A piece of seafood news out of Japan has been attracting plenty of attention these, I’m talking about a giant bluefin tuna that was auctionedearlier this week for the astounding price of $177,000 or 16.3 million yen. And as you might expect, that number shot around the world in a matter of minutes once it hit the news wires, appearing in hundreds of news outlets including the Huffington Post.

Lets be clear Mediterranean bluefin tuna has an abysmal sustainability story, its been over fished and the measures in place to protect it have, quite frankly, failedweve signed on to call for a moratorium on bluefin fishing in the Mediterranean. But what really caught my eye about the story in the Huffington Post was some of the comments that followed, like this one:

“Yum. A concentrated mercury treat. They don’t test them for mercury content before they eat them. Tuna have the highest concentration of mercury of any fish. You’d think the Japanese might care, after the huge mercury poisoning of citizens in Minamata, Japan.”

I can’t say I’m shocked to find disinformation like this in a comment string but it does point out just how much of a stranglehold activist distortions have on some segments of the public. For starters tuna does not have the highest concentration of mercury of any fish, that’s just not true plain and simple. And the levels it does have don’t reach a level of concern. Furthermore, it’s hard not to be disgusted to see activists continue to leverage the suffering of the people at Minamata, who were the victims of a horrible industrial disaster, and get away with comparing it with the trace amounts of mercury contained in all types of seafood. The people of Minamata didn’t get sick from eating high priced sushi at fancy restaurants, they got sick because industrial waste from a greedy chemical corporation was dumped in their community.

For starters, who is Michael Byrd and what is he talking about?

Well, according to his column in the American Chronicle he’s a former physical therapist who doles out nutrition advice that is apparently not well researched and not vetted by a dietitian.

Yesterday Byrd took aim at “Myths You Must Know About Tuna” and claimed that, “in order to get the appropriate amount of omega that you would need to get dramatic cardiovascular results and memory enhancement, you would have to eat pounds of tuna every day.” He gives no scientific citation for this claim, but here are a couple to refute it:

Archives of Neurology – Participants who consume fish once per week or more have 60 percent less risk of Alzheimer’s disease compared with those who rarely or never eat fish.

The Lancet – Mothers who ate 12 ounces (2-3 servings) of fish per week or more had babies with the best brain development and social skills.

Byrd goes on to suggest that “it is far easier and far healthier to simply take an omega-3 fish oil supplement each day rather than try to eat the massive amounts of tuna necessary to get omega 3 benefits.”

Again, no studies to back this up. In fact the pill approach is at odds with the recommendations of the American Dietetic Association’s “food first” position, which states:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that the best nutrition-based strategy for promoting optimal health and reducing the risk of chronic disease is to wisely choose a wide variety of nutrient-rich foods.”

Furthermore, Tufts Nutrition recently concluded that “at this time data does not support fish oil capsules as an equivalent substitute for fish” (page 10).

To suggest that it is healthier for people to take a supplement rather than eat high protein, high omega-3, lean tuna that is rich in vitamin D, B, and selenium is inconsistent with nutrition science and quite frankly rather reckless.

Sure-have the cheese burger and fries instead of a tuna sandwich… as long as you take a handful of fish oil supplements you’ll be fine!

He then addresses the issue of seafood during pregnancy by writing, “you’re probably aware that women are discouraged from eating tuna while they are pregnant because the mercury and other contaminants legally allowed to be in the fish can harm the baby.”

Um, maybe this is “common knowledge” in the physical therapist community, but the official guidance on eating fish from the FDA and EPA says in black and white that pregnant women and young children should aim for 12 ounces of a variety of fish a week, of which as much as 6 ounces can be canned albacore tuna. And as much as you want can be canned light tuna. The advice notes, “a well-balanced diet that includes a variety of fish and shellfish can contribute to heart health and children’s proper growth and development. So, women and young children in particular should include fish or shellfish in their diets due to the many nutritional benefits.”

