About Seafood

Happy new year!

For a few glorious minutes over the holidays, I cozied up on the couch and caught up on some nutrition reading. The article that really caught my attention was Vitamin D Deficiency in Children in @TodaysDietitian, December 2012 issue.

Weve been hearing a lot about vitamin D lately. Its vital for bone health and helps prevent chronic diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer. Yet, vitamin D deficiency is on the rise, particularly in children and teens.
The Sunlight (and Fish) Vitamin

One reason for the increasing prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is the increasing use of sunscreen. Because our bodies make vitamin D when ultraviolet rays hit our skin, direct sunlight on the skin is the best source of vitamin D. We dont need a lot of direct exposure to the sun (experts say anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes), but most of us just dont get enough sun exposure during the winter months.

The good news is that we can eat more vitamin D-rich foods, like fatty fish and fortified cereals and dairy products, to help bridge the vitamin D gap. Reach for fatty fish, like salmon, mackerel, sardines, herring, trout and tuna a few times each week to help you meet the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and reduce risk of chronic disease, like cardiovascular disease.

For easy weeknight vitamin D-rich dinners, try these tasty meals.

• Mix canned or pouch tuna with taco seasoning, shredded cabbage, diced tomatoes and a little cheese. Serve with corn tortillas.
• Scramble eggs with diced onion, spinach and smoked or canned salmon. Serve with mixed greens salad and fruit.
• Saute trout in olive oil and serve with cherry tomato halves and garlic sauteed in olive oil. Serve with brown rice and sauteed dark leafy greens.
• Mix canned salmon with pasta, peas and a little light mayonnaise. Serve with a whole grain crusty bread.
• Mash sardines with garlic, olive oil and a little mustard. Serve on whole grain toast or crackers, along with a mixed greens salad.

Whats your favorite vitamin-D rich fish? Please share with us! Feel free to leave a comment here or email me at rkleiner@nfi.org.

Posted by Rima Kleiner, MS, RD

The Doctors television show hopes to supply viewers with critical information to make informed and intelligent health care decisions.

But can the program, which is hosted by former Bachelor reality TV star Dr. Travis Stork and features three other telegenic professionals, really be considered a serious authority if it all too frequently promotes the latest diet trends, health fads and bogus medical claims?

Not a chance. The Doctors often blurs the lines between fact and sensationalism in order to fulfill its real mission: attracting television viewers. Celebrity and glamour, not facts, is what theyre after. No wonder the boring but essential truth rarely comes to light.

For example, their record on fish advice is dismal (see here, here, here and here). Their latest missteps happened during their Dallas episode. Yes, the episode where the medical doctors are all dressed up in cowboy costumes while discussing serious nutrition advice.

Travis Stork: ” . . . predatory fish . . . do have higher levels of mercury, and you have eat that in moderation. You really don’t want to go over it a few times a month. And certainly if you’re eating it a lot, and you develop any bizarre neurological symptoms, you should get your mercury levels tested.”

Andrew Ordon: “Rule of thumb, the bigger the fish, the more likely to have mercury. That’s important with kids and pregnant women.”

Lisa Masterson: “Especially pregnant women.”

James Sears: “Especially young kids. Any fish that eats a lot of fish is going to be high in mercury.”

A couple of facts The Doctors failed to mention:

1) Methylmercury is a naturally occurring element present in trace amounts in all fish.

2) There has never been a case of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of seafood recorded in any peer review medical journal in the United States.

3) The USDAs Dietary Guidelines for Americans urge people to double the amount of fish they currently eat from about 3.5 ounces per week to 8 ounces.

4) Seafood like canned tuna is a rich source of essential nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids that accelerate brain development infancy and help prevent heart disease later in life. Moreover, medical experts agree that any risk associated with eating seafood is far outweighed by the benefits.

Why doesnt The Doctors report this good news instead of spreading outdated, unfounded doubts? Perhaps it has something to do with the business of television ratings. TV tells stories, and stories depend on tension manufactured or otherwise to hold the attention of the audience. Perhaps to say there is no reason to be concerned about mercury in seafood simply isnt a sufficiently compelling story for afternoon TV.

