The Associated Press’ Nairobi, Kenya Bureau Chief has gotten back to us regarding the problems we highlighted in its reporting on the U.N.’s gathering of environmental ministers in Kenya. It would appear that the AP now understands that “interested parties may be targeting tuna.” What’s more the press syndicate finds the “potential for follow-up stories” on this issue.

Here’s the AP’s letter:

Dear Mr. Gibbons,

Thank you for your letter regarding our coverage of a U.N. gathering of environment ministers in Kenya.

We appreciate your concerns and take your point that interested parties may be targeting tuna and that other fish also have mercury. Tuna is widely cited in this context, probably as a result of its popularity compared to the other varieties of fish (including ones that mighthave higher mercury levels). We note that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself advises expectant mothers to limit weekly consumption to six ounces of albacore tuna or 12 ounces of “light” tuna. The mercury levels in less popular fish – such as shark and swordfish – are perhaps worth exploring.

It is true that much of the mercury is naturally occurring, as you state, although proportion estimates vary. Indeed, the second sentence of our Feb. 16 story states that while 6,000 tons of mercury enter the environment each year, only a third is generated by power stations and coal fires.

The California case is now in the appeal process, which we believe justifies our characterization that the legal battle continues.

Space concerns often limit the amount of background that goes into stories. We do our best to ensure that critical information is always in the copy but inevitably do not always succeed in satisfying all sides.

We see the potential for follow-up stories on this subject and will be sure to contact you for your perspective.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Kennedy

Associated Press

Nairobi, Kenya

Bureau Chief

Cc: Dan Perry, Europe-Africa Editor, London

John Daniszewski, Sr. Managing Editor, New York

KPIX in San Francisco has produced another mercury in fish scare story. Here’s our YouTube rebuttal video and below you’ll find our letter to KPIX management about our concerns with the report:

March 6, 2009

Dan Rosenheim

News Director

KPIX-TV5

855 Battery St

San Francisco, CA 94111

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Rosenheim,

I am writing to express concern about last night’s report on the health effects of canned tuna. While your reporter Sue Kwon did touch on the clear and demonstrable health benefits of eating canned tuna, there are important problems with certain scientific claims, characterizations of the seafood industry and sourcing in her report. You can find a complete catalogue of these issues in this YouTube video.

Kwon relies on Dr. Jane Hightower as the only medical and scientific voice in her story. Hightower is not merely “a physician,” but an anti-seafood activist who press reports say has “made something of a cottage industry” out of blaming peoples’ health problems on eating fish. She is currently promoting her book about mercury conspiracy theories. She is not an independent clinician but an individual with a vested and financial interest in convincing people that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between the consumption of commercial seafood and health concerns. There are myriad independent doctors and researchers at places like Harvard, Princeton and Tufts Universities who disagree with Hightower and her anecdotal musings.

Throughout Kwon’s story, Hightower is lauded as an expert in the field but it would appear that the state of California disagrees. In the court case Kwon is reporting on, argued in Hightower’s own home city of San Francisco, the Attorney General did not call her as a witness or use any of her “research” in trying the case. Hightower highlights a possible reason for this in her own book, where she acknowledges her colleagues’ skepticism about her work with one suggesting, “there isn’t much here, and there is not enough cause-and-effect data that is significant” (p 39). Kwon’s continued use of Hightower as an independent expert is troubling and can not be dismissed based simply on Kwon’s mention that Hightower is a “fishing industry critic.”

