It’s not hard to become enamored with Greenpeace if you don’t look below the surface. Save the whales, protect the forest, defend the earth-great goals. But what about distort the facts, destroy the property and misappropriate the science-not great tactics.

This week IntraFish lauded Greenpeace’s seafood sustainability efforts saying its “rooftop rally” approach was an effective tool for change. What it didn’t mention is that rooftop rallies are also known as trespassing and are often accompanied by vandalism. Unreported by IntraFish is the fact that Greenpeace signed an Accountability Charter that promises its agents will not be involved in “illegal or unethical practices.” Simply put you do not see responsible ENGO’s behaving this way. Change comes when dedicated parties sit down and find a path forward, not when one lobs threats while whining about being ignored.

IntraFish even suggests accusations that Greenpeace takes credit for things it didn’t do are off base because there are too many examples of retailers changing policies after having contact with Greenpeace. Perhaps a quick review of its own archive of articles would find the July 25, 2008 report where the senior seafood buyer for Stop & Shop and Giant is quoted as saying, “None of this is in reaction to the Greenpeace retailer rankings. These decisions were made as a result of the advice we received from the New England Aquarium.”

Greenpeace is full of contradictions and distortions and has been known to shop fictional tales of fish stock collapse in order to raise money. Greenpeace is not who many think they are and former leaders of the organization have abandoned proverbial ship because they say it has lost its way and doesn’t represent Greenpeace of the past. Unfortunately Greenpeace of the future appears to be content as a top notch fund raising machine and a bottom tier activist organization whose actions continue to marginalize it in the eyes of consumers and other ENGOs.

This week actor Jeremy Piven takes his “I got mercury poisoning from eating too much fish and had to bail out of your play” argument before an arbiter as the play’s producers seek money from the hard-partying star.

Apparently we haven’t heard the usual whining and distorting associated with this silly case because the New York Post reports “everybody’s under a gag order.”

But as they say silence can be deadly and if the Post is right “the producers… are launching a sharper, more aggressive assault” against Piven and his claims this time around.

Whatever happens watchers of the Great White Way say, “he won’t work on Broadway again.”

It was just yesterday that I sent the following letter to CNN International challenging its coverage of tuna.

June 9, 2009

Byron Harmon

Senior Executive Producer

CNN International

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Harmon,

I am writing to draw your attention to several issues regarding basic journalistic standards in reference to Arwa Damon’s report “Tuna Becoming Scarce.”

Ms. Damon’s package, which is currently posted on your website, is described in printed copy as a story that deals with “tuna sandwiches becoming a thing of the past.”

Ms. Damon’s report is about bluefin tuna. Bluefin tuna are not canned and are not used for “tuna sandwiches.” They are highly prized sushi grade tuna that can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a single fish. To suggest that her report deals with the canned and pouched variety of tuna that so many consumers are familiar with is an absolute distortion.

What’s more, throughout her report, time and time again, her lack of attention to detail results in yellowfin tuna b-roll married to track about bluefin tuna. Yellowfin and bluefin are not the same fish and have very different sustainability stories.

Any suggestion that these tuna stocks are visually interchangeable is as ignorant as suggesting it would be acceptable for a reporter to use b-roll of Japanese people in a story about Chinese people because they share some similar features.

We ask that you correct these errors by removing this package from your website while it is being reedited and the printed copy rewritten.

Thank you for your attention to journalistic accuracy.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Arwa Damon

Reporter

Well, today I got a call from not the Senior Executive Producer in charge of CNN International but CNN’s Editorial Director himself, Richard Griffiths. Griffiths took the time to go through the report with me and discuss the points I made in my letter as well as others.

While we didn’t see eye to eye on all issues he was dogged in his insistence that he wanted to present an accurate and journalistically sound story.

He insisted that the reference to tuna fish sandwiches would be removed immediately and that editorializing by the reporter would also be removed from the story.

The discussion we had was professional, courteous and centered on getting the story right. There were no defensive presuppositions about motive or interest, just an understanding that NFI is concerned about news outlets following their own basic journalism tenets.

Let’s face it the bluefin tuna has a sad story to tell but damning other tuna species along with it is unfair and inaccurate. Today CNN demonstrated it understands that and objective balance won the day.

I have written it so many times I must sound like a broken record. When explaining the way Oceana prefers to communicate I say it, “continues to operate in that gray area between skillfully under informing and blatantly misinforming.” And apparently that goes for its celebrity spokesperson, Ted Danson, too.

In a commentary today, after twice reminding readers he was on the show “Cheers,” Danson claims, “the U.N. reports that 75 percent of seafood species are maxed out or overexploited…” Not true.

