not oversee the commercially caught fish consumers find on their grocers shelves, freezers or seafood counters. Therefore, applying the EPAs limit of 0.5 parts per million (ppm) of mercury to canned tuna is flat out wrong and misleading. Canned tuna continues to be a safe and healthy source of lean protein packed with heart-healthy omega-3’s.

• The FDA has jurisdictional oversight of commercially caught and sold seafood. The primary source of methylmercury in this type of seafood is the naturally occurring phenomena of underwater volcanic activity; it is not an environmental pollutant emitted from coal burning factories. As such, the FDAs methylmercury threshold is 1.0 ppm.

• The UNLV study reported that 5 percent exceeded 1.0 ppm, the safety level set by the FDA for commercially sold fish. If you were trying to frighten your subscribers, its understandable that this de minimis outcome would not generate the desired effect. Not to mention that the level as set by FDA contains a 1,000% safety factor designed to limit consumers methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.

Given that Ms. Cassetty failed to respond to our initial message, we are again requesting an explanation as to how this type of reporting made its way into the pages of Good Housekeeping. In the meantime, NFI intends to continue to challenge your reporting, just as we did when we were contacted recently by KSD-TV in San Diego.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

CC: Rosemary Ellis, Editor in Chief

As regular readers of this blog know, weve challenged the advice of numerous TV docs and celebrity nutritionists (see previous posts on Dr. Oz, The Views Dr. Steven Lamm, Joy Bauer and Jillian Michaels). Each is guilty of falsely propagating fear of trace amounts of mercury in all fish and encouraging viewers to eat less seafood despite copious research advising us to eat more.

Today, we add another to the list of offenders: “The Doctors.”Back in June, we wrote to its producer and cautioned himand by extension the shows on-air talentto clarify the full content of the FDA advisory when discussing trace amounts of mercury in seafood.

In our June 10, 2010 letter to producer Jay McGraw, we wrote:

“The joint EPA and FDA advisory that was issued in 2004 couldn’t be clearer. The only populations that need to consider mercury in commercial seafood are women who are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, are nursing, or young children

“We ask that in the future your program be more precise when it provides advice on fish consumption. In turn, I can put you in touch with our staff dietitian and director of nutrition communications, who would be happy to speak with your producers to answer any questions you might have.”

Weve never received a response to our letter. So perhaps we shouldnt have been surprised when yesterday The Doctors dedicated another segment to fish and mercury andagainfailed to correctly communicate the FDAs advisory.

Dr. Travis Stork misled his viewing audience for a second time when he told them (as well as referred them to the shows Web site) to avoid certain species of fish. Again, unless you are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, are nursing, or youre a young child watching his show, this advice does not pertain to you. And if youre thinking that avoiding seafood altogether is a sound better safe than sorry strategy, theres plenty of scientific evidence that says otherwise:

• A study by the Institute of Child Health showed that children whose mothers ate less than two servings of seafood per week consistently scored poorer on all measures of cognitive development compared with the pregnant women who ate more than two servings of seafood.

• Earlier this year, two of the worlds leading researchers in brain development began urging mothers to eat more fish. There is persuasive new evidence that consumption of more than 12 ounces per week of most marketplace species will actually improve fetal neurodevelopment. This improvement occurs in spite of methyl-mercury in most, if not all fish, wrote Drs. Thomas Brenna and Michael Crawford in an open letter to the FDA.

• Researchers from Harvard estimated 84,000 Americans die every year because they do get enough omega-3 fatty acids, the most important nutrient found in fish Americas second leading cause of preventable death.

We’re baffled as to why “The Doctors” continue to reinforce an error that has already been brought to their attention.I wonder what his patients think of a doctor who apparently puts more stock in the word of environmental activists than in the latest scientific research from the worlds leading authorities on health and nutrition.

Why is it that when a celebrity says something, whether its even remotely true, certain media outlets print, post and promote it like its gospel? Take for instance Rod Stewarts wife, uh his thirdnot counting the girlfriend who he has a child with as well. Shes only tangentially a celebrity and youll find her all over magazines and websites like People spewing misinformation about fish and fertility and theyre printing it like shes a research OBGYN from Harvard.

Come on guys. I know youre not the Wall Street Journal but do a little digging before you print this stuff. If Ashton Kutcher announced bald men could re-grow hair by rubbing mayonnaise on their head would the headline be Cure For Baldness Announcedlets hope not?

Our letter below:

Larry Hackett
Managing Editor
People Magazine

Via Email

Dear Mr. Hackett,

I am writing to you regarding your Sept. 13 story, Penny Lancaster: Fish Is Not a Friend toFertility, despite Ms. Lancasters claims and your reporting, there is no body of science connecting seafood consumption and infertility. You will note that in the Daily Mail version of this same story, an interviewed doctor clearly states, I havent heard of high mercury levels affecting fertility.

