Since February of ’08 we’ve been warning U.S. grocery stores about the perils of engaging with Greenpeace (aka the 500 pound 5 year-old) on issues of sustainability. American stores have their own seafood sustainability plans and partners in place-they, quite frankly, don’t need an eco-bully to dictate how they handle their sourcing.

Case in point: Greenpeace has been harassing American stores again demanding they release details of their seafood sourcing policies and insisting they stop offering almost half of all commonly sold seafood. And they’re doing the same thing in Europe but, IntraFish reports today, as part of efforts to “initiate talks” with a Spanish grocery chain Greenpeace vandalized yet another store front. The chain had apparently rebuffed earlier contacts from the eco-extremists.

That’s quite a way to initiate a conversation-vandalism or “direct action” as Greenpeace calls it is the group’s way of throwing a proverbial temper tantrum.

• “Look at me, look at me-my absurd, scientifically unsound sustainability demands are being ignored by stores that see me for what I am; a rudderless, marginalized, eco-has-been trying to live off my once-proud history. Look at me, look at me.”

This is what Greenpeace does. It becomes frustrated and turns from activism to vandalism.

Sad really… I can only imagine what the group’s peace activist founders of the 70ies think of misguided, disjointed attacks on the seafood community that often contradict themselves-some of which have already been embarrassingly exposed as mere fundraising platforms.

Wait…

Shhhh…

Listen carefully and maybe you can hear it…

“Waaaa waaaa.”

Yup, somewhere Greenpeace is negotiating.

The good thing is Environmental Defense never lets facts get in the way of a good blog posting… or in this case an erroneous, misleading one.

Today’s sustainablog is riddled with errors including this one; “barely one-quarter of U.S. fisheries are known to be sustainably fished.”

What? Where did they get this number?

Perhaps they just made it up, because NOAA (the organization in charge of monitoring and managing those fisheries) reports that “the majority of our domestic assessed fish stocks are either not overfished (76%) or not subject to overfishing (83%).” But don’t believe me, take a look at the most recent status of the stocks report found here.

Sustainamisinformation then makes up its own definitions for terms that are clearly defined in the very report it cites; “the United Nations reports that 80 percent of the world’s fisheries are now either fully fished (i.e. incapable of providing more) or overexploited.”

What?

Here’s what the United Nations report says about “fully fished”– “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, you don’t have to believe me you can just turn to page 34 of the report and read it yourself.

Sustainaconfusedaboutmyownargument then writes “Aquaculture or fish farming can help meet additional seafood demand, if done right.” But keep in mind this is a blog post that is lauding the findings of a Canadian report that finds, “Fish farming is mainly a distraction in this context, since it is unlikely to resolve the problem.”

Environmental Defense (with an “s”) is usually pretty slick. It contradicts the Environmental Defence (with a “c”) every once in a while and makes for international confusion but it’s not usually this sloppy.

Reports are percolating today about an EPA study that found fish caught near wastewater treatment plants had residues of pharmaceuticals in them, including medicines used to treat high cholesterol, allergies, high blood pressure, bipolar disorder and depression.

REPORTERS TAKE NOTE- this story is not associated with commercial seafood in anyway. This is part of the EPA’s National Rivers and Stream Assessment.Generally speaking commercial seafood comes from the oceans. Headlines that suggest the fresh seafood available in your grocery store or in the canned tuna aisle are in anyway related to this study are erroneous.

No doubt– it’s a sexier story to suggest filets filled with pharmaceuticals are swimming across dinner plates from Miami to Minnesota but the fact is they are not… so don’t report that.

As an aside, the associated press has already taken the wind out of some sales– reporting “A person would have to eat hundreds of thousands of fish dinners to get even a single therapeutic dose.” That would be hundreds of thousands of fish dinners eaten by sportsmen who went fishing in streams near wastewater treatment plants.

What’s more, attempts to tie this story to mercury in seafood are also misguided. Mercury pollution does make its way to rivers and streams and into those “sport caught” fish I mentioned. But the trace amounts of methylmercury found in commercial seafood is naturally occurring. In fact for the second time in three years a California court made that abundantly clear just two weeks ago when it ruled in no uncertain terms that the evidence proved “methylmercury in tuna is naturally occurring.”