While there are certainly some fisheries which need attention to ensure sustainability, the statistics Danson quotes are erroneous. 72 percent of stocks assessed by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report were under, moderately or fully exploited, 19 percent overexploited and 8 percent depleted. But don’t take my word for it or Danson’s-read it for your self on page 30 of the report.

When understanding the status of fish stocks it’s also important to understand the levels of exploitation and perhaps more importantly the definition of the term. The FAO report helps put it into perspective when it writes, “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.” Again, no need to take my word for it, just turn to page 34 of the report, it’s all right there.

In the past I have written that environmental activist groups like Oceana, “continue to operate in that gray area between skillfully under informing and blatantly misinforming.” It would appear that foodconsumer.org writer Sheilah Downey and editor Heather Kelley have taken a page from Oceana’s handbook of operational rhetoric in their article titled “Tuna Getting More Toxic.” The pair is ostensibly reporting on a new U.S. Geological Survey report about the amount of mercury found in Pacific Ocean water.

As is clear from their careful parsing throughout the article they have read the USGS report (unlike some of their brethren in the Fourth Estate.) They go to great lengths not to make huge and obviously erroneous statements about the levels of mercury in seafood, because the USGS report neither studied nor concluded that there was any rise in the mercury levels in fish-only that there was a rise in mercury levels in the water. Despite this they title their report “Tuna Getting More Toxic,” a clear violation of peer reviewed draft report on seafood consumption that finds net outcomes for brain/verbal development in children to be 99.9 percent modest benefit; 0.1 percent modest risk.

The article tells readers that larger species like tuna have higher mercury levels than smaller ones but fails to explain that a publicly available FDA data base shows those levels to be far lower than levels associated with any concern.

Fact- tuna’s not getting more toxic. Fact- the level of naturally occurring methylmercury found in tuna is safe. Fact- under informing by design is violation of journalism ethics.

So, today Greenpeace is firing up its well oiled PR machine and releasing yet another set of seafood sustainability retailer rankings, this time in Canada. Surely it will tell a recycled tale of woe and then– thank goodness– Greenpeace will be there to save the day, all the while honing its public relations extortion tactics.

But let’s not miss another little nugget out today as well. The Society of Toxicology, the Center for Health and Risk Communication and the Statistical Assessment Service are reporting the results of a new Harris poll of toxicologists.

The poll asked the scientistswhom the public should trust when it comes to information about possible health risks from exposures to chemicals? 96 percent of toxicologists believe that Greenpeace overstates chemical health risks. 96 percent.

More proof that public health messages from environmental health activists usually aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.

Sometimes silence is golden and other times it’s deafening.

While fashion blogs call Vogue’s seafood article “yellow journalism,” industry scribes explore the fashion mags missteps and main stream media works Vogue’s questionable editorial practices into its daily gabfests… Vogue remains silent.

And while we note its silence, we also note that other publications are getting the seafood science story right.

It’s pretty clear Vogue is used to covering the story and not being the story.

May 12, 2009
Ms. Abigail Walch
Vogue Magazine
VIA Email

Dear Ms. Walch:

An article published in the May issue [Mercury Rising, Bronwyn Garrity] contains several outright falsehoods along with irresponsible distortions that do a terrible disservice to readers and the public. We would like to ask for a formal correction along with an explanation for how this kind of reckless journalism could have gotten past the editors. Let me be specific:

