Washington Post wonkblog writer Roberto A. Ferdman continues to write about canned tuna and continues to leave holes in his stories big enough to drive a truck through.

This time he writes;

• Despite Consumer Reports’ plea, there is still much debate about how much mercury tuna actually absorbs, and whether what mercury it does contain poses any serious harm to humans

There isnt much debate, Roberto, theres Consumer Reports and then theres more than 100 independent, published, peer-reviewed studies analyzed by FDA that brought it to a conclusion that says pregnant women can eat up to 56 oz. of albacore tuna every week.

Meanwhile the FDA speaks directly to the Consumer Reports recommendation when it says the methodology employed by Consumer Reports overestimates the negative effects and overlooks the strong body of scientific evidence published in the last decade. The FDA goes on to highlight the fact that, Consumer Reports analysis is limited in that it focuses exclusively on the mercury levels in fish without considering the known positive nutritional benefits attributed to fish.

Is the Wonkblog a place where reporters would say theres much debate over whether vaccines cause autism? Because, despite one vocal crowd, science tells us they do not.

While Consumer Reports gives bad advice to pregnant women about tuna consumption the FDA says consumers should not fixate on mercury:

“The Consumer Reports analysis is limited in that it focuses exclusively on the mercury levels in fish without considering the known positive nutritional benefits attributed to fish,” the FDA said in a statement. “As a result, the methodology employed by Consumer Reports overestimates the negative effects and overlooks the strong body of scientific evidence published in the last decade. The statement points to an FDA survey in 2012 that found that one in five pregnant women avoided fish for long periods and that 75 percent of women ate fewer than 4 ounces a week. “Studies with pregnant women in particular have consistently found that fish is important for growth and development before birth,” the statement said.

Emily Main and Leah Zerbe have done it again. You know them, the activists writing for Rodale News who have a long history of botching facts, skewing reports, and throwing the rules of journalism out the window the second they start writing about seafood. Balance, research, expertsblaaaaa, who needs it?

Just when we thought they couldnt distance themselves any further from the mainstream, science-based community they come out with, 14 Foods You Should Never Eat. Its an article that illustrates what weve been saying all along: Rodale has no perspective on real world nutrition or food consumption whatsoever.

After first suggesting readers take notes, so you, too, can avoid the worst of what grocery stores have to offer, they tell readers to avoid swordfish, followed by alarming recommendations to avoid nonorganic strawberries, diet soda, anything from McDonalds, canned tomatoes, white chocolate, and popcorn. Oh, and then theres the moment they follow their avoid popcorn slide, with a slide saying to actually avoid any corn at all. Realistic, if nothing else.

But, as expected the Rodale Dream Team finds a way to further marginalize their reporting when they suggest readers avoid bread. Thats right, bread. While the United States 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) suggests a focus on nutrient-dense foods like whole grains, where they specifically give the example of whole wheat bread, Emily and Leah tell readers otherwise. And it’s not left open to interpretation, either: “And I don’t mean white bread; I mean all bread: white, whole wheat, whole grain, sprouted, organic, French, Italian, fresh, day-oldall of it.”

I dont know about you, but I prefer to take nutrition notes when Im hearing from the PhDs, MDs, and RDs that were appointed to the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, not from the Rodale news team with no nutrition expertise and a whole lot of agenda-driven rhetoric.

The DGAs also recommend that Americans increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry.

Real seafood reports, like this one seen in The Atlantic this week, rely on sources like Dr. Cyrus Raji from UCLA, Drs. Deborah Barnes and Kristine Yaffe of UCSF and references to peer-reviewed journals like Neurology and Lancet Neurology. Meanwhile, Rodale continues to rely on the likes of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Womens Voices for the Earth, and its own CEO.

Its great that Emily Main and Leah Zerbe are the only ones with a perfectly balanced, nutrient-rich diet, should we expect both to live to 120 and be capable of human flight? Or should we expect at sometime theyll stop publishing holier-than-thou drivel that flies in the face of actual nutrition recommendations? Probably neither. I guess well just expect more of the same.

