All posts by admin
Kiwis Take On The Times
I’m sure none of you missed the New York Time’s attempt at covering seafood last week, a hack job that took aim at New Zealand Hoki. But what you might have missed is the next chapter-you see, it used to be the case that the Times or other outlets would print a shoddy story about seafood, the seafood community would cry foul and then the Old Grey Lady would say, “well I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.” Damage done, basic journalism tenets violated and the story’s distortions remain on the record in perpetuity.
Times are changing and our friends in New Zealand know it. Not afraid to call the Times out forits misreporting the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council is demanding corrections and a review by the paper’s public editor. They’re cataloging their contacts with the Times and making a public letter available on their website.
That’s the kind of moxie the world wide seafood community should laud. For too long we’ve agreed to disagree; if writers are misreporting about our products and disparaging our community- speak up.
Back in January of 2008 NFI challenged the New York Times to get the story on mercury in fish right and not only did they have to run a correction the writer (now no longer with the Times) was publicly rebuked by the paper’s ombudsman.
Our New Zealand friends have a very good case against the Times who appears to have chosen sensationalism over facts and perspective once again. Hats off to the Kiwis for pursuing this one.
Perspective On Pollock
While biologists work on their assessment of the Alaska pollock stocks it is important to keep in mind a few facts. Since 1977 the U.S. has overseen Alaska pollock and made it a model of fisheries management for the world.
Despite ebbs and flows in the available biomass this fishery has remained the picture of responsibility. Here’s another picture to keep in mind when people suggest otherwise:
Alaska Pollock 1990-2009
When Did The Economist Become a Mouthpiece For Greenpeace?
Two weeks ago The Economist was taking unsubstantiated pot shots at seafood and ended up printing a letter from NFI after we exposed its shoddy reporting. This week it’s back on the watery warpath taking Greenpeace talking points as fact and disparaging safe, healthy, sustainable Alaska pollock.
What gives Economist? Since when did this venerable publication become a distortion filled eco-activist rag?
This time the reporter plainly ignored guidance from the At Sea Processors Association and evidently didn’t even attempt to talk to National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Fisheries Institute or the Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers (comprised of all of the major at-sea and shore-based producers of pollock products in Alaska.)
But she sure did speak to Greenpeace and what a fish tale they told her.
One time could be a lark… two times is a pattern… will there be a third?
Economist editors need to get their shop in order and decide that balanced, objective reporting is a tenet of journalism not an addition that’s merely nice to have.
Have a look at our letter to her editors below:
September 11, 2009
Emma Duncan
Deputy Editor
The Economist
25 St James’s Street
London SW1A 1HG
Via Email
Dear Ms. Duncan,
I was pleased with your response to my last correspondence and happy to see our Letter to the Editor printed in The Economist, however I am dismayed that I again find myself writing to you about your magazine’s fisheries related reporting.
Your September 10th article A tale of two fisheries suggests that The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has a “flawed understanding of the science involved” in managing the Alaska pollock fishery and is contributing to efforts that have lead it to, according to Greenpeace, “the verge of collapse.” This reporting is, once again, poorly sourced and erroneous.
Your reporter failed to contact The National Fisheries Institute or any of the leading Alaska pollock organizations for this article but did contact Greenpeace and simply reported its rhetoric as fact.
The real fact is Greenpeace in the United States has been and continues to attempt to raise funds by promoting a scare campaign in which it suggests Alaska pollock is on the verge of collapse. Alaska pollock is one of the world’s best managed fisheries and is quite simply not on the verge of collapse.
In October of 2008 NMFS assessment scientist Jim Ianelli explained to the publication IntraFish that the mid-water Pollock population was down but because of water temperature, not overfishing. What’s more, he explained, NMFS expected that once it assessed the groundfish population they would find the “missing fish,” it did. Please find this explanation below:
-
Because ocean temperatures were cold again for the third straight year, more pollock kept closer to the ocean floor than they normally would, he said, skewing the survey results. “The mid-water survey is effective down to a half-meter from the bottom, but for the assessment numbers that get presented, we only go down to three meters from the bottom,” said Ianelli. The groundfish survey surveys the bottom, and when those numbers are calculated, estimates were 92 percent of the biomass that was expected, he said. “We were so remarkably close to expectations,” said Ianelli. “That is about three million tons of fish on the bottom, so if you add those two together it’s roughly four million pounds, which is the number seen in both surveys.”
What’s more IntraFish asked the NMFS scientist point blank if there was any overfishing of Alaska pollock indicated by any of its research. His response?
-
“Not by any measure for this upcoming season.”
NMFS is on the record with detailed science that contradicts Greenpece’s vague rhetoric and, as you reported, the world renowned Marine Stewardship Council agrees with that assessment.
Two independent, science-based organizations vehemently disagree, on the record, with Greenpeace yet The Economist prints an article that is allowed to conclude that Alaska pollock is subject to “overfishing,” is on the verge of “collapse,” and those managing the stock have a “flawed understanding of the science involved”-all that based on Greenpeace rhetoric.
Greenpeace is wrong about Alaska pollock and The Economist is wrong for having once again allowed an agenda driven voice to spout its rhetoric unopposed.