Kwon produces a clear distortion of the facts when she and Hightower join together in pointing out that a National Fisheries Institute (NFI) website notes that “canned tuna is healthy’ for pregnant women and they can safely eat 6-ounces or a little over a can per week.” The site does in fact state this, but that is not unique advice from NFI-this is merely communication of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advice. To suggest that NFI is out of step with the most up to date science in passing the government’s own recommendation along is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Kwon says her experiment, “illustrates that even at levels below the federal limit, mercury accumulates in the body.” With regard to the current state of science on this matter, this finding is an absolutely moot point. No one in the medical or scientific community is challenging the fact that if you eat food containing trace amounts of mercury your blood levels will go up. There is simply no argument there. The question is whether there are any adverse effects. And what published science shows is that higher blood mercury among moms may actually be a marker of optimal brain development in babies, because it indicates regular seafood consumption. Kwon notes that, “the canned tuna industry said there are no scientific studies proving a link between mercury levels in fish and specific health effects.” But she fails to mention that Hightower’s own published study does not conclude that eating fish containing mercury causes the symptoms she alleges. Again, this is something Hightower herself discuss in her book, recalling a conversation in which she remembers a colleague saying “just stick to the numbers” because “we know people have symptoms, but this [cause and effect] was harder to prove” (p 84.) For your review, she is highlighting the fact that her own survey does not succeed in linking elevated mercury levels to the symptoms she claims they cause. Her survey merely concludes that eating fish that contain trace amounts of mercury can elevate a patient’s mercury levels.

Hightower is allowed to state in the package, unchallenged by Kwon, that, “in a woman’s body she reaches a 14 or 15 she stands a chance of knocking IQ points off her child’s brain.” The latest FDA report on this very issue, announced in the Federal Register on January 21st, concludes babies born to mothers who eat seafood during pregnancy have an “average improvement” in IQ over mothers who eat no fish. Furthermore, The Environmental Protection Agency has deemed 58 micrograms per liter as the level of mercury that approaches risk, not 14 or 15 (*gg.)

Just as I would likely be identified as an industry spokesman and our lawyer was identified as an industry lawyer, Hightower should be identified as what she is and her claims should be treated with skepticism. Her concern about blood mercury levels of 17.2 micrograms per liter stands in stark contrast with the recognized EPA Reference Dose (RfD) of 5.8 micrograms per liter, with the EPA’sten fold safety factor included that number becomes58 (*gg.) Suggesting that a can of tuna a day results in dangerous levels of blood mercury has the potential to scare Americans away from a nutritious food that all major health authorities encourage.

Throughout this letter I have provided you with links to independent science-based sourcing that stands in contrast to Hightower’s claims, including, most importantly, the afore-mentioned EPA RfD. We respectfully request that you produce an addendum piece both online and on air that explains that Hightower’s assertions do not stand unopposed by independent scientists. And that furthermore, she has a clear and vested interest in repeating her unproven claims that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the consumption of commercial seafood and health concerns.

What’s more, we insist that you correct the misimpression that the consumption advice found on our websites is anything more than the federal guidance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Ronald Longinotti

President and General Manager

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

On February 19th you’ll remember I challenged the AP’s Nairobi, Kenya

Bureau Chief to take a close look at the reporting on mercury coming out of her bureau. If I could be so presumptuous to characterize my outreach to her, I would say I was thorough and courteous yet firm in expressing our concerns. That was nine days ago and today when I reached out to her I got an out of office memo saying she’d be gone until March 9th.

Pehaps our concerns are not a priority for her.

When we sent a similar letter to the AP in San Francisco regarding some problematic reporting out of that bureau it took a mere three days for them to review and correct the record. I wonder what the hold up is with our friends in Nairobi?

More on this to come I’m sure. The latest letter is below:

February 27, 2009

Elizabeth Kennedy

Associated Press

Nairobi, Kenya

Bureau Chief

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Kennedy,

I am writing to request a response to my February 19th letter that sought to draw your attention to some violations of basic journalism standards found in Tom Maliti’s February 18th report on the gathering of environmental ministers in Nairobi, Kenya.

While my letter was lengthy and thorough, my sincere hope is that you would review it in a timely manner and or refer my concerns about the original article to the proper editor for an appraisal.

I should note that we recently worked with the Associated Press’ San Francisco bureau on a similar correction and it took them 3 days to review my concerns and issue a correction. It is with this expedient and diligent history in mind that I write you enquiring about the status of my correspondence.

