Tilapia is a popular, farmed fish that is generally imported to the U.S. It’s also apparently on the hit list of a University of Georgia microbiologist named Michael Doyle. You might have read recently that Doyle claimed "(Feces) is the primary nutrient for growing the tilapia (in China)."
Really? A published professor, who holds numerous food safety patents believes the primary food farmed tilapia is fed is chicken poop?
This week’s GAO report on imported seafood said a number of things and made a number of recommendations that by in large make sense. The report didn’t break much new ground because the Food Safety Modernization Act, released in January, has FDA already working on much of what the report suggested they work on. So, while there was some hand wringing and hyperbolic headlines it wasn’t quite the damning tome some might imagine.
It would appear we’re not the only ones who see Greenpeace’s true colors: a politically motivated organization operating under the guise of charity and environmentalism. Well, not anymore… at least not in New Zealand.
There’s been a bit of breathless reporting on the new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on what the FDA needs to do to improve oversight of imported seafood. In many cases the headlines replete with buzz words like risks, drug-tainted and harmful aren’t quite as impactful when you find the recommendations that the FDA be more risk-based and better leverage its resources have actually already been widely addressed in the Food Safety Modernization Act that came out in January. The GAO report recommends sampling based on targeted risk.
From a past encounter with the New York Times, one that ended with a correction from the Times and a rebuke by the paper’s ombudsman, we know that the Old Grey Lady ain’t what she used to be. But I’m not sure she’s changed for the better.
After years of confusion about eating seafood during pregnancy, a respected and knowledgeable nutrition voice is helping to clear the air.
In this morning’s USA Today the paper reports on Greenpeace’s flawed and oft ignored retailer rankings. But what’s caught my eye about the piece is not what they write but who is writing. It would appear to be Kim O'Donnel, perhaps the same Kim O’Donnel who used to write for the Washington Post.
The gall of NFI … not being afraid of Greenpeace. How dare NFI not cower in the corner at the specter of teenage volunteers clad in rainbow gear disagreeing with us, while their fearless captains sit firmly ensconced behind a $300,000,000 budget back at the Hall of Justice.
The horror, the horror.
Did Johnson have it wrong, and the last refuge of a scoundrel is running from the facts? Once again Greenpeace whacks away indiscriminately in hopes that people will get caught up in its style and ignore its lack of substance.
Typical.
Greenpeace’s retailer rankings have grown into a groundhog day of sorts and have led consumers to, by in large, simply ignore them. Likewise, despite the new stance by Greenpeace that has the group lauding all of the apparent progress that propels the rather random reordering of stores on the list, perhaps these days even retailers get it that far more Americans know who Snookie is than have any idea that Greenpeace ranks retailers based on their seafood sourcing policy.
Are journalists trending towards facts over fear in their stories about Japan and seafood? If the Associated Press is any bell weather that may be the case. AP’s Q and A includes this:
Q. Will ocean creatures be harmed by the discharges of the radioactive water?
A. Experts say animals very near the plant may face problems like higher rates of genetic mutations, but that this would probably happen within only maybe a half a mile or so.