Don’t get caught up in hype and hyperbole, just stick to the facts.

You may have come across this recent article on something called Examiner.com, it’s a series of websites where people who “consider [themselves] an insider with insights and knowledge to share” write articles for the site with minimal editorial oversight. That’s how this 450 word advertisement for Safe Harbor Seafood made its way to the web.

The author, Reenita Malhotra, describes herself as an “Ayurvedic clinician” (defined as one who make their own medicines from herbs, perform therapy sessions using aromatherapy and meditation, perform gem and yoga therapy and offer advice on living a healthier lifestyle.) She’s written pieces on How to have a green Halloween and Beauty secrets for adding oil to your hair. Her Safe Harbor promotional piece is a poorly researched diatribe that begins with a misleading title and ends with an overt pitch for Safe Harbor’s product.

In the headline Malhotra suggests that “Mercury levels in fish are higher than you think”-but never once anywhere in her article does she quantify that claim. In fact according to available research mercury levels in commercial seafood have not risen in decades. (Barber, R.T., Vijayakumar, A., Cross, F.A. “Mercury Concentrations in Recent and Ninety-Year-Old Benthopelagic Fish.” Science 178 (1972): 636-639.)

In the third paragraph she exposes her failure to research the topic when she writes that, “power plants and auto-scrap facilities” are the source of “mercury pollution” found in seafood tested by Safe harbor. What she either doesn’t know or fails to report is that two weeks ago in her hometown of San Francisco a California court ruled for the second time in three years that “methylmercury in tuna is naturally occurring.” Tuna is of course the quintessential example of commercial seafood found in the ocean. No one is arguing that commercial seafood contains trace amounts of methylmercury but it doesn’t come from “power plants and auto-scrap facilities.”

She goes on to quote myriad questionable sources on mercury in seafood and repeats a claim about mercury “knocking IQ points” off of children when in fact scientific literature does not support a net harm to fetal brain development as a result of maternal consumption of commercial fish. Not to mention that cases of measurable net harm are reserved solely for catastrophic incidents such as industrial dumping in Japan in the 1950s and 60s.

This is a great example of how infomercials disguised as pseudo journalism promote half-truths and out right misinformation.

It is often claimed that Albert Einstein said”The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It’s also claimed he said”Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” It would appear Greenepeace’s persistent illusion of progress has become its own artificial reality.

Greenpeace’s initial retailer seafood sustainability rankings achieved nothing, its subsequent update was ignored and now, despite that embarrassing track record, it’s back preparing to rank stores again. Its efforts have gone from alarming corporate public relations blackmail, to a nuisance, to just plain sad. Time and time again retailers have made clear their partnerships and seafood sustainability efforts do not include Greenpeace. In fact many retailers simply ignore the group’s unreasonable demands and non science-based, often contradictory, guidelines. But still it persists with claims to have made deep inroads and to have influenced seafood sourcing practices based on a Greenpeace model. Greenpeace’s model of claiming credit for things it had no role in is the only model that has shown consistent results for the group.

Once again it’s harassing retailers, letting them know that it will once again be ranking stores as part of a revival of the misguided, twice-marginalized retailer rankings we are all so familiar with.

In the latest letter to stores Greenpeace insists retailers provide details, “about your sustainability efforts” so the group can “credit you for your advances.” Keep in mind this is the same organization that mailed a similar letter to grocery stores in 2008 and then announced that every single store had failed the test. So sure am I that stores will be lining up to get “credit” for their “advances.” Least we forget on December 9, 2008 Greenpeace released its updated retailer ranking and on the same day Greenpeace Campaigner John Hocevar sent out an email to supporters telling “friends” of the organization that”…we’ve decided to make YOU the industry’s worst nightmare,”-this is on the very same day that Greenpeace is touting its successful influence over the retail industry.

You’ve read it here before but I will write it again, Greenpeace is a marginalized eco-extremist group that has chosen confrontation over cooperation for decades. When it’s not busy taking credit for things it didn’t do it’s often getting in its own way or contradicting itself and we can surly look forward to more of that with this round of rankings.

