On Saturday the New York Times editorialized on the issue of mercury emissions from America’s coal-fired power plants in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin a rulemaking that could result in reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90%.

At first blush a fairly innocuous topic that most readers support but the Times choose to once again toe the activist line when it comes to mercury and fish when it wrote: “Mercury is a toxin that has been found in increasingly high concentrations in fish and poses human health risks, including neurological disorders in children.”

Two problems here: first, it fails to make a distinction between fresh water fish and seafood. That’s important, as we’ve pointed out time and again, because fish from lakes and inland waterways are indeed affected by industrial emissions of mercury. However, as we’ve also pointed out, the vast majority of the trace amounts of mercury found in seafood is naturally-occurring and is the result of underwater volcanic activity. And despite what ever-vigilant Times-worshiping eco-extremists will tell you that isn’t just a line dreamt up by the seafood community, it’s also a contention that a California appeals court agreed with when it ruled earlier this year that tuna sold in the state didn’t need to carry a warning label.

Secondly, because the paper mentions how exposure to mercury can cause neurological disorders in children right after the reference to fish, it’s almost as if the editorial is designed to conflate one issue with another, even though there’s never been a documented case of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the U.S. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised considering the track record of errors the newspaper has piled up on this issue, but after a while, you’d think they’d bother to get the facts right, or at least not endeavor to confuse, rather than clarify the issueeven in an editorial.

Perhaps the Old Gray Ladys low omega-3 intake is affecting her memory.

Yesterday the New York Times, Tara Parker-Pope of the blog Well, linked to a piece on shopping for sustainable seafood over at True/Slant written by Seattle food writer Kim O’Donnel.

Before diving into some of the distortions we found, it is important to rember recommendations on sustainable seafood are often confusing and contradictory. What’s worse, many of the groups involved in writing and producing these guides consumers are inundated with fail to take into account all of the environmental, economic and social factors involved in determining whether or not the harvesting of certain species can be rated as sustainable.

Now, lets look at some specifics. As part of the section on species of fish she recommends, O’Donnel writes that small albacore tuna from the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia are a good choice. And indeed, the fisheries in this area are recognized as well managed. However, harvesting smaller albacore necessarily means harvesting younger albacore, which can have a negative effect on the future of the stock.

In the “don’t eat” category, O’Donnel tells her readers to avoid yellowfin, bluefin and big eye tuna. Lets start with bluefinis the Mediterranean stock in sad shape? You be it is. Such bad shape that NFI has joined in pressing for a moratorium on blue fin fishing in the Mediterranean. But readers ought to know that bluefin isn’t exactly a common site on most American dinner tables. It’s an expensive sushi delicacy, and the average American only eats about the weight of a few paper clips worth of bluefin per year. American palates are hardly the ones harvesting the last of the bluefin. In terms of yellowfin and bigeye much more context is needed than is provided by the broad brush she paints these stocks with. The latest statistics from the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, a group dedicated to tuna sustainability, shows that combined only 2 of eight yellowfin and bigeye stocks world wide are in an overfished state.

The blog also takes aim at imported farmed shrimp because, “environmental standards are inconsistent and unregulated.” Not so fast. Perhaps O’Donnel is unfamiliar with the Global Aquaculture Alliance, an international, non-profit dedicated to advancing environmentally and socially responsible aquaculture that certifies more than 200,000 metric tons of shrimp a year. Thats more than 200,000 metric tons of consistent and regulated.

Finally, if you really want an unbiased look at fish and sustainability, NFI suggests you spend a few minutes with FishWatch, produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Two things– #1 I like Slate.com, it’s usually fresh, illuminating and not afraid to call a spade a spade; qualities I tend to look for in a publication. #2 I am used to being left on the cutting room floor. My feelings are not hurt when a reporter doesn’t include me in a piece for which I served as a resource. It’s nothing personal, it’s just my job, it happens.

Having said that, I must take issue with a recent Slate posting about sustainable seafood. The Green Lantern blog was helping a reader pick sustainable seafood and called NFI for some guidance and explanation. Guidance The Lantern promptly ignored. After almost a half and hour on the phone and a thorough discussion about the fact that the top 10 most often consumed seafood species make up more than 90% of all the seafood eaten in this country and the array of sustainability organizations that watch over those ten species, the posting contained nary a mention of the sustainability efforts of the Global Aquaculture Alliance, The National Marine Fisheries Services or the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation. Nor did it offer any perspective on what Americans actually eat and how much.

What it did mention was Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Marine Stewardship Council before transitioning into a posting about carbon footprints.

The Lantern’s simple advice was, “the most straightforward thing you can do is avoid eating any species that has been consistently overfished.” The fact is, as I mentioned in our conversation, for the vast majority of Americans they are already doing that whether they know it or not. Again, 10 fish make up almost all of the seafood eaten in this country and those fish are not consistently overfished by any stretch of the imagination.