Reporters mark your calendars. Tomorrow (Tuesday, January 5th) the EPA will release The National Lakes Assessment a report billed as “the first-ever assessment of the condition of the nation’s lakes.”

It is set to report that nearly 60% the nation’s lakes “support healthy biological communities.”

It is not set to report on anything that has to do with commercial seafood.

Why am I pointing this out, you ask? Well, the last time there were reports that merely mentioned water, fish and mercury the Fourth Estate thoroughly embarrassed itself by conflating the three, erroneously adding commercial seafood to the mix and misreporting the stories entirely.

You’ll remember the misguided muckraking on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report about mercury found in recreational fish from rivers and streams that somehow managed to mentioned commercial seafood and even sushi. And then there was the USGS report about mercury levels in the waters of the North Pacific that wannabe Woodward’s apparently didn’t check with Bernstein about before reporting mercury levels in fish were on the rise-oops USGS didn’t test the fish, only the water (time to fire up ye ole correction machine.)

Commercial seafood in the United States is not harvested from small local lakes. By in large it comes from the ocean and aquaculture. To be absolutely clear; the seafood you buy at the grocery store or order in a restaurant does not come from the shores of the lake at your local YMCA camp.

There were a load of fishy stories this year–

Like the story former New York Times reporter Marion Burros told… or didn’t tell. When NFI posted an open letter to journalists and John Stossel reported on it, Burros lashed out about our characterization of her work. Burros claimed our open letter was “filled with half truths and out-right falsehoods” and insisted she would right the record with her version. We never heard another peep from Burros about our letter or Stossel’s reporting on it-fishy if I don’t say so myself.

Number two on the list has to be the reporting that surrounded the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) most dangerous foods list. Only a few reporters noticed that things were amiss right off the bat when CSPI insisted tuna was the third most risky food to eat, when by its own calculations eight other foods on the list caused more illnesses. Hmm, that is a little fishy. But wait there’s more, only a select few noticed that at least three foods that are featured on CSPI’s Super Foods list also show up on its Riskiest Foods list-woops.

How about the fever stirred up by the U.S. Geological Survey when it released a report about an apparent increase in mercury levels in the North Pacific? Activist journalists and news release re-writers far and wide got in line to misreport this one. Headlines like Tuna Getting More Toxic heralded the report’s findings-the problem is that’s not what the report found. In fact it found nothing at all about fish. The USGS didn’t even test fish, just water. Rewrites and corrections ruled the day after that fishy little doozie.

One of my favorites actually comes from the tell-us-something-we-didn’t-know file but it still makes the top five. Greenpeace’s out-going executive director sat for a BBC interview and left a little nugget of a legacy behind by admitting that Greenpeace lies or “emotionalizes issues” as a matter of strategy. After explaining that Greenpeace’s claims of an ice-free Arctic by 2030 had “been a mistake.” He went on to say that “as a pressure group [Greenpeace has] to emotionalize issues and we’re not ashamed of emotionalizing issues.” To that I say, thank you. Thank you for explaining just how it is that you as an organization justify lying and distorting-it sounds a lot less fishy when it’s called emotionalizing.

By far the fishiest story of the year came to us from actor Jeremy Piven who claimed he had to drop out of a Broadway play because his over indulgence in sushi had led to a case of mercury poisoning. Little did he know his claims would make him the first person in this country ever diagnosed with mercury poisoning as a result of the normal consumption of seafood-oops (should’ a just said he had a migraine.) But he didn’t stop there because months after landing that whopper he said he had grown male breasts from drinking too much soy milk. Stay tuned to find out which extraordinary food-related malady Mr. Piven will thrill us with in 2010.

The master manipulators at Greenpeace have been unfurling banners and vandalizing property for years in the name of raising their profile in the media and raising funds from their supporters.

But in Copenhagen this week a group called CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow) turned the tables on Greenpeace, unfurling banners on the group’s Rainbow Warrior ship, renaming it the Propaganda Warrior, while rebranding Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise vessel the Ship of Lies.