The Economist Group touts itself as “the leading source of analysis on international business and world affairs” tied together by the “objectivity of our opinion.” In your most recent efforts, with respect to coverage of fisheries issues, your reporters seem to have forgotten the balance and objectivity part of The Economist mantra.
Thank you for your timely attention to this letter. We once again look forward to your response.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
cc John Micklethwait
Blog Posting From The Washington Post (Part II)
In case you missed it, this morning the foodies over at the Washington Post posted this blog about “Spanish mackerel” that missed the mark and we let the editors know exactly where it went wrong. Interestingly the writer wrote back and let us know that she needed to do some more research and would get back to us– interesting, perhaps that research should have been done before publishing. Response is below:
- Gavin,
I’m making some followup calls about this. Allow me a few days and we’ll get back to you.
Bonnie S. Benwick
Deputy Editor, Food SectionRead our daily blog:
www.washingtonpost.com/allwecaneat
Follow us on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/wapofood
Join our Facebook community:
www.facebook.com/wapofood
Blog Posting From The Washington Post
This morning the foodies over at the Washington Post posted this blog about “Spanish mackerel” that missed the mark. So we gave the editors a heads up. Have a look at our letter below:
September 9, 2009
Mr. Joe Yonan
Food Editor
Washington Post
Via Email
Dear Mr. Yonan,
I am writing to bring to your attention concerns about Bonnie Benwick’s writing on Spanish mackerel; About Mackerel.
It would appear from her reporting Ms. Benwick contacted an environmental activist group about Spanish mackerel’s mercury content and then based consumption guidance on their recommendations as opposed to reaching out to a qualified independent scientific or public health source. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would have been an optimal choice or, considering the targeted nature of the article, even The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Fish Watch program.
Had Ms. Benwick sought an appropriate source she would have avoided the error present in her reporting. Regardless of the Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) erroneous assertion that the fish she is writing about contains “high mercury levels” it does not. In fact the FDA’s publicly available research on Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish lists South Atlantic Spanish mackerel’s mercury concentration at a paltry 0.182 parts per million, nowhere near a level of concern.
The EDF often seeks to distort consumption advice and public health messaging in order to further its own environment health agenda. In this case it is plainly obvious that their distortions have infiltrated Ms. Benwick writing. Keep in mind she passes along EDF consumption advice to curtail mackerel consumption when she is writing about a low mercury fish, of which the largest on record weighs 13 pounds.
The only independent federal fish consumption advice concerning mercury and mackerel is aimed at Women who may become pregnant, women who are pregnant, women who are breast feeding and young children, that targeted advice relates only to King Mackerel, a giant fish weighing 100 pounds that is found at depths of up to 590 feet. To confuse the two and or homogenize consumption advice, as EDF apparently has, is a complete distortion.
Thank you for your timely attention to this letter. We look forward to your response and correction.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
cc Bonnie S. Benwick
Bankrupt Reporting From The Economist (Part II)
A little more than a week ago we told you, in excruciating detail, how badly The Economist had botched its reporting on the USGS report on mercury in non-commercial recreational fish. Well, this week it chose to print our letter as part of its journalistic mea culpa for doing such a hatchet job.
The Economist, like others, are learning that when it comes to reporting on seafood it’s easier to get it right the first time than it is to publicly wipe egg off your face.
PETA Hops On The Mercury Bandwagon
It’s time to add another activist group to the list of organizations that are trying to sensationalize People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
It shouldnt comes as a shock, in the wake of their efforts to ,”>here too) but its worth mentioning that PETA is distributing “>the USGS study without mentioning the distinction between sport- caught and store-bought fish; mix in some anecdotal but unproven claims about someone suffering from general symptoms that could be caused by any number of other ailments; and then add a dash of
2048– Lights, Camera, Distortion
For some time now, we’ve been keeping an eye on the alarmist anti-fishing documentary, The End of the Line (EOTL). British journalist Charles Clover, who wrote the book of the same name back that was published in 2006 is the man behind the curtain on this one. Released earlier this year, the film, narrated by former Cheers star turned Oceana activist (in his copious spare time) Ted Danson, has attracted scant attention and mixed reviews. One of the film’s central themes is that all the fish in the sea will be gone by 2048, a statistic thatas we all now know– has been debunked by the researcher who had originally made the claim. The researcher is Boris Worm of Dalhousie University. Back in 2006, he published a study that got a lot of attention where he claimed that the world’s oceans would run out of seafood by 2048. But along with that attention, Worm drew a lot of criticism from fisheries scientists and even environmentalists who thought his conclusions were alarmist and based more on ideology than facts. A little more than a month ago, Worm and 19 other researchers, including one of Worm’s toughest critics, Ray Hilborn, put out a far more optimistic assessment of the situation:
Two years after a study warned that overfishing could cause a collapse in the world’s seafood stocks by 2048, an update says the tide is turning, at least in some areas. “This paper shows that our oceans are not a lost cause,” said Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, lead author of both reports. “I’m somewhat more hopeful … than what we were seeing two years ago.” It’s personal as well as scientific. “I have actually given thought to whether I will be hosting a seafood party then,” Worm said, meaning 2048.