Please find attached my original letter as well. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: John Daniszewski

International News Managing Editor

Kathleen Carroll

Executive Editor

The star stuck New York Times is out shilling for Jeremy Piven. The Old Gray Lady appears to be smitten with the actor, perhaps that’s why it’s the only paper reporting that Piven, “convinced a group of fellow actors that he did not violate his contractual obligations when he dropped out of the Broadway play “Speed-the-Plow.”

More accurately, what actually happened, as reported by the Associated Press, New York Newsday and others, was “a panel composed of Actors’ Equity and Broadway League representatives were unable to reach the necessary unanimous decision.” So Piven’s laughable mercury poising from fish excuse lives another day. You see he convinced the actors on the panel he was being honest but the producers didn’t buy it.

Piven’s not outta the woods by any stretch of the imagination. He may have been able convince his peers of his story but on-the-record comments he has made in the past stand in stark contrast to the latest in scientific research on mercury in fish and could come back to haunt him.

If this thing goes to real court (not actor’s court – insert appropriate Judge Wapner, Rusty the bailiff or Doug Llewelyn joke here) Piven’s gonna have some splainin’ to do. Courts usually don’t accept anecdotal diagnoses as the end all be all- so Piven should be prepared to submit his medical records and call on his crocodile tears to testify. While the plaintiffs should be prepared to submit his bar tab and call on the entire country of Japan; where people eat far more commercial seafood than Piven but don’t complain about mercury poising, to testify.

Hollywood blogs are a buzz this morning as actor Jeremy Piven has his quasi day in court-also known as a hearing before the Actors’ Equity committee. You’ll remember producers filed a grievance against Piven saying they didn’t believe his outrageous and scientifically flawed claims that he came down with mercury poisoning from eating fish and therefore couldn’t finishing out his contract in a play titled Speed the Plow.

Word is he was out partying every night and got bored with the production so he and his infomercial doctor came up with ye ole mercury poising routine to get out of it. If it were a jury of regular folks I don’t think this would turn out well for Piven, here’s a sample of some of the (more appropriate) comments already posting in the Hollywood blogosphere:

• “Sometimes in life, ya just gotta suck it up and finish the job.”
• “I never even thought of this going so far into serious-problem-land! I’ve always loved Jeremy Piven but this all seems really shady on his end, especially because of all the partying pictures you’ve posted here. I hope he has some hard cash saved up from Entourage in order to pay his lawyer fees!!”
• “For too many years actors and publicists have been able to get away with the stupidest lies, I’m glad somebody is finally getting busted for it.”
• “Hopefully, he’ll get the book thrown at him…”
• “He’s talented, and he’s funny as hell as Ari, but, in real life, the guy is the biggest, self-absorbed, hateful JERK.”

Reports say if Piven is found guilty by the committee, his membership with the Actor’s Equity will be terminated and Speed the Plow producers would be on solid ground to haul Piven into civil court.

Rest assured NFI will continue to police Piven and the press on this issue to insure that if he spouts his medically wacky claims again we’ll serve up a heaping side of independent scientific facts to go with them.

To quote from an earlier blog in this space, I’ll remind Piven of what Sir Walter Scott wrote, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

Mind your mercury Mr. Piven… we’re watching.

There are four things I would like to share with you all about the Associated Press.

• I was pleased at the speed and professionalism with which it corrected its mistakes just 2 weeks ago.

• It has dubbed itself “the essential global news network.” And essentially it’s just what it says it is. Half of the world’s population gets some of its news from the AP everyday (let that statistic sink in for a minute, it makes the audience for the Super Bowl look like a gathering at the local VFW hall.)
• Lately I have seen more and more AP writers taking the lazy rout and simply regurgitating environmental activist rhetoric in their stories. This is a disturbing trend.
• A personal message to AP- to paraphrase Shakespeare; uneasylies the head that wears the crown. Never forget the bigger and better you are the more responsibility you have to get it right.

So we find ourselves again asking AP to, at the very least, better police its own reporters.

Its latest article about efforts to create a treaty on mercury reduction took the activist’s talking points hook line and sinker, broadly mischaracterizing the mercy debate and erroneously using seafood as a poster child for an environmental pollution issue that is simply not ours.