A Newsweek blogger has taken exception with my math on a recent challenge we issued to KPIX TV. And you know what? She was right. I botched my conversion of micrograms per deciliter vs. micrograms per liter, a mistake that I readily admit and have corrected wherever it could be found earlier.

However, I disagree with Sharon Begley’s characterization of me as a “true artist” of distortion. I also find strange her near hysteria in suggesting that a misplaced decimal point was part of a plot to conceal the truth… when the truth is– with or with out the decimal– my point still stands as fact.

Despite Ms. Begley’s insistence that this is evidence of industry distortion, it does not change the fact that the real distortion comes from activists who refuse to acknowledge the 1,000 percent “uncertainly factor” created by the EPA itself. Kwon was still 41 points below the level that even approaches risk; she had no symptoms, no ill effects and the activist doctor in her piece even suggests that despite all the tuna she was eating she still wouldn’t even have exceeded that 58ppb level. I acknowledge my unintentional miscalculation and simply highlight the fact that it doesn’t change the problems I have with the story, whether it’s 58 or 580 Kwon’s levels were 17 — no reason to report that the sky is falling. Let’s see if KPIX acknowledges its errors as readily as I have mine.

Remember Kwon filed a report that essentially tells viewers they are in physical danger from eating tuna. Yet the concern of the Newsweek blog appears to be that NFI is somehow “attacking” journalists. Reporters make a point in public. NFI responds in public. How can that be construed as “intimidation?”

Ms. Begley hints at another critical point– many Americans do indeed curtail or eliminate fish altogether from their diet – but that is happening as a direct result of the “warnings” and “danger” that they see in the press. Yet independent doctors, dietitians and researchers agree that seafood provides essential nutrients — without which cognitive development is held back. In the various activist campaigns against food and beverages, that makes the assault on seafood distinct. If a person eliminates, say, pizza or soda from their diet, as many nutrition activists urge, there would be no negative health repercussions. But if you cause people to eliminate fish from their diet — by, say, scaring them into thinking it is loaded with “toxins” — you are causing a negative impact on public health.

The fact is we don’t challenge every report that mentions risk. But we do challenge reports like the front page story from the New York Times last year that overstated mercury concerns in fish and had to be corrected and then further rebuked by the Times own ombudsman-that is, before being discredited by multiple independent media critics.

Newsweek readers should be clear about what’s taking place in the public discourse on this issue: a whole host of activists are targeting seafood to advance their agenda. Yet the prevailing science continues to trump that agenda – In January the FDA released a draft report that outlines the fact that the benefits of seafood far outweigh the risks associated with trace amounts of mercury. Just this past Wednesday a California appeals court upheld an earlier ruling that said there is no reason for canned tuna to carry warning labels.

Contrast those sources with ones like actor Jeremy Piven whose claims about health effects are unproven and have been widely ridiculed – despite his infomercial doctor’s diagnosis. And Dr. Jane Hightower whose claims of anecdotal connections between eating fish and vague symptoms like headache, memory loss and fatigue have gone unproven even by her own research. And then there is the chorus of groups whose clear agenda is environmental health not human health who are suddenly experts on mercury.

Taken as a whole this points to a central problem with slanted reporting on seafood consumption- reporters are intentionally omitting the contrasting and prevailing view on the issue. Yes, there are a few doctors who have made mercury toxicity a cause clbre but there are many more who believe otherwise – just as there are many American families that are relying on seafood to enhance their diet and overall health. Why are none of those voices included in these scare stories? And yes NFI has every right to take part in this discussion too. It is enormously telling that some would take exception to NFI challenging a reporter. Are mainstream media writers and local news reporters the only arbiters of truth in this debate?

From a butcher you ask for meat. From a fishmonger you ask for seafood. From a reporter you ask for facts… is that too much to ask? Our latest letter:

March 12, 2009

Dan Rosenheim

News Director

KPIX-TV5

855 Battery St

San Francisco, CA 94111

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Rosenheim,

Sue Kwon’s March 11th package on the Proposition 65, mercury in canned tuna ruling, contained erroneous information that we have brought to your attention before both in letter form and as part of a YouTube video.

