If you follow this blog or fisheries news at all you know that overwhelming evidence has been piling up concerning the benefits of fish consumption during pregnancy and you might also know the joint 2004 FDA/EPA advisory on fish and pregnancy has caused immense confusion with consumers and desperately needs to be updated.

Well, earlier this week, two of the leading independent scientists in the area of Omega-3 fatty acids and brain function issued an extraordinary open letter to U.S. FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg calling for that 2004 advisory to be updated with the latest science, otherwise its advice could be causing, “inadvertent harm.”

The letter states: “[A] consistent stream of new publications and international scientific evaluations has persuaded us that this advice has become outdated and that it may be inadvertently causing harm, inconsistent with your public health mission, the letter states. We commend FDA for its history of willingness to modify that advice when warranted by new information. The time for the next update has come.” Furthermore “[I]t 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.“

Folks who have been distorting the science in this area for too long are surely annoyed at the pursuit of fact based advice by these independent experts.

Click here to read the complete letter online.

What’s more, the two men who authored the letter, Professor J. Thomas Brenna of Cornell University and Professor Michael Crawford of London Metropolitan University, have started an online petition urging FDA to complete its work on a draft report it initially released in January 2009 that used a new method for measuring the net beneficial effect of seafood consumption. Needless to say, NFI is praising the open letter, and is urging members of the public to ad their names to the petition.

One time is a mistake. Two times is a pattern.

Back in January Dr. Oz produced a TV show where his advice on fish consumption and his discussion about mercury were way outside the latest up-to-date medical and scientific research on the topic.

As we are want to do, we called him on it. Youll remember this is the interaction in which Oz had his lawyer answer (or dodge) our questions rather than his crack medical staff.

Well, that episode is scheduled to run again on June 3^rd and wed like Dr. Oz to run a different show and take the time to learn about the new science before he addresses seafood consumption again.

Our letter is below:

May 28, 2010

Laurie Rich c/o Jackie Barth

Executive Producer

ZoCo Productions, LLC

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Rich,

It has come to our attention that the January 26^th edition of The Dr. Oz Show featuring seafood consumption advice is scheduled to air again nationwide on Thursday, June 3^rd.

As we have before, we must insist on bringing to your attention the fact that this episode does not reflect the latest independent, peer-reviewed science or the latest recommendations on seafood nutrition messaging.

Just last week a new independent report from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.N.s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 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.

Likewise, this week 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 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.

Dr. Ozs recommendations and presentation now 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.

As part of the January 26^th show, Dr. Oz clearly contradicted the FDAs original advice about eating seafood when he said mercury in seafood is a concern for not only pregnant women and children, but all of us. The FDA advice clearly states, for most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern.

Dr. Oz also ignored the fact that the CDC study he cites actually says finding a measureable amount of mercury in blood or urine does not mean that levels of mercury cause an adverse effect.

Dr. Oz was also in error on the following points:

• Dr. Ozs explanation of why mercury is found in commercial seafood was incorrect. A recent FDA draft report on commercial fish and two California court rulings found virtually all the trace amounts of methylmercury present in ocean fish were naturally occurring. This is in stark contrast to freshwater fish that are regularly contaminated by man-made processes. Were Dr. Oz and his researchers unaware of this distinction?

• Dr. Oz overtly confuses commercial fish and recreational fish. When discussing a report that shows almost all freshwater fish found in the U.S. have some mercury in them he fails to explain that the study he referenced did not test the seafood available in restaurants and grocery stores. While this is a common error made by the press, an individual giving nutrition advice ought to be more careful. To clear up confusion on this point, researchers at UC Davis released a statement called, Mercury in Commercial and Sport-caught Fish: Apples and Oranges, which concludes The information presented in the study relates to fish that are typically recreationally caught. Commercially caught and sold fish (includes finfish, shellfish and mollusks) is safe and beneficial to consume. Were Dr. Oz and his researchers unaware that the study they were discussing was unrelated to fish primarily consumed in the U.S.?

