The environmental lobbying group Oceana has unfortunately turned to misinformation in an attempt to distract from the fact that responsible food communicators and registered dietitians have produced a well-researched piece of nutrition communication on pregnancy and seafood. Oceana’s efforts are designed to decrease fish consumption and not improve public health. The science-based pregnancy and seafood flyer is an effort to get the latest ground truth science, including FDA advice as well as conclusions from more recently published independent studies, into the hands of targeted consumers.

This well researched piece of nutrition communication gives retailers and those targeted consumers access to important facts.

As part of Oceana’s message to its members it cites “years of research” in suggesting that warning signs about seafood, as apposed to targeted education, are needed. However, instead of citing independent scientific studies, like the one published in September by a Harvard researcher that concluded the many benefits to pregnant women of eating seafood, it cites a New York Times article about mercury levels in sushi tuna. An article that has been publicly discredited byTime magazine, Slate.com, The Center for Independent Media and the Times’ own public editor.A simple comparison of discredited scare-stories and independent science reveals myriad agenda-driven exaggerations.

In an ironic twist Oceana suggests that the new flyer could “easily mislead consumers.” When in fact a common tactic used by the group is designed precisely to mislead consumers. In writing and speaking about the FDA seafood advisory Oceana has a well documented history of referring to “consumers” as a whole rather than the sensitive subpopulation the FDA advisory is specifically designed for. The advice on any flyer or any sign should be directed at the very specific sensitive subpopulation of women and children and not “consumers” at large. In fact, the misleading effect of warning signs on people they are not designed for is called “spill over” and researchers have specifically warned about its negative effects. The flyer was tested by independent researchers to ensure the correct message was getting to the correct population.

People who are not familiar with Oceana should know that its focus is the health of the oceans and not public health. There is a distinct and important difference between environmental lobbying work and the distribution of science-based public health information.