The New York Times Blog, Green, is reporting that a new study suggests people need to be more wary of saltwater fish than freshwater fish because mercury in seawater is more likely to stay in its toxic form.

The study may well show that mercury in seawater is more likely to stay in its toxic form, but suggesting people be concerned about eating saltwater fish is more than a stretch; its a colossal and scientifically unsupportable leap that could result in harm to public health.

You see, the study in question did not look at what happens when people actually eat fish. With a bit of research, the folks at Green could have found that two prestigious panels with a combined total of 30 experts in the fields of nutrition and toxicology recently took exhaustive looks at just that. And heres what they concluded:

• Moderate, consistent evidence shows that health benefits derived from the consumption of a variety of cooked seafood in the US in amounts recommended by the Committee [at least two servings per week] outweigh the risks associated with methyl mercury (MeHg) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) exposure, even among women who may become or who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and children ages 12 and younger.– Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report

• Among the general adult population, consumption of fish, particularly oily fish, lowers the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality. There is absence of probable or convincing evidence of CHD risks of MeHg. And when considering benefits of [omega-3s] vs. risks of [mercury] among women of childbearing age: maternal fish consumption lowers the risk of suboptimal neurodevelopment in their offspring compared to women not eating fish in most circumstances evaluated. — Executive Summary from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption

While Green tries to entice readers with its talk of toxic mercury, the fact is, studies of fish, including tuna and swordfish that were up to 90 years old report levels consistent with today’s levels andlimited data suggest that methylmercury concentrations in commercial fish have not increased or decreased over time according to a peer reviewed, published FDA draft report.

But lets be honest, the headline mercury concentrations in Yellowfin tuna caught off Hawaii in 1998 were found to be essentially identical to those caught in the same area in 1971 a span of 27 years, (another fact from FDA) isnt too tantalizing for Greens audience.

Journalists reporting on this study should take care to recognize this is not research about human health and trying to turn it into such is a serious sleight of hand.

All the stars in daytime television were out last night for the 37th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards. We couldn’t help but notice that Dr. Mehmet Oz snagged an Emmy for top day time talk show host. As a reminder, we’ve been locked in a dispute with Dr. Oz that’s coming up on six months now.

Our side: an episode that originally aired in January and re-aired earlier this month contained a number of demonstrable errors and distortions about fish and mercury.

Dr. Oz’s side: talk to my lawyer. Which begs another question: when’s the last time you asked your doctor a legitimate question and he answered with a letter from his lawyer?

The Gulf is wounded right now. Its natural resource is battered and its human resource is tested but its still alive.

This is the time when you would expect vulchers to show up… and wouldnt you know it they have. Greenpeace is on its way, Food and Water Watch is there and now the Center for Science in the Public Interest is circlingall looking to capitalize on a weakened Gulf.

Each will talk about its role in striving for better public health or its effort to protect the eco system but what each is really doing is exploiting a tragedy in order to forward its own policy goals.

Center for Science in the Public Interest will slam an already injured oyster community.

Food and Water Watch will use this opportunity to bash imports.

Greenpeace will be on the scene soon for a photo op that is sure to become a fundraising campaign.

Heres an idea, if these groups really want to help rather than just exploit the Gulf community for their own purposes, why dont they get together and make a significant donation to Friends of the Fishermen?

George Foreman is an Olympic gold medalist and two-time world heavyweight boxing champion who knocked out Joe Frazier and lost to Muhammad Ali in one of the most famous fights in history, The Rumble in The Jungle. But these days his storied athletic past is eclipsed by the fame he earned selling grilling machines.

When people see George Forman they dont sayhey, look theres the champ. They sayhey, look theres the grill guy. Admittedly, he is clearly laughing all the way to the bank.

These days it has become apparent that Jeremy Piven is no longer the actor whos appeared in dozens of movies and dozens more TV shows and rounds out the wildly popular cast of a hit HBO seriesno, he is now officially the butt of his own joke.

Piven, who appeared on the Tonight Show last night simply cant go anywhere without addressing or now joking about his absurd claims that he came down with mercury poising from eating too much sushi.

Unlike the now beloved grilling pitchman, Pivens mercury fable doesnt appear to be rejuvenating his career but rather defining his character for an already skeptical audience whose snickers drown out the cries of hey, look theres the sushi guy.

Imagine this for a moment, if you will. Brain Williams has just done a repot on the Obama administrations response to the Gulf oil spill and theres a fare bit of criticism leveled at the White House.

Then Williams is out promoting his report and a podcaster asks him, So, what can viewers do if they see this report and they want to work against the Presidents plans and policies? What do you recommend?

Williams then says, Well, they can get involved with their local GOP. They can support grass roots efforts to unseat democrats at every level. They can volunteer and even give money to GOPac and of course theres always the RNC, a great group. But the best idea would be to find local candidates who oppose Obama and all of his polices and really start there and work up to the federal level. This is not an easy thing. The Democrats have a lot of power right now with the House, Senate and the bully pulpit. Theyve got a lot of resources. So starting from a grass roots level would be best.