• In the past it has been noted that Dr. Ozs team researched all available scientific evidence around this subject for the show on the 26^th. However, there is not a single mention or reflection of the findings of the following landmark studies, which look at the net effect (nutrients and mercury) of eating fish:
• • Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health concluded in the Journal of the American Medical Association that avoidance of modest fish consumption due to confusion regarding risks and benefits could result in thousands of excess coronary heart disease deaths annually and suboptimal neurodevelopment in children.
  • Nutrient and Methyl Mercury Exposure from Consuming Fish concluded in the Journal of Nutrition that, among people in the Seychelles Islands who eat 12 fish meals a week, the beneficial influence of nutrients from fish may counter any adverse effects of MeHg on the developing nervous system.
  • Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study concluded in the Lancet that advice to limit seafood consumption could actually be detrimental. These results show that risks from the loss of nutrients were greater than the risks of harm from exposure to trace contaminants in 340 g [12 ounces] seafood eaten weekly.
  • Associations of maternal fish intake during pregnancy and breastfeeding duration with attainment of developmental milestones in early childhood: a study from the Danish National Birth Cohort concluded in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that similar to data from other prospective cohort studies, the results from the present study do not show any overall detrimental effect of prenatal fish intake on developmental milestones, but, rather, they show that higher maternal fish intake is associated with better early development.
  • The Preventable Causes of Death in the United States: Comparative Risk Assessment of Dietary, Lifestyle, and Metabolic Risk Factors concluded in the Public Library of Science that an estimated 84,000 preventable deaths a year are attributable to low omega-3/seafood intake.

We have provided you with demonstrable substantiation that Dr. Oz was in error on a number of points made during the original airing of his show that dealt with seafood consumption. We have provided you with irrefutable evidence that his messages about seafood and mercury are out of step with the very latest recommendations from independent researches and world health bodies.

We ask that you cancel the planned Thursday June 3^rd airing of this episode and replace it with another. It is our strong belief that a failure to do so would constitute not only a disservice to your viewers who expect up to date health and nutrition advice from Dr. Oz but a reckless disregard for the truth that, after being made aware of the latest science, constitutes actual malice.

We feel compelled to note that we are not the only party that has found fault with the content contained in your broadcasts. An April 2010 profile of Dr. Oz in the New York Times Magazine observed that the pressures of producing a daily television show had led him to dispense a chaotic bazaar of advice, not all of it equally reliable and important. Another article that appeared that same month in the Chicago Tribune concluded that, Oz’s ventures also offer advice unsupported by science. Our experience with your program reinforces those points.

Please update us on your plans.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc C. Denise Beaudoin

Legal Counsel

ZoCo Productions, LLC

If necessity is the mother of ingenuity, what is desperation? Perhaps shes the aunt who talks a little too loudly at family functions and whose stories dont always mesh with the facts but you put up with her cause well… you sort of have to.

It looks like Aunt Desperation has launched a new website where she rehashes all of her old complaints about imported pangasius and promotes letters written by folks like the Honorable Rep. Marion Berry.

Wait Berry Berry.

Is he the guy who the New York Times was talking about in an opinion piece, all the way back in 2003, who joined in a stupendously tactless disinformation campaign against the Vietnamese, suggesting that their fish were not good enough for American diners because they came from a place contaminated by so much Agent Orange sprayed over the countryside by American forces during the Vietnam War.

Why, yes he is.

Lets get one thing straight the U.S. catfish industry wants to snuff out its pangasius competition by switching the fish’s inspection from FDA to USDA, a move that won’t make the food any safer but will present bureaucratic and regulatory roadblocks that will keep it out of this country. It’s a move that benefits bottom feeding lobbyists but hurts American farmers in places like Iowa and Illinois.

Enough with the faux food safety scare.

Not eating seafood can be really bad for your health and government communicators need to step up and explain thatthats the conclusion of a new World Health Organization report developed in conjunction with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The, just released, report says governments need to do a better job emphasizing the benefits of eating seafood on heart and brain health. Researchers were pretty blunt in their recommendation that to more effectively communicate experts need to emphasize the benefits of fish consumption on reducing heart related deaths and emphasize the brain development benefits to children whos mothers eat fish, while explaining the neurodevelopmental risks associated with mothers not eating fish.

Lets pause a minute and take a good look at what these world health experts are really saying.

Or better yet lets have NFIs registered dietitian do that for us; Any questions about the safety and healthfulness of seafood are silenced by a report of this caliber, said Jennifer McGuire. Were at the point where people can replace emotion-based misinformation with science-based advice that will help reverse the health problems associated with a typical low-seafood American diet.

Jennifer says, What Im hearing from the scientists behind this publication is that not eating enough protein- and omega-3-packed fish has consequences on public health, and governments need to adjust their communications to reflect that reality.

