April 12, 2010

David McCormick
NBC News
VP for Standards
VIA Email

Dear Mr. McCormick,

Thank you for responding to our letter and for Ms. Bauers explanation of the advice she gave regarding seafood consumption.

We maintain our concern about the inconsistencies between Ms. Bauers advice and authoritative guidance from the U.S. FDA, EPA, and IOM. Rather than clarify the official recommendations about fish for Melissa from Iowa and countless other viewers, Ms. Bauer devised unique opinions, self-described as information overload. Further complicating matters, she suggested two environmental activist websites as resources for further information about what to eat.

In our original letter we asked that you offer some perspective on Ms. Bauers stand-alone advice in order to provide your viewers with the best possible established information about seafood and nutrition. It is evident from your response that you have no intention of making any addendum to her reporting. In an attempt to bring viewers back to sanctioned seafood advice, we have produced this YouTube Video.

With respect to Ms. Bauers advice to limit farm-raised salmon, Dr. Paul Olin from the University of California, Davis an independent seafood expert with no financial affiliation with NFI is willing to brief Ms. Bauer on the latest science about this issue. Dr. Olin will be following up on this note.

Sincerely,
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute

Cc: Ami Schmitz

Health & Medicine producer

Kerri Zimmer

Health & Medicine producer

Jim Bell

Executive Producer

Dr. Paul Olin

University of California, Davis

So, NBC wrote back, in hopes it would be able to address our concerns. I see a thorough cut and past job from Mr. McCormick but not so much with the addressing of the concerns. Feel free to read the letter and watch this space for our response:

Gavin Gibbons

Director, Media Relations

National Fisheries Institute

Jennifer McGuire, MS, RD

Manager, Nutrition Communication

National Fisheries Institute

I am responding to your e-mail of March 30 regarding a recent segment by Joy Bauer on the NBC News Today program.

I am attaching Joy’s responses to several of the points you raised:

All quotations are direct quotes from my Diet SOS segment on March 30, 2010.

The caller asked about fish that were lowest in mercury. My goal with this answer was to provide a list of the fish species that are highest in mercury to avoid or dramatically limit. Then, I identified an abbreviated list of best seafood choices, comprised of widely available seafood options that are both low in contaminants (mercury and PCBs) and environmentally-friendly. This list summarized my recommendation regarding best seafood choices. This list was compiled from a number of reputable sources and was not intended to be a report or statement of FDA or other government organizations positions.

Certain species of tuna (particularly big eye and bluefin) are high in mercury, while other species, such as skipjack, have considerably lower levels.[1] Tuna is a common variety of fish served in restaurants, including national chain restaurants, and used in sushi. Because it is often hard for consumers to identify which type of tuna they are purchasing or consuming at a restaurant, and restaurant staff and store employees may not be able to accurately answer these questions[2], my general advice as a health professional is to enjoy fresh tuna only occasionally.

In the segment, I did not advise viewers to never consume fresh tuna or canned albacore tuna, but instead recommended canned, chunk light tuna as the safest, lowest-mercury variety of tuna to enjoy.

Mercury levels in fish fall along a spectrum from low to high[3], and my goal in this segment was to identify the most common species that fall along the lower portion of the mercury spectrum and are also sustainably fished or aquacultured.

[1] US Food and Drug Administration. Mercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/Seafood/FoodbornePathogensContaminants/Methylmercury/ucm115644.htm. Accessed March 30, 2010.

[2] Lowenstein JH, Amato G, Kolokotronis S-O. The real maccoyii: identifying tuna sushi with DNA barcodescontrasting character attributes and genetic distances. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4(11): e7866.

[3]US Food and Drug Administration. Mercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/Seafood/FoodbornePathogensContaminants/Methylmercury/ucm115644.htm. Accessed March 30, 2010.

Again, my goal with this segment was to identify and recommend some of the optimal choices in seafood, and I specifically mention that my list includes fish that are both low in contaminants and also eco-friendly. Thus, my top picks had to meet both of these criteria in order to be listed as fish that I recommend for regular consumption by all populations. This is not to say that fish not included on this list cannot be safely enjoyed on occasion as part of a healthy diet. I also mention that this list is not all-inclusive and advise viewers to visit two websites to review other fish that are both low in contaminants and caught or farmed in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. I, along with many other health experts, feel these two sites are credible and responsible when it comes to informing consumers about safe and eco-friendly seafood options.

