ABOUT

Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund. (More. . .)


FEED

 Subscribe in a Reader

Subscribe by Email


Mixed Greens
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.


TWITTER UPDATES

    TIPS

    Did we miss something? Email Amanda.


    BLOGROLL


    STAY CONNECTED

    Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]


    Confirmed: New shower curtain smell is gross

    House bill would ban BPA in food, beverage packaging

    Chemical injections in Colorado


    FEATURED

    BPA in your body: How to minimize your exposure

    Caution: These 7 household items may feminize baby boys

    BPA in infant formula: This is not a call to panic

    Cheatsheet: Bisphenol A

    7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs

    Your BPA questions, answered



    Ask EWG

    What is "fragrance"?

    Which infant formula is best?

    Is there eco-friendly jewelry?

    Are stainless steel water bottles safe?

    Is mineral-based makeup safer?


    SEARCH


    ARCHIVE

    « Mothers told: "Eat fish! No wait, don't eat fish!" | Main | SMM: A food and farm bill for school lunches »

    October 5, 2007

    This Enviroblog post has not been funded by the seafood industry

    Pregnant and nursing women should limit fish consumption.So, the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies coalition has issued a recommendation that women who are pregnant, breast-feeding, or planning on becoming pregnant should eat at at least 12 ounces of fish per week -- including mackerel and tuna. The recommendation goes directly against the standing government guidelines, which advise women to eat no more than 12 ounces per week, and to avoid fish known to be high in mercury concentration -- including none other than mackerel and tuna.

    Who belongs to the coalition? According to The Washington Post, "top scientists from private groups and federal agencies." What the paper forgot to mention in its front page story (in which it paid considerable lip service to a recommendation which goes directly against government recommendations) was the coalition's silent partner. The "review" was funded by the National Fisheries Institute, the preeminent seafood industry advocacy group.

    Sounds pretty fishy, but evidently industry-funded science doesn't set off any alarms at any of the host of mainstream media outlets covering the story yesterday. Most of them treated the news as a mandate from heaven, even after it was revealed during the press briefing that the organization had received funding from the seafood industry.

    This is a straightforward case of science-for-hire: the seafood industry wanted to boost sales, so they hired a review panel to recommend that women eat more fish -- and the media bought it hook, line and sinker.

    If media's only requirement is that a handful of people with degrees back a statement, what will tomorrow's headline be?

    Courtesy of the tobacco industry:

    "Cigarette smoking improves lung function"

    Or the alcohol industry:

    "Whiskey helps stem liver failure"

    Or the auto industry:

    "Safety belts increase risk of accident fatality"


    Let's be honest: smoking cigarettes can give you cancer, if you have liver problems you shouldn't be drinking, and use of safety belts has reduced accident fatalities by 45 percent. According to the EPA, 1 in 6 babies born in this country are already at risk for developmental disorders caused by mercury exposure, and increasing fish consumption would just put more kids at risk. Pregnant or nursing women should not consume more than 12 ounces of fish per week, no matter what the seafood industry says.

    « Mothers told: "Eat fish! No wait, don't eat fish!" |