The report comes at a time when federal nutrition experts are preparing to update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Largely overlooked in the past, the importance of eating seafood is expected to be addressed. In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is under pressure to update its six-year-old seafood consumption advice.

In the PR game, one of the oldest news hooks in the book is to base a story on an upcoming holiday. While it’s cheesy, it’s also effective, and can help get even the most mundane story into print.

Earlier today, Monica Eng from the Chicago Tribune‘s food blog, The Stew, fell for it, and we can’t help but be disappointed: “Looking for an inexpensive last minute Mother’s Day gift,” writes Eng. “Consider talking to mom about mercury contaminated fish.”

Really, Monica?

Eng followed up that line with a few boilerplate quotes from Buffy Martin Tarbox of GotMercury.org, where she takes some pot shots atfish and talks about her organization’s latest scare project concerning San Francisco restaurant sushi.

A couple of points:

• No peer reviewed medical journal has ever published any evidence of a case of methylmercury poisoning caused by the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the U.S. The health effects of mercury exposure as science understands them are the result of industrial poisonings of the food supply in Japan and Iraq over three decades ago, not consumption of commercial fish found in your local grocery store or restaurant. Furthermore, in 2007, the Journal of Nutrition reported, “poisoning from fish consumption has not been reported since those 2 events.”
• The latest study from GotMercury is nothing but a replication of a story that appeared in the New York Times in 2008 — a story that was widely debunked at the time by Slate, Time Magazine and the Center for Independent Journalism. Furthermore, the newspaper’s public editor rebuked the reporter, writing that the story was “less balanced than it should have been,” and “required careful judgment and missed.”
• Public health officials have continually pointed out that the real health risk to Americans is not eating enough fish, not theoretical risk from trace levels of mercury in seafood. Those same public health officials have pointed out that 84,000 additional deaths can in the U.S. can be attributed to the fact that Americans are not getting enough Omega-3 fatty acids in their diet, a nutrient that is found in fish in abundance.

Later, Eng points to an online package created by the newspaper’s Michael Hawthorne. Safe to say, Hawthorne isnt quite the independent third party observer hes made out to be, a closer look at his reporting raises more questions than it answers. For more on him, click here and have a look at our archives where we dissect hisreporting and debunk his disinformation.

Oh andif you are looking for a last minute Mother’s Day gift, why not give Mom a hug and a kiss and take a pass on the fear mongering?

As everyone in the world seems to know, some fish stories are so good people can’t help but tell them over and over again, and even borrow them from one another.

A reminder of that phenomenon came out this morning when a story moved on the Dow Jones News Wire concerning a claim by Richard Gelfond, the CEO of IMAX, that he suffered from a case of mercury poisoning as the result of eating two pieces of sushi per day. And in a world where inhabitants of nations like Japan eat far more fish per capita than we do here in the U.S without suffering from any widespread negative health effects, that claim seems awfully suspicious.

As you might imagine, it was hard right off the bat not to recall the curious case of Jeremy Piven, whose claims we’ve repeatedly debunked for about two years. Rather than rewind all of those posts, we’d like to simply reiterate some incontrovertible facts: No peer reviewed medical journal has ever published any evidence of a case of methylmercury poisoning caused by the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the U.S.

The health effects of mercury exposure as science understands them are the result of industrial poisonings of the food supply in Japan and Iraq over three decades ago, not consumption of commercial fish found in your local grocery store or restaurant. Furthermore, in 2007, the Journal of Nutrition reported, “poisoning from fish consumption has not been reported since those 2 events.” In short, anecdotal claims aren’t sufficient to pass scientific muster.

One wonders why Dow Jones, a media outlet with a good reputation, didn’t bother to check the facts.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an ecological and human disaster that will surely effect not only the fragile habitats where shrimp and oysters are harvested but the very core of the community that brings these iconic delicacies from the waters of the Gulf to the tables of America.

It is important to support fishermen, shrimpers and oystermen by letting consumers know the safe healthy seafood sourced from these waters continues to be just that, safe and healthy. Already the seafood community has spoken out in support of the precautionary closure of the federal waters along parts of the coast. Ensuring consumers continue to have access to seafood maintained with the level of quality and safety expected from the Gulf of Mexico is paramount.