As a health expert in the media, I feel I am responsible for sharing information about how our eating habits impact the health of our environment, as well as our personal health. Overfishing is a serious threat to global fish supply. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the international body responsible for systematically collecting data on global fisheries, as of 2007, twenty-eight percent of the stocks regulated by this organization are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion, and an additional fifty-two percent are fully exploited and therefore producing catches that are at, or close to, their maximum sustainable limits with no room for further expansion.[1] Since global fish consumption continues to rise, it is important that consumers are given information about which seafood are caught in a sustainable manner or farmed using methods that are least damaging to the environment so they can be aware of these factors when making decisions about diet. I stated upfront for viewers that the sustainability of fish also factored into my decision-making when putting together my personal list of best seafood options for regular consumption.

[1] United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome, Italy: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department; 2009.

PCBs are classified as probable human carcinogens by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Agency of Cancer Research (IACR). Farm-raised salmon contains levels of PCBs that are approximately 10 times higher than wild salmon.[1][2][3] Choosing wild salmon over farmed salmon when possible is one way that consumers can avoid unnecessary exposure to carcinogens. Research shows that farm-raised salmon has PCB levels ranging from 0.015 to 0.051 ppm.[4] Based on cancer health endpoints, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advises that fish with PCB levels of 0.023 to 0.047 ppm be consumed no more 1 time per month.[5] Farmed salmon contains levels of PCBs that are on par with other foods such as beef, chicken, pork, and dairy products,[6] but this segment specifically addressed fish, and I was prompted by the host, to explain why I recommended viewers choose wild salmon over farmed. In response, I advised consumers to when you can, go for the wild salmon. I also offer a low-cost option (canned wild or Alaskan salmon) for consumers who cannot afford wild salmon fillets. In regards to farmed salmon, I specifically stated that every once and awhile, its okay, I said this to avoid sending the message that viewers need to avoid this fish at all costs. Further, it is important to point out that the recommendations provided in the 2006 JAMA article are the recommendations of the studys two authors, not a health organization or government body, based on their review of the literature.[7]

[1] Rawn DF, Forsyth DS, Ryan JJ, et al. PCB, PCDD and PCDF residues in fin and non-fin fish products from the Canadian retail market 2002. Sci Total Environ. 2006;359:101-110.

[2] Hites RA, Foran JA, Carpenter DO, Hamilton MC, Knuth BA, Schwager SJ. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science. 2004;303:226-229.

[3] Easton MD, Luszniak D, Von der GE. Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere. 2002;46:1053-1074.

[4] Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health. J Am Med Assoc, 2006;296:1885-1899.

[5] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. 3^rd ed. Washington, DC: Office of Water; 2000.

[6] Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health. J Am Med Assoc, 2006;296:1885-1899.

[7] Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health. J Am Med Assoc, 2006;296:1885-1899.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Sincerely,

David McCormick

Vice President

NBC News

Seafood fraud and NFI members efforts to eliminate fraud have been brought front and center to the American public this week with the NCWM release of preliminary results of the investigation by states looking at the weight of frozen seafood products sold in retail stores. Although names werent named in the release, just the numbers reported (21,000 packages removed from sale and ice comprising up to 40% of the product weight) were enough to draw the attention of the media. The release was picked-up in the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Kansas City Star, Puget Sound Biz Journal, and ABC evening news.

Stories that cast a negative light on the industry are never a good thing, but this one does bring to attention NFI members call for government help in stopping the unscrupulous vendors who are willing to cheat. NFI members dont always get the credit deserved for fighting for change so it is gratifying when our members efforts are recognized.

Word is out and awareness that a problem exists is one of the first steps to change.

When you have a platform like the highest rated morning news program for going on two decades it means you have a large and loyal audience. It also means you have an even greater responsibility to be accurate. Perhaps youre familiar with the phrase, or some version of it — heavy lies the head that wears the crown. In this case the Today Shows diet and nutrition expert, Joy Bauer, gives viewers some almost right nutrition advice on fish. But with crown firmly placed atop the Today Shows head almost isnt good enough.

Bauers consumption suggestions were never explained to pertain only to pregnant women, nursing mothers or women who might become pregnant and even with that sensitive sub population as its target she didnt quite get the FDA/EPA advice right. I cant imagine the Today Show would let a transportation reporter get FAA advice almost right or have her tweak that agencys recommendation for viewers.

And then she gets into farmed salmon with a very non-scientific, pedestrian take– while offering almost no perspective and in fact making statements that stand in contrast to a Harvard University School of Public Health study on the matter.

Needless to say, we contacted the Today Show and asked them to review and correct Bauers statements. We expect to hear back from them soon. Our letter is below:

March 30, 2010

Jim Bell

Executive Producer

NBCs Today Show

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Bell,

This morning Todays diet and nutrition expert, Joy Bauer, shared nutrition advice about fish that is inconsistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. The advice is, first and foremost, only for the population of women who are or may become pregnant, nursing moms, and young children. Ms. Bauer fails to identify this target audience. Next, her guidance on tuna is not in agreement with the federal advice. Here is that advice, verbatim:

Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.

• Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish.
• Another commonly eaten fish, albacore (“white”) tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.

In summary, for the target population, 12 ounces of a variety of fish per week are safe and healthful. As much as half (6 ounces) can be albacore tuna or tuna steaks.

Next, Ms. Bauer turns viewers to two websites put together by environmental activist not health or nutrition organizations. These groups good fish/bad fish pocket guides conflict with reputable nutrition advice and suggest avoidance of a large swath of the seafood Americans eat. If people actually cut the red species from their diets these cards suggest, seafood consumption would drop significantly and conditions like heart disease would sky rocket.

Lastly, the information Ms. Bauer provides about the safety of farm-raised salmon is not in line with the latest science on this issue. A 2006 study out of Harvard School of Public Health looked exhaustively in to this issue, and found the following:

• Among adults, major dietary sources of PCBs and dioxins are beef, chicken, and pork (34% of total exposure); dairy products (30%); vegetables (22%); fish and shellfish (9%); and eggs (5%).
• When PCBs and dioxins were measured in farmed and wild salmon, levels were similar to those in several other foods.
• Prospective studies in humans have seen little evidence for effects of fish (farm-raised or wild) intake on cancer risk.
• Avoidance of modest fish consumption due to confusion regarding risks and benefits could result in thousands of excess heart disease deaths annually and suboptimal neurodevelopment in children.

We ask that you correct Ms. Bauers work in order to provide your viewers with the best possible independent information about seafood and nutrition. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

Cc: Ami Schmitz

Health & Medicine producer

Kerri Zimmer

Health & Medicine producer

David McCormick

VP for Standards

We have a long and storied past with the New York Times that grew out of an article penned by Marian Burros that was, in the end, colossally off base and required not just a correction but a public admonishment from the papers ombudsmen. So, when we see the Old Grey Lady straying into well charted and questionable territory we do what we always do and insist on the facts.

This week began with such a straying. Our letter is below;

March 30, 2010

John Geddes

Managing Editor

New York Times

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Geddes,

Mondays New York Times included an article by Martha Rose Shulman titled Getting More Fish in Your Diet. From a dietary and public health perspective, Shulmans aim with this report is an admirable one; however, she miscommunicates some very clear joint Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seafood consumption advice. The advice is, first and foremost, only for the population of women who are or may become pregnant, nursing moms, and young children. Ms. Shulman fails to identify this target audience. Next, her guidance on tuna is inconsistent with the federal advice. Here is it, verbatim:

Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.

• Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish.
• Another commonly eaten fish, albacore (“white”) tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.

In summary, for the target population, 12 ounces of a variety of fish per week are safe and healthful. As much as half (6 ounces) can be albacore tuna.

Ms. Shulman also makes some sustainability claims that are erroneous.

Shulman begins her discussion of tuna by noting that consumers should choose canned light or skipjack because it is a smaller species that is not at risk of extinction. Despite what perhaps her sources at the Environmental Defense Fund might suggest there are no tuna stocks that are used in canning that are at risk of extinction. I would direct her to the WWF partnership; International Seafood Sustainably Foundation (ISSF) which reports that despite challenges with some stocks, there are none facing extinction.

We ask that you correct her work in order to provide your readers with the best possible independent information about seafood and seafood consumption.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jennifer McGuire, MS, RD

National Fisheries Institute

More than once I have bemoaned the fact that one media outlet or another did a story on seafood and did not reach out to use NFI as a resource. I maintain its rather difficult to write a story about the seafood industry and not contact the leading voice for that industry or at least its rather difficult to write a fair and accurate story without doing so.

This time the reporter in question did reach out to NFI but we were not featured in her final product.

Why?

When Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post began her research for the article; FDA pressured to combat rising ‘food fraud’ she talked to the Better Seafood Board (BSB) about the industrys extensive work to fill the regulatory vacuum left by federal authorities and encourage the States to get involved. And wouldnt you know it the states did get involved. In fact their efforts were the impetus for myriad articles in the last two days about combating fish fraud. Those articles, like the ones in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and even the Puget Sound Business Journal noted that The investigation was prompted by the National Fisheries Institute, a seafood industry group, over concerns of unfair competition by companies using the illegal labeling method. But the Washington Post left that little nugget out.

Why?

Here we have an example of the seafood industry not just doing the right thing but spearheading the right thing and its left out of the story. I cant speak for the cheese, wine, honey or olive oil folks but I can say this– responsible members of the seafood community have stepped up to the plate with the Better Seafood Board and they deserve recognition for it and yes in the Washington Post, no less.