Apparently, news of the more optimistic view has yet to reach Mr. Clover, who continues to use the 2048 date in order to promote his film. The following is from an interview Clover gave to The Huffington Post:
LM: One of End of the Line’s most shocking claims was that if we continue fishing the way we do now, we would see the end of most seafood by 2048. How did conditions become so dire without prior media coverage?
CC: It’s been in the scientific publications. It’s been in Science and Nature. The reason is, it was told late. It was only told in 2001 that the world catches had peaked around 1989 and were going down because the Chinese had been overstating their data. The Chinese government overstated world fish catches, and there is a probability that they also overstated the farmed fish that they harvest. So the assumption that we should just progress seamlessly from wild fish to farmed fish is probably wrong. We probably need the oceans to produce our fish for the foreseeable future, and the reality of farmed fish in the west is that it’s produced from wild carnivorous fish. You haven’t closed the circles as far as a sustainable system is concerned if you’re still unsustainably harvesting small fish to feed farmed fish, and that’s what I find most disturbing. That five pounds of wild fish to make one pound of farmed fish conversion rate is a new figure and came out of one of the world’s top aquaculture expertsand it’s far worse than anybody thought. If it takes five pounds of Peruvian anchoveta to make one pound of farmed salmon it makes you wonder for a whole host of reasons, both developmentalare we taking away from poor people in the developing worldand also ecological and wasteful, of whether we should be eating these fish.
Shame on the interviewer at the HuffPo, Louise McCready, for not doing enough research and on Clover for playing along, when anyone with an ounce of fisheries knowledge knows that statistic is no longer worth the paper its written on.
Does Piven Want A Lawsuit?
It would appear that actor Jeremy Piven has fallen prey to one of the deadliest of Hollywood sins-believing his own press.
Last night Piven sat across from David Letterman and did his, now tired, song and dance about how he ended up with mercury poisoning from eating seafood-despite what the science says.
If we start from ground truth science and not what Piven or some contract-law arbitrator tells us, we find that Piven simply did not have mercury poising. There are no cases of people being diagnosed with mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of seafood.
Was he sick? Did he feel ill for one reason or another? Sure, I’ll bet he did, but did a fish diet knock him off Broadway? No.
Fish is an inherently healthful product and absurd suggestions like the following exchange with Letterman begs a question…
- Letterman, “So it was the consumption of a fish diet for 20 years that raised the mercury and that caused the Epstein Barr [virus] and that caused the arrhythmia?”
-
Piven, “Well, they are all contributing factors…”
…does Piven want a defamation lawsuit filed against him?
Eating fish did not give him Epstein Barr and the suggestion that it gave him heart problems is absurd. Perhaps his doctors, or better yet his lawyers, didn’t read the 2008 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that reported on evidence that fish and its omega-3 fatty acids should be considered more than just a healthy part of a diet, but among the most important treatments for coronary heart disease and sudden cardiac death. And then there’s the draft FDA report released earlier this year that concluded that fish consumption helps prevent 50,000 cases of heart attack and stroke per year in the U.S. alone.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I do know this; there are some basic legal requirements for establishing a claim of defamation. For starters the statements have to falsely impugn a product’s reputation. To prove actual malice you need to prove a defendant made statements with reckless disregard for whether they were false or not.
Likewise, courts have ruled that a defendant would be protected only if he were merely expressing an opinion. The distortion of facts in this case goes far beyond opinion. And finally there’s a little thing called the doctrine of “substantial truth.” This doctrine holds that a statement that is “substantially” true is not defamatory, even if it is not completely true-Piven’s continued insistence that he had “mercury poisoning” caused by the normal consumption of seafood is not “substantially,” “historically, or “medically” true.
Open Letter To Letterman
This evening actor Jeremy Piven is set to appear on The Late Show with David Letterman and there will no doubt be a laugh or two had about Piven’s claims of mercury poisoning and maybe even a mention of the victory handed him by an arbitrator in his contract dispute with Broadway producers.
But when all the chuckling is done there are still some serious questions Dave should consider asking Piven about his claims, here are a few of them:
- Are you aware that your claims would make you the only case of a person coming down with mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in this country ever?
- Why is it that people in Japan eat far more fish than you, yet don’t suffer from mysterious “mercury poisoning?”
- On Good Moring America you said your mercury levels were 6 times above average but on the same show a doctor said you would have to have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average to become “objectively ill”- You dodged the question then, do you feel like addressing it now?
- You told Dianne Sawyer you hadn’t had a piece of fish in “five months” just weeks after you bailed on your Broadway show, care to explain how you got mercury poising from eating fish when you apparently weren’t eating fish?
- You claim you were “diagnosed within the first week of rehearsal with Epstein-Barr (virus),” a virus that’s symptoms include “fatigue,”– one of your main complaints. Could that have played a role in your sudden departure from the play?
- You’ve insisted that sustained partying had nothing to do with your fatigue and subsequent exit from the play but the New York Post reports that you were a regular during the show’s run at a Lower East Side bar called the Eldridge. Case of repeated mistaken identity?