• Garrity writes: “The avalanche of evidence about the dangers of mercury in seafood is undeniably scary.” Well, no, it isn’t. First of all, both the latest and consensus science – from parties such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), respected medical journals including The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and universities including Harvard University and the University or Rochester among others – all show unequivocally that benefits of seafood consumption far outweigh any potential risk of illness from mercury. What’s more, our organization, which is the leading authority on commercial seafood, would have sharply disputed Garrity’s error – but we were never contacted by her nor, apparently, did she seek even basic research from our website.
• Garrity further asserts: “Every new study links [mercury in seafood] to something I don’t want: joint pain, hearing and vision problems, memory loss, fertility problems, immune disorders, gum disease, gastrointestinal disorders, lowered IQ and developmental problems in children, and even heart attacks – the number one killer of American women.” That is false in several respects. The one “study” that links seafood consumption to adverse medical symptoms was published by a San Francisco doctor with a vested interest in that analysis, Jane Hightower. There exists no other peer-reviewed scientific or medical study that establishes a link between seafood and any of the maladies that Garrity cites. In fact, quite the opposite. The most recent and overwhelming volume of research shows that seafood consumption improves outcomes and preventative health for most of the physical conditions Garrity lists. So, not only is there no “avalanche” but in truth the medical literature is entirely contrary to what Garrity reports.
• Garrity’s piece purports to be an objective assessment and yet there is not one source that contests her (demonstrably false) thesis about harm from seafood. She cites the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data for recreational fish, for instance, but not the federal agency that actually oversees public health regulation and the safety of ocean fish — the FDA. That agency, FDA, has long advised Americans to eat two servings of fish per week – and said just last month it was concerned that the public isn’t eating enough seafood. Garrity cites agenda-driven activist groups like Oceana, National Resources Defense Council and Mercury Policy Project (without noting their financial or ideological motives) and yet ignores the many groups including ours that actively dispute the assumptions of those parties.
• Garrity’s suggestion that readers obtain blood testing is also baseless and medically unnecessary. That’s because there has never been a single diagnosed case of mercury toxicity in this country from fish consumption anywhere in the medical literature. Mercury is a naturally occurring element in the oceans (another fact Garrity omits) but the core issue is risk and harm – neither of which are substantiated in any of the material or references that Garrity cites.

To be even more candid, the article includes so much boilerplate material from those activist groups and references to unnamed “friends” that it appears to us that those activist groups probably encouraged Garrity (who herself has a history of ideological activism) to write the piece and pitch it to you in the first place. Is this in fact what occurred?

It is understandable and praiseworthy that Vogue Magazine would seek to broaden its editorial content to include important lifestyle and health issues affecting women. But this article makes a mockery of that effort and fails in almost every journalistic respect – on objectivity, balance, accuracy, and sourcing. Obviously, Garrity’s assertions are disparaging to our commercial enterprise but she has also misled readers and done a serious disservice to what should be a serious public health discussion.

Again, we would like to ask for an explanation for how this kind of irresponsible material (or “mid-dinner, Google-fueled freakout” as Garrity herself puts it) got past editors – and also for a formal, published correction on the errors cited above. Thank you in advance for your attention to the matter.

Sincerely,
Mary Anne Hansan
Vice President
National Fisheries Institute
703/752-8896

CC: Laurie Jones, Managing Editor

———————————–

May 14, 2009

Dear Ms. Hansan,

Thank you for your recent email regarding Vogue’s article Mercury Rising by Bronwyn Garrity (May, 2009). We believe the story provided readers with a valuable service by raising awareness about the significant benefits as well as the potential risks of consuming seafood. As it happens, I am a fish-eating vegetarian who regularly enjoys fish and shellfish several times a week and do so with an understanding of the pros and cons of my decision. We hope this piece, along with all of our health coverage, empowers readers with vital information and the necessary tools to make their own informed choices.

I hope you continue to read the magazine, and thank you for your interest.

Sincerely yours,

Abigail Walch

Abigail Walch, Senior Editor
VOGUE
4 Times Square, 12th floor
New York, NY 10036

——————————————

Mary 14, 2009

Dear Ms. Walch,

It is puzzling that you ignored the specifics in my letter which plainly show several errors and omissions in Garrity’s reporting. We are all ears if you have any doubt about those particulars but to disregard them altogether fails the most basic standards of responsible journalism. Whether you personally enjoy eating fish is not the point — the fact remains that Vogue readers have been badly misled about health assessment of seafood as a result of your article.

If Vogue is unwilling to publish corrections and clarification, we are obliged to take our case public about the flaws and misinformation in the magazine’s reporting. We will be sure to copy you when our press release goes out.

You are right that Vogue has an important voice in the coverage of women’s health, but this article makes a travesty of your efforts at serious journalism. The public health issues at stake are too important to let misinformation and agenda-driven reporting go unchallenged.

Sincerely,

Mary Anne Hansan

I’m sure by now that plenty of you are familiar with “>bestselling novel that was turned into an equally successful film starring Meryl Streep as a world famous and incredibly demanding fashion editor and Anne Hathaway as her harried personal assistant. It’s fairly well known that the character played by Streep is based on Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue. Normally this blog would be about as far away from Vogue and its concerns as possible, but this month the magazine contains an extensive feature on fish consumption. Now, normally we approach the sort of journalism done by a fashion or lifestyle magazine with more than a bit of trepidation, as in the past they’ve “>the one screenplay she’s sold has yet to be produced — may very well be the most alarmist, willfully unbalanced piece of “journalism” we’ve seen. In short, it would appear that while Ms. Wintour might be demanding when it comes to the performance of her personal assistants, she seems far less exacting when it comes to the journalism standards she demands of her magazine. The fact is Garritys article would actually be a pretty funny romp through unbridled scientifically contradicted paranoia if it werent such a miscarriage of journalistic justice. From the title on the article is filled with Fourth Estate malpractice. The headlines shouts mercury rising in bold print. Nowhere is there evidence that mercury levels in commercial seafood are rising, she offers no scientific peer reviewed examples to back this up but instead cites agenda-driven quasi science from environmental lobbyistshardly a high bar for sourcing.