James Wright from Seafood Business put it well when he wrote, “It would be a relief to see world leaders not only recognize the source of mercury pollution and regulate it, but to bang the drum about the biggest misconception about mercury, which is that seafood is dangerous.”

While James Wright clearly understands what is at issue here, our friends at the Associated Press apparently need more education.

Our latest letter to the AP follows:

February 19, 2009

Elizabeth Kennedy

Associated Press

Nairobi, Kenya

Bureau Chief

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Kennedy,

I am writing to draw your attention to some violations of basic journalism standards found in Tom Maliti’s February 18th report on the gathering of environmental ministers in Nairobi, Kenya.

It is important to note, as a precursor, that the National Fisheries Institute supports efforts for a cleaner environment and work to remove mercury pollution from the atmosphere. We have no stake in arguments made by global chemical conglomerates, mining operations and or entities that operate coal-fired power plants. This letter in no way represents anything other than our fervent interest in insuring that reporting about seafood is fair, accurate and objective.

Maliti’s reporting on this issue and his use of seafood, particularly tuna, as a recurring example of the effects of mercury pollution is erroneous. In his second paragraph he notes that mercury enters the environment and “much settles in the oceans where it enters the food chain and is concentrated in predatory fish like tuna.” The majority of the mercury found in the oceans is naturally occurring. It comes primarily from underwater volcanoes. These mercury levels have remained steady for decades if not centuries, largely unaffected by pollution. In fact, in a court case, mentioned in paragraph 10, the level of naturally occurring mercury in the oceans was estimated at 95%. Internal waterways, lakes and streams for example, have seen the type of ebb and flow of mercury levels that Maliti suggests is caused by pollution but the oceans have not. Maliti’s characterization is a misguided overstatement.

Also in the second paragraph Maliti chooses to highlight tuna as a species where readers might find high concentrations of mercury. While it is a large predatory fish, species like shark, tilefish, swordfish and king mackerel are far better examples of fish with elevated levels of mercury. In fact, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set 1.0ppm as a level of mercury in seafood without concern (and even that includes a 1,000% built-in safety factor). FDA’s own tests show canned light tuna with an average of 0.1 ppm and canned albacore with an average of 0.3 ppm.

Environmental activists have long sought to exaggerate and promote the idea that canned tuna contains potentially high levels of mercury in order to forward their own agenda with a strategy that suggests efforts at removing mercury from the atmosphere have a popular dietary tie. It would appear Maliti has adopted their rhetoric without doing the proper research.

In the third paragraph he writes, “children and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to poisoning by toxic metal, which can cause birth defects, brain damage and peeling skin.” Children and fetuses can be harmed by ingestion of mercury via industrial accidents, chemical spills and or pollution but to suggest there is evidence that they are at risk from a mother’s prenatal consumption of the trace amount of methylmercury found in commercial seafood flies in the face of the latest science. In fact, a new peer-reviewed FDA draft report released on January 21st finds the quantifiable net outcomesfrom fish consumption on brain/verbal developmentof children was — 99.9 percent”modest benefit”; 0.1 percent”modest risk.” Furthermore, the FDA reports pregnant women only eat approximately 1.89oz of seafood a week, far below the 12oz recommended.

For more on the FDA’s latest research into this issue I encourage your staff to contact the independent reviewers of the FDA report; researchers at such institutions as Harvard School of Public Health, University of Washington School of Public Health or the Department of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Children’s Hospital and Research Center at Oakland.

In paragraph 10 Maliti again uses tuna as an example but only partially explains the FDA’s seafood consumption advice. He mentions the advice to limit tuna consumption but fails to note that the suggestion comes as an addendum to the advisory’s proposition that pregnant women avoid shark, tilefish, swordfish and king mackerel altogether.

Still in paragraph 10 he reports that “California authorities have been locked in a five-year legal battle to force tuna companies to paste warning labels on their product.” This is simply inaccurate. The state of California did sue major U.S. tuna canners and asked the courts to order a warning label placed on tuna cans. The state lost that case. The simple, reportable fact is that the state lost that case. The state has appealed its loss but is now no longer asking for labels on tuna cans (as recently as January 27th) but simply for signage in stores.