Its been two weeks since the FDA came out with its new draft guidance for pregnant women on eating seafood and theres been a flood of reporting about it:

• Wall Street Journal FDA to Increase Calls for More Fish Consumption
• TimeFDA: Pregnant Women Should Eat More Fish
• New York Times Pregnant Women Advised to Eat More Fish
• Health Day Pregnant or breast-feeding women urged to eat more fish

The new draft advice that has been reported on is clear about one thing; the need for pregnant women to eat more fish. The reports scientific assessment is nearly 300 pages long and relies on a review of 110 independent, published, peer-revived studies. It is an impressive tome that took nearly a decade to complete.

Enter the Environmental Working Group and the Mercury Policy Project. It took this dynamic duo 15 days to decide they didnt like the draft advice and were going to pout about it in such a way to make themselves appear even more outside the mainstream, science-based conversation than they usually are. In the face of 10 years worth of review and 110 studies, EWG & MPP announce that the Food & Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are wrong based on information EWG & MPP mined from a dozen cherry picked studies dating back to 2004.

Lets put their latest scientifically feeble salvo in perspective, shall we?

In 2010 the USDA & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reviewed about 40 studies and determined the benefits of seafood outweighed mercury issues.

In 2011 the World Health Organization reviewed about 150 studies and essentially came to the same conclusion.

Now the FDA & EPA have reviewed 110 studies and, no surprise, the message is fundamentally the same.

Regardless of this mountain of evidence from independent researchers and reviewers EWG & MPP continue to complain because the facts, the scientific facts, dont match their agenda driven narrative. Even when public health experts say scaring pregnant women away from seafood hurts them, they persist. Keep in mind their point person on this issue Ned Groth, the poor misguided Jenny McCarthy of this issue, is the same individual who admitted to a reporter that he made policy recommendations based not on actual exposure risk but on stuff he heard about a friends grandson in New Jersey.

EWG & MPP and not reliable sources of information on this topic, they are fringe activists who find themselves further and further outside the tent because they are unwilling to accept facts that contradict their fantasy.

Reporters are urged to use only genuine, independent, science-based resources for stories about seafood and mercury.

June 25, 2014

Marion Wilson-Spencer

Product Analyst

Consumer Reports

101 Truman Avenue, Yonkers,NY – 10703-1057

Via Email

Dear Ms. Wilson-Spencer,

Thank you for reaching out to the National Fisheries Institute as you conduct research on tuna. It is our sincerest hope that Consumer Reports intends to do a more thorough, balanced and science-based job of reporting on tuna than it has in the past. Previous reports on tuna have been not only a disappointment from a journalistic standpoint but revealed an agenda rife with misinformation and mischaracterization that can only be described as intentional:

Consumer Reports Does (Yet Another) Disservice to Consumers

Consumer Reports Continues to Mislead on Seafood and Health

Consumer Reports Repeats Its Same Old Canned Tuna Scare Story

Consumer Reports Misleads on Tuna . . . Again

Dont Fall For Consumer Reports Canned Tuna Scare Story

Per your questions we do not provide member sales figures or projected sales figures. Nor do we compare or forecast market share earned by member companies.

The latest numbers on per capita consumption of canned tuna show Americans eat 2.4 pounds per year, making it the second most popular seafood item. We estimate that approximately 70% of that consumption is light meat and 30% is white meat.

In terms of the seafood marketplace, approximately 85% of seafood consumed in this country is imported and the Commerce Department maintains a commercial fisheries trade data base that we encourage you to visit for more details.

Nearly every other report about tuna produced by Consumer Reports has maintained a disproportionate focus on mercury, we also encourage you to research the latest FDA/EPA draft guidance on eating seafood for pregnant women. The advice is based on a review of 110 independent, published, peer-reviewed studies and rather than highlighting limits on seafood the advice now encourages eating two to three servings of seafood each week, including canned tuna. This essential shift in messaging based on review of published science is not unlike the conclusion reached by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks, even for pregnant women.