One more thing while I’m here. The blog quotes “a recent report from the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization” about how 52 percent of the world’s fish stocks, “were fully exploited, meaning that catch levels had either reached or were close to reaching their maximum sustainable limits.” That is true but on page 34 of that very same report the U.N. recognizes that the term “fully exploited” can be a little misleading and often needs some clarification writing, “It should be noted that the status of fully exploited is not undesirable provided it is the result of an effective and precautionary management approach.”

Theres more action over at John Stossel’s blog when it comes to our open letter to the mediaabout distortions found in reporting on seafood. In response to Stossel merely linking to the open letter and mentioning her flawed report on sushi tuna and mercury, Marion Burros left a message with a 20/20 producer claiming our open letter was filled with half truths and out-right falsehoods.

It is irresponsible — though not surprising — that Marion Burros would take an unsubstantiated swing at us like that. Indeed her own reporting on the issue, as we detail on our website, contained errors and omissions and we would urge readers to examine the particulars.

Also, an examination of Oceana’s study and Burros’ own study reveals the following facts:

• Both begin their research project in October 2007.
• Oceana visited stores and restaurants in 26 locations nationally.
• NYT visited 20 stores and restaurants in Manhattan.
• Both made specific targeted tuna orders and collected at least two fish samples at each location.
• The same store in Manhattan, Food Emporium, was visited by both.
• The same methodological analysis was used by both in laboratory settings.
• Both applied their findings against the FDA Action Level.
• Both announced their findings on the same day, Wednesday, January 23rd.

Perhaps Burros wants readers to believe that was all pure coincidence. In any event, her story resulted in a published correction by the Times. To read that correction, click here, and scroll to the bottom of the page. The paper’s public editor also penned a column criticizing Burros’ reporting for not being balanced. Even her own editor, James Gorman, was quoted in the Times itself saying, “I should have raised more questions aboutthe general presentation.” Prominent media critics like Jack Shafer and Arthur Allen also weighed in to publicly rebuke Burros’ work.

We look forward to her explaining these coincidences and her colleagues take on her reporting.

You’ll recall earlier this week that NFI issued an open letter to the news media that highlighted common errors and distortions in their coverage of the seafood community. Earlier today, John Stossel of ABC News’ 20/20 linked to the letter on his blog and had some interesting comments. Give it a look.

If you’ve ever poked around the internet in search of Sushi sites you may have come across http://www.sustainablesushi.net/ . Sounds innocuous enough-a sushi lover helping other sushi lovers chose their favorites wisely, right?

Wrong.

This site is basically a Greenpeace front whose latest post reeks of a failed Greenpeace fundraising campaign that sought to disparage Alaska pollock and raise money off of completely scientifically refuted claims that the fish stock was collapsing.

Despite claims that the author is “not a fan of direct confrontation” and frequent references to “Greenpeace activists” there’s no mention, even in the About The Author section of the site, that Casson Trenor is himself a Greenpeace activist, identified by the group as “Greenpeace’s Senior Markets Campaigner.”

The author is a campaigner who apparently has decided to work Greenpeace’s botched, distortion-filled, Alaska pollock-based fundraising campaign into his recommendations.

He can’t avoid the fact that other green groups like Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program calls Alaska pollock a “Best Choice” or that the fishery is MSC-certified, so he acknowledges that before dismissing it and concluding, with an ominous Greenpeace-tinged tone that things, “seem to suggest that all may not be well in pollock country.”

Rest assured all is well in pollock country– regardless of what SustainbleSushi.net, a new resident of distortionville, says.

Just in case you all did not notice we’ve added an open letter to Journalists. We’re hoping writers, reporters, producers and editors working on stories about seafood who come across custom-built, sound-bite science from activist organizations will pause before they buy their rhetoric unchallenged and do a little homework. Sites like Shaw’s Eco-Logic have already weighed in on the letter. Feel free to weigh in here or on your own site.

Greenpeace is out rankinggrocery storesagain but the fact is these contrivedrankings have become background noise during an important seafood sustainability discussion that has seen responsible ENGO’s move forward with initiatives that show real promise and progress. Despite insistence that “several stores have already begun to develop sustainable seafood procurement policies” it presents no evidence those efforts are as a direct result of Greenpeace’s continued attempts at public relations blackmail. These days claiming credit for things it has not accomplished is a hallmark of Greenpeace and stands in contrast to the effective and influential Greenpeace ofthe past. Dependable, conscientious grocery stores are actively engaged in sustainable sourcing work and are simply not answerable to Greenpeace. These rankings and the arbitrary nature of Greenpeace’s red lists have morphed into less of a discussion point and more of a distraction.

Today the Associated Press (AP) is reporting on a new study that claims “failed policies” have lead to “corruption” and “overfishing” the world over. For a venerable news agency it is an article that is packed with a surprising amount of hyperbole and maddeningly little research.