Wed like to suggest an alternative storyline: there is a very real public health crisis in America because people dont have enough seafood in their diet and those who would discourage Americans from eating more fish are responsible for tens of thousands of preventable deaths in this country each year. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health told Time Magazine (the magazine describes him as co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies to date on the impact of fish consumption on human health), “I know I sound like I’m trying to downplay the risk but I really think we are experimenting with people’s lives when we give recommendations or write stories or reports that make people eat less fish.

That has all the elements of a gripping story tension, urgency, heroes, villains and loved ones at risk of untimely death. It also has the added benefit of being true. Hopefully Hollywood producers will jump on this surefire formula for afternoon TV success.

In a perfect example of the changing media attitude toward science-based information concerning seafood advice, NFIs registered dietitian, Jennifer McGuire, was given the opportunity last week to clear up some confusing recommendations from Mens Health editor Eric Adams. In an earlier interview with local DC radio station WTOP, Adams touted the widely misused FDA seafood guidance for pregnant women as the advice everyone should follow, including the magazines largely male audience. According to Adams, we should be reducing the amount of canned tuna we eat each week, with albacore tuna limited to only 6 ounces a week.

After a quick response from NFI explaining the discrepancies in Adams recommendation (including the fact that that advice is meant for pregnant women ONLY), McGuire was invited on the show Friday night to correct these common misconceptions on seafood advice.

Check out Jennifer McGuires interview here.

Our long-time readers will recall how beginning in January 2010, the National Fisheries Institute challenged Dr. Mehmet Oz, the host of “The Dr. Oz Show,” concerning statements he made about fish and mercury on his program. Since then, we’ve written Dr. Oz‘s producers and lawyers on two additional occasions (click here or here). We issued a media advisory and a press release when the original episode, with errors, was re-broadcast in June 2010. In addition, we’ve also written twice to King Features, the syndicator of his national newspaper column (click here and here), when we discovered errors.

All in all, Dr. Oz has communicated with us only once, with a perfunctory letter sent by one of his lawyers. But while Dr. Oz has been quiet for some time now on the issue, we always keep an eye out, and once again he returned to his old misguided advice about eating seafood when he said the following to a reporter at WPBF-TV in Palm Beach, Florida: “As for canned tuna, indulge just once a week, because it’s high in mercury.”

The FDA actually says, For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. While pregnant or nursing mothers and young children are advised to avoid four rarely-eaten fish (shark, swordfish, tilefish and king mackerel) the very latest in peer-reviewed published nutrition advice (the USDAs Dietary Guidelines for Americans) is clear, the benefits of consuming seafood far outweigh the risks, even for pregnant women.

Compounding the problem: Dr. Oz made the same mistake on his own website and has made no attempt to correct the error.

Dr. Oz has served up inaccurate information about fish numerous times, even after we informed him of his error. Dr. Oz has left us no choice but to send the following letter to his legal counsel.

Dear Ms. Beaudoin,

The National Fisheries Institute suspects that Dr. Mehmet Ozs continued inaccurate statements about the safety of eating canned tuna might not merely be an uninformed opinion but rather the willful disparagement of a product. On July 19, 2011, while promoting his upcoming fourth season, Dr. Oz told a WPBF-TV reporter, As for canned tuna, indulge just once a week, because it’s high in mercury. To view that quote in context, please visit http://www.wpbf.com/health/28586046/detail.html.

Since January 2010, we have written to you and other representatives of ZoCo Productions on three separate occasions. Our letters have pointed out that Dr. Ozs views on seafood consumption are in stark contrast with the Food and Drug Administrations long-standing guidelines and the USDAs Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is the current federal nutrition policy. Further, having been informed of and provided with the approved FDA language previously, Dr. Oz continues to sow confusion about the safety of canned tuna. The incorrect interpretation of the FDA advisory can still be found on your website. The article in question is at: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/three-dangerous-food-toxins.

