The Washington Post reports that the Food and Drug Administration has delivered a report to the Office of Management and Budget suggesting that it is time to amend the FDA/EPA seafood advisory.

The article exposes the clear and unmistakable divisions highlighted by this issue. On one side we find those interested in educating people about the very latest in nutrition research and its impact on public health. On the other we find environmental activists whose aggressive rhetoric expose an agenda that is thin on scientific evidence and thick on issue-clouding commentary.

Almost five long years of research since the advisory was last updated provides clear and concrete evidence that the real risk to public health is not eating enough seafood. Report after report, study after study from Harvard University to the Institute Of Medicine— science concludes that the benefits of eating seafood far outweigh the risks.

Doctors and dietitians know that the USDA updates its dietary guidelines for Americans every 5 years. The process involves a thorough review of the latest in nutrition science. Why wouldn’t groups who are truly interested in public health endorse doing the same for the FDA/EPA seafood advisory?

Well, the fact is-they are not truly interested in public health. If they had ground truth science that stood in contrast to the science that we can assume was used to conclude the advisory should be changed, they would cite it rather than attempting to impugn the credibly of those delivering the message.

Let’s take a deeper look at this story, shall we? In the 12th paragraph it is revealed that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) wrote to the EPA urging it to oppose the FDA’s recommendations. That would mean someone had to have leaked EWG the still unreleased report. I wonder who that could be? Perhaps someone with an agenda that suggests environmental health trumps public health?

The reality is that the research conclusions are clear and it’s time for petty agency turf battles and meddling environmental extremists to get out of the way of concise science that will have a measurably positive effect on public health.