In paragraph 11 Maliti suggests that “despite the warnings, there’s often little public knowledge of the dangers of mercury in seafood.” Throughout his reporting he has used ocean-going seafood as his example, tuna. However, he does not report or does not know that “warnings” for mercury in seafood come from the EPA and refer only to fish found in internal waterways like lakes and streams-non commercial seafood. What’s more, the federal FDA/EPA guidance on seafood consumption is merely advice for one very sensitive subpopulation; pregnant or breastfeeding women, women who may become pregnant or small children, and is not designed as a general consumption warning.

Still in paragraph 11 Maliti negligently mixes his ocean-going commercial seafood examples with a mercury warning illustration that has absolutely nothing to do with commercial seafood whatsoever. Maliti describes food bank distribution of fish in Idaho and the state’s Department of Health and Welfare advisory. For clarity the fish and its distribution was part of a Department of Fish and Game program. The fish were found in local lakes and were not commercial seafood. They were subject to warnings based on internal waterway pollution. To suggest a charitable food distribution program had endangered children through distribution of commercial seafood is patently false.

It would appear that your reporter has taken environmentalist-fed rhetoric and melded it with inadequately researched facts that homogenize distinctly different seafood populations in an effort to make an environmental health story one of poorly executed nutrition education. With this knowledge and background I ask that you review Maliti’s work to ensure that the Associated Press stands behind his sourcing as sound and objective, as well as correct the mistakes (both overt and by omission) described herein.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: John Daniszewski

International News Managing Editor

The mercury-warning-signs-on-seafood crowd has pulled a David Hasselhoff.

They’ve been shopping their alarmist rhetoric in the U.S. for years now. Despite the fact that doctors, dietitians, independent researchers, the courts and even the Federal government have told themexplicitlythat the “issue has been over stated.” Over stated or not still they persist with their quasi science and shrill theater; an act where they pretend to be motivated by concerns over public health and not environmental health- despite the fact that groups devoted to saving oceans and protecting turtles are the main force behind the movement.

Never has their message been taken as seriously as they’d like and now that the FDA has weighted in with an extensive peer-reviewed tome on the matter it would appear they’re feeling a little marginalized. So, like pop-singing sensation David Hasselhoff they’ve decided to take their show to Europe– wait, you didn’t know Hasselhoff was a pop-singing sensation. Well, you’re not alone because, like the mercury in fish alarmists, his act didn’t play very well in the U.S. It was kind of thin, even a little embarrassing and wasn’t taken seriously… so he went to Europe.

As the warning-sign-crusaders head to the EU to make a case, their arguments remain thin, their distortions a little embarrassing and the current state of science still does not take them seriously.

Monday’s edition of the Bradenton Herald in Bradenton, Florida offers us evidence educated health professionals are getting the message that inflated concerns about mercury in seafood have been over-stated for years and are now passing along word that the latest science shows the greatest risk, when it comes to seafood, is not eating enough.

Katie Powers, R.N., writes about the Best Foods to Eat While Pregnant and summarizes the current state of science with respect to mercury. She explains, “In order to meet the needs of the growing baby, the mother needs to include in her diet fish that are rich in eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docoshexaenoic acid (DHA). DHA is very important for the development of the baby’s nervous system. Studies have shown that adequate intake of DHA is important for visual, cognitive (thinking), motor and behavioral skills. New research is supporting the benefits of eating fish.”

According to the paper Katie Powers, R.N., is a board-certified lactation consultant and perinatal educator at Manatee Memorial Hospital’s Family BirthPlace. She is clearly educated about the latest science and has endeavored to share it with not only her patients but her readers.

Perhaps larger publications like, let’s say… hmmm… oh- I don’t know, the New York Times and Chicago Tribune might take a cue from Powers and start reporting on the latest science and stop pushing an eco-extremist agenda that clearly values environmental health over public health.