The First Amendment allows for uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate on public issues and protects people from legal ramifications unless their speech is both false and made with the knowledge of its falsehood. Since we have been on the record with ZoCo Productions and its employee, Dr. Oz, about this issue numerous times, a reasonable person could be led to believe that his continued campaign against canned tuna is an intentional, reckless disregard for the truth.

Attached are copies of our previous correspondence as well as the governments official advice on eating seafood, which does not restrict canned tuna or any other type of seafood for the general public. Since The Dr. Oz Show is syndicated, we are compelled to inform the general counsels at the networks and affiliates scheduled to broadcast the program about this regrettable situation. They too are ethically and legally responsible for program content. We will also share the previous communications, USDA advice on consumption of seafood and a copy of this letter warning them to scrutinize the shows content so that they do not broadcast content that misinforms consumers about canned tuna or other seafood products.

With this in mind, we would like to request the following:

• Update your website deleting any incorrect interpretation of the FDA advisory on seafood and mercury. To this day, your website reads, The Food and Drug Administration recommends that people eat albacore tuna once a week at most and chunk tuna no more than twice a week. Pregnant women (or those trying to conceive) should avoid high-mercury fish as much as possible. As noted earlier, this is simply wrong. There is not and has never been a government limit on eating canned tuna or any other seafood for the general public. Furthermore, pregnant women are encouraged to eat 12 ounces of fish weekly and all 12 ounces could be light canned tuna or 6 ounces of albacore tuna.
• Make an on-air correction, in addition to editing your website, to clarify the actual content of the FDA seafood guidance.

Failure to reply to this letter in a timely manner with an assurance that Dr. Oz understands that free speech doesnt sanction promotion of false information and with a pledge that he will be judicious when dispensing advice about seafood consumption on his show or at public appearances will result in a public appeal made through the media and direct outreach to major medical societies and your advertisers.

Sincerely,

Mary Anne Hansan

We’ll keep you informed as to if/when we get a resp onse.

So, heres the latest from the folks at Time.com. This time their lawyer lets us know how indisputably accurate their story is– only after having been revised twice because of myriad demonstrable errors we pointed out to them.

Let me suggest a way we can stop this back and forth. We both agree that tuna is generally healthfulTimes words, not mine. So lets not feature it on a list of the ten most dangerous foodsshall we?

Sounds like a simple enough solution. March 3, 2010 EMAIL

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

Re: Time.com — Tuna Tremors Dear Mr. Gibbons: Your letter of March 1. 2010 to Maurice Edelson was referred to me. You

have complained of Time.coms lack of response, but in fact the websites editor, Daniel Eisnberg, responded to you promptly and twice updated the piece to accommodate your concerns. This action is a far cry from your charge that Time appears unwilling to remedy or even address the harm that has been done.

The article is indisputably accurate. It points out that tuna can be adanger to pregnant women and children, in the same way it highlights that peanuts are aproblem for the 1% of the population that is allergic. The piece does not suggest thatpeople in general should stop eating tuna, or that the benefits of tuna do not outweigh the risks — just like peanuts, leafy greens and mushrooms are generally healthful. And the

fact that a California court ruled that tuna did not require a warning label is hardly dispositive, since other items on the list do not carry warning labels either.

Sincerely,

Robin Bierstedt

cc: Maurice Edelson

Daniel Eisenberg

John Huey

Sora Song

Richard Stengel

the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR.) Apparently CJR finds, in its latest edition, that the online version of many a magazine is lacking in the conventional copy-editing and fact-checking department. Interesting.

The editors at Time have made change after change to this story, trying to bring it up to their standards, but perhaps a forest-for-the-trees issue has set in. You see, you can report the facts to the letter of the law 24 hours a day 7 days a week and still tuna wont be one of the top ten most dangerous foodsthats the simple fact.

For those of you who are joining us just now, here’s a list of all of our previous and subsequent posts on this subject.

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right (II)

Taking The Time To Get The Story Right (III)

I Wonder If Time.com Has A Subscription To

As of this moment, we’ve yet to receive any sort of response from Time on the below communication.

March 1, 2010

Maurice Edelson

General Counsel

Time Inc.

