In an irresponsible and unethical attempt to highjack nutrition policy, environmental lobbyists have launched a concerted effort to usurp the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority over food nutrition issues. The activists have organized an effort to publicly and viciously attack FDA for simply producing a report that suggests federal advice on seafood should get in step with the current state of science. That science shows that people who don’t eat plenty of fish – especially pregnant women – are missing out on measurable health benefits.

Why?

The Unites States Department of Agriculture (USDA) routinely updates its dietary advice for Americans every five years after reviewing the latest science. It is only logical that other federal nutrition policy should be revisited as well.

So why are “advocacy” groups throwing a fit? Why do they want consumers to make nutrition decisions based on old science? Why are they steering the ship away from current peer-reviewed studies and straight into accusations of 11th hour antics?

Their agenda is clear. They want to curtail pollution from coal fired power plants (not a bad goal, quite frankly, we are all in favor of less pollution), but they don’t want to lose fish as a poster child for cleaning up mercury. If five years worth of peer reviewed science from places like U.S. National Institutes of Health, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University School of Public Health, the Journal of Pediatrics, the Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows unequivocally that the benefits of eating seafood far outweigh any concern posed by trace amounts of mercury in seafood, the environmental activist messaging and scare tactics will be impacted.

Least we forget, it was Andrew Sharpless from Oceana who told Fortune Magazine, “People start to care much more, and understand the threat to the ocean, when you tell them that their tuna fish is contaminated. It’s a dramatic, eye-opening moment for people.” And maybe wallet-opening as well.

How?

Environmental groups are obscuring the science by wildly highlighting the proximity of FDA’s draft submission to the impending change in administration. But the FDA review is not an 11th hour effort in any way, shape, or form and the environmental activists know this. They know it because reviewing the latest seafood science surrounding federal advice has been a strategic priority for the FDA since 2006. In these publicly available documents (no, we don’t have someone on the “inside” leaking us documents) it is clear that the FDA has been working on this review for years: CFSAN FY 2007 Report to Stakeholders 3.1.3: “In collaboration with NIH, analyze dietary intake of fish in pregnant vs. non-pregnant women.” 2.13.6 “Evaluate risks from methylmercury in seafood and benefits from eating seafood.” CFSAN 2006 Program Priorities 2.11.4: “Methylmercury: Complete evaluation of risk of methylmercury in seafood as weighed against nutritional and other health benefits.” Eco-lobbyists who suggest the timing of this nearly 300 page draft is anything but the culmination of years of scientific review are peddling false agenda-driven rhetoric.

The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) lobbying message includes the farce that “officials of the FDA are secretly mounting an eleventh-hour drive to eliminate the 2004 warnings on mercury in fish, a move that would benefit the commercial fishing industry.” What they know and aren’t telling the public is that the seafood community has publicly called on the Obama administration to make reviewing the science one of its priorities during the first 100 days in office. What’s more, the seafood community has also called for a full and public review of the science. There is nothing secret about that, there is no 11th hour push.

Who?

So, just who is coordinating this effort? We’ve already mentioned EWG, the public face of the activist agenda. But who is behind the scenes?

Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project, sent an email to quite the who’s who of environmental and animal rights activists on Friday, December 12 to be sure everyone was singing from the same song book – the scientific review by the FDA was to be publicly characterized as a “last minute push to eliminate Hg advisories for pregnant women and kids.” Bender even asks “if anyone has additional information (ie their draft report, internal EPA memos, etc.).” He wraps up his email asking if, “there are already strategies underway, please let us know so that we can inform our allies on the Hill.” This is clear and irrefutable evidence that environmental lobbyists are colluding to hijack a public health issue.

Just who was Bender reaching out to? Have a look:

Jacqueline Savitz, Pollution campaign director, senior scientist, Oceana

Jane Hightower, INternal medicine physician; author of Diagnosis Mercury: Money Politics, and Poison

Kathryn Mahaffey, Lecturer, George Washington University School of Public Health; former Environmental Protection Agency scientist

Philippe Grandjean, Adjunct professor of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health; co-author of seafood and pilot whale research from Faroe Islands

Alan Stern, Section chief for risk assessment in the Division of Science, Research and Technology of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Ned Groth, Senior scientist, US Consumers Union

Linda Greer, Senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council

Caroline Smith-Dewaal, Director of Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Jennifer Sass, Senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council

Richard Gould, Physician specializing in pathology; president, San Francisco Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ellen Silbergeld, Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Jane Williams, Executive director, California Communities against Toxics

David Wallinga, Physician; Director of Food and Health Program, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Gina Solomon, Senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council

Teri Shore, Program director, Sea Turtle Restoration Project and GotMercury

Richard Wiles, Co-founder and executive director, Environmental Working Group

Todd Steiner, Executive director, Sea Turtle Restoration Project

Connecting the dots

The Environmental Working Group is clearly the lynch pin of this operation, one that has publicly stirred up a hornet’s nest of issues between FDA and EPA, in the hopes of circumventing the proper review channels. A effort that is now a source of embarrassment for certain more reasonable EPA officials.

So, just where did EWG get that draft report? Well, they haven’t said, but the draft they posted on line is very telling. The EPA comments tracked on the report come from Rita Schoeny. And Schoney has worked on such papers as Maternal Seafood Consumption and Children’s Development with one Kathryn Mahaffey, who- as we already know- is included on the who’s who of environmental activists found colluding to spin the FDA report.

EWG’s copy of said report is rife with Schoney’s comments, but she is not the only regulator who commented. Her comments are just the only ones that show up on this draft– curious.

The Science Will Set You Free

Environmental zealots have forced this issue out of the hands of qualified scientists and into the media, complete with a dash of erroneous enviro-lobbyist messaging and tactics. It appears they will do and say just about anything to ensure their environmental agenda is not impacted-even suppress important public health information that could benefit infant development and public health at large.

To borrow and meld a phrase; the science will set you free. A full, open and public discussion of the science surrounding this issue will expose what the activists, unfortunately, don’t want people to know-their true agenda and the facts about fish.