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

An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
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
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
Is there eco-friendly jewelry?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« 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
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"
Comments
Thanks for this. Mercury is a problem, and conflicted studies don't help. The real story is only trickling out, but I think eventually the seafood industry will be eating crow.
There's also that little problem of the coalition claiming support from entities that don't support the study.
Posted by: Mark Powell | October 5, 2007 3:44 PM