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Edelson,

We have not heard back from you on the points we broached in our three letters of last week to Mr. Eisenberg, two of which you were copied on. Your silence on this issue is of concern to us because the issues we raised are both serious and substantive.

The fact of the matter is that Time published a falsehood about tuna, namely that it is among the ten most dangerous foods and included it on a list with eight foods that could be deadly if consumed, an obvious commercial disparagement with no basis in fact.

We would like to bring to your attention, specifically, a California court ruling from last year on the very issue of tuna and its safety as a product. The appellate court ruling states in part, following a six-week bench trial, with a parade of expert witnesses, the court upheld a previous court ruling that, the amount of methylmercury in canned tuna does not rise to the threshold level that would trigger the warning requirement for this chemical; and virtually all methylmercury is naturally occurring.( The People ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al., A116792) Why would the state of California continue to rule tuna does not require a warning label if it was a dangerous food?

Since Time appears unwilling to remedy or even address the harm that has been done, our next step is to consider pursuit of all legal options at our disposal.

As you know, we have requested that Time remove tuna from its list and website. At this point we are left to interpret Time.coms lack of response as a refusal to take those corrective measures. Accordingly, we will proceed to seek relief in other avenues. If you have any other thoughts to offer, we would be glad to hear them.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Daniel Eisenberg, News Executive Editor

Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor

John Huey, Editor-in-Chief

Time.com has once again edited its piece on tuna. Thats two sets of corrections in two days. But were really at a point where the piecemeal editing and backtracking has exposed grave flaws in not only the reporting on this issue but the editorial process that went into publishing it.

With all the tweaks and rewrites associated with it Time.com appears to have lost sight of an important part of our ask of themto take the story down. Again and again in letter after letter we have exposed misreporting and erroneous sourcing and asked them to remove it from their site so that it may undergo a private review with Times standards in mind— thus far it has clearly not lived up to those standards.

Let me help Time.com and its editors, and at this point lawyers, put this to bed:

• Time.com reports that tuna is one of the 10 most dangerous foods consumers can eat and places it alongside 8 foods that can apparently killincluding one that contains a toxin 1,200 times deadlier than cyanide and one whose poison can lead to coma or death. Has Time.coms research and extensive editorial review of this issue lead it to conclude that tuna is in fact one of the 10 most dangerous foods consumers can eat? If the answer is no it should be removed from the list immediately. Period.

Heres a look at our latest letter to Time after it issued its second set of corrections–

February 25, 2010

Daniel Eisenberg

News Executive Editor

Time.com

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

Thank you for your note and, yes, we noticed this morning that Time has clarified the item on tuna. But you have not addressed the most important substantive points in the letter I sent you yesterday.

The edits notwithstanding, the item remains disparaging and journalistically irresponsible in several respects. Specifically:

The item cites tuna as one of The top ten most dangerous foods. This is simply false by any measure. There is not a single case in the published, peer-reviewed medical literature in this country of anyone suffering mercury toxicity from eating tuna. Cases of Scombroid, the other potential harm cited, are rare and can occur in raw fish that is mishandled, and are not a unique property of tuna, as readers are led to believe.

The FDAs public guidance also advises that consumers should not eliminate or curtail seafood consumption and instead recommends specific regular intake a contrary fact that Time willfully omits.

It is willful because, as you know, Time itself reported the public health harm that occurs from alarmist and incomplete reporting on seafood consumption. Again, the omission of these facts previously reported by the magazine demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truth.

Given that eight of the other food items on your list are potentially fatal to consumers, the seriousness of your assertions are hard to overstate. They are also an obvious commercial disparagement. Accordingly, we renew the request that you remove tuna altogether from your list of dangerous foods.

Otherwise we will be obliged to set the record straight publicly, including reporter Alyssa Fetinis self-described reliance on source material from a political activist group. We will also have to pursue all legal remedies at our disposal.

I appreciate your prompt attention to the matter.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Maurice Edelson, General Counsel

Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor

Attrition is defined as, the wearing away of a surface, typically by friction or abrasion. In the case of our on-going challenge to Time Magazine to print the true story on tuna I have to wonder aloud if, in this case, simple attrition and not adherence to standards has forced a modicum of contrition.

