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Reports has maintained a disproportionate focus on mercury, we also encourage you to research the latest FDA/EPA draft guidance on eating seafood for pregnant women.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