In terms of industry perspective on the Gulf, this week USA Today did a good job summing up the situation surrounding the supply of seafood available to consumers in the US.While former NFI Chairman Mike Voisin has been on the front lines of the media storm answering questions about the safety of seafood available to consumers.

Voisin told CNNthat families do not have to worry about mythical problems associated with seafood covered in oil, saying “those areas that have oil in them will be blocked by state health officials and not harvested.”

Meanwhile, Gulf coastfishermen are stepping forwardputting their at-sea skills to work filling jobs to help protect the marine ecosystem.

The impact of the spill on seafood and the industry is still unknown and is being monitored, likewise the health and safety of the seafood from the gulf is also being monitored. The bottom line remains that seafood from the gulf is safe and every effort is being made by an active, engaged seafood community to help protect the resource and keep it that way.

Theres an easy answer to the proverbial question; what can I do? Keep the Gulf community in our thoughts and their seafood on our plates.

Time and time again we see local TV stations recycling the ole testing mercury in fish story. We have literally seen the same story in dozens of local markets across the country over the course of five or more years.

There is nothing new to the story. Theres no new angle. And yet the ease of the predetermined narrative and the predetermined outcome with the faux appearance of some sort of benefit to viewers is just too much for some, often over burdened, journalists to pass up.

But a new article published in the Journal of the World Aquaculture Society goes a long way to helping those over burdened journalists get a little bit of perspective on how off base and out of date the thinking behind these reports is.

The report titled Perceptions of Seafood Safety (Vol. 41, No. 2 April, 2010) notes that, “There is an intrinsic bias built into the structure of modern media that promotes the ideological agendas of activists over a reasoned, more scientific-based understanding of an issue, and food safety is a primary case in point.”

For a long time weve been telling reporters to consider their sources and consider the science when doing these types of reports but they dont always follow our suggestions and often run afoul of the facts.

This new report examines how much of the misinformation associated with these recycled reports feed urban myths which sloppy reporting almost never sets straight, Commonly, previously presented misinformation is propagated in this manner and urban myths surround food safety, such as the overblown health concerns of mercury in fish, an issue that never seems to go away despite recently highly regarded peer reviewed studies showing that reasonable consumption provides substantially greater benefits and risks, particularly for fish as a dietary source of polyunsaturated fatty acids for pregnant women, nutrients necessary for proper fetal neurological development (Cohen 2005).”

Local TV reporters often revel in risk. If they cant massage an old clichd catch phrase to tell you what it means for your wallet or what the problem is on your plate theyd rather not do the story.

There are many factors at work that contribute to this type of sensationalism. One is laziness and the other is the staggering collective migration away from local TV news. There was a time when local TV reporters and anchors where stars, now theyre one-man-bands schlepping gear and running scared that the younger multi-platform journalist willing to work for peanuts is closing in.

For those still interested in actually covering the story and doing it well, Perceptions of Seafood Safety (Vol. 41, No. 2 April, 2010) should be a must read.

Despite all of the push back and holding of journalists accountable that you might read on this blog theres an underlying truth that we might sometimes lose sight of while engaging in all of these individual fire fights seafood has a great story to tell. Journalists who do their research and trust independent science often find, for instance in the Los Angeles Times, that Omega-3 fatty acids are key to a healthier life or over on MSN that Fish Feeds Your Brain.There are good stories out there and good reporters too but not unlike the bad kid in class their sloppier brethren often end up getting most of the attention.

Yesterday Dr. Edward Groth III of the Mercury Policy Project announced the launch of a new website designed to provide ‘mercury facts’ that stand in contrast to ones provided by sites like this.

On just this page alone he mentions the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) by name literally dozens of times, while defending agenda-driven, scare stories as informed, accurate coverage and even coddling Jeremy Piven and his exaggerated claims of mercury poisoning (he does not address Pivens other dietary claims that drinking too much soy milk caused him to grow breasts.)

With all that vitriol aimed at NFI for simply trying to make journalists do their jobs by reporting on the latest independent seafood science he fails to mention one very important fact.

In December 2009, Dr. Edward Groth approached NFI with his proverbial hand outstretched. Thats right, Groth and his Groth Consulting Services approached us about teaming up with him.

Groth wrote in a letter to NFI President John Connelly, Im hoping we can discuss the possibility of my working with NFI on risk communication about mercury in seafood. He wasnt shy about it either, noting Ill attach some personal references, should you decide to check me out further. To assuage any fears we might have about working with him he assured us that, it may surprise you that our perspectives have much in common.