Please note that 44 seconds into her package she claims that her own tuna consumption experiment caused her mercury levels to rise to “levels known to cause reproductive harm.” This is demonstrably false. Kwon’s levels reached 17.2 micrograms per liter and the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed above 58 micrograms per liter the level of mercury in the blood that approaches risk(*gg).

Please correct this reporting immediately.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Ronald Longinotti

President and General Manager

Lisa White

Assistant News Director

*gg: An earlier reference to 580 micrograms per liter was in error, it should have read 58

Yesterday a California appeals court ruled that the mercury found in canned tuna doesn’t reach the standard for concern as defined by proposition 65 and therefore there is no need for warning signs on the product-as the Attorney General’s offices had argued (Note here: argued twice-this is the second time that courts have shot down the state’s argument.)

The judges wrote, “…substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that methylmercury in tuna is naturally occurring, thereby removing the Tuna Companies from the reach of Proposition 65.”

So, there you have it. A safe healthy American staple won’t carry an unnecessary warning label.

After more than three years of court wrangling and untold California tax dollars flushed down the drain you would think news outlets like KPIX in San Francisco would report the story and move on. But instead of just licking their wounds, they continue what amounts to advocacy against what are now two court verdicts.

In reporting on the decision reporter Sue Kwon claims erroneously that her own tuna consumption experiment caused her mercury levels to rise to “levels known to cause reproductive harm.” This is just flat out false. Kwon’s levels reached 17.2 micrograms per liter and the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed 58 micrograms per liter the level of mercury in the blood that approaches risk (*gg.)

What’s more the station published an “update” on the case on its website with the hours-old news that the State was considering appealing the ruling. Three years worth of legal fighting and two judgments later the possibility that the twice defeated attorney general might consider an appeal is considered the new lead of this story by KPIX-in order to avoid more expressive language I will say KPIX’s reporting has been disappointing.

*gg: An earlier reference to 580 micrograms per liter was in error, it should have read 58

The folks at KPIX have yet to respond to my missive from last week. So, I sent them another email just to make sure there isn’t a technical problem that I don’t know about. A technical snafu would be easier explained than management of a local TV station that happens to be owned and operated by the CBS network ignoring a viewer’s concerns about its reporting.

Still waiting.

March 10, 2009

Dan Rosenheim

News Director

KPIX-TV5

855 Battery St

San Francisco, CA 94111

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Rosenheim,

I am writing in an attempt to confirm receipt of my letter of concern dated March 6, 2009. I contacted you in order to draw your attention to issues found in reporter Sue Kwon’s march 5th package on mercury in canned tuna.

In case you did not receive my original letter please find a copy of it attached.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Ronald Longinotti

President and General Manager

Lisa White

Assistant News Director

Last week KTLA-TV produced a report on mercury in seafood that did include statements from NFI but still missed the mark on a number of journalistic issues, including the title which was rife with exaggeration; “Fish and Mercury: Recipe for Disaster“- Yum, I’d like an extra helping of hyperbole with my headline, please.

Granted the report was featured on KTLA’s Extras page along side such recognized journalistic feats as Martha Stewart’s Puppy Killed in Freak Kennel Explosion, Rapper ‘Coolio’ Busted at LAX for Drugs and of course Boy Gets His Head Stuck in Storm Drain.

While those headlines aren’t quite as important as say “Five Held in Plot to Bug Democratic Offices Here,” (Washington Post; Sunday, June 18, 1972) they are supposed to represent KTLA’s journalism standards and should at least be well research and accurate.

Here’s our letter to KTLA management:

March 10, 2009

Patrick O’Keefe

News Manager

KTLA-TV

Los Angeles

VIA Email

Dear Mr. O’Keefe,

I am writing to draw your attention to a number of errors in fact and violations of basic journalism tenets contained in your station’s March 5th report on mercury in commercial seafood. We were pleased that KTLA reached out to the National Fisheries Institute for inclusion in the report but must insist that the issues herein be addressed.

The title of the report found under KTLA Extras is “Fish and Mercury: Recipe for Disaster.” As you and your staff well know there is no “disaster” associated with this subject and certainly no “disaster” associated with any aspect of the report. This title is an obvious violation of the