While it is impossible to endorse the very trespassing that Greenpeace does (in violation of an international accountability charterthey signed) just because it’s perpetrated against them, it will be interesting to see what kind of adolescent whining we hear after the bully has been bullied.

This morning the CBS Early Show did a short segment with Dr. Jennifer Ashton that mentioned seafood and eating fish while pregnant. While Ashton came pretty close to getting the FDA advice on seafood consumption basically right, she did something that Doctors often do– lump “tuna” in with higher mercury fish like Shark and Tile Fish. She said:

• “…things like Tuna or Shark or Tile Fish can contain mercury. So if you’re talking about foods that have high levels of mercury in them you want to limit them to 6 to 12 ounces a week.”

The federal advice, which these days is more and more being viewed by researchers and dietitians as out of date and out of step with the latest research, says women should avoid “Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury.” While they should strive to eat “up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury,” it goes on to note that “five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish.” It even notes that pregnant woman can eat “up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.”

Suggesting that tuna, with an average mercury level of 0.353 ppm (canned albacore) and 0.118 ppm (canned light), has “high levels of mercury” and lumping it in with Shark (0.988 ppm) or Tile Fish (1.450 ppm) is a mistake that’s made all too often.

Over the past few days, we’ve been seeing sporadic reports about a study that was published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that measured the amount of mercury found in the bodies of most Americans.

The report, part of the larger, “Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,” concluded that there are measurable amounts of mercury in most Americans. According to Medical News Today, one of the few outlets to report the findings, the CDC found the following:

Most of the participants had a measureable amount of mercury in their bodies.

Both blood and urine mercury levels tended to increase with age.

All blood mercury levels were less than 33 g/L.

Blood and urine mercury in the US population were similar to levels seen in other developed countries.

Later, the report also says: “Finding a measurable amount of mercury in blood or urine does not mean that levels of mercury cause an adverse health effect.”

But Medical News Today also mentions that high levels of mercury can be harmful to brain development and heart health.

So what’s the real story?

Jennifer McGuire, NFI’s in-house dietitian, took a look at the report and came away less than impressed. First of all, Jennifer took pains to remind me that this report is about mercury in a vacuum. Not about the health effects of eating fish. She also told me that the levels found are far lower than what we believe can cause any deleterious effect. Jennifer said, “One of the only studies about what happens when you eat seafood that the CDC reflected upon is Faroes, which we know, is a study based on the consumption of whale meat [not fish]. The connection between mercury and heart disease is unresolved, while the connection between fish and prevention of heart disease is among the most strongly supported. Part of me is troubled that a more thorough and up-to-date review of the current seafood science wasnt included in this report. And part of me is glad because it further proves that this report isnt about seafood or nutrition science. Its about mercury and other toxic substances. Again, NOTHING new in here about how eating fish effects health, good, bad, or otherwise.”

Thanks to Jennifer for helping to sort this one out.

In the past, we’ve seen studies like these distorted by activist groups, and we expect that will be the case this time as well. Watch this space for updates.

Just a quick note for you all this morning. For starters if you are not familiar with Arthur Allen let’s make one thing clear right off the bat-he is no hack. He has a track record of being fair and getting both sides and siding with ground truth science in his journalistic deliberations.

He’s got a piece on food safety in today’s Washington Post that is actually a lot about food handling but he strays down the scary dirty water in aquaculture path but concludes by noting that “no major food poisonings have been associated with imported fish.”

That’s 10 words to say there’s no evidence of threat from foreign fish in a 2000 word article filled with a fair bit of gloom.

Let’s start from the beginning. Vietnam represents an important market for U.S. soybeans. U.S. soybean and soybean meal exports to Vietnam totaled nearly $100 million in 2008 and are on the rise. U.S. exports of soybean meal climbed from just 17,469 metric tons in 2004 to almost 115,000 metric tons in 2008, a 558% increase.