Regardless ofall ofhis talk about sharing goals and working together we did not respond to his proposal. So, despite his proffer youll notice that Groth, often cited as a science consultant at the Mercury Policy Project, was never hired by NFI as an advisor. You might also notice a sharp and subsequent up-tick in his attacks against NFI.

Feel free to read his solicitation letter below:

———————————-

Dear Mr. Connelly:

I left a voicemail message for you a few days ago. Perhaps youve been away from your office or busy, or perhaps you decided not to reply. In either case, I thought Id lay out what I hoped to talk with you about into a letter, to give you a chance to digest it.

Im hoping we can discuss the possibility of my working with NFI on risk communication about mercury in seafood. If you are familiar with any of my work on that issue for consumer and environmental organizations, you probably regard me as on the other side of the issue from NFI, and must be wondering why I think we could work together.

Let me introduce myself. A biosketch is attached. I have a PhD in biology; I specialize in the use of science in policymaking, with a focus on environmental health. For almost 25 years, I worked at Consumers Union, the publisher of CONSUMER REPORTS magazine, where I was an in-house expert on environmental health and risk assessment Throughout my career, my responsibilities have included communicating about riskstranslating scientific information about health risks into plain language for consumers (and magazine editors), and speaking with the public and the media about those issues. I am retired now, and work occasionally as a consultant, primarily on food safety and risk communication problems.

Throughout my career I participated actively in the external scientific community and in the work of regulatory and advisory bodies on environmental health risk issues. I had a (well earned, I believe) reputation as an open-minded scientist, receptive to perspectives of people from other sectors. Yes, my roots are in the consumer movement, but I have always been someone industry, government and other stakeholders can talk to and work with. Those who know me can vouch that I am concerned first with getting the science right, and then with trying to figure out what policies are most appropriate, given the scientific facts.

Ill attach some personal references, should you decide to check me out further. Id urge you to call them and ask whether they think Im someone with whom you could collaborate.

Now, on to my main topic, communicating with consumers about mercury in fish. It may surprise you that our perspectives have much in common.

Americans (essentially everyone) should be eating more fish than they do at present. If NFI members could double their sales in coming years, public health would benefit enormously. But seafood consumption also poses some risks, and increasing fish consumption can potentially increase risks to public health. Consumers need accurate, balanced information to guide their seafood choices. If risks are overstated or presented in a frightening way, people may eat less fish, and public health could suffer. If consumption increases without attention to risks, public health might absorb damage that could have been prevented. Getting this balance right is quite difficult. People on all sides of the issue can make mistakes in communication that lead to unintended effects, even effects opposite the desired ones.

The information now reaching consumers is contradictory and confusing. Most consumers dont understand why they should eat more fish, whether they need to be concerned about risks, or how to avoid risks that do concern them. Many health authorities and expert organizations have urged Americans to eat more fish some of them have specified that (certain subpopulations) should choose low-mercury fish. Others have either ignored the mercury issue or dismissed mercury risks as trivial compared to expected health benefits. Even among those who stress the need to minimize mercury exposure, essentially no one has explained clearly what is meant by low-mercury fish. The resulting situation is a Babel of mixed messages that has thoroughly confused and quite likely frustrated a great many consumers.

In this communication environment, NFI’s message, to oversimplify it a bit, has been Eat more fish, and dont be concerned about mercury. NFIs communication style has been a hit-back public-relations campaign from the Eric Dezenhall playbook. Elements of the campaign include dismissing mercury risks as scientifically unfounded, criticizing those who believe that mercury does pose significant risks, and pushing back aggressively against journalists and others who publicize mercury risks.

Such campaigns are fairly common when an industry perceives its market to be threatened by an environmental health risk associated with its product. I fully understand why NFI has chosen to respond to the mercury issue this way. And, you may be perfectly content with your current communication efforts, and not inclined to consider doing anything differently, if so, you may see no point in having dialogue with me.

Let me offer you a few reasons for such a dialogue. In my judgment, NFIs approach may be counter productive. In fact, your risk communication on mercury might well be harming NFI members business interests more than it helps them.

I would be happy to expand upon these points if we talk:

Wearing my environmental health scientist hat, I assure you that, regardless of how NFI may perceive it, the science supporting concerns about public health damage from methylmercury exposure is valid, strong, and getting stronger each year. This is a bona fide, important public-health concern.