We encourage Consumer Reports to seek out responsible, independent researchers, doctors and dietitians in order to understand how dramatically the science and communication approach about mercury in seafood has changed. There are literally hundreds of independent studies, not only referenced by the FDA but cited by the World Health Organization, that clearly demonstrate the net benefit gained from eating seafood, like tuna.

With this remarkable scientific library as evidence, please be aware that hyperbolic reporting about mercury in seafood not only hurts consumers via misinformation but marginalizes Consumer Reports as a resource.

Since we are engaged in a dialog, we have some questions for Consumer Reports:

• What Environmental Non-Government Organizations have you consulted during your latest inquiry into tuna?
• Have you consulted former Consumer Reports employee Ned Groth on this effort?
• Given the FDAs recent concern that exaggerated risk about seafood has caused a drop in consumption, does Consumer Reports intend to include information about the risks of not increasing seafood in the diet?

Be advised we plan to publish and promote this letter, while making media critics and the independent scientific community aware of Consumer Reports intent to again report on tuna.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Vice President, Communications

National Fisheries Institute

After a few days of blog and twitter banter that saw a hyper-defensive Michael Hawthorne refusing to acknowledge and or correct his now comically slanted reporting, on the FDA’s new advice to pregnant women, we decided that perhaps a round of real editorial oversight was in order.

June 13, 2014

Jane Hirt

Managing Editor

Chicago Tribune

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Hirt,

This week, in announcing new draft advice on seafood consumption for American moms, the FDAs top medical expert told reporters that scientific research developed over the past decade strongly demonstrates the health benefits that accrue from the consumption of fish far outweigh any risk. Asked specifically for the main takeaway from FDA, he said: The most important message here is to consume more fish.

Your reporter, Michael Hawthorne, took part in that press conference and here is how he described it to readers in his lead:

Eating seafood generally is considered good for you, but the catch is some kinds of fish tend to be contaminated with high levels of brain-damaging mercury.

Meanwhile, many of the most popular seafood choices for Americans provide relatively low amounts of the fatty acids that stimulate brain development and help prevent heart disease.

That sort of ulterior, wink-and-nudge insinuation that eating fish is harmful has been a hallmark of Hawthornes slanted reporting on this issue for many years now. But whats especially irresponsible about this latest piece is that it comes as the FDA is trying to overcome a decades worth of alarmist rhetoric from fringe activists and fund-raising eco-groups that has caused fish consumption among pregnant and breastfeeding women to drop to just 20 percent of what FDA says it should be.

Another way of putting it is that when consumers, and moms in particular, are presented with inaccurate emphasis on brain damage and neurotoxin, they often curtail or eliminate seafood from their familys diet. The resultaccording to some of the hundreds of studies FDA and other national and international health organizations have relied on to assess the net effects of seafood consumptionis lower overall IQ scores for children (particularly in verbal IQ), and sharply increased cardiovascular risk for adults, leading to preventable heart attacks and strokes.

That makes seafood unique among all the various nutritional targets of activist attacks. Stop drinking soda pop or eating processed snacks and nothing bad will happen to you. But if you stop eating fish, children and adults alike face discernibly poorer health outcomes.

Thats why the standard for balanced, accurate, and responsible reporting ought to be at its very highest on public health stories of this kind. Yet Hawthorne persists in distorting the facts, hyping theoretical risks, slanting his sourcing, and obscuring crucial information from readers. Let me present some specifics:

— He declares in the story that Studies have shown that exposure to mercury in the womb, mostly from fish eaten by women, can irreversibly damage the brain before a child is born, causing subtle delays in walking and talking as well as decreased attention span and memory. No such studies are cited, nor is the 250+ page, peer-reviewed scientific report that underpins the new FDA advice, which explicitly says, Beneficial net effects were consistently associated with consumption during pregnancy that exceeded to some extent 12 ounces or two servings of fish per week and On a population basis, average neurodevelopment in this country is estimated to benefit by nearly 0.7 of an IQ point (95% C.I. of 0.39 1.37 IQ points) from maternal consumption of commercial fish.