You see- we emailed, we called and we blogged about Time.coms bush-league mistakes in reporting about tuna and finally, begrudgingly the reporter made 4 substantial corrections in a write-up that was originally less than 150 words.

Four corrections to a piece that could fit on an index card is a pretty poor showing for such a vaunted publication. So weve contacted Time.com again and insisted (again) that the publication simply remove the piece from their site and undertake a thorough review so readers will know why a 2008 article in the same publication reviewed the Danger Of Not Eating Tuna and then a 2010 article named it one of the 10 Most Dangerous Foods.

Poor research, sloppy sourcing and contradictions are the hallmarks of this story. Rather than dribbling out piecemeal corrections you would think a publication dedicated to the highest of journalism standards would note its flawed foundation and pull it.

We will continue to ask Time.com to get it right or get rid of itediting by erosion will not do.

Well, Time.com sure made some significant changes to that tuna article it botched yesterday. But heres the questionis begrudgingly editing an erroneous report in order to come more in line with the actual facts enough? In this caseno. The report was fatally flawed from the beginning and, as we requested, should not just be corrected piecemeal but should be removed from the site altogether and the process that allowed it to be published should be carefully reviewed. Time.com may be done talking to us but were not done talking to Time.com:

February 24, 2010

Daniel Eisenberg

News Executive Editor

Time.com

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

Thank you for acknowledging receipt of our Letter to the Editor. The problems in the piece however are more than just a difference of opinion. Time.com has published an article that is both demonstrably misleading and commercially disparaging toward our product. Whats more, the article is at odds with specific perspective previously reported by Time, which demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth.

Here are the specifics:

The piece cites a New York Times article saying that some tuna contained mercury levels so high that the FDA would be justified in removing the fish from the market. In fact, that story required a correction indicating that the reporter had overstated the risk by a factor of seven. The papers own public editor also penned a column rebuking the reporting and the supervising editor was quoted saying that it was overstated. Thats not just critics thats the paper itself conceding that their reporting was in error.

The piece falsely states that, The FDA has also warned against the likelihood of fresh tuna lovers falling prey to Scombroid, a mild food poisoning caused by the toxins emitted from improperly refrigerating the fish. In fact, Scombroid is not unique to tuna.

Eight of the ten food items that are included in the list alongside tuna can be fatal if not consumed properly. Yet there has never been a single case of mercury toxicity from the normal consumption of tuna found in any published peer-reviewed medical journal.

As you know, a representative from the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) contacted reporter Alyssa Fetini directly about our concerns. Despite an initial unwillingness to address obvious and demonstrable errors in her reporting Fetini:

• changed the title to Tuna Tremors from Tuna Terrors
• changed her reporting on the FDA/EPA advice to reflect that only a sensitive subpopulation was the target and not consumers broadly
• noted that the New York Times piece she originally cited had been accused by critics of being flawed
• edited the Scombriod section to note it is a mild food poisoning

This article is less than 150 words and has already undergone four significant corrections. But it is the entire premise of the piece that is flawed and should be removed.

Whats more, your reporter told our representative that despite not sourcing her work as coming from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), her original list was based in part on a list complied by CSPI, not the American Association of Pediatrics, as was strongly implied in the original article.

Perhaps most disturbing, your reporter told our representative that Time.com top ten lists were designed to be tongue-in-cheek. Rather than tongue-in-cheek, we find this item journalistically unsound and commercially disparaging, in that it broadly and incorrectly seeks to characterize an inherently healthy product as not just potentially harmful but among the most dangerous and deadly foods you can eat.

Absent immediate and more appropriate corrective action by Time, we intend to vigorously contest this matter publicly and point out Time.coms willful misconduct in ads, through media critics, and possibly through legal action.

Thank you for your continued attention to this serious issue.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc Maurice Edelson, General Counsel

Sora Song, Time.com Health & Medicine Editor

Richard Stengel, Time Magazine Managing Editor