Still wearing that hat, history is not on your side. With other environmental health hazards (such as lead), as time has passed, research has reinforced risk concerns and reduced the level of exposure considered hazardous. This pattern is now playing out with methylmercury and prenatal cognitive effects. NFI can continue to take the view that the science is inconclusive and there is no real risk, but to do that is to face a potentially large public backlash when the evidence becomes overwhelming, which it soon enough will. If that backlash were to occur, damage to public confidence in the safety of seafood could be deep and long-lasting.

Alternatively, NFI could reposition itself by agreeing that mercury poses risks worth being concerned about, and proactively helping consumers manage their own mercury intake, enabling you toy ahead of the curve as new research findings emerge.

Now, wearing my risk-communicator hat, I advise you that, when consumers already are worried about a risk, telling them not to worry does not work. Instead, it usually has the opposite effect: It makes them feel as if their legitimate concerns are being brushed aside. That makes them trust you less, and worry more.

You will not make consumers worry less about mercury in an environment where many reliable sources (from FDA to CONSUMER REPORTS) are telling them this is a valid health concern NFIs dont worry message cannot cancel out the opposite messages out there. Instead, it exacerbates the Babel effect described above, increasing consumer confusion. Confused consumers generally become more risk averse. I.E., while fear may make some consumers eat less fish, confusion probably makes many more of them eat less fish.

I will assume that you and I share the goal of persuading consumers to increase their fish consumption, without increasing public health risk associated with methylmercury exposure. There is a better way to go about it than what NFI is doing now, and I believe I could help you make the transition, if youd like to. If you want to hear more about the elements of that alternative approach, and how we might work together to implement it, please give me a call at XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you are not interested at all in pursuing it, just send me an e-mail (XXXXXX@cs.com) and Ill stop bothering you.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope to hear from you. Best wishes for the holiday season to you and others at NFI.

Sincerely,

Edward Groth III, PhD

———————————-

To say the least, Groths letter of December 15, 2009 offering his services to NFI came as quite a surprise. After all, some of his recent public rhetoric on popular fish like tuna had been less than flattering. He wrote an essay under the headline Tuna Rots Your Brain and later gave a lecture to college students and told them that his new favorite slogan was, Its the tuna stupid!

Despite these attacks he wrote to NFI to propose that “Americans (essentially everyone) should be eating more fish than they do at the present,” and that, “Consumers need accurate, balanced information to guide their seafood choices.”

We agree wholeheartedly. But if Americans are not eating enough fishand a wide variety of studies have shown that they are not perhaps its because a loose confederation of radical environmental activists have been deliberately distorting the science concerning seafood, mercury and nutrition without regard to its ultimate impact on public health.

So when Groth writes in his letter, If risks are overstated or presented in a frightening way, people may eat less fish and public health could suffer, that sounds like a candid acknowledgment of a longstanding harm in the public discourse. The problem though, is that Groth has taken part in various campaigns that were designed to spread alarmist messages about seafood and nutrition. Hasnt Groth been on the Mercury Policy Project payroll?

Just so we are clear on his reference to public health suffering that occurs when Americans dont eat enough fish. That means reduced cognitive development in children nationwide and thousands of additional deaths due to heart disease and stroke.

This strange chapter raises some serious questions, like:

• Groth wrote that risks of eating seafood have been presented in an “overstated and frightening way.” What exactly is he referring to? Who, specifically, has been making those sorts of irresponsible claims and what, precisely, is inaccurate about them? Most importantly, what has Groth done to try to confront those efforts to scare the public?

• His letter and website also faults NFI for “pushing back aggressively against journalists.” Every one of our challenges has been laid out in full detail on our media page. When major news organizations and environmental activists publish information on seafood that is manifestly false, is Groth suggesting that NFI is wrong to point that out?

• NFIs public discourse with the media and others exists in stark contrast to the latest effort by the Mercury Policy Project, where information is poorly sourced, if at all, and many of the arguments are simply straw men. When it comes to honest debate, we feel the need to point out that our media blog freely allows comments. Meanwhile, if you visit the Mercury Policy Projects new site youll find that every single entry ends with the same three words: Comments are closed. Should we expect those comment areas to remain closed?

• Why does Groth cite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a source that counsels avoidance of fish consumption, while ignoring the agency’s latest draft reportfrom January 2009 that counsels just the opposite?