Much of this soybean meal is sold to Vietnamese fish farmers who use it to feed their pangasius fish. Similarly, U.S. soybean exports rose from just 380 metric tons in 2004 to over 95,000 metric tons in 2008, representing a massive 25,000% gain in U.S. soybean exports.

If the special interest lobbyists for the U.S. catfish industry have their way the pangasius fish will be barred from the U.S. and Illinois’ soy can kiss that lucrative Vietnamese market goodbye.

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 beaurocratic and regulatory roadblocks that will keep it out of this country. It’s a move that benefits the bottom feeding lobbyists for the U.S. catfish industry but hurts Illinois farmers.

For starters Illinois misses out on an already lucrative soy market and would be excluded from the benefits of feeding Vietnam’s fast-growing industry. Not to mention becoming collateral damage in a potential trade war started by the catfish folks who sit back and enjoy the benefits of their competition being barred while Illinois farmers feel the pain.

The irony is, even the Agriculture Department itself recognizes how important Vietnam is to U.S. agricultural commerce. This is how the USDA categorizes trade with Vietnam; “U.S. agricultural exports to Vietnam rose to $623.3 million in 2007, an increase of 110 percent; and in 2008 our agricultural exports to Vietnam broke the $1 billion mark, increasing 68 percent over the previous year. Vietnam has become a significant market for U.S. agricultural products and among the top markets for some commodities.”

A “top market” that according to a letter from the Vietnamese Ambassador to members of Congress, fears this fish fight could, “significantly impact bilateral relations” and call into question U.S. trade commitments.

It doesn’t take much to connect the dots: Vietnamese fish excluded from U.S. markets- U.S. soy excluded from Vietnamese markets. Catfish lobbyists win, Illinois soy farmers lose.

Bottom feeding at its worst.

Senator Durbin has been a leader in food safety and is helping FDA rebuild its reputation. Let’s not undercut this important work.

Let’s start from the beginning. Vietnam represents an important market for U.S. soybeans. U.S. soybean and soybean meal exports to Vietnam totaled nearly $100 million in 2008 and are on the rise. U.S. exports of soybean meal climbed from just 17,469 metric tons in 2004 to almost 115,000 metric tons in 2008, a 558% increase.

Much of this soybean meal is sold to Vietnamese fish farmers who use it to feed their pangasius fish. Similarly, U.S. soybean exports rose from just 380 metric tons in 2004 to over 95,000 metric tons in 2008, representing a massive 25,000% gain in U.S. soybean exports.

If the special interest lobbyists for the U.S. catfish industry have their way the pangasius fish will be barred from the U.S. and Iowa’s soy can kiss that lucrative Vietnamese market goodbye.

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 the bottom feeding lobbyists for the U.S. catfish industry but hurts Iowa’s farmers.

For starters Iowa misses out on an already lucrative soy market and would be excluded from the benefits of feeding Vietnam’s fast-growing industry. Not to mention becoming collateral damage in a potential trade war started by the catfish folks who sit back and enjoy the benefits of their competition being barred while Iowa farmers feel the pain.

The irony is, even the Agriculture Department itself recognizes how important Vietnam is to U.S. agricultural commerce. This is how the USDA categorizes trade with Vietnam; “U.S. agricultural exports to Vietnam rose to $623.3 million in 2007, an increase of 110 percent; and in 2008 our agricultural exports to Vietnam broke the $1 billion mark, increasing 68 percent over the previous year. Vietnam has become a significant market for U.S. agricultural products and among the top markets for some commodities.”

A “top market” that according to a letter from the Vietnamese Ambassador to members of Congress, fears this fish fight could, “significantly impact bilateral relations” and call into question U.S. trade commitments.

It doesn’t take much to connect the dots: Vietnamese fish excluded from U.S. markets- U.S. soy excluded from Vietnamese markets. Catfish lobbyists win, Iowa’s soy farmers lose.

Bottom feeding at its worst.

Let Senators Harkin and Grassley know that disruption in fish imports means disruption in soy exports.