Study Ignores Ignores Most Recent Peer-reviewed Science on Fish and Nutrition
April 22, 2010, Washington, D.C. – The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is urging reporters and editors to exercise caution when reporting on a study concerning sushi tuna and mercury that was recently published in the British journal, Biology Letters. The research, conducted in part by the American Museum of Natural History, ignores the most recent peer-reviewed science on fish and nutrition that shows the overall effect of eating fish as a whole food – omega-3s, selenium, lean protein, traces of mercury and all – is a boost to heart and brain health. It is crucial to understand this study does not look at how eating fish affects our health one way or the other. It is inaccurate and irresponsible to draw inferences about health or risk from the fact that different species of fish have different levels of mercury. There is nothing remarkable about the studies main finding that different species of fish have different levels of mercury, something which is a long-understood fact. Recent research confirms traces of mercury in ocean fish are naturally-occurring and levels vary by the depth fish feed at and what they eat. The study claims that all species tested had readings that “exceed or approach levels permissible” by the U.S. The fact is the FDA mercury limit for seafood includes a 1,000 percent safety factor ("FDA’s action level of 1 ppm for methyl mercury in fish was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.) And approaching that limit or even slightly exceeding it does not equal health risk. It is also important to note that the study tracks very closely against a story that ran in the New York Times in 2008 (click here for more details), one that was subsequently debunked by a number of independent media critics as well as publicly rebuked by the newspaper’s own public editor. The researchers in the latest study rightly note that a lack of understanding about the trace amounts of naturally-occurring mercury found in seafood, like that found in all fish, can unnecessarily discourage people from eating seafood. This is a study that tests mercury levels in fish, but stops short of any work exploring what -- if anything -- those levels mean for health. In the interest of a balanced and accurate article we must insist that an independent nutrition scientist with an expertise in this area be interviewed about the health effects of eating fish if that subject is broached in relation to this study. Click here for a list of those experts.
For more than 60 years, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and its members have provided American families with the variety of sustainable seafood essential to a healthy diet. For more information visit: www.AboutSeafood.com.
###
Contact Information:
Gavin Gibbons
703.752.8891
Latest Peer-Reviewed Science on Fish and Nutrition Ignored
MEDIA ADVISORY
April 21, 2010, Washington, D.C. – The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is encouraging reporters and editors to contact the Institute directly before completing any reporting about a study on fish and mercury published in the most recent edition of Environmental Research. The study, "Ranking the contributions of commercial fish and shellfish varieties to mercury exposure in the United States," ignores peer-reviewed nutrition science that shows eating fish provides an overall boost to health.
Implying that Americans are at risk of mercury poisoning from eating tuna is ridiculous, considering that the average consumer eats far less fish than recommended. While the consensus of health and nutrition authorities agree that Americans should be eating 39 pounds of fish per year, consumption data shows that the average Americans only eats 16 pounds. Reducing this any further would mean forgoing the proven beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D and antioxidants like selenium.
Studies that single out the presence of trace amounts of mercury in seafood can cause real harm to public health. The ten most commonly eaten fish in the U.S., including tuna, are considered to be low in mercury. A 2009 study concluded low omega-3/seafood intake is the second-largest dietary contributor to preventable deaths in the U.S. In other words, if Americans increased the amount of seafood they ate per year to recommended levels, it could prevent 84,000 deaths a year.
According to the the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the only subpopulations that need to be concerned with mercury in seafood are women who are or may become pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children. The FDA says those groups should eat a variety of seafood twice a week with as much as 6 ounces of white/albacore tuna while avoiding four species of fish: shark, king mackerel, swordfish, tilefish. All other consumers should continue to follow the advice of reputable health organizations to eat a variety of fish twice a week.
For more than 60 years, the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and its members have provided American families with the variety of sustainable seafood essential to a healthy diet. For more information visit: www.AboutSeafood.com.
###
Contact Information:
Gavin Gibbons
703-752-8891
…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 won’t be one of the top ten most dangerous foods—that’s 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
Time.com has once again edited its piece on tuna. That’s two sets of corrections in two days. But we’re 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.
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.
Well, Time.com sure made some significant changes to that tuna article it botched yesterday. But here’s the question—is begrudgingly editing an erroneous report in order to come more in line with the actual facts enough? In this case—no. 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 we’re not done talking to Time.com:
February 24, 2010
Today I got real creative over lunchtime. First, I came up with a new tuna sandwich combination: 1) Mix chopped apples, yogurt and/or mayo, and chopped jalapeño together.2) Spread on a piece of whole wheat bread.3) Top with a bit of shredded pepper jack cheese and another piece of whole wheat bread.
When I think if Time magazine, or even Time.com for that matter, I don’t think of agenda driven hacks or sloppy sensationalists trying to out do the competition. I think of solid journalists who, for the most part, let their work speak for itself. For cryin’ out loud, this is the publication that names the Person of the Year. You’ll probably sense my disappointment in the following letter… although it may be masked by a dash of snarkieness brought on by frustration. Have a look:
Examiner.com is an interesting publishing model that hints at the future of journalism; citizen reporters lending their eyes, ears and expertise to an evolving, organic news site. But what can sound good in theory can go completely off the tracks in practice. The proverbial inmates are running the asylum over at Examiner.com and its coverage of seafood science is evidence of that.