It would appear from published reports that our new President is committed to working to reduce or even eliminate mercury pollution. This is good news. An aggressive, science-based approach to cleaning up the environment is something everyone welcomes.

But there are a few misnomers that continue to accompany reporting on this issue. One thing reporters and bloggers seem committed to repeating is the story that “then-Senator Obama read an expose in his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, about high levels of mercury in canned tuna, and he became committed to protecting people from this hazard.”

If in fact he did read an expose in the Trib and decide to work to reduce mercury pollution, that would mean he was inspired and misinformed by the same publication and is perhaps unintentionally and indirectly spreading misinformation. The Trib story it would appear these writers are talking about is part of the Mercury Menace series from back in 2005. The installment that dealt with canned tuna was rife with errors. The paper even did its own canned tuna tests and found ALL of its samples were safe. In fact, one set of tests found results, “even lower than regular canned light and far lower than the average reported by the tuna industry.”

The hope is that President Obama’s devotion to cleaning up the environment will translate into a healthier world for us all. If he is successful, will mercury levels in fish pulled from local lakes and rivers go down? Perhaps they will and that would be good news. But the majority of the trace amount of mercury found in commercial ocean-going fish, like tuna, comes from naturally occurring sources-for example underwater volcanoes. Mercury levels found in the ocean have been the same for generations and the levels found in tuna are and have been safe.

If reporters and bloggers want to tout the President’s commitment to the environment by highlighting efforts to get rid of mercury pollution, good for them. But remember, regardless of the apparent genesis of his efforts, consumers don’t need to be protected from canned tuna-it is safe and healthy. A new FDA draft report shows that the real concern about seafood does not come from trace amounts of mercury but from the fact that Americans eat so little fish we end up with an omega-3 deficient diet.

The Trib went in search of a “toxic risk on your plate” and found none. Here’s hoping journalists who report on the President’s environmental health efforts will go in search of the facts and find this posting.

I don’t know if any of you saw this misguided mess on U.S. News and World Report’s site, but a blog called Fresh Greens claims to be looking out for consumers by naming 10 risky foods. Unfortunately she didn’t risk doing much research:

She says Farmed Salmon is “risky” because of PCB’s. But fails to mention that seafood as a whole, not just salmon (farmed or wild), makes up 9% of the PCB’s found in the American diet. Dairy products make up 30%, beef, chicken and pork make up 34% and vegetables make up 20%. This fundamental misunderstanding about PCB’s in fish has lead to virtual hysteria about an issue that is far more consequential for the most commonly consumed food categories.

Her next target is Chilean Sea Bass, labeled “risky” based on its mercury content. But omitted from the posting is the fact that the mercury in seafood controversy is quickly being put into perspective by peer reviewed scientific reports like the one released by the FDA on January 21st. Researchers from places like Harvard Medical School are concluding that the real risk to American public health is in not eating enough seafood. The very latest independent science shows that any concerns associated with the trace amounts of mercury in fish are outweighed by the clear and demonstrable benefits. Americans have a woefully inadequate diet when it comes to omega-3’s because we eat 16.3 lbs of seafood a year and 109 lbs of red meat.

And of course Bluefin tuna makes the list. But she only gets the story half right on that one. Mediterranean Bluefin is being overfished and action needs to be taken right now to stop irreparable harm from being done to this stock. Is it risky from a global sustainability standpoint-sure you could call it “risky” if that’s the vernacular you ant to use. However, when it comes to U.S. consumption coupled with the often-hyped mercury issue people should keep in mind that per capita Americans eat about the weight of a paperclip in Bluefin every year. So, if you’re devoting blog space to suggesting people cut back on or avoid foods that might be “risky” it might be hard to trim something that already only makes up less than 1/20 of one percent of the seafood eaten in the United States annually.

For the past few weeks I’ve said the main stream media is getting better about its reporting on seafood and seafood science. Now, we’ve got to make sure bloggers under the cover of main stream media mastheads don’t slip into that cyber-stereotype of pajama clad nerds typing away in the basement of their parent’s home posting half truth and under researched opinion as fact.