What?

Brain Williams giving advice on how politically minded republicans can coordinate and mobilize to defeat the Obama agenda? That would never happen. Why? Because Brian Williams is supposed to be an independent journalist who isnt supposed to give advice but rather, simply report the facts. Perhaps he might even abide by the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics which states that reporters should Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

I paint this picture in order to draw the parallel between that patently absurd factitious scenario and this very real one.

This is CBS 5 consumer reporter Sue Kwon on a pod cast when asked what she recommends consumers do to get involved in the mercury in seafood issue:

• Question– What advice do you give to consumers who want to get involved and want to push for labeling on canned tunaahh bring down the FDAs requirement for mercury? What kinds of things can consumers do? I am sure theres a bunch of groups or web sites or something they can check out and maybe get involved in. What do you recommend?
• AnswerTheres a great group if you are in the California area its called Turtle Island Network and basically its a non profit organization that is striving for this to help (inaudible) and they have a calculator, mercury fish calculator. They are also very involved with lobbying and being activists in this area. (inaudible) Theres also theyou first of all want to also talk to your doctor see if they have resources and places that they go for information and the latest you know I you always say talk to your Congress person really this type of momentum is not happening there at that level yet. It would be at the FDA level and finding perhaps champions in your local area that are connected at the Federal level. And indeed tough because changing law in California is one thing, changing the way people approach this in each different city and each different state is another. And um the fishing industry is a huge industry and they have a lot of resources if you went on You Tube you could see within days they put high production pop ups all over it to counter all of these claims and in defense of them they have a very informational web site but it is very pro health food and pro fish.

Boy, it sounds an awful lot like shes laying out a road map of resources who might be helpful in advocating for one side of an issue. That doesnt sound very impartial to me.

Lets try it again:

• What do you recommend?
• Well, I dont recommend. I just report.

I had planned a blog entry that was chock full of famous quotes about war profiteers and scammers who swept in after tragedy to make a name or buck in the ensuing chaos but I stopped. I decided instead to check my personal proclivity for historical references and vital, if not verbose, perspective at the door and just well call a spade a spade.

Food and Water Watch is brazenly exploiting the tragedy in the gulf in order to further its goals and should be ashamed of itself.

The group is circulating a memo to reporters that says, If you’re doing a story on the oil spill’s impact on domestic seafood, please consider the availability of Food & Water Watch experts who are willing to comment on the danger of imported seafood.

Experts really?

Experts on what its like to shutter your family business because your Gulf oyster beds are still closed?

Experts on the kind of stress you feel when 100 Louisiana families depend on the pay check your seafood business provides them?

No. Those arent the type of experts Food and Water Watch has in mind because they dont employ people from the seafood community. A community they are so eager to speak for. But they do employ a former environmental consultant with a law degree, a biologist, a policy analyst, a researcher, an expert in physics and a legislative coordinator (yes, another lawyer.)

And what does that crew, with its finger so clearly on the pulse of the Gulf seafood community want to say to the media? They want to spin a tale about the ills of what they like to call dangerous, low quality, under- inspected foreign seafood.

Imported seafood is safe and healthy and in fact has to abide by the same regulatory codes set up by the FDA for domestic seafood– thats just a fact no matter how Food and Water Watch spins it.

Responsible members of the Gulf seafood community arent taking this time to rail against imported seafood. They have more important things to do, like concentrate on the effect this disaster is having on the natural and human resources in the Gulf.

As Food and Water watch attempts to further exploit this crisis reporters should expect to hear more from them. And when they do, reporters should askwho do you speak for? Just which Gulf fisherman asked you to dredge up old arguments about imported seafood and make that the headline, instead of the facts behind the safe, healthy seafood being harvested from the Gulf now or the needs of hardworking men and women of the Gulf seafood community? Food and Water Watch has shown its true colors during this disaster, caring more about its own political agenda than the realities of the region.

It looks like the answer is, Yes.

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee put out its recommendations today and they say essentially say Americans eat too little seafood and should be encouraged to eat more.

The Committee are the folks who review the latest nutrition science and recommend changes in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, you know the ole food pyramid advice.

They even touched on pregnancy and in an effort to quell controversy and concern about eating fish during pregnancy, concluded that increasing consumption to at least 2 servings of seafood per week, during pregnancy and lactation raises Omega-3 levels and helps improve infant health outcomes and brain development.

You are probably well aware of our conflict with Dr. Oz over the on-air mistakes he made concerning fish and mercury and his apparent refusal to correct the record. The truth is when it comes to these TV docs it takes very little to get them on the wrong path. You know the old saying, A Lie Repeated Often Enough Becomes Truth. When these practitioners of infotainment employ sound bite science rather than real ground truth science its a disservice to their viewers.