— In a story published nearly six years ago, Hawthorne wrote, studies have shown that exposure to mercury in the womb, mostly from fish eaten by mothers, can irreversibly damage the brain before birth, causing subtle delays in walking and talking as well as decreased attention span and memory. How did that apparent self-plagiarism get past editors and how do you justify it in light of the voluminous, countervailing research since then?

— One of Hawthornes marque sources for this latest piece was the fundraising group, Environmental Defense Fund, which has no medical or nutritional expertise whatsoever. Actual medical groups that urge increased fish consumption like the American Heart Association, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) were withheld from readers. In fact, ACOG this week alerted its members to the new advice, saying Since the FDA and the EPA issued their last joint advisory in 2004, further information has become available that suggests that consumption of low-mercury seafood can be particularly beneficial during pregnancy, with benefits including improved neurodevelopmental outcomes. FDA and EPA report that pregnant women currently consume below this level.

— Hawthorne made zero mention of the far-ranging recent scientific research that was the primary basis for FDAs updated guidance. When we pressed him on this point, he cited a single outlier study.

— One of the recent studies that Hawthorne obscures from readers, done by the federal government, showed that some 84,000 cardiac-related deaths could be prevented each year with proper servings of fish in the diet.

— Another long-term NIH study showed that children whose moms cut back on seafood during pregnancy had significantly lower developmental and IQ outcomes. Dont readers deserve to know those critical facts in a story that is purportedly about weighing risks and benefits?

As the leading seafood association, we would have been glad to point all this out to Hawthorne prior to publication but he never reached out. When we tried to cite some of it to him after the story ran, he replied that we were reflexively attacking, DC-style.

In light of these demonstrable editorial concerns we would appreciate a review of Mr. Hawthornes work and any reaction you might be able to offer.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Vice President, Communications

National Fisheries Institute

cc:

Margaret Holt

Kaarin Tisue

This week the FDA and EPA announced they had evaluated 110 published, peer-reviewed studies and concluded that pregnant women need to eat 4 times as much seafood as they currently do in order to realize the important nutrition benefits. This comes in the wake of the USDAs review of 37 studies that informed the Dietary Guidelines, which concluded, the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks, even for pregnant women.

Then, Chicago Tribune reporter Michael Hawthorne, a long-time mercury in seafood fearmonger, wrote about the announcement. Buuuuuut, his lead didnt quite match the news. In fact, his first sentence did not mention the fact that the FDAs new advice encourages women to eat four times as much seafood as they currently do. It did however mention that some fish contain high levels of brain-damaging mercury.

Really, Michael? Thats the lead?

A review of 110 studies shows pregnant women need to eat more seafood and the FDA/EPA begins encouraging women to do so and thats your lead? Odd how that wasnt the lead in the LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, Time or Health Day or any of the other several hundred stories written on this subject.

That kind of reporting reminds me of vaccines-cause-autism spokeswoman Jenny McCarthy. In the face of overwhelming evidence of a dramatic change in the scientific narrative, still fearmongers cling to one-off studies and antiquated rhetoric because sticking to old assertions means they dont have to say they were wrong. Or in the case of Hawthorne they dont have to say that their sources, their cronies, their buddies are misguided, frothing activists and not level-headed scientists who let the facts dictate their conclusions.