The AP story, like the study itself, simply ignores much of the conservation and oversight that is underway and paints with an embarrassingly broad brush, using statistics that are convenient to an apparently forgone conclusion while ignoring ones that contradict. Likewise, it plays a rhetorical game with readers by failing to define certain terms in order to exaggerate the conclusion of the study.

The first sentence states that “government polices have failed to combat overfishing in the world’s oceans.” Certainly some government policies have failed in this effort but all, everywhere? “The study found none of the countries managed their fisheries sustainability.” This line alone doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s a blanket statement that the AP failed to research or challenge in any way shape or form-journalistic negligence.

A cursory glance at the 2008 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Status of the stocks report would have shown on just the introductory page that “it is important to note that the majority of our domestic assessed fish stocks are either not subject to overfishing (84%) or not overfished (77%).” That’s a snap shot of management of U.S. “fisheries sustainability” in less that 28 words-the NOOA report itself is 28 pages. Failure to do this kind of basic research by the AP allows this study to present a skewed picture of fisheries management completely unchallenged.

The article then goes on to quote critics who suggest “we see fisheries declining due to poor regulation of fishing efforts in many developed countries including the European Union, the United States and Canada.” Are there certain stocks with certain issues and certain regulations that have been unsuccessful? Of course there are. But to suggest that for instance in U.S. and Canadian fisheries are broadly in decline is a simple distortion allowed voice by the AP. Again from NOAA, “Much progress has been made over the past several years in increasing the sustainability of our stocks. This progress is indicated by the Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI).” “Progress” or “decline” – you be the judge. But wait, you can’t be the judge because the AP does not tell you about the “progress” only the apparent “decline.”

The AP also plays a word game with its readers that plays nicely into the overstatements found throughout. Describing “fisheries stocks,” the article notes that the study claims, “52 percent are fully exploited.” The AP never defines the term “fully exploited” and ignores the definition contained in the very report from whence the statistics they cite presumably came from. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization’s Status of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Report explains the 52 percent number and then notes on pages 34-35 that “It should be noted that the status of fully exploited is not undesirable provided it is the result of an effective and precautionary management approach.” An explanation not conveyed by the AP article.

Later on the AP writes that “the tuna industry offers a textbook example of how often the economic interests of the industry trumps the recommendations of marine scientists when it comes to catch limits.” But while excoriating the tuna industry there is no mention of the international organization set up by a partnership of tuna canners and the WWF, the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF,) to address this very issue. There is no mention of ISSF’s “global partnership dedicated to using science to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of tuna.” Instead it is held out as a “textbook example” of sustainability problems. And which fish dose the AP choose as the poster child of these economic interests run amuck?

The bluefin.

Of course, the tried and true fish stock that everyone knows is in terrible shape because of mismanagement and greed. A stock that the board brush of the AP’s reporting doesn’t mention makes up about 1 percent of the tuna caught world wide. That’s the same broad brush that fails to mention that 88 percent of tuna stocks world wide are not overfished.

In this story the AP takes an important issue and rather than using objectivity and balance to shepherd its writing it uses Henny-penny’s editorial guide.

Jeremy Piven, is back in the headlines this morning thanks to a piece in People where he tells correspondent Nicholas White that he’s been “fish-free’ for 10 months now. You’ll recall that at the end of last year that Piven abruptly pulled out of a Broadway production of Speed the Plow after complaining that he was suffering from a variety of maladies brought on by mercury poisoning that was caused by a diet that included too much fish. After months worth of public ridicule for his ludicrous excuse to play hooky, you’d figure that Piven might have had enough, but there are just some people who insist they need to keep on digging even after they’ve hit the bottom. Sticking his head above water at a party celebrating the Lakers NBA championship, Piven went back to his fish-bashing ways:

Piven blamed his fatigue on his then-six times the normal blood-level of mercury.

Once again, even if Piven’s blood-level of mercury had been six times greater than normal, he’d still be below the minimum amount of concern as the EPA reference dose has a built-in safety factor of 10.

“By the way, for the record, it’s the not the fish’s fault,” Piven says. “It’s a man-made problem. It’s all the mercury being dumped. Women shouldn’t eat tuna, especially when you’re pregnant.”

Wrong again, as Piven falls for a common activist applause line. The vast majority of the trace amounts of methylmercury found in seafood is attributable to natural causes, not pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities. Further, tuna is not one of the four fish the FDA recommends women who are or may become pregnant, nursing moms, and young children avoid. The FDA guidance recommends pregnant women avoid only four species during pregnancy: shark, swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel. As it stands today, pregnant women are eating less than 2 ounces of seafood weekly versus the 12 ounces recommended for optimum fetal brain and eye development. Research shows missing out on omega-3s and other nutrients in fish is a bigger risk to brain development than trace amounts of mercury, so Piven’s advice is actually harming, not helping, women and their unborn children. Not that Piven really cares, as the only thing he really seems to be concerned about is salvaging his flagging reputation.