The latest installment of Monterey Bay Aquarium’s own version of “Eat This, Not That” for seafood made some headlines in conjunction with their 25th anniversary. Far be it from us to be party poopers, but NFI felt the need to hit the wires with an announcement of its owntaking issue with MBA’s “Super Green List” of seafood that gives high marks for sustainability and omega-3 fatty acids.

The problem is there are more than ten sustainable and omega-3 rich fish choices Americans can choose and suggesting otherwise will discourage eating more fish. And the naturally occurring mercury found in commercial ocean fish is only a precaution for four rarely eaten fish if you are pregnant, paln on becoming pregnant or are nursing. So the idea that commercial fish, which is regulated by the FDA, needs a special list borders on the type offear mongering we’ve seen in the past and in the end it quite frankly much ado about nothing. In a press release distributed on Tuesday we laid it out like this,

“MBA’s “Super Green List,” with its nuances and caveats, will only discourage Americans from eating seafood. Eating more of any type of fish is a step in the right direction toward correcting the widespread omega-3 deficiency in the national diet. It is important to note that MBA is a marine science organization, and not a health organization charged with dispensing nutritional advice.”

MBA also issued an extensive report entitled, “Turning the Tide: The State of Seafood,” that we’ve yet to have a chance to review in detail. However, I think it’s safe to say that NFI and MBA don’t see eye to eye on several sustainability issues, sustainability is made up of three parts — economic, environmental and social — and to base lists and recommendations on 1 or 2 of these tenets rather than all 3 is more than potentially problematic. Look for more from us in the coming days as we read and dissect the report.

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 isnt. 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. Whats more, our organization, which is the leading authority on commercial seafood, would have sharply disputed Garritys 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 dont 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.

Garritys 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 isnt 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.

Garritys suggestion that readers obtain blood testing is also baseless and medically unnecessary. Thats 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, Garritys 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

On the eve of its sustainable seafood retailer ranking re-release Greenpeace continues to miss the mark. This time in a letter to the editor in Intra Fish Greenpeace claims its efforts to slash the Alaska pollock catch are not an attack on NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service.)I wonder if Greenpeace has even seen its own television ad where, clear-as-day, it attacks the Service by suggesting NMFS stands for “No More Fish Sorry.”How is that not an attack on NMFS?

Meanwhile the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) put out a release today that reads, in part, “The Alaska pollock fishery remains certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) independent third-party certification system despite Greenpeace USA’s campaign to raise doubts about the status of the fishery.”

MSC goes on to write, “Commercial seafood buyers and consumers around the world… should be confident that the Alaska pollock fishery continues to be certified to the MSC’s widely accepted and rigorous scientific standard.”

More evidence that Greenpeace is on an island on this one.

As a seafood dietitian, I often encounter what I like to
call seafood slander. This is
misinformation, usually in the media, about fish. This week was especially frustrating, because
of a handful of careless reports that claimed bacon, hamburgers, and doughnuts may be healthier than lean fish
like tilapia.

This silly accusation is based on the fact that tilapia, a
mild and inexpensive fish, is richer in omega-6 fatty acids than it is in
omega-3s. Omega-6s are a type of fat
that is generally healthy, but too much may not be ideal. Doctors and dietitians dont yet agree on the
perfect amount of omega-6s in the diet.
But what an impressive
panel of 16 doctors does agree on is since fish like tilapia are, relatively
low in total and saturated fats and high in protein, they clearly can be part
of a healthy diet.

For a well-balanced, heart-healthy diet, eat a variety of
seafood that can include lean fish and shellfish along with plenty of the oily
kind like salmon, tuna, and trout. And
Im sorry to report, replacing tilapia or catfish with bacon, hamburgers or
doughnuts is absolutely not recommended.

Let me start by saying I don’t endorse violent confrontations as a means of protest in any way shape or form and neither does NFI… but in playing the victim after a confrontation at sea Greenpeace has once again exposed its unending hypocrisy of message and method. Its message is “peace” but its record is not-so-peaceful. Its methods are confrontational but when confronted it objects.

In a dangerous and irresponsible move a group ofTurkish fishing vessels reportedly surrounded a Greenpeace ship this week and confronted it, apparently ramming it and allegedly throwing things at it– not an acceptable tactic by any stretch of the imagination.

But what happened next is puzzling. Greenpeace told the Associated Press that the incident “endangered the safety of our crew and ship and is completely unacceptable.”

“Unacceptable”– sure it is. “Endanger the safety of (the) crew”– sounds about right. But what about when Greenpeace vandals interfered with fishing nets in the South Pacific in May? How bout when they hung a banner from the bow of a Korean ship in April and then stole fishing gear? Oh-remember earlier that month when they approached ships fishing in the Western Pacific and painted slogans on them? And then there were the 80 some agitators who stormed the Brussels seafood show and chained themselves to booths after commandeering a loud speaker and unfurling a banner outside the main gate. Those actions endangered the safety of many and are also “completely unacceptable.”