Hawthorne took to twitter yesterday to note that, Mercury levels drop in women while fish consumption remains level. Suggests women making smarter choices. This activist talking point spouted by the supposedly impartial journalist begs the question; did he even read the FDA/EPA report? Consumption remains level,thats the real problem. Hello? The problem isnt the mercury levels. The report says pregnant women eat only 1.8 ounces of seafood a week and they need to quadruple that. The low consumption level is keeping pregnant women from getting all the benefits of seafood because again quoting the ummmm USDA (you may have heard of them), the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks, even for pregnant women.

Hawthorne writes 173 words before easing in this quote, Its become clearer and clearer that there are significant benefits (from eating seafood) in terms of health and development for the fetus and young children, Stephen Ostroff, the FDAs acting chief scientist, said during a conference call with reporters. There are so many women that are missing out on the benefits.

Burying the lead anyone?

True journalists report the facts. Fact; the FDAs new draft guidance is a ground breaking shift from its outdated pervious message and it’s one backed up by an avalanche of independent, peer-reviewed science. But instead of simply reporting that, Hawthorns juvenile refusal to embrace this current and important reality, a la Jenny McCarthy, leaves him looking petulant and obsessive.

The following is a quote from a column in The Nation, about a year ago, focused on the media coverage McCarthy receives but if you didnt know that they could have been talking about Hawthorne a day ago:

• False equivalency is one of journalisms great pitfalls, and in an effort to achieve balance, reporters often obscure the truth.

The only difference is Hawthorne doesnt appear to seek misguided balance but rather the ability to say he was right, in the face of overwhelming evidence he and his most common sources are wrong.

In case you came across yesterdays Farm Raised vs. Wild-Caught Fish headline on NorthJersey.com, let us save you some valuable time by summing it up: all fish, farm-raised or wild-caught, are a healthy choice, packed with protein, vitamins and nutrients.

After crusading through 1,415 words loaded with inaccuracies and hyperbole from activists, and flashy headlines, we found 68 words at the bottom of page-two that conclude:

OK. So, which is the right choice?

“At the end of the day, fish in general is a good choice,” said Rebecca Hirsch, oncology dietitian at the John Theurer Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center.

Indeed, experts say, fish is generally so healthy it is packed with protein, vitamins and nutrients that the benefits of eating contaminated fish way outweighs the risk. “It is so much better than a Big Mac,” nutritionist Berger said.

Talk about burying the lead.

In case you missed the industry trade press today theres an interesting twist to the Greenpeace retailer rankings. The groups Oceans Director goes off on NFI and MSC. His take on critiques of Greenpeaces report is more than just a little ironic.

First he blasts NFI for ignoring the science. Meanwhile hes ignoring the fact that the main criticism of the report is that it is not a science-based review in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it appears to be secretly crafted in a well apportioned conference room by guys sporting nifty tee shirts.

He then takes aim at the Marine Stewardship Council, while citing MSCs thorough, rigorous approach. Again, missing the clear and demonstrable criticism of the report that no matter how much you do it will never be enough for Greenpeace. Wait, youre thorough and rigorous? Sorry, you still dont meet our standards, which are apparently crafted by magic gnomes who I am sure are also wearing nifty tee shirts.

Successful halftime acts at the Super Bowl often follow up their hit-making, jaw dropping or nostalgic performances with the announcement of a world tour. During the game iTunes struggles to keep pace with downloads and afterwards Springsteen, Madonna and Bruno Mars let their fans know theyre coming to town soon. Its a one-two performance and marketing punch.

Last week Greenpeace launched is Carting Away the Oceans (CATO) report and followed it up with

–Four meek protesters at one seafood company.

–A few harassing phone calls destined for voicemail obscurity.

–And online supporters crafting well-reasoned retorts.

In 1971 Greenpeace was a group of determined activists squaring off against a 5.2 megaton hydrogen bomb. Now its supporters launch embarrassingly juvenile tweets from the comfort of their parents basement. But not before doing a little online shopping for activist gear, after being reminded they can, save some green on Greenpeace merchandise and help protect the planet at the same time!

Its hard to take Greenpeace and CATO seriously when they beg you not to.