Two days ago, Dr. Travis Stork, one of the hosts of the syndicated series, The Doctors, made an offhand comment during a segment about fighting osteoporosis that caught our attention because we saw him eschewing specificity in favor of said sound bite science. In hopes that we can get him back on the right track before he gets too far down the Oz rout we sent a letter to the producer of the program.

If the name sounds familiar, it ought to be, as Jay McGraw is the son of Dr. Phil McGraw.

June 8, 2010

Mr. Jay McGraw

Stage 29 Productions, LLC

2401 Colorado Avenue, Suite 110

Santa Monica, CA 90404-3585

Dear Mr. McGraw.

I am writing to you concerning a comment that was made on an episode of The Doctors that aired nationwide on June 7, 2010.

In that program, during a segment on preventing osteoporosis, Dr. Travis Stork said that, “fish in general is great, but choose the low mercury kind to prevent other problems.” That comment left the impression that the trace amount of naturally occurring mercury in seafood is a concern for the entire population. It is not. As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said, “for most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a concern.”

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. These subpopulations are told to stay away from four specific species: shark, swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel. This sort of offhand comment, while it may seem innocuous, can actually be quite damaging, as research shows that it can lead individuals to either curtail the amount of seafood they eat, or even completely eliminate it from their diet. While we suspect that wasn’t Dr. Stork’s intention, we know from experience that reduced fish consumption will be the practical effect of such advice, something that could lead to continued public health consequences.

A draft study by the FDA has concluded that the level of fish Americans currently eat prevents 50,000 deaths each year from stroke and heart attack. Meanwhile, that level is still low and omega-3 deficiency has been cited by researchers at Harvard University as the second leading diet-related cause of preventable death in this country, claiming 84,000 lives. 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.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

A one trick pony is just what it sounds like (at least here in the U.S.) It does the same thing over and over again, never changing and progressively failing to impress. A more colorful saying exists, about it being the same stuff but a different day, that I think I will avoid as a matter of couth.

However, as a matter of apparent strategic compulsion Greenpeace is now taking its one trick pony north of the border and updating its seafood sustainability retailer rankings there. Last time around all retailers failed– just like when Greenpeace rank U.S. retailers. Now Greenpeace claims to have improvement to coo about so they can promote all the progress theyre seeingjust like when Greenpeace rank U.S. retailers.

Crystal ball time– later theyll re-rank U.S. retailers (again) and there will be more improvement that theyll take credit for despite the fact that stores are not working with them.

That pony must be tired.

And this on the heels of the latest Greenpeace embarrassment in which it announced one of the world’s largest shipping companies was refusing to transport certain species of commercial fish, alluding to the idea that the apparent switch in policy was due to the fact that Greenpeace has been pressuring companies to make the change. Greenpeace went so far as to laud the company asking how great is that? and calling the group a welcome addition to a small but growing movement.

Problem is Greenpeaces announcement was, like so many of their campaigns, a distortion designed to take credit for something that it had nothing to do with and wasnt even happening in the first place.

In an interview the shipping companys head of global seafood said the claims were overstated and that the company had embarked upon a seafood sustainability platform long before [it] met and discussed same with Greenpeace.

Cant say we didnt warn ya.

Today NFI followed our press release and letter on Dr. Ozs unwillingness to offer his viewers the correct information on seafood consumption by launching banner ads, Google Ads and Facebook Ads all designed to educate consumers about the very latest in independent seafood science.

This would be a lot easier if Dr. Oz would just do his homework.

June 1, 2010

Laurie Rich c/o Jackie Barth

Executive Producer

ZoCo Productions, LLC

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Rich,

We are disappointed you have not responded to our request to preempt the reairing of the January 26^th edition of The Dr. Oz Show featuring seafood consumption advice scheduled for Thursday, June 3^rd.

As we have made you aware before the information contained in that episode does not reflect the latest independent, peer-reviewed science or the latest recommendations on seafood nutrition messaging.

At the very least we have demonstrated the show is out of step with a new independent report from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.N.s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that urged medical professionals to more effectively communicate with their citizens, and emphasize CHD [coronary heart disease] mortality rates of not eating fish and neurodevelopmental risks to offspring of[women of childbearing age, particularly pregnant women and nursing mothers] not consuming fish.

It also lacks brand new input from two leading independent experts on Omega-3 fatty acids and brain development from Cornell University and The Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition in London who wrote an open letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration noting that, current science has advanced to the point where it is no longer consistent with the recommendation to limit consumption of all fish to a maximum of 12 ounces per week for pregnant and lactating women and women who may become pregnant. 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.

You have been made aware that Dr. Ozs recommendations and presentation stand in direct contrast to the very latest in information from independent experts on Omega-3 fatty acids and brain development as well as the advice of the WHO and FAO. We consider your failure to respond a reckless disregard for the truth.

We are left with no choice but to communicate directly with the media, consumers and viewers about Dr. Ozs failure to present the most up to date information. Press releases, banner ads and other avenues will be a part of this educational effort.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc C. Denise Beaudoin

Legal Counsel

ZoCo Productions, LLC