Toxic Fish is Big Business
For those who have not been following the long story of lies and government corruption adjunct to tuna fish:
Tuna is big business. Americans eat nearly three pounds of canned tuna per capita every year, making it the nation’s second most popular seafood (behind shrimp). The government promotes it via school lunch programs, wic (the federal food program for poor women and children), and even in the fda and US Department of Agriculture dietary recommendations. It’s a staple of low-carb diets. Bodybuilders binge on it. Low in fat, high in protein, canned tuna contains lots of omega-3 fatty acids that are thought to protect against heart disease and boost brain development early in life. Some tuna cans come stamped with the American Heart Association seal of approval.
But thanks to emissions from power plants and garbage incinerators, tuna also absorbs significant amounts of methylmercury, a form of mercury that concentrates in the fatty tissues of big fish and humans. Fatal in high doses, mercury at lower levels has been linked to heart disease in older men and developmental problems in babies. Tuna is not the highest-mercury fish we eat—that honor belongs to swordfish and tilefish—but it is by far the most widely consumed. “Tuna is the largest source of mercury in the diet because people eat so much of it,” says Edward Groth, a scientist who has written a report on mercury in fish for the environmental groups Oceana and Mercury Policy Project.
None of this is news to federal regulators. In 1970, a New York chemistry professor tested a can of tuna in his pantry and discovered that it contained significantly more mercury than what the fda then considered safe.
… After its initial burst of activity in the 1970s, the FDA seemed to lose interest in tuna. In the 1990s, it even stopped its occasional tests of store-bought fish. But after years of criticism from environmental groups and scientists, it drafted an advisory in 2000 that warned pregnant women about mercury. The original draft listed canned tuna as a high-mercury product. But then, FDA officials met privately with representatives of the country’s three largest tuna companies (Bumble Bee, Tri-Union, and StarKist), the US Tuna Foundation, and the National Food Processors Association.
Powerful private interests trump consumer rights and public health every time.
Not everyone is so certain that Mother Jones has told the entire story when it comes to this report. Take a look at this blog and decide for yourself
http://www.aboutseafood.com/press/media-blog/mother-jones-tuna-surprise-not-much-a-surprise
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
Thanks for your opinion, Gavin. I am very interested in how you found a link to my blog – perhaps you’re part of some shady public relations outfit?
(Obviously you’re not here to do anything except react to my link to the article)
In case anyone wants to see some low-grade propaganda, Gavin has kindly provided a link.
If you’d prefer not to trouble yourself (and who would?), here is the first line from the AboutSeafood.com post:
You are writing for AboutSeafood.com and calling someone else blatantly agenda-driven?
How stupid do you think your readers are, Gavin?
The fact of the matter is I don’t think my readers are stupid at all. I am honest and up front with them. I always leave my name and affiliation whenever I post in a comment section. I don’t try to disguise myself or who I work for. I would hope that you will note publications like Mother Jones purport to be bastions of journalistic integrity but do in fact themselves have an agenda. My agenda is to promote and educate people about the healthy product that seafood is. It surprises me that adding a different voice to an issue has upset you so. Nonetheless thank you for visiting aboutseafood.com and reading my take on the article in question.
Gavin Gibbons
National Fisheries Institute
A common tactic amongst those who wish to maintain the status quo (and yes, Gavin, that people would believe that you belong to an “institute” which performs any kind of meaningful research is certainly representative of the status quo) is that of stifling debate by presenting fact as opinion (because arguing opinion is pointless).
The fact of the matter remains: Gavin paints Mother Jones as a blatantly agenda-driven outfit. Gavin works for the National Fisheries Institute, which is undoubtedly a blatantly agenda-driven outfit which receives money from corporations which sell seafood and contributes money to political candidates.
Gavin is, by all counts, demonstrating either blithe denial of what his “institute” does, or Gavin is lying.
“My agenda is to promote and educate people about the healthy product that seafood is.”
Firstly, your post on this blog is frivolous if you are truthfully seeking to promote the agenda which you purport.
Secondly, aside from educating people, you are attempting to promote seafood? Or are attempting to promote people? Perhaps just get yourself a promotion?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt – we can pretend that English is your second language.
While we are at it, let’s pretend you addressed my point, as well.
Put Gavin and his family on a seafood and organic plant diet. Sorta like the SUVs that I see at the farmers market. Bet Gavin wouldn’t even put up a youtube of his family and he eating a fresh caught fish that he hadn’t tested for mercury.
The National Fisheries “Institute” is clearly a front for the seafood industry, and Gavin is its official mouthpiece. He most recently and obnoxiously tried to discredit a Cecil Adams report on the disastrous state of fisheries worldwide, and was promptly rebuffed — spin and propaganda can’t stand up to facts, after all. You can read it at http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2920/followup
the original report is here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2914/whats-better-farm-raised-salmon-or-wild
Thanks, Dimitri – let’s keep spreading the word… one can only hope that Gavin Gibbons and his ilk are understood to be vulgar politicking schills.
I wonder, Gavin, how it must feel to have your name attached to to so much controversy in which the facts rest so heavily in your opponents’ favor..? Do you rest easy at night – do they pay you enough that you can convince yourself in material wealth that you have value as a person? Do you honestly believe that you are making the world a better place for future generations?