Time Magazine made a mistake when it put tuna on its Time.com top ten list of dangerous foods. Plain and simple it made a mistake. We pointed that out to editors and mangers and in two rounds of extensive corrections it tried to remedy the mistake. The piece went from a seafood scare story to three relatively accurate sentences that failed to live up to the hyperbole in the headline (oh and Time even changed the headline.)

Despite all the errors and all the changes Time refused to simply remove tuna from its list of dangerous foods. So, as promised we brought in legal counsel to make sure the venerable news magazine understands in no uncertain terms that it has officially been made aware of the facts about tuna and going forward any reporting that contradicts those facts will be considered a willful disregard for the truth and subject to legal action.

Its a rather sad day for Time when a lawyers letter has to alert the magazine to the fact that printing falsities or a reckless disregard for the truth constitutes “actual malice,” which moves a story from the newsroom to the courtroom.

Have a look at our letter concluding this matter:

Would it be a bridge too far to say trumped-up imported seafood scare stories are pass? I mean really, how many times can you hear an anchor say something is fishy and then toss to a reporter who cant point to a single case of someone getting sick from imported seafood but they can line up myriad quasi-experts with clear agendas to tell you how dangerous things are.

Well, theres an eons old local news story about imported fish thats getting some play on YouTube because some folks have been recirculating it on the web.

As misguided reports go this one ranks up there, have a look at ourYouTube take on WSB-TVs outdated seafood scare story thats found a second life on the internet.

Lets be honest. If you havent seen stories in the media recently about an increased interest in ferreting out seafood fraud youve been living under a rock. Busts for short-weighted fish, mislabeled species and tariff violations are up and just about every wanna be Woodward and Bernstein is reporting on it- the pescatarian perp walk is almost becoming common place.

Quite frankly its a welcome sign. But ending fraud will require more than a few stinging articles. It will require an effort from all partners involved – government writes the rules, industry follows the rules and customers avoid those who break the rules.

While it would be optimistic to think that relationships between suppliers and customers alone could end fraud with all in the supply chain demanding honest products, it is obvious that that will take a while to achieve. So actions by agencies will remain a critical piece of the puzzle.

As you walk the aisles of the International Boston Seafood Show be honest with yourself and those around you. And think about just how you will respond if someone offers to help you break the law.

Dr. Oz claims to be one of the biggest proponents of eating fish but time and time again when it comes to seafood science he comes close to getting it right or he just misses altogether.

After a recent syndicated column once again didnt quite get the story on seafood right we reached out to his syndicator who promised theyd pass our concerns right along to him.

We never heard back from Dr. Oz himself. Does it seem to you like our efforts to educate him are falling on deaf ears?

Glenn Mott

Managing Editor and Director of Publishing

King Features

300 West 57th Street 15th Floor

New York, NY 10019-5238

February 26, 2010

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Mott,

I am writing to call your attention to serious errors contained in a column authored by Drs. Michael Roizen and Mehmet Oz that was syndicated in the Chicago Sun-Times (Eat types of fish with less mercury, February 24, 2010) through King Features.

Drs. Roizen and Oz wrote: “But as you mention, mercury — which can affect the development of the brain and nervous system of a fetus (that’s why limits are placed on fish for pregnant women) and is toxic in large doses to adults, too — gives you some bad with the good. If you’re eating five or six fish meals a week, you may be getting too much of the bad thing that’s in that good thing.”

This assertion is incorrect and flies in the face of the latest nutritional science. Peer-reviewed medical evidence does not suggest that eating fish five or six times per week is unhealthy. The American Heart Association recommends people eat at least two servings a week and multiple decades-long studies of fish consumption in the Seychelles Islands found residents there ate up to 12 servings a week and suffered no ill effects.

Drs. Roizen and Oz also wrote: “The fish with the most mercury are king mackerel, shark and swordfish. Avoid these.” This is a distortion of an existing FDA advisory that cautions only pregnant women and young children to avoid these fish. Quite pointedly, this advisory does not apply to the general population. Furthermore, the FDA advice clearly states, for most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern.”

You also need to know that this article establishes a consistent pattern when it comes to Dr. Oz. On January 26, 2010, Dr. Oz aired a segment on fish and mercury on the “Dr. Oz Show,” that repeated a number of outright errors and distortions concerning the science of fish and nutrition, errors that we outlined in a letter to his producers as well as a video rebuttal that we posted on YouTube.

Please know that we take these issues seriously, and must insist that King Features correct these errors and re-issue an amended column that makes note of them. Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute