July 2, 2015

Ms. Shanelle Rein-Olowokere

Senior Web Editor

Good Housekeeping Online

VIA EMAIL

Dear Ms. Rein-Olowokere,

I am writing to insist you remove an erroneous story that is currently featured on your website. The story Those Cans of Tuna May Not Actually Contain Any Tuna is clearly based on an erroneous Daily Mail report from 6/30/15 that has since been exposed and corrected.

The original article, parroted by Good Housekeeping, begins by reporting on a study that is from February 2013 – over two years old – using a narrative that misleads readers into thinking it’s a brand new study.

What’s worse, the article completely misreports on the findings from that old study. Your report and headline claim cans of tuna may not actually contain tuna. Here’s the problem; the investigation did not test canned tuna. In fact, the source of the testing, Oceana, says in its own report, “Oceana did not test any canned tuna samples and all samples labeled as ‘white tuna’ were purchased at restaurants or sushi venues.”

So, while canned tuna is never mentioned in the findings of Oceana’s 2013 study, it is the marquee finding in your report.

Please let us know how and when you intend to addresses this clear misreporting by Good Housekeeping.

Thank you.

Gavin Gibbons

Vice President, Communications

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Ms. Erin Phraner

Associate Food Editor

Good Housekeeping Online

An erroneous article about tuna in this week’s Daily Mail is an embarrassing illustration of lazy journalism that goes beyond factual errors and enters the realm of unethical. Author Tom Wyke demonstrates how lazy reporting, paired with zero editorial oversight, can trick readers into viewing an outdated and fundamentally inaccurate story.

How does Mr. Wyke do it?

• Begins by reporting on a study that is from February 2013 – over two years old – using a narrative that misleads readers into thinking it’s a brand new study. To the point that other news outlets, seeing Mr. Wyke’s article, began to incorrectly report on it themselves. After realizing the Daily Mail’s error, those sites have taken down the article. Headlines that suggest Oceana has come out with a new study are completely wrong. The Oceana study Mr. Wyke reports about is nearly two-and-a-half years old.
• Pretties up the old report with new high-res images that take up more space than the content of the article itself.
• Completely misreports on the findings from the old study. The Daily Mail claims that, “When it comes to cans of tuna, Southern California is the worst offender, with 52 per cent of the state’s ‘tuna cans’ not containing tuna at all.” Slight problem here. The study Mr. Wyke is referring to did not test any canned tuna. Woops. Oceana’s own report says, “Oceana did not test any canned tuna samples and all samples labeled as ‘white tuna’ were purchased at restaurants or sushi venues.”

So, while canned tuna is never mentioned in the findings of Oceana’s 2013 study, it is the marquee finding in Daily Mail’s story this week. Keep in mind this is a writer who is reporting on a study that is over two years old without ever disclosing that information to readers. Why let facts and dates get in the way of a quick, easy scare-story?

If the Daily Mail has any commitment to accuracy they will remove this article immediately. Or leave it up and we will continue to point to it in perpetuity for journalism students, so they can see how not to do their future job.

This week the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and its puppet the Mercury Policy Project (MPP) are out with a misguided release that, not surprisingly, flies in the face of the latest science on seafood and mercury as well as… common sense.

Adding to their history of misinformation and hyperbole, the duo claims “American babies are currently at risk of mercury toxicity based on current fish consumption levels.” FDA research finds American mothers currently eat 1.89 ounces of seafood per week when the target consumption number for pregnant women, to gain even the minimum amount of benefits, is 8 to 12 ounces. EWG and MPP know this but persist in pushing a scare story because it furthers their environmental health agenda.

Albacore tuna is a frequent target of their distorted propaganda and once again they’re taking aim at the popular omega 3 powerhouse. This time ranting that pregnant women should “limit their consumption of canned albacore tuna.” What they know and don’t tell the media is that the FDA’s net effects report (p.111); a decade worth of published peer-reviewed science, found (at the most conservative levels) pregnant women could eat up to 56 ounces of albacore tuna a week without concern.

So, published, peer-reviewed science completed over a ten year span finds it’s safe for pregnant women to eat 56 ounces of albacore a week and 164 ounces of light tuna a week, when in reality pregnant women eat barely a fraction of that. It’s almost comical how little they eat compared to those numbers but the real science-based answer to the question how much can I eat or more importantly should I eat does not match their fear-based messaging so they… simply ignore it.

EWG parrot, Michael Bender from MPP, says “pregnant women need sound, science-based advice about the benefits of increased seafood consumption.” Yet ironically he obscures that very science with spin.

What’s more disturbing is that EWG and MPP shamefully try to appear as though they’ve transformed from environmental crusaders into nutrition champions for the poor when they claim underserved populations would be harmed by greater access to seafood. Harmed—yes, harmed. Meanwhile, experts who work to feed these very communities testified before the FDA that, “from a hunger standpoint, there are communities in every state that are in desperate need of food. From a nutritional standpoint, there are communities in every state that are in desperate need of lean protein and omega-3s.”

Paul Geenberg tells his readers he’s been trying to come up with a “seafood three-liner that would be as concise, elegant and free from exceptions” as the one writer Michael Pollan came up with when he penned; “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” (Three Simple Rules for Eating Seafood, Sunday Review 06/14/15.)

The problem is, that while delicious and even romantic, seafood isn’t that simple and that’s why Greenberg admits he hasn’t been, “entirely successful.” While we’re not quite in the Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle territory here, I suspect we’re in the neighborhood but that’s for the food blogs to debate.

It’s agreed, Greenberg hasn’t been entirely successful but perhaps it’s not just the complexity of seafood but the sources and methods he uses that have contributed to this failure.  His column is right about a number of things but his zeal to illustrate seafood shortcomings that match his narrative take him on a path that misinforms readers.

He damns shrimp farming in Southeast Asia for causing “damage to coastal mangrove forests.” Shrimp aren’t farmed in mangroves anymore, it’s a charge that’s almost comically antiquated and bemoaning it is met with eye rolls from aquaculture scientists in the know.

He cites a Consumer Reports article when fearmongering about mercury in canned tuna but never mentions the FDA blasted that report over flawed methodology because it “overestimates the negative effects and overlooks the strong body of scientific evidence published in the last decade.”

The quest is not unique, for years groups have been tried and failed to do what Greenberg attempts here; dumb seafood science down. Wallet cards, red lists and certifications abound but Americans still enjoy the same fish. Perhaps a larger understanding of the importance of seafood in the American diet and its nutritional impact is the place to start. If Americans understood why they should eat more seafood, what and how to eat it might an easier conversation.

Actor Adrian Grenier is under the impression that he shouldn’t eat shrimp based on something someone once told him about bycatch.

Quick update for Adrian and other Entourage fans. The vast majority of shrimp eaten in the U.S. is farm raised. That means there is no bycatch… ‘cause… um… it comes from a farm.

NOAA writes that, “although our shrimp fisheries are among the largest and highest valued fisheries in the United States, farm-raised imports make up the majority of our shrimp supply (1.1 billion pounds in 2013.)”

June 3, 2015

Sue Lohman

Managing Editor

MSN Health & Fitness

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Lohman,

As part of MSN.com’s current front page news feed you feature an article titled 10 Fish You Shouldn’t Be Eating and What to Try Instead, the piece contains numerous inaccuracies. Featuring this hyperbolic and incorrect content harms your reputation as a trusted source for news and does a disservice to your readers. We request that you replace it immediately.

The suggestion that your readers avoid Atlantic salmon (which in most cases is farmed) flies in the face of the latest science and government recommendations. A USDA study conducted at the Grand Forks [North Dakota] Human Nutrition Research Center involving farmed salmon reported that “…consuming farm-raised salmon was an excellent way to increase omega-3 fatty acids in the blood to levels that corresponded to reduced heart disease risk.”

Furthermore, Dr. Sanjay Gupta produced a segment about Atlantic salmon on 60 Minutes where he responded directly to people who claim they only order wild salmon, “I guess the question would be, why are you doing that? If you’re doing it because you think it’s better for your health, for health reasons, you’d have a hard time making that case.”

When addressing contaminants like PCBs, Dr. Gupta said levels in both farmed and wild salmon are “well below the threshold that the FDA starts to worry about… the levels are so low it’s almost a drop in the bucket in either source.”

The suggestion to avoid all imported shrimp, which represents 90% of the American shrimp supply, is misguided. Both domestic and international companies providing shrimp to Americans have to comply with FDA’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) regulatory system, an internationally recognized risk-based model that seeks to solve challenges along the supply chain at multiple “control points.” The success of this food safety system is evident. CDC data shows that out of more than 120,000 foodborne illnesses reported over a five year period, less than 2% were attributable to imported food. And of that number, just 0.12% of the reported illnesses were attributable to seafood. (All seafood, not just shrimp.) This broad brush recommendation on shrimp is sorely lacking in perspective.

Taking aim at Chilean Sea Bass (also called toothfish), the article claims “it’s threatened by illegal fishing.” Nowhere does it mention, as other better researched articles have, that “the U.S. prohibits the import of illegally caught toothfish and requires pre-approval of all shipments.”

The write up even suggests consumers avoid albacore tuna because in part longlines are used in fishing for it, “which can kill sea mammals.”  For starters, the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation notes that of the 4.6 million tons of tuna harvested annually albacore accounts for only 6%; “they make a relatively small fraction of the total catch.” Not to mention that nowhere do they address the robust and ongoing research to mitigate bycatch or the gear modifications already in place.

The suggestion to avoid red grouper contradicts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the leading federal agency that manages U.S. fisheries (globally considered one of the best fisheries management groups in the world.) According to NOAA, “Red grouper fisheries in the United States are managed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished populations.” With minimal research, the author could have found valuable information about South Atlantic red grouper sustainability and management on NOAA’s FishWatch website, such as:

• Commercial fishermen must have a permit to fish, land, or sell snapper-grouper species. Managers limit the number of available permits to control the number of fishermen harvesting these species.
• Annual catch limits for red grouper for the commercial and recreational fisheries; these fisheries are closed when their annual catch limit is projected to be met.
• A minimum size limit to reduce harvest of immature red grouper.
• Both the commercial and recreational fishing seasons are closed from January through April to protect all shallow water grouper during their spawning season.

Similarly, targeting Atlantic Cod illustrates an unfamiliarity with fisheries management and an ignorance of efforts underway to protect and rebuild this very stock. NOAA recognizes the challenges Cod has faced and writes, “the Gulf of Maine cod quota was cut by 80 percent, and the Georges Bank cod quota was cut by 61 percent. NOAA Fisheries and the New England Fishery Management Council continue to work on management measures that will further protect cod stocks and provide opportunities for fishermen to target other healthy fish stocks instead of cod.” The Atlantic Cod offerings available to consumers are clearly sustainably managed.

What’s more, blanket statements like “avoid Orange Roughy” simply fail to report on the real and changing sustainability stories of seafood.  This is the generic recommendation while other articles report, “the orange roughy was once the poster child of unsustainable fishing, but now that stocks have rebuilt, the eastern fishery will reopen for the first time in 10 years.”

An article with inaccuracies, nuances, and misguided recommendations like this has the potential to scare people away from fish altogether, a food that provides nutrients Americans are becoming increasingly deficient in. According to a peer-reviewed study, risk-centric “messaging reduces fish consumption…. resulting in an overall reduction in the potential health benefits derived from [omega-3] EPA + DHA.”  Science shows that low seafood consumption is the second-biggest dietary contributor to preventable deaths in the U.S., taking 84,000 lives each year. (For perspective, low intake of fruits and vegetables takes 58,000 lives each year.)

Please let us know how you plan to deal with this editorial issue.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Vice President, Communications

National Fisheries Institute

Dear Mr. McGrory:

I write to take issue with a piece by Lisa Zwirn on seafood sustainability [How ocean-friendly is your canned tuna?; 5/26] which contains a number of serious journalism flaws and omissions.  Here are the specifics:

Ms. Zwirn first contacted one of our member companies, Bumble Bee, for input in April.  Although the company responded promptly with more than 600 words on the record from its CEO, the resulting piece cherry-picked just three adjectives and ignored the rest.  How did that shortchanging get past editors, especially in a piece that purports to be about tuna industry practices?

Although NFI is the primary trade organization representing the whole seafood industry, which Ms. Zwirn well knows, we were never contacted at all for input or opportunity to respond to the Greenpeace publicity.  If the Globe is going to provide activist groups fulsome space to trumpet their accusations, ones for which the resulting articles are an integral part of their fundraising operations, is it expecting too much that the people those groups target have an opportunity to reply for the record?

Another symptom of how Ms. Zwirn indulges Greenpeace is that they are presented with virtually no skepticism or scrutiny — not on their ideology, nor their methodology, nor their expertise, nor the feasibility or consequences of the demands they make.  Here are some easily confirmed facts, for instance, that might have been shared with readers:

• The methodology Greenpeace uses is entirely subjective, kept confidential, and unverifiable. They have precisely zero experience in fisheries management and the “seafood project leader” Ms. Zwirn cites repeatedly has actually spent his career in labor organizing, and joined Greenpeace only recently.

• Because of Greenpeace’s irresponsible and unaccountable approach, 90 percent of the tuna industry refused to take any part in the survey that Greenpeace claims is the centerpiece of its research.  In other words, they have no idea what they are talking about and the results are essentially made up.  But instead of examining that, Ms. Zwirn permits Greenpeace’s “expert” to blithely declare, “We know best practices and they’re not using them.”  That isn’t reporting, it’s stenography.

• Greenpeace has conducted no environmental impact studies on the pole-and-line methods they insist on.  Those methods would drastically increase carbon emissions, worsening the very environmental impacts Greenpeace claims to oppose.  Similarly, they have done no economic analysis of what that method would mean for consumer prices of canned tuna.  Currently, canned tuna is one of the most affordable sources of nutritious protein but in the alternative universe that Greenpeace demands, it would be sharply more expensive to produce.

There is indeed an important conversation to be had about seafood sustainability and its one that we engage in with the public every day.  It’s also why we take part in the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (as do a number of NGO’s), the world’s leading organization on this issue — and a group that Greenpeace refuses to engage and publicly regards with contempt.  But Ms. Zwirn’s article does little to advance that discourse and, as a result, does a disservice to readers who deserve an honest and balanced conversation. Instead it’s an obvious publicity bandwagon for Greenpeace’s fundraising operation, one which fuels a $300 million per year operating budget.

I would like to ask for some explanation for how reporting this slanted and credulous got past supervising editors and what corrective measures the paper might take to prevent it happening again.

Sincerely,

Brandon F. Phillips
Sr. Director, Communications and Advocacy
National Fisheries Institute (NFI)

Consumer Reports is back at it with another error-ridden, alarmist take on tuna and health. We had some fun last time pointing out the absurdity of much of the magazine’s nutrition-based recommendations (see below), but the underlying reality is no laughing matter. Anti-science fear-mongering like this contributes to a very real, ongoing public-health crisis: falling seafood consumption among expectant moms and their kids, the very groups who need it most. The best science shows that inadequate seafood consumption during pregnancy leads to lower IQs, and in adults is the second-largest dietary cause of preventable deaths.

In fact, reckless journalism like this is one reason the FDA is revisiting its guidance and communications on seafood consumption among pregnant and nursing women and children. So its telling that in a report prompted by FDAs review, Consumer Reports fails to disclose to readers that FDA went out of its way to rebuke their last batch of anti-scientific nonsense.

Consumer Reports adds little new this time around, and fails to address the key omissions we called them on.

They did cherry-pick a recent study on yellowfina classic outlier that seems to contradict 50 years of settled science. But they just as easily could have cited another study, from the University of Rochester, that was released at almost the same time. It looked at 1,500 mothers and their children from the Seychelles Islandswhose inhabitants eat fish as many as 12 times a weekover three decades, and found zero evidence that exceptionally high-seafood diets lead to any negative consequences in developing children. Indeed, it proved that mothers with higher levels of the fatty acids found in fish had children with superior motor and cognitive function.

But that doesnt sell as many magazines as phony alarmism, so you wont see it in Consumer Reports.

After our initial letter to TIME magazine, they were unwilling to make any changes, but suggested we send something forinclusionin an update to the piece. We have little faith they will use any significant portion of the letter, so we’re making it available here.

March 31, 2015

Siobhan O’Connor
Health Director
TIME Magazine / TIME.com

Dear Editor:

The deeply misleading article by reporter Mandy Oaklander [Should I Eat Canned Tuna; 3/26] peddles some of the most wrongheaded advice about tuna right at a time when the FDA is warning that Americans need much more seafood in their diet. TIME falsely implies that tuna is somehow contaminated when in reality the newest research from U.S. food safety regulators is that even the most sensitive subpopulations, children and pregnant women, can healthily eat up to 56 ounces (3.5 lbs) of albacore tuna per week (which equates to 3-4 albacore tuna sandwiches/day). This is new, independent, published, peer-reviewed science, not conjecturer.

Nutrition reporting about the health benefits of seafoods like tuna should carry the highest level of journalistic accuracy and objectivity. If you stop drinking soda or eating french fries for example, as Ms. Oaklander has previously reported on, nothing bad will happen. But if you curtail or refrain from eating seafood (and tuna is the most widely available and affordable) the American Medical Association (AMA) warns there is a greater risk of heart attacks and strokes in adults and that infants and children suffer lowered IQ outcomes.

But the FDA and AMA each know that irresponsible, shoddy reporting like TIMEs is one of the factors causing Americans to eat less seafood each year which is precisely why promoting the new guidance to eat more seafood is the focus of national health authorities.

Ms. Oaklander ignored our questions and TIME Magazine disregarded them too. We asked why Ms. Oaklander withheld the fact that theres never been a case of mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in any American medical journal? And why she cherry-picked a mere five medical sources and presented that as a representative sample? When, in fact, 120 peer-reviewed studies from 1972-2013 were conducted on this topic by researchers in Poland, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Denmark, Britain, and the United States nearly every single major study on the subject conducted over four decades confirms that the value of seafood consumption for women and their developing babies far outweighs the risk.

Incredibly, TIME Magazine even disagrees with itself on this subject when it published a separate story less than two months ago that named tuna one of the 50 healthiest foods in the world. The self-contradiction alone tells readers all they need to know about TIMES unreliability on nutrition advice. Isnt it TIME for more careful, accurate reporting? And what about accountability when the distortions are called out? TIME seems to think they can ignore the shortcomings in its reporting and that readers wont care.

Sincerely,

Brandon Phillips, NFI
Sr. Director of Communications
National Fisheries Institute

March 27, 2015

Meredith Long
Publisher

Mandy Oaklander
Author of tuna story/health editor

Nancy Gibbs
Managing Editor – TIME

Edward Felsenthal
Managing editor of Time.com

Andrea Dorfman
Senior Editor, Environment/Science

VIA EMAIL

All

The recent article Should I Eat Canned Tuna? (Mandy Oaklander 3/26/15) contains a number of extraordinary flaws and omissions that not only do your readers a disservice, but put their health at risk. Given the extreme nature of the errors, the piece should be pulled entirely before it does more damage.

The trouble starts before the first line, in the subhead 3/5 experts say yes. A sample size of five is laughable in any publication especially one a lauded as Time.

Oaklander positions this 3/5 number as reflective of the views of the broader scientific community. In fact the consensus of the Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, the American Heart Association, and myriad peer-reviewed papers is that the net health benefits of eating seafood including, specifically, canned tuna far outweigh any hypothetical risks.

Likewise, Michael Gochfelds claim that pregnant women should avoid canned tuna is at odds with both the scientific consensus and the FDA, which is actively encouraging pregnant women to eat more fish than they currently are to improve their childrens eye and brain development. The truth is that women are eating dangerously little seafood, and their consumption has declined precipitously in large part because of baseless articles like Oaklanders.

Times failure to rely on the latest published peer-reviewed science on this issue is embarrassing. In June of 2014 the FDA released a peer-reviewed study that included more than a decade of science: A Quantitative Assessment Of The Net Effects On Fetal Neurodevelopment From Eating Commercial Fish. On page 111 of this extensive research tome the FDA concludes it is safe for the most sensitive of sensitive sub populations, pregnant women, to eat 56 ounces of canned albacore tuna per week and 164 ounces of canned light tuna per week.

How can you allow a reporter to simply ignore independent, ground truth conclusions and literally decades worth of science in favor of skewed hyperbole that strays from lazy editorial oversight into journalistic malpractice?

This reality is perfectly summarized by Dr. David Katz, whom Oaklander also quotes, saying: all studies comparing the inclusion versus the exclusion of fish show better health associated with the inclusion of fish in the diet. Time could have saved its readers a lot of trouble by merely publishing this quote under the original headline.

Oaklanders piece is also scandalous for the facts it omits, including but not limited to:

• No peer-reviewed journal has ever reported a case of mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of commercial seafood.
• Canned tuna falls far below the FDA limit for mercury in seafood, in most cases its 10 times lower than that level.

Just as disturbing as the omissions above is the timing of it. As she notes, the [FDA] is currently revising its guidelines about pregnancy and fish consumption; they hope to encourage more pregnant woman and children to eat fish for its many nutritional benefits.

This is true. A major impetus for the revision is the fact that the current advice is thought by many to be insufficiently straightforward and clear in endorsing a seafood-rich diet, leaving it vulnerable to distortions like those in Oaklanders story.

Which raises the question: What was the impetus for this story? Who pitched it? Which activist groups were involved? Your readers have a right to know.

Sadly, this isnt the first time weve had to confront Time for reckless and irresponsible reporting on canned tuna. In the last instance, Time editors were compelled to make correction after correction to a fatally flawed story in an attempt to meet even basic journalism standards. But given the pervasive and egregious nature of the errors in Oaklanders story, we must again insist that this piece be removed entirely and an editors note correcting the record run in its place.

Perhaps the note could link to this item Time published earlier this monthnaming tuna one of the 50 healthiest foods in the world. We await your reply.

Thank you,

Brandon Phillips
Sr. Director of Communications
National Fisheries Institute