Perhaps Garrity is unaware that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft report on the very topics she is writing about. And not just any draft report, the most in-depth, published, peer-reviewed assessment of science on the topic to date. Perhaps when crafting the Bill of Rights its authors would have chosen to ignore the Magna Carta?Garritys ignorance of the FDAs report or her choice to ignore it is staggeringly irresponsible. Aside from her own apparent lack of research, perhaps her myriad sources neglected to mention its existence to herany of the growing body of evidence that concludes that the real dietary risk from seafood is not eating enough of it would fly in the face of the presupposed conclusions they appear to have fed her.

So, rather than gather facts from research reviewed by doctors at institutions like the University of Washington, Harvard School of Public Health and Children’s Hospital and Research Center at Oakland she uses a 2008 Oceana/Mercury Policy Project report that saw volunteers collect things like tuna samples from grocery stores and sushi restaurants for mercury testing. She then notes how some of the fish exceeded the FDA average for mercury content. But what she doesnt tell you is that the average of the tuna samples both fresh and sushi in that very study were below the FDAs action level. She doesnt mention this but does note that the studys findings were horrifying and that that contradictory studies (perhaps ones that arepeer reviewed) that actually recommend fish consumption tipped her into paralysis. As mentioned at the top, a journalistically substandard article but humorous nonetheless.

Garritys smorgasbord of marginal sourcing continues throughout. She writes that its easy to find people with elevated blood levels of mercury– and how does she find this tantalizing nugget? She discovers it when she goes out with friends. But these elevated levels her friends have told her aboutdo they equate to any symptoms, any ill affects any detriment to the patient? Perhaps instead she should have consulted Dr. Gary Myers and read his report published in the Journal of Nutrition titled Nutrient and Methyl Mercury Exposure from Consuming Fisha 20 year study.

Or, I guess she could just rely on stuff her friends told her– yea lets do that.

Then theres her use of Kathryn Mahaffey, Ph.D. apparently an impressive source given that she was formerly the EPAs leading mercury scientist. Ah yes, but once again what Garrity doesnt tell her readers exposes the real agenda of her sources. Mahaffey isnt just a former EPA official she is currently an environmental activist for Oceanawhat? Thats right, in fact Mahaffey authored Oceanas comments on the FDAs draft report mentioned before, something perhaps she forgot to tell Garrity about.

Further along she cites another doctor who is described as one who is pushing for greater awareness of mercury in seafood, Jane Hightower. Another noted environmental campaigner who insists she is an independent voice with no activist agenda. However, in the preface of her own book she thanks the Mercury Policy Project, an organization developed by The Tides Center, which describes itself as a “nonprofit fiscal sponsor to forward-thinking activists and organizations.” What’s more, Hightowers been featured on Natural Resources Defense Council the website , “the nation’s most effective environmental action group.” She talks about the need to get the word out about mercury and how, “of course, we need NRDC and others to work with people in the field, and to take it to the masses.” No activist agenda?

Garrity knows enough to make sure to write about the benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids, but then leavened the rest of her article with disinformation directly culled from environmental activist talking points. Everywhere you look there are references from groups like Oceana, NRDC and Monterey Bay Aquarium, but nary a peep from health organizations like the “>American Diabetes Association, both of which have endorsed the proven health benefits of eating fish. While Garrity might think it’s fine to get your scientific or nutritional information from a lawyer with an environmental activist group or from friends, its perhaps safer to consult actual nutritional sources like the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, which included The Devil Does Journalism (Part II)

The Devil Does Journalism (Part III)

The Devil Does Journalism (Part IV)

Yesterday we took public exception with Greenwire about its reporting, or misreporting, on the USGS study about mercury pollution found in ocean water.

This is what they said on Friday May 1st “Study shows link between air pollution, contaminated seafood” this is what they say today Tuesday May 5th “Landmark USGS study opens new avenues for research.”

It took some prodding but gone is the quoting from misinformed sources, gone are the patently false claims that the study links mercury emissions to the contamination of tuna and other marine life in the North Pacific and gone are the clear violations of