Your headline is not simply inconsistent with the science on this issue it has the potential to do harm to public health. Two leading health authorities recently came out with reports emphasizing the importance of eating fish during pregnancy and breastfeeding for optimal brain development in babies and the risks of avoiding fish.

• Recommendation of the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption; Executive Summary, May 2010:

Emphasize the neurodevelopment benefits to offspring of fish consumption by women of childbearing age, particularly pregnant women and nursing mothers, and the neurodevelopment risks to offspring of such women not consuming fish.

Translation: When pregnant and breastfeeding moms eat fish it helps their babies brain develop. And when they dont eat fish their babies might miss out on this brain boost.

Available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/nems/39000/en

• Conclusion of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, June 2010:

Moderate evidence indicates that increased maternal dietary intake of long chain n-3 PUFA, in particular docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) from at least 2 servings of seafood per week, during pregnancy and lactation is associated with increased DHA levels in breast milk and improved infant health outcomes, such as visual acuity and cognitive development.

Translation: When pregnant and breastfeeding moms eat at least two servings of fish a week, it raises the amount of omega-3s in their breast milk and helps their babies eyes and brain develop.

Available at http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm

Despite what Ms. Lancaster has said to the media, peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature does not support her claims or those she attributes to an unnamed homeopathic doctor. The failure of your reporting to offer a converse medical opinion and the inaccuracy of the content of your headline has the potential to cause real confusion and harm public health. We ask that you immediately remove or amended this story.

Thank you.

Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute

cc Cynthia Sanz
Assistant Managing Editor

In real time folks– NBC San Diego executive producer Sage WaetjenPiercehas responded to our letter and while it appears the station has decided it plans torun the story it will now featuring NFIs explanation of the flawed report. Watch this space for updates.

The amazing thing about the internet is the immediacy. In real time things can unfold right before your eyes for better or worse. Take our interaction with the local NBC affiliate in San Diego.

This afternoon NFI was made aware that the station was planning to air a story about canned tuna that had been preproduced by Good Housekeeping. Were well aware of the story and have been working to get Good Housekeeping to pull or update it with the real facts and perspective.

So, now you have a news director in San Diego who has a package hes getting ready to run that he knows is erroneous. The gauntlet has been thrown. Our letter (below) clearly challenges him to have his producers do the research that Good Housekeeping did not do.

Whats he gonna do?

Realize the errors we have pointed out are genuine or ignore us and run the risk of airing a flawed story?

Clock is ticking

September 10, 2010

Greg Dawson

Vice President of News

KNSD-TV (NBC San Diego)

225 Broadway

San Diego, CA

92101-5010

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Dawson,

Im writing you to express my concern that you are planning to run a pre-produced package about canned tuna that was supplied to your station by Good Housekeeping.

The thoroughness and accuracy of the reporting done by the Good Housekeeping Research Institute is in dispute. The study they are reporting on has a number of fatal shortcomings that have been publicly addressed by the National Fisheries Institute (click here and here) and reported on by news outlets like the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Consumers should not be concerned by the UNLV study that Good Housekeeping has based its report on. Canned tuna continues to be a safe and healthy source of lean protein packed with heart-healthy omega-3’s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) level of 0.5 parts per million of mercury (ppm), referenced in the report, is not relevant. The EPA levels are applicable to sport-caught fish found in lakes, streams and other internal waterways where the EPA has jurisdiction and are designed to help that agency regulate industrial facilities and their emissions.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration level of 1.0 ppm is designed for consumption of commercial seafood like tuna. Furthermore, the FDA’s level of 1.0 ppm has a built-in 1,000% safety factor. The FDA says such a standard, “was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.” This means a single can would have to exceed the FDA’s level by ten times to begin to even approach a level of concern. Even the highest levels reported in the UNLV study did not come remotely close to that point.

The Good Housekeeping report does not highlight the fact that the average mercury level for all brands was well below the FDA’s level and that there is a 1,000% safety factor built in to that level, an egregious failure in reporting this story.

We asked that your producers fully research the actual regulatory science behind the mercury levels. With a minimum amount of investigation they will find that the levels Good Housekeeping should have used for comparison come from the agency that actually regulates food, the FDA.

We ask that you not air a story that contains clear, demonstrable errors.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

CC: Chuck Westerheide

Assistant News Director

Sometimes Ill look at a news story about seafood that contains a mistake and say, Hmmm, howd that get in there? Usually theres an explanation; a statistical error, a poorly chosen source, a misunderstandingcorrections are made and we move on. But in reading a recent story about seafood on NaturalNews.com I was blown away by the fact that before the reporter even put pen to paper he could have easily determined that the entire premise for his story was wrong.

The story argues that consumers cant find safe, sustainable wild or farmed shrimp based on the fact that no certification process exists to ensure the sustainability of farmed shrimp. This is the foundation for the story yet it is quite simply false. There are no disagreements about the merits of the reporting or the slant taken by the author its just plain wrong. Causing me to say Hmmm, howd that get in there? And to write the letter you see below:

September 9, 2010

Mike Adams

Editor

NaturalNews.com

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Adams,

I am writing you about serious concerns we have in relation to a story published on your site by Mr. David Gutierrez.

The story titled Horrifying environmental impact of non-Gulf shrimp was published on Monday September 6^th and is based almost completely and solely on an article from another publication that ran under the title Shrimp’s Dirty Secrets: Why America’s Favorite Seafood Is a Health and Environmental Nightmare, published in January.

It appears that your reporter did no original reporting of his own and merely lifted the premise and facts directly from the other article. The problem is the facts are wrong and he did not research them in crafting his own version of the earlier, already erroneous, reporting but merely repeated them.

Case in point: the foundation for the argument that consumers cant find safe, sustainable wild or farmed shrimp is based on the fact that guidelines for finding some kind of ‘sustainable shrimp’ are so far nonexistent” and that no certification process exists to ensure the sustainability of farmed shrimp. This is absolutely and demonstrably false.

Each year more than 60-million pounds of shrimp from 15 different countries is certified processed to Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) standards, as set by the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA.) All toll GAAs BAP certification applies to more than 1.3 billion pounds of shrimp, tilapia and catfish. To report or even suggest that no certification process exists is patently wrong. Whats more, writing that guidelines are nonexistent flies in the face of readily available Aquaculture Facility Certification guidelines.

To suggest it is near impossible for consumers to find sustainable shrimp is reckless and ignores the fact that the worlds largest retailer, Wal Mart and the largest traditional grocery retailer in the U.S., Kroger Co., both source their shrimp from GAA certified facilities.

We ask that you remove this article from your site immediately.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

We’ve featured several items about Safe Harbor Seafood on this blog in the recent past. It’s a company that’s been trying to make a buck off of the misinformation that environmental activists peddle about mercury and fish (click here, here and here for details).

Earlier this week, Malcolm Wittenberg, the CEO of Micro Analytical Systems, the parent company of Safe Harbor, took to the digital pages of The Huffington Post to repeat a lot of the details that basically make up the company’s sales pitch, of course cloaked as some sort of public health message. I cant say we were surprised to see the misinformation peddled by Safe Harbor and its activist allies slowly making its way up the media food chain to predictably friendly sites like HuffPo.

If you stumbled upon Sally Deneen’s AOL column published under the banner Green Police, there are a number of things you should keep in mind.

Because apparently the eco cops asked Sally to remain silent on a few issues of fact that she is aware of, but chose to leave out.

Like the fact that 70% of the canned tuna Americans actually eat is Skipjack and a quick look at the status of the stocks shows none of the five skipjack stocks are overfished and none of the stocks are experiencing overfishing. Regardless of whether your skipjack came from the Western Atlantic, the Eastern Atlantic, the Western Pacific, the Eastern Pacific or the Indian Ocean, the stocks are in good shape.

So, before we start touting the brilliance of Monterey Bay Aquariums advice, shouldnt we set the scene? One that opens with: 70% of the canned tuna Americans eat comes from healthy stocks. Seems like a logical and factual beginning point.

Oh and speaking of the tuna Americans actually eat, lets take a minute and talk about affordability. Canned tuna makes a healthy, brain-boosting lunch for the kids and you can fill your cart with cans thatll run you just over a buck eachthats a healthy affordable story that average Americans who are focused on making the rent can understand. Specialty brands that run close to 4 and 5 bucks a can, while wrapping themselves in eco-dressing, may be a good choice for Sallys clique, but not for average families.

Should the sustainability of canned tuna be monitored? Of course it should. Should what Americans buy be dictated by unfounded fears created by lists that lack proper perspective? I think not.

And by the way, just what is Monterey Bay Aquarium doing to insure the health of those canned tuna stocks they are apparently so concerned about?

It would appear they are hmmmm making lists.

That brings me to another little nugget left out of this piece. Canned tuna companies worldwide are doing much more than neatly arranging the names of species in a given order on a piece of paper. In fact, theyve partnered with WWF in the formation of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), a multi-million dollar operation whose sole task is the promotion of science-based tuna sustainability. I noticed amongst the hand wringing and bloviating of all the Environmental Defense-type experts there was no mention of ISSF or WWF curious.

Whats also curious is the headline: Group Urges Boycott. Is that what Monterey Bay Aquarium is doing? The definition of boycott is: preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. I wonder if Sally got the all clear from the Aquarium to announce its goal to intimidate and coerce moms who are selfishly intent on feeding their family healthy affordable meals?