Don't forget the fish! Make a weekly meal plan and grocery list using this printable planner before hitting the supermarket. Find four of our favorite new seafood recipes here.
Greenpeace’s credibility has been plummeting for years. Stunts like damaging Peru’s ancient Nazca lines and holding dance parties on multi-million dollar yachts have exposed Greenpeace as an organization that is far from a serious stakeholder in the conservation community.
Promoting the next in its long line of colossal failures, Greenpeace targets American tuna companies by attacking them on billboards that are thinly disguised fundraising tools designed to fill their coffers rather than fix the challenges they claim exist. While reasonable, responsible environmental and ocean health organizations work hand-in-hand with tuna canners, who spend millions on sustainability efforts, Greenpeace harasses businesses with billboards, blimps and costumed protesters.
Not to put too fine a point on it but no one takes Greenpeace seriously in this country.
A recent article from Newsweek by Melania Juntti [11 Foods You Should Never Feed Your Kids] recklessly includes canned tuna among foods parents should not feed their children.
This is not only wrong, it’s counterproductive—even dangerous—advice for parents of growing children. If Newsweek advised mothers to forego the usual suspects in the food wars—sugary drinks or fatty snacks, say—kids may or may not benefit. But no harm would be done.
It’s embarrassing from a reporting perspective for Newsweek to allow the narrative and the voices in this seafood sustainability piece to go unchallenged, when governments across the globe are spearheading efforts to increase seafood consumption.
The sensational story about tilapia seen this week in the “Healthy Food Team” and “Danified.com” is nothing short of embarrassing. The alarmist article dispenses hyperbole about tilapia that has been debunked and discredited by doctors, dietitians, and scientists years ago.
How many times can Greenpeace recycle the same old publicity stunts before they finally exhaust the gullibility of the news media? That seems to be the wager behind the global fundraising organization’s announcement of its latest manufactured attack on the seafood industry.
Over at the New York Times, Jim Windolf astutely notes that the American media has a corrosive habit of fomenting hysteria over nonexistent health threats, and that we’d probably be better off tuning out the doomsayers and going about our lives.
More than a year after the Food and Drug Administration definitively called out Consumer Reports for its feckless and dangerous misinformation on tuna, the group continues to peddle the same pseudo-science to mothers and expectant women.
Consumer Reports packaged its latest attack on public health as a “safety alert”, but in fact it’s a warmed over version of the original, discredited story misleadingly presented as novel work.
A word of warning to reporters who might have come across a press release promoting a little-known study that purports to look at the benefits and risks associated with eating fish. The study claims it finds gaps in the scientific and nutrition understanding of seafood. But that is not in keeping with widely-accepted published, peer-reviewed research.
September 1, 2015
Health & Nutrition Editor
Dear Ms. Fernstrom,
Today.com’s recent article Eating fish 2-3 times a week is recommended: What about every day? enters into and an interesting and important discussion about seafood consumption in this country. By and large Linda Carroll’s reliance on experts guides her towards some useful information that may be able